HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/27/2014 - Regular
May 27, 2014
391
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 May 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. There is no audio from the work sessions due to technical difficulties.
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
Before the meeting was called to order an invocation was given by Pastor
Mark Washington of Hollins Road Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by
all present.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman McNamara called the meeting to order at 3:04 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; and Deborah C. Jacks, Deputy Clerk to the Board
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Proclamation declaring the week of June 2-7, 2014, as Business
Appreciation Week in the County of Roanoke (Jill Loope, Director of
Economic Development)
The Deputy Clerk read the proclamation. Joining Ms. Loope at the podium
for Business Appreciation Week were Jerry Gilbert, Plant Manager for Ardagh, and Steve
Musselwhite, Chairman of the Economic Development Authority.
All Supervisors offered their congratulations to the businesses and staff of the
May 27, 2014
392
Economic Development.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to approve submission of a grant application to the U. S.
Department of Justice, Justice Administration Grant Section, for an
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistant Grant (JAG) Program
fiscal year 2014 Local Solicitation, in the amount of $14,183 (Howard
B. Hall, Chief of Police)
A-052714-1
Chief Hall outlined the request. There was no discussion.
Chairman McNamara moved to approve the staff recommendation to approve
submission of a grant application for the Edward Byre Memorial Justice Assistant Grant
Program. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
2. Request to approve an agreement with Springsted, Inc. and transfer
of previously appropriated funds in the amount of $21,000 related to
the search for a new County Administrator (Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney)
A-052714-2
Mr. Mahoney outlined the request and advised funds would come from Board
Contingency. Supervisor Church asked if in line with what we did in 2009 and also for the
Chief of Police with Mr. Mahoney responding in the affirmative. There was no discussion.
Supervisor Church moved to approve the staff recommendation to approve
an agreement with Springsted, Inc. and to transfer funds in the amount of $21,000 from
Board Contingency.
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
May 27, 2014
393
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance accepting and appropriating funds in the amount of
$70,909 from Roanoke City and Salem City to the Roanoke County
Fire and Rescue Department for the completion of capital projects at
the Roanoke Valley Regional Fire/EMS Training Center (Richard E.
Burch, Chief of Fire and Rescue)
Chief Hall outlined the request for the ordinance. There was no discussion.
Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for June
10, 2014. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance accepting and appropriating funds in the amount of
$18,534 to the Clerk of the Circuit Court from the Commonwealth of
Virginia for fiscal year 2013/2014 (Rebecca Owens, Director of
Finance)
Ms. Owens outlined the request for the ordinance to appropriate the funds.
There was no discussion. Supervisor Moore moved to approve the first reading and set the
second reading for June 10, 2014. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: ADOPTION OF PROPOSED BUDGET AND SECOND READING OF
ORDINANCE
1. Resolution adopting the fiscal year 2014-2015 budget, including the
fiscal years 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Plan, for Roanoke
County, Virginia (W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management and
Budget)
Mr. Robertson outlined the resolution.
Supervisor Moore amended the resolution to include the funding of $86,172
to be used to open four (4) libraries from 1:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. every Sunday, except
holidays to include the Hollins, Glenvar, Vinton and South County Libraries.
Supervisor Church stated he would much rather had a work session on this
particular item. He stated he received a phone call yesterday and was not able to answer it.
He stated he felt the Board needed to have some discussion as a Board before we
arbitrarily go in and change this budget. In a time when we are asking people to be
May 27, 2014
394
restrictive and to restrain. In checking back, we only had one library opened, the 419
Headquarters. We are talking about $152,000; that is a lot of money. At the time, he
cannot speak for other Board members, but he has not had one single request and he has a
brand new library in Glenvar. He stated he just thinks to put this in to coattail it send the
wrong message to our citizens. We need to set this aside and have a work session on it.
He thinks it is throwing things into the budget at the last minute; people need to have some
discussion on it, especially the citizens as it is their money. He was in favor of everything
except this latest recommendation and he thinks we need to slow down and do things in the
proper order.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he would agree with the amendment, but he
would also like to make some comments on the actual budget. He stated he is the only one
on the Board that did not approve the first reading. He advised he does have some
concerns. He thinks it is important to talk to the taxpayers that are listening to us and the
people in Roanoke County the reasons why. He commented when he came on the Board,
and this is the first budget they will be passing and this is the budget that is now
approximately $3.5 million more than we spent last fiscal year. In all of our discussions that
we have ever had internally and here in chamber is that we are still looking at an economy
that is very unstable and we are looking at tough times ahead. He has heard comments
that we need to do this in order to meet the core responsibilities of government and yet he
has seen us put things into the budget that are not the core responsibility of government.
They may be nice things to have, but they are not core and he looks at his own family and
he knows this is a simple approach, but he is a simple person that says he sees families
that are tightening their budgets and spending less than they did last year and he is one of
those families. Things are tough; we are trying to do the best that we can. He sees us
spending more and he asked for a real estate tax rate cut and we never really talked about
and when we did have discussions we talked about giving raises. Although he thinks raises
are great, he thinks we could compromise a little bit and maybe not had as much raises and
market adjustments and put some of that money aside for a real estate tax reduction, which
would effect everybody in Roanoke County, but we did not do that. We continue to have a
debt burden on us that he may be the only one that feels this way, but debt is not a good
thing. People think that sometimes having debt has no penalty. But, the penalty is the
interest payments. It is his understanding and if his calculations are right on $188 million
debt, which we should have by 2015 and four percent (4%) of that is roughly $7.5 million.
We basically pay $7.5 million of interest payments every year and he thinks $7.5 million can
do a lot of things. But, we are caught up now in just spending debt money. We cannot
seem to get out of it and he thinks it is really going to take some courage to say, “I know
these things are nice things to do, and I would love to do them, but we cannot.” Whether
we want to blame prior administrations for involving us in things, they voted and they did it.
So, now we are in this stage and we are the ones supposed to be making the decisions
from now on that will bring us a more fiscal County. So, again, even before this. With
regard to the Library, he thinks we need time, we need to study. He advised he received a
telephone call today and reiterated we need more time to study. Overall with regard to the
budget, he thinks we are spending too much money and he thinks we really need to think
May 27, 2014
395
seriously for next year about how we approach the budget and really look at giving money
back to the citizens first.
Supervisor Church asked for clarification stating the motion made by
Supervisor Moore is an amended motion with Chairman McNamara responding in the
affirmative. Supervisor Church asked if a substitute motion was in order that would be
voted upon first with Chairman McNamara advising a substitute motion was in order.
Supervisor Church stated he cannot speak for any Board member but himself, but received
a phone message last night. The Supervisor from Hollins said he received a call. Maybe
there were more than two or three that knew about this. This is not the way to do business
in Roanoke County. He advised if he had called he would have rightly been denied to put
something in or to coattail. This is shades of Washington, DC, except on a smaller scale.
Earmark, earmark, earmark, slip them in there. He is ready to vote fine on the budget, even
though he had some reservations, but with this library situation, he cannot in good
conscious do something at the midnight hour. It has not been demonstrated a basic need.
We had one library years ago the headquarters at Rt. 419 and we operated fine. He has
not heard one item of request. To put this in at the last moment is sending the wrong
message; what is next. Supervisor Church then offered a substitute motion to accept the
original recommendation on our agenda instead of what is on the dais here at 2:45 p.m.
Supervisor Moore stated first of all the gentleman from Catawba said
$152,000 and that is from 9:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. and she is only asking that it be open
from 1:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m., which would be $86,172 for all four libraries. She stated she
has had constituents call and say they work six days a week, the husband, the wife and the
children and Sunday is the only day that they can get to the library to check out a book.
These four locations would be a centralized location rather than opening every library. It
would make it easier for people to get to. Glenvar is a brand new library; it makes perfectly
good sense that we would open that one. South County is very well used.
Supervisor Peters stated he wanted to touch briefly on the budget. He is not
thrilled with the budget either. It does not address a lot of the concerns that he has had and
expressed here in this room. It does keep us moving forward right now. We do need to
address our pay issue; it has become a very hot topic in the number of people that we have
lost. It is also providing the bonds and the issues we had with Glenvar. He respectfully
disagrees with the gentleman from Hollins on past Boards. The gentleman from Catawba
laughed at the last meeting, but they “kicked the can down the road.” There is no reason
the Glenvar High School has waited fifty (50) years when we should have been doing
maintenance all along. That is where the problem with the debt comes from. We still have
a lot of issues that the maintenance is not being addressed and in the new budget it is not
being addressed and this problem is only getting bigger. So, he is not happy with the
current budget, but he also sees it as a mechanism for moving forward and he does look as
Mr. Bedrosian stated to get knee deep in this budget. When you are talking about $170
million, it is hard to do, but he plans to have plenty of time to work on next year’s budget to
address as our CIP Committee and others have expressed the things we keep putting off
and maintenance is the big one. He stated with regard to the Glenvar High School, we
May 27, 2014
396
have pushed that project and pushed it instead of having the money put aside each year so
the maintenance can be done.
Chairman McNamara stated he would like to thank staff. They have listened
very effectively to the Board as a whole. They have gone above and beyond as far as
providing us information and detail that we have requested. He stated he thinks there is no
such thing as a perfect budget, but I think we have done well. We have addressed a couple
of key, key issues in his opinion. We have addressed a serious pay issue that we have
within the County. We have addressed capital; we continue to address capital through a
capital improvements program, which is unique in this area. Glenvar will be the next
beneficiary of that program, which he thinks will be very effective and efficient. That
program if we follow it effectively will lower our debt over time. It is effective. The capital
improvement program is now funded so we have an opportunity to accelerate some debt
reduction if that is the goal, and he believes it is, of this Board. So, he thinks there has
been a lot accomplished that has been accomplished well. He also added we are the
largest locality that will be going forward without a stormwater utility fee; that was
accomplished within the budget. As for libraries, if we have an opportunity to vote on
opening libraries, depending on what happens with the substitute motion, he thinks it is
appropriate to open some libraries on Sunday. When the library was open, Sunday was the
most utilized hours for the libraries. He stated he thinks he was told that by Mr. Caywood
and sees Ms. Rosapepe nodding. So, when we talk about libraries, we talk South County
and $30,000 a year. He does not call this coat tailing $130,000 on a $178 million budget.
He calls it a gnat that is something we can effectively address for the citizens and we have
verified that we have funding within the budget to accomplish that. He does not think it was
sprung. This document came from the County probably a month or more ago that detailed
these costs. So, he knows he has been talking about it. Ms. Moore has been talking about.
People he has seen at the meetings have talked about it, so, he would certainly support
opening some libraries. If some of the libraries do not need to open and there is not a
demand, then perhaps you should adjust the motion, but he would support all or some of
the libraries for a four-hour period.
Supervisor Church stated not once has this Supervisor said he does not want
to open libraries. The point he is making at the midnight hour, we are sending the wrong
message. We need to have a work session on this. There is nobody that has been more
supportive of libraries than he has. As the senior member on this Board, with respect to the
gentleman from Vinton, nobody “kicked the can down the road” about upkeep with Glenvar.
We had a funding stream that we were dictated to. We could not dare pull out money, there
was a pecking order: Cave Spring, Bonsack, etc. It is the school’s charge to take care. He
deplored the conditions of Glenvar, but there was a balanced schedule of funding that was
prioritized. Glenvar was at the end and has now moved to the top. He does not want the
public to think this Board and prior Board’s have not done something. We have done a
good job. For the length of time he has been here, we have done an admirable job of taking
care of the entire Roanoke County. His problem is with respect to the Chair’s comment
about this was sent out. We get memos sent out by the truckful sometimes, but we do not
act on these. This was sent out on May 8th, with some numbers. No one has discussed
May 27, 2014
397
with him this being on the agenda for voting today, whatsoever. He is not against taking a
look at libraries; coat tailing, added to or whatever you want to call it, the issue is whether
this is the way we are doing to do business in Roanoke County. If any one Board member
has something at the midnight hour that has not been discussed publically, he just does not
think this is the way we need to demonstrate our fiscal responsibility. Additionally, he does
stand corrected the bottom of the sheet says $152,800. He picked up the wrong number,
but $86,000 is still a lot of money; extremely large amount of money. His problem is here
we are and he does not know of any Board in his previous years that during budget time,
cannot remember if there has been so be it, walked on something on the last day. It has
not been communicated with due respect to the Chairman. An email came out from Mr.
Caywood, but it did not say one word about it being brought on as a budget amendment. It
did not say one word about bringing it forward. It did not say one word about how did we
feel about it. Why would he be pushing for the Glenvar library all these years? You know it
was number one on the priority list, the CIP list for eight years and it never moved. There is
nobody that cares about the library system more than himself. There is a right way and a
wrong way to do things. We need to take our time, put this in a work session or downstairs
and let the public comment. They may fill the room up with people that want these libraries
open, but how do we know by putting something in as an amendment. That is the only
reason that he cannot support the budget as proposed. Like the gentleman from Vinton.
He has some reservations, which he has discussed publically two weeks ago. No one
person gets their agenda items passed, but we are going to do all we can for the betterment
of Roanoke County. The bottom line is this is not the way to do it, at the last minute. This is
his problem with this, why don’t we do everything this way. The citizens would have a large
outcry and that is his concern.
Supervisor Peters stated he just wanted to clarify his comments about the
Glenvar School or Library. He is not saying they are not due for it, it is the clarification that
we need to be very conscious in our future looking at a maintenance fund within that
building so that we do not wait fifty years and get in the condition it is in. We have the
funding throughout the process because that is how you do not end up with a $25 million
price tag if you incorporate into your budget. The second comment is in reference to the
Vinton Library; that is the second most talked about issue that has been brought to him.
“Why do you not have the library open on Sunday, we have to go all the way to Salem
because that is the only library open on Sunday.” Whether it goes to a work session or we
postpone until next meeting is irrelevant, but to him, it has been the second most talked
about issue with him since he has been on this Board for five (5) months.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he guessed he too would say this is the first time
he has heard about this issue from a phone call message. He too started thinking why
when we have had all this time to do a budget, and all this time to bring things up why is
something brought forward at the last minute. He stated he assumed people want to work
on Sunday; if you open the libraries then people have to work. He stated he guessed that
was another thing to think about. He advised just common sense to him would be that we
would do a work session or review it here and then in a couple of weeks vote on it; that
seems like a normal course of action on anything, at least as long as he has been here, that
May 27, 2014
398
something is brought that day and everybody make your decision now. So, this seems
unusual.
The vote on the substitute motion, which is the item as listed in the Board
Report. For clarification, it is the original motion without the libraries opened.
AYES: Supervisors Church, Peters
NAYS: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, McNamara
The motion failed.
Chairman McNamara moved to the next item and Supervisor Church raised a
point of order advising this item was not finished. Chairman McNamara stated that is was
done and asked Mr. Mahoney for clarification. Chairman McNamara then asked the Clerk
for the vote. Ms. Jacks advised there were three nays to two ayes, which meant the
substitute motion failed and the amended motion needed to be voted upon. Chairman
McNamara then asked Mr. Peters and Mr. Church how they voted and both responded nay.
Chairman McNamara then stated substitute motion failed and the amended motion in on the
table for discussion.
Supervisor Moore stated she would just like to reiterate that it is important to
have these libraries open for citizens. We have a couple of new libraries and it is important.
Mr. Robertson stated for clarification if this amended motion does pass, there
will be increase in libraries budget of $86,172 and did he miss where the offset to that would
be.
Mr. McNamara stated that would happen under the next agenda item, which
would be the funding for that resolution and it will be within the current dollars of the budget
at the direction of the County Administrator.
Supervisor Church asked that Chairman McNamara repeat and Chairman
McNamara stated there is no increase in the budget as presented in the ordinance. The
total amount of dollars will remain the same. The County Administrator will appropriate from
within the budget. There will be no change.
Chairman McNamara commented if you open a library for four (4) hours and
it is $86,000 or $30,000 for South County or $47,000 or $60,000, this is within the overall
budget. This is a very, very small amount and does not see it as a drastic change to the
budget. He stated he sees it as an opportunity within the budget stream so that we can do
something our citizens have been asking for. He also stated while many have internet
service at home, not all people do. He currently has a student in Roanoke County schools
and has had for years and they regularly have activities that is far more difficult for them to
complete and compete without internet access. He thinks the libraries being open for a
period of time on Sundays is very appropriate.
Supervisor Church stated once again it is not about whether he is for or
against; he is always in favor of libraries. He is against bringing something at the last
moment. We have a budgeted amount. If these were to pass today, $86,172 will be
absorbed. Where is it coming from; is he right that it is coming from someone else’s budget
May 27, 2014
399
somewhere? Did we find $86,171 out in the hallway? If not, something has to shrink. Is he
correct with Mr. Robertson responding in the affirmative.
Mr. Goodman stated we would look throughout the budget and believes there
is approximately $90,000 left in the personnel transactions and the estimates that we have
done and could be one source of funding within the existing framework. We also would
hope with the reduced turnover we could find some savings in there. Those would be the
two sources to fund this $86,000. You see how this money miraculously shows up; that is
disturbing to citizens if all of a sudden $90,000 shows up; that is a lot of money and this is
not the way to do this. He is not saying opening libraries are bad, but it might end up being
a wonderful idea, but let’s discuss it openly and give everybody a chance, especially our
people.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he is very upset with this and totally agrees with
the last comment made by Mr. Church from Catawba. We are willing right here on the spot
to add $90,000 into a budget and then remove it from something else and he has been
working on this budget with everybody in the room and we are saying it is down to the last
penny and it is so tight and core services would be cut if we did this or that and at the end,
there is $100,000 basically; that is upsetting to him. What are we doing? He thought when
we do a budget and we are all together and he may disagree with the budget and the
numbers, but then it is just insult to injury on me that at the last moment we can basically
throw in another $100,000. Maybe that is just the way it is done, he just finds when we
keep talking about if we reduce taxes and do things we are just going to cut into core
services to our people in the County and then we are able to find money. He guesses that
is disheartening to him. Maybe if he had $100,000 project that he wanted brought in would
staff say we could find it somewhere too. The thing is this is the last moment. It is not like
something we are really struggling with for the last several weeks. It really is, unless he is
missing something brought in at the very last minute. That is disappointing.
Supervisor Peters asked when are we looking to start opening these libraries;
he has not heard a date? Chairman McNamara stated he would assume it would be July
st
1. His question to Supervisor Moore would there be any entertainment of postponing this
to the first meeting in June. We would still be able to do it within this budget and still open
st
by July 1 if approved. That way, there will be time to put in our packet, it will become
public knowledge and we could meet on it at the first meeting in June.
Supervisor Moore stated she was going to forward the question to Chairman
McNamara. She stated she thinks it is clean this way, we have the funding from not only
the source that Mr. Goodman said, but we also have some additional funding that came in
from the Resource Authority and she would just prefer to go ahead and put it into the
budget now rather than to hold off until June because everybody will know about it.
Chairman McNamara stated the big concern he hears is that nobody knew
about this although it has been talked about for some time, maybe not formally. He would
support the gentleman from Vinton; let’s put it on in June so people will have a chance to
look at it. It may be appropriate to open four libraries; it may not. We still can do it by July
st
1. Chairman McNamara then asked Mr. Mahoney once we have adopted a resolution and
we have an ordinance appropriating funds, would you change the appropriation and would
May 27, 2014
400
you need two readings and a public hearing at that point. Mr. Mahoney responded under
the appropriation ordinance, the County Administrator is authorized to shift funds within the
general fund. So, if it is the direction of the governing body at the next meeting or next
month, you could direct the County Administrator to reallocate funds as long as no
additional funds would have to be appropriated. If you are going to appropriate additional
funds, you would need two readings. Chairman McNamara stated so why does it need to
be voted on at all. Mr. Mahoney advised he had understood that to be based upon the
direction to the Administrator to reallocate those general funds for that purpose. At this
stage, it is his understanding is that the way the current structure is set up, libraries would
st
not be open on Sundays on July 1 for the remainder of the fiscal year. Chairman
McNamara then asked if the amended motion that sits on the floor now fails, do we go back
to the original motion since it has already been acted upon as a substitute. Mr. McNamara
stated he thinks you might need a motion to reconsider. Chairman McNamara stated but
that would then be in a different meeting so from a procedural standpoint he would ask Ms.
Moore to withdraw her amendment and go back to the original motion. Supervisor Peters
asked if we are now back to the original motion. The Clerk responded that motion had
failed. Chairman McNamara asked Mr. Mahoney what would be our next step with Mr.
Mahoney responding first of all the Board needs a budget. Chairman McNamara then
asked what would happen if we had an amended motion whereby we allocated $86,000 to
an undetermined fund at this point. Mr. Mahoney advised the key issue is you still need a
budget and the substitute motion, which was in the agenda packet failed. At some point
regardless of what you do with $86,000 you are still going to need a budget.
Supervisor Church advised he has a solution. He then asked Mr. Mahoney if
he is correct that on the motion that failed if someone on the prevailing side can ask for
reconsideration. Chairman McNamara stated but that would have to be at the next meeting.
He advised in past years a reconsideration of a mistake on the Board was considered at the
same meeting and turned it right around. Mr. Mahoney stated he did not want to get caught
up in what was the original motion or the substitute motion. He thinks the Board has an
item before the Board in their agenda. There was an amended motion; there was a
substitute motion. The question is can you go back to what was originally in the agenda
package.
Supervisor Peters stated Roberts Rules stated someone from the prevailing
side can ask for reconsideration and then that reconsideration has to pass by two/thirds of
the majority and then the Board can revisit the issue.
Chairman McNamara stated under Rules of Debate, Section 215 talks about
reconsideration in our rules and procedures requires it to be on our next agenda. Chairman
McNamara then asked Ms. Moore to withdraw her amendment then we would be back at
the original motion. That is the ruling of the Chair and does anybody want to challenge the
ruling of the Chair.
Supervisor Church stated he did not think that could be done.
Chairman McNamara then recognized the “parliamentarian” Mr. Mahoney.
Mr. Mahoney advised again that the original motion was the substitute motion and was the
motion that failed. The question is can you go back to what was originally on your agenda
May 27, 2014
401
and have a motion with respect to that or alternatively do you have to do a motion to
reconsider and if the motion passes then it is on the next meeting. That is the agreement.
Chairman McNamara stated he can make a ruling from the Chair that says
the substitute motion failed and we are at the amended motion. If the amended motion is
withdrawn, then we are back to the original motion and we should be able to vote on that.
Mr. Mahoney stated there was never an original motion.
Chairman McNamara stated that was correct and if Supervisor Moore
withdraws her amended motion and make a motion for the original.
Mr. Mahoney advised then you would get into a debate if the original is the
same as the substitute.
Chairman McNamara stated in that scenario we have an amended motion on
the floor and that is what we are voting on.
Supervisor Church advised that has already been voted on.
Chairman McNamara stated the amended motion has not been voted on.
Ms. Jacks advised that the amended motion had been withdrawn.
Chairman McNamara asked if Supervisor Moore would like to put her motion
back in with Supervisor Moore advising in the affirmative.
Chairman McNamara then restated the motion to be the original motion
amended to include four (4) libraries being opened on Sundays from 1:00 p.m. until 5:00
p.m.
Supervisor Peters called a point of order asking for clarification stating that
instead of going to the next meeting, the Chairman is going to go back and add in a
withdrawn amendment.
Chairman McNamara stated he thought if she withdrew her motion, he would
think the Board would be back to the original motion.
Supervisor Peters asked that someone move for reconsideration. Supervisor
Church stated he was in agreement.
Chairman McNamara stated they could suspend the rules of the Board by a
4/5ths vote. Chairman McNamara then moved to suspend the rules and allow for the
original motion to be considered. This motion is not debatable. Supervisor Bedrosian
asked for clarification. Chairman McNamara stated in the Board rules and procedures, it is
allowed to suspend the rules with a 4/5vote. The intent is to suspend the rules so that we
can allow reconsideration and have action on the item today. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisor Church
Supervisor McNamara moved to reconsider the substitute motion, which was
the original motion.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked for clarification asking if this was the original
motion without the libraries with Chairman McNamara responding in the affirmative.
May 27, 2014
402
Supervisor Church stated that is why he voted against suspending the rules
because we are making a mistake here with this whole process. He reiterated this motion is
going to include the funding for the libraries. Chairman McNamara responding in the
negative stating this motion will allow us to vote on your original motion that failed. A yes
vote will allow us to vote on the original motion as presented in our Board packet. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian
Chairman McNamara stated we are now back to the reconsideration to adopt
the fiscal year 2014-2015 budget as presented in the packet.
RESOLUTION 052714-3 APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2014-
2015 BUDGET FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-2503 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, provides
that the governing body of the County shall prepare and approve an annual budget; and
WHEREAS, said budget shall be prepared and approved for informative and fiscal
planning purposes only; and
WHEREAS, this budget contains a complete itemized and classified plan of all
contemplated expenditures and all estimated revenues and borrowings for the ensuing
fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, a brief synopsis of said budget was published as required by the
provisions of Section 15.2-2506 of the State Code, and the public hearing as required
thereon was held on April 22, 2014.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia:
1. That there is hereby approved the annual budget for fiscal year 2014-2015 for
Roanoke County, Virginia, as shown on the attached Schedules.
2. That the preparation and approval of this budget is for informative and fiscal
planning purposes only.
County of Roanoke
Adopted FY 2014-2015 Budget
May 27, 2014
Revenue Estimates Amount
General Fund
General Government
General Property Taxes $ 120,539,350
Local Sales Tax 10,000,000
May 27, 2014
403
Telecommunications Tax 3,960,000
Business License Tax 6,400,000
Bank Franchise Tax 450,000
Utility Consumer Tax 3,775,000
Motor Vehicle License Tax 2,150,000
Recordation/Conveyance Tax 1,425,000
Meals Tax 4,025,000
Hotel/Motel Tax 1,075,000
Other Local Taxes 634,000
Permits, Fees & Licenses 526,560
Fines and Forfeitures 681,500
Interest Income 124,100
Charges for Services 3,690,433
Commonwealth 9,372,358
Federal 3,275,000
Other 2,125,995
Total General Government $ 174,229,296
Communications & Information Technology 8,465,123
Comprehensive Services 5,237,945
Law Library 27,175
Public Works Projects 183,433
S B & T Building 486,510
Recreation Fee Class 5,425,455
Grants and Other Funds 1,041,895
Police Special Programs 1,000
Criminal Justice Academy 239,285
Fleet Service Center 2,837,382
Total General Fund $ 198,174,499
Debt Service Fund - County 7,261,146
Capital Projects Fund 6,797,195
Internal Service Fund 1,633,921
School Operating Fund 135,738,864
School Nutrition Fund 5,712,290
School Debt Service Fund 13,617,491
School Grants Fund 5,435,746
School Capital Fund 846,070
School Instructional Resources Fund 994,212
School Bus Fund 325,000
School Laptop Insurance Reserve 467,800
Total Revenues All Funds $ 377,004,234
Less: Transfers (109,026,015)
May 27, 2014
404
Total Net of Transfers $ 267,978,219
May 27, 2014
405
Proposed Expenditures Amount
General Fund
General Government
General Administration $ 2,829,852
Constitutional Officers 13,238,735
Judicial Administration 810,732
Management Services 3,295,385
Public Safety 25,338,062
Community Services 11,557,911
Human Services 18,829,385
Non-Departmental 12,524,786
Transfers to School Operating Fund 65,620,127
Transfers to School Insurance - Dental 477,299
Transfers to (from) Capital Fund 138,047
Transfers to Debt Service Fund 16,165,423
Transfer to Public Works Projects 183,433
Transfer to Comprehensive Services 1,853,000
Other 1,367,119
Total General Government $ 174,229,296
Communications and Information Technology 8,465,123
Comprehensive Services 5,237,945
Law Library 27,175
Public Works Projects 183,433
S B & T Building 486,510
Recreation Fee Class 5,425,455
Grants and Other Funds 1,041,895
Criminal Justice Academy 1,000
Police Special Programs 239,285
Fleet Service Center 2,837,382
Total General Fund $ 198,174,499
Debt Service Fund - County 7,261,146
Capital Projects Fund 6,797,195
Internal Service Fund 1,633,921
School Operating Fund 135,738,864
School Nutrition Fund 5,712,290
School Debt Fund 13,617,491
School Grants Fund 5,435,746
School Capital Fund 846,070
School Textbook Fund 994,212
School Bus Fund 325,000
School Laptop Insurance Reserve 467,800
May 27, 2014
406
Total Expenditures All Funds 377,004,234
Less: Transfers $ (109,026,015)
Total Net of Transfers $ 267,978,219
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian
2. Ordinance to appropriate funds for the fiscal year 2014-2015 budget
and approval of the Classification Plan for fiscal year 2014-2015 (W.
Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget)
Mr. Robertson outlined the ordinance and advised there were no changes
from the first reading on May 13, 2014.
ORDINANCE 052714-4 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE 2014-
2015 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, a public hearing was held
on April 22, 2014, concerning the adoption of the annual budget for Roanoke County for
fiscal year 2014-2015; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, approved said
budget on May 27, 2014, pursuant to the provisions of Section 13.02 of the Roanoke
County Charter and Chapter 25 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on May 13,
2014, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 27, 2014, pursuant to the
provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective funds for
the period beginning July 1, 2014, and ending June 30, 2015, for the functions and
purposes indicated:
2. That the County Administrator may authorize or delegate the authorization of the
transfer of any unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one department to another.
County of Roanoke
Adopted FY 2014-2015 Budget
May 27, 2014
May 27, 2014
407
Revenues:
General Fund:
General Government $ 174,229,296
Communications & Information Technology 8,465,123
Comprehensive Services 5,237,945
Law Library 27,175
Public Works Projects 183,433
SB&T-Social Services Building 486,510
Recreation Fee Class 5,425,455
Grants and Other Funds 1,041,895
Police Special Programs 1,000
Criminal Justic Academy 239,285
Fleet Service Center 2,837,382
Total General Fund $ 198,174,499
Debt Service Fund - County $ 7,261,146
Capital Projects Fund $ 6,797,195
Internal Service Fund - Risk Management $ 1,633,921
School Funds:
Operating $ 135,738,864
Nutrition 5,712,290
Debt 13,617,491
Grants 5,435,746
Capital 846,070
Instructional Resources 994,212
Bus 325,000
Laptop Insurance Reserve 467,800
Total School Fund $ 163,137,473
Total All Funds $ 377,004,234
Expenditures:
General Government:
May 27, 2014
408
General Administration
Board of Supervisors $ 301,713
County Administrator 294,324
Public Information 174,347
Asst. Co. Administrators 354,759
Human Resources 764,639
County Attorney 514,346
Economic Development 425,724
Total General Administration $ 2,829,852
Constitutional Officers
Treasurer $ 776,612
Commonwealth Attorney 1,076,015
Commissioner of the Revenue 747,558
Clerk of the Circuit Court 1,077,602
Sheriff's Office 9,560,948
Total Constitutional Officers $ 13,238,735
Judicial Administration
Circuit Court $ 237,972
General District Court 69,940
Magistrate 1,590
J & DR Court 21,086
Court Service Unit 480,144
Total Judicial Administration $ 810,732
Management Services
Real Estate Assessments $ 850,744
Finance 1,334,064
Public Transportation 420,000
Management and Budget 290,709
Procurement Services 399,868
Total Management Services $ 3,295,385
May 27, 2014
409
Public Safety
Police $ 11,301,887
Fire and Rescue 14,036,175
Total Public Safety $ 25,338,062
Community Services
General Services $ 5,137,750
Community Development 4,552,883
Building Maintenance 1,867,278
Total Community Services $ 11,557,911
Human Services
Grounds Maintenance $ 2,259,887
Parks and Recreation 2,214,457
Public Health 500,358
Social Services 8,470,857
Contributions-Human Service, Cultural, Tourism, Dues 1,650,123
Library 3,330,403
VA Cooperative Extension 87,097
Elections 316,203
Total Human Services $ 18,829,385
Non-Departmental
Employee Benefits $ 3,179,013
Miscellaneous 7,511,341
Internal Service Charges 1,834,432
Total Non-Departmental $ 12,524,786
Transfers to Other Funds
Transfer to Debt - General & Schools $ 16,165,423
Transfer to (from) Capital 138,047
May 27, 2014
410
Transfer to Schools 65,620,127
Transfer to Schools - Dental Insurance 477,299
Transfer to Public Works Projects 183,433
Transfer to Internal Services 1,267,119
Transfer to Comprehensive Services 1,853,000
Total Transfers to Other Funds $ 85,704,448
Unappropriated Balance
Board Contingency $ 100,000
Total General Government $ 174,229,296
Communications & Information Technology $ 8,465,123
Comprehensive Services $ 5,237,945
Law Library $ 27,175
Public Works Projects $ 183,433
SB&T-Social Services Building $ 486,510
Recreation Fee Class $ 5,425,455
Grants and Other Funds $ 1,041,895
Police Special Programs $ 1,000
Criminal Justice Academy $ 239,285
Fleet Service Center $ 2,837,382
Total General Fund $ 198,174,499
Debt Service Fund - County $ 7,261,146
Capital Projects Fund $ 6,797,195
May 27, 2014
411
Internal Services Fund - Risk Management $ 1,633,921
School Funds:
Operating $ 135,738,864
Nutrition 5,712,290
Debt 13,617,491
Grants 5,435,746
Capital 846,070
Instructional Resources 994,212
Bus 325,000
Laptop Insurance Reserve 467,800
Total School Funds $ 163,137,473
Total All Funds $ 377,004,234
3. That all funded outstanding encumbrances, both operating and capital, at June
30, 2014, are re-appropriated to the 2014-15 fiscal year to the same department and
account for which they are encumbered in the previous year.
4. That appropriations designated for capital projects will not lapse at the end of the
fiscal year but shall remain appropriated until the completion of the project or until the Board
of Supervisors, by appropriate action, changes or eliminates the appropriation. Upon
completion of a capital project, staff is authorized to close out the project and transfer to the
funding source any remaining balances. This section applies to appropriations for Capital
Projects at June 30, 2014, and appropriations in the 2014-2015 budget.
5. That all school fund appropriations remaining at the end of the 2013-2014 fiscal
year not lapse but shall be appropriated to the School Capital Fund in fiscal year 2014-2015
as follows:
a.)Two-thirds of the year-end balance in the school operating fund will be
allocated to the Major School Capital Reserve;
b.)One-third of the year-end balance in the school operating fund will be
allocated to the Minor School Capital Reserve;
6. That all General Fund unexpended appropriations at the end of the 2013-2014
fiscal year not lapse but shall be re-appropriated, as provided by Resolution 111213-12.e,
as follows:
a) Thirty-five percent (35%) of these unexpended appropriations shall be
transferred to the un-appropriated Minor County Capital Fund Reserve;
b) Fifty-five percent (55%) of these unexpended appropriations shall be
re-appropriated to the same department for expenditure in fiscal year 2014-
2015.
May 27, 2014
412
c) Ten percent (10%) of the unexpended appropriations shall be transferred
to the Technology Reserve;
7. That all General Fund revenues collected in excess of appropriated revenues
shall be re-appropriated, as provided by Resolution 122104-5, as follows:
a.) Revenues in excess of budget will first be allocated to the General Fund
Un-appropriated Balance, until the maximum amount for the current year is
met, as specified in the General Fund Un-appropriated Balance Policy, as
adopted by Resolution 061411-6.f;
b.) The remainder of revenues in excess of budget will then be allocated to the
Major County Capital Fund Reserve.
8. Rescue fees collected by the Fire & Rescue Department in excess of budgeted
amounts will be re-appropriated and allocated to the Fire and Rescue Capital Reserve.
9. Account balances remaining in the Fee Class collected by the Parks and
Recreation Department will be allocated to accounts as defined by the Fee Class Accounts
Procedure.
10. Account balances remaining in funds 111-175, 310, 510, 655, 700, 810, 814,
815, and 895 will carry over 100% and be re-appropriated to the individual funds.
11. That the Board anticipates receiving various grants, donations, and other
miscellaneous revenues. These anticipated funds are appropriated to the Grants Fund for
the various functions and purposes as provided therein, and said appropriation shall be
acknowledged and allocated to the appropriate fund upon approval by the Board on the
Consent Agenda.
12. This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2014.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING
1. Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding proposed
amendments to the fiscal year 2013-2014 budget in accordance with
Section 15.2-2507, Code of Virginia (W. Brent Robertson, Director of
Management and Budget)
Supervisor Church asked Mr. Robertson to confirm the item with regard to the
Glenvar renovations will be held at the evening session with Mr. Robertson responding in
the affirmative.
Mr. McNamara opened the public hearing. There were no citizens signed up
to speak. Closed the public hearing.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he had questions about items one and two and
asked Mr. Holladay and Megan Cronise and Richard Caywood to the podium.
May 27, 2014
413
Supervisor Peters advised Supervisor Bedrosian was out of order. The
discussion for these items would be considered separately.
Chairman McNamara moved approval of this item with Ms. Jacks reminding
Chairman McNamara that this was a public hearing only.
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance accepting and appropriating grant funds in the amount of
$1,279,503 from the Federal Regional Surface Transportation
Program to the Department of Community Development for fiscal
years 2014-2016 for the Plantation Road Bicycle, Pedestrian and
Streetscape Improvement Project (David Holladay, Planning
Administrator)
Mr. Holladay outlined the ordinance. First reading was held on May 13, 2014.
Since the first reading staff has prepared several alternative project scopes at the request of
Supervisor Bedrosian. In working with him over the last several months, staff has looked at
project phasing and going to construction with the funds available now. We have
approximately $3.8 million on hand. The total for the project scope is $6.5; so there is still
some outstanding funds needed. Since that time, staff has looked at a core project that
could be delivered within the parameters of the money we have now and also has
separately out some pieces of that project that can be done later.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he lives in that area so he is probably the first
one that would love to see us do everything because it is right in his backyard. However,
part of him says in an environment where the economy is not as great as we like and trying
to be fiscally responsible, what could we do with what we have now. Start the project, get it
done and at half the cost. Supervisor Bedrosian then asked the County Administrator and
County Attorney if he votes an approval on this, is he committing to any dollar amount of
any project. He has heard that the answer is no and he would like to confirm.
Mr. Goodman stated he would defer to the County Attorney, but it is his
understanding when we talked about this a month ago, he advised him that we received the
notification back in February of the receipt of the funds. So, it is his understanding if you
approve the appropriation of funds, you have not approved a project yet. You have
accepted the funds. If you choose not to proceed with the project and give it all back, that
would hurt us in the long run in terms of future funding, but you could still do that if it was
the desire of this Board. It seems to him even if he votes yes to accept these funds and
appropriate them, it is his understanding that the Board can change the funding level, etc.
Mr. Mahoney stated the Board is accepting the funds and they are
appropriating those funds to the department. One could make an argument that if He was
that department, he could go out and spend $1.2 million on contracts. Mr. Goodman
responded not while he is County Administrator.
Mr. Caywood advised that the $6.8 million project the general scope of that
project has been previously approved by the Board. We believe the smaller projects would
May 27, 2014
414
be eligible for the same funding sources. So, if the Board decided as a whole to go with a
project of reduced scope, you would be using the same funding mechanisms. The one
clarification that he would like to make is that the original project has the Board approval
and we are proceeding with that until they are directed otherwise. It is his recommendation
to schedule a work session to present the alternatives.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked concerning the time we have taken so far to
accumulate $3.8 million has been how long with Ms. Cronise advising approximately five
years. He stated he would feel comfortable appropriating this as long as we can use it
instead of waiting years and years to make this scope of the project $6.8. Get the funds
now and start the one piece that we can actually do now.
Supervisor Moore added that Megan Cronise and the MPO has been working
really diligently on this since 2009. We have had community meetings and input from
citizens, community leaders and she certainly approve the whole entire scope of the work.
In trying to be fiscally responsible as Mr. Bedrosian just stated, it cost in staff time and
consultant time a minimum of $18,000 for us to be able to receive the information on
changing and breaking down this scope of work. She stated she thinks that is money we
did not have to spend and thinks it is a great project.
Supervisor Peters advised for clarification purpose, we are not changing the
scope, but appropriating $1.2 million in federal grants.
Supervisor Church inquired of Ms. Cronise if looking at the big picture, if we
do not take it then a multitude of hands start grabbing it. Ms. Cronise responded in the
affirmative. It is still taxpayer money. He thought we had the total $6.5 million ear marked.
Is he correct that this is not ready with Ms. Cronise responding he is correct; they have $3.8
including this grant funding available for the project. The original estimate that staff worked
on was $3.5 million. Once the consultant started going into detail with the project design
and other variables that were added such as the Lila Drive signal, VDOT did tell us we
could include the construction of the signal and other improvements that go along with that
as part of the project costs. This is $800,000 on its own. Supervisor Church stated money
is money and with respect to other supervisors $18,000 was mentioned. We just got
through talking about $86,000. We cannot be picking winners or losers as far as districts
go.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated for clarification what he has noticed in his short
term on the Board is that there is a human tendency that things just grow bigger. People
get involved in projects and they grow bigger because of the love of somebody to do a
certain thing. He has to balance that and when he looks at this project, it started off at $3.5
million and grew to $6.8. All he is asking is with regard to the money that has already been
appropriated, let’s use it, money in hand and use it to do something that is needed in that
area. The concern that he has is it seems to be that these projects get bigger and bigger
and the longer you go this project may end of being a $10 million project. Right now, we
only have $3.5 million out of the $6.5 master plan. Just use the $3.5 million now and do
something good in the Plantation Road area.
May 27, 2014
415
ORDINANCE 052714-5 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,279,503 FROM THE
FEDERAL REGIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR
FISCAL YEARS 2014-2016 FOR THE PLANTATION ROAD
BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2013, Roanoke County submitted a request to the Roanoke
Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization for Regional Surface Transportation
Program funds for the Plantation Road Bicycle, Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvement
Project; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2013, the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization endorsed the Regional Surface Transportation Program project priorities and
six-year financial plan, which included $1,279,503 in funds to Roanoke County for the
Plantation Road Bicycle, Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, on June 19, 2013, the Commonwealth Transportation Board adopted
the fiscal year 2014-2019 Six-year Improvement Program, which allocated the Regional
Surface Transportation Program funds; and
WHEREAS, these funds are scheduled to be allocated over three (3) fiscal years
from fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2016; and
WHEREAS, the grant award does not require matching funds from Roanoke County;
and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 13, 2014, and the
second reading was held on May 27, 2014.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as
follows:
1. That the sum of $1,279,503 is hereby appropriated from the Regional Surface
Transportation Program to the Department of Community Development for fiscal
years 2014-2016; and
2. The funds are to be allocated to the Plantation Road Bicycle, Pedestrian and
Streetscape Improvement Project; and
3. That appropriations designated for the Plantation Road Project will not lapse at
the end of the fiscal year but shall remain appropriated until the completion of the
project; and
4. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Bedrosian to adopt the Ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
May 27, 2014
416
2. Ordinance accepting and appropriating grant funds in the amount of
$511,130 from the Federal Transportation Alternatives Program to
the Department of Community Development for the Plantation Road
Bicycle, Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvement Project (David
Holladay, Planning Administrator)
Mr. Holladay outlined the ordinance. There are no changes from the first
reading held on May 13, 2014. EDA has appropriated their portion.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated for clarification out of the funds we have so far,
about $1 million is local funds, $2.8 million is grants and that gives us the $3.8 million. His
comments are as we grow the scope of the project more local funds will be needed. On
average it looks like the County is putting in about twenty-five percent (25%) and the other
sources are putting in the remaining seventy-five percent (75%). If we stayed on the same
path, this would be the same. We talk about different kinds of monies, grants, money from
VDOT and a lot of it requires a match from the County.
May 27, 2014
417
ORDINANCE 052714-6 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $511,130 FROM THE
FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR
FISCAL YEARS 2013-2014 FOR THE PLANTATION ROAD
BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2013, the Board of Supervisors submitted a request to
the Commonwealth Transportation Board for Transportation Alternative Program funds for
the Plantation Road Bicycle, Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2013, the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization allocated $70,904 in Transportation Alternatives Program funds to Roanoke
County; and
WHEREAS, on June 19, 2013, the Commonwealth Transportation Board allocated
$338,000 in Transportation Alternatives Program funds to Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, the grant allocations totaling $511,130 requires twenty percent (20%)
matching funds in the amount of $102,226 from Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, the County match of $102,226 is through a combination of in-kind
services of staff time, funds from the Economic Development Authority, funds from the
Roanoke County Public Private Partnership, and potential right-of-way donation value; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 13, 2014, and the
second reading was held on May 27, 2014.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as
follows:
1. That the sum of $408,904 is hereby appropriated from the Transportation
Alternatives Program to the Department of Community Development for the
Plantation Road Project; and
2. That Roanoke County shall provide matching funds for the grant in the amount of
$102,226 through a combination of in-kind services of staff time, funds from the
Economic Development Authority, funds from the Roanoke County Public Private
Partnership, and potential right-of-way donation value; and
3. The funds are to be allocated to the Plantation Road Bicycle, Pedestrian and
Streetscape Improvement Project; and
4. That appropriations designated for the Plantation Road Project will not lapse at
the end of the fiscal year but shall remain appropriated until the completion of the
project; and
5. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Bedrosian to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
May 27, 2014
418
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
3. Ordinance accepting and appropriating funds in the amount of
$17,860.48 from The Roanoke Valley Career Education Consortium
to Roanoke County Public Schools for dissolution of the consortium
(Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance)
Ms. Owens advised there were no changes from the first reading. There was
no discussion.
ORDINANCE 052714-7 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,860.48 FROM THE ROANOKE
VALLEY CAREER CONSORTIUM TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY
PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR DISSOLUTION OF THE CONSORTIUM
WHEREAS, The Roanoke Valley Career Consortium dissolved in July 2013 by
unanimous vote of member organizations; and
WHEREAS, the balance of funds was distributed to the member organizations based
on member organization level and their annual contributions; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County Public Schools received a sum of $17,860.48 as their
balance of funds based on their level and annual contribution, and
WHEREAS, the funding has been requested to be used for purchases of a
keyboarding program in the school computer labs as well as mandated software upgrades,
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 May 13, 2014, and the
second reading was held on May 27, 2014.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the sum of $17,860.48 is hereby accepted and appropriated to the
County School Board of Roanoke County.
2. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
4. Ordinance accepting and appropriating grant funds in the amount of
$10,222.63 from the Virginia Department of Education to Roanoke
County Public Schools for Mentor Teacher Programs (Rebecca
May 27, 2014
419
Owens, Director of Finance)
Ms. Owens advised there were no changes from the first reading. There was
no discussion.
ORDINANCE 052714-8 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,222.63 FROM THE
VIRGINIA DEPARMENT OF EDUCATION TO ROANOKE COUNTY
PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR MENTOR TEACHER PROGRAMS
WHEREAS, Roanoke County Public Schools received notification of a grant award
to implement and enhance the mentor teacher programs; and
WHEREAS, the allocated funds from the Virginia Department of Education are
based on a non-duplicated count of the number of teachers with zero years of experience
submitted via an affidavit from the Roanoke County Public Schools for 2013-2014; 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 May 13, 2014, and the
second reading was held on May 27, 2014.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the sum of $10,222.63 is hereby accepted and appropriated to the
Roanoke County School Board for the Mentor Teacher Program.
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
5. Ordinance accepting and appropriating $2,000 from the Virginia
Department of Education to Roanoke County Public Schools for the
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Teacher
Recruitment and Retention Incentive Continuing Awards (Rebecca
Owens, Director of Finance)
Ms. Owens advised there were no changes from the first reading. There was
no discussion.
May 27, 2014
420
ORDINANCE 052714-9 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING $2,000
FROM THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO
ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR THE SCIENCE,
TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND MATHMATICS (STEM)
TEACHER RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION INCENTIVE
CONTINUING AWARDS
WHEREAS, The Virginia Department of Education funds the Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Teacher Recruitment and Retention Incentive
Continuing Awards; and
WHEREAS, The Virginia Department of Education has awarded a continuing
incentive of $1,000 to each eligible recipient who received the initial 2012-2013 school year
award; and
WHEREAS, the two (2) Roanoke County teachers who received the initial award in
2012-2013 school year have been selected to receive the continuing award in 2013-2014
school year; and
WHEREAS, The Virginia Department of Education recognizes that the teacher will
be eligible to receive the award after completing a second year of teaching in an assigned
qualifying STEM subject and receive a satisfactory performance evaluation; 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 May 13, 2014, and the
second reading was held on May 27, 2014.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the sum of $2,000 is hereby accepted and appropriated to the Roanoke
County School Board for the continuing incentive from the Virginia Department of
Education.
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
6. Ordinance accepting and appropriating $3,120 to Roanoke County
Public Schools for Elementary Gifted and Talented for the 2013-2014
school year (Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance)
Ms. Owens advised there were no changes from the first reading. There was
no discussion.
May 27, 2014
421
ORDINANCE 052714-10 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
$3,120 TO ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR
ELEMENTARY GIFTED AND TALENTED FOR THE 2013-2014
SCHOOL YEAR
WHEREAS, Roanoke County Public Schools’ elementary gifted program offers to
students identified for the gifted program queries, unique experiences, explorations,
scientific discoveries and technological activities; and
WHEREAS, there is a fee charged to the students participating in the afterschool
QUEST activities; and
WHEREAS, based on previous fiscal years it is anticipated $3,120 will be collected
for the 2013-2014 school year; 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 May 13, 2014, and the
second reading was held on May 27, 2014.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the sum up to $3,120 is hereby accepted and appropriated to the
Roanoke County School Board for QUEST activities.
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
May 27, 2014
422
7. Ordinance accepting and appropriating donations in the amount of
$250 from citizens donating in the memory of Mr. Michael H. Farris
for Fire/Rescue Station 7 (Clearbrook) (Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief of
Fire and Rescue)
Ms. Owens advised there were no changes from the first reading. There was
no discussion.
ORDINANCE 052714-11 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
DONATIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $250 FROM CITIZENS
DONATING IN THE MEMORY OF MR. MICHAEL H. FARISS FOR
MEDICAL SUPPLIES FOR FIRE/RESCUE STATION 7
(CLEARBROOK)
WHEREAS, the family of Mr. Michael H. Farris requested in lieu of flowers that
donations be sent to the Clearbrook Rescue Squad to support the mission of providing
Emergency Medical Services to the community; and
WHEREAS the individuals making the donations did not realize that the Clearbrook
Rescue Squad dissolved in April of 2006 and prior to that date the Fire and Rescue
Department had initiated 24/7 staffing of an ambulance which continues now; and
WHEREAS, the donated funds of $250 will be used to purchase medical supplies for
Station 7 (Clearbrook) as intended in the memory of Mr. Michael H. Farris; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on May 13, 2014, and the
second reading was held on May 27, 2014.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the sum of $250 is hereby appropriated from citizen donations in
memory of Mr. Michael H. Farris; and
2. These funds are to be allocated to the Fire and Rescue Department for the
purpose of purchasing medical supplies for the ambulances assigned to Station 7
(Clearbrook); and
3. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following
roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
May 27, 2014
423
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
1. Roanoke County Planning Commission (appointed by District)
Al Bedrosian has recommended the appointment of Wayne Bower to serve a
four-year term to expire June 30, 2018. Mr. Bower has agreed to serve if appointed.
Confirmation of this appointment has been placed on the Consent Agenda for the Board’s
consideration.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 052714-12 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM K- 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 May 27, 2014,
designated as Item K - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to
each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 3 inclusive, as
follows:
1. Approval of minutes – April 8, 2014
2. Confirmation of appointments of the Court Community Corrections Alcohol
Safety Action Policy Board; Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory
Commission; Planning Commission; Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional
Commission; Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization;
Roanoke Valley Regional Juvenile Detention Commission; Virginia’s First
Regional Industrial Facility Authority
3. Request for donation of surplus vehicle to the Town of Pulaski, Virginia
4. Request to accept a donated vehicle from the Western Virginia Regional Jail
for use by the Sheriff’s office
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
A-052714-12.a
A-052714-12.b
A-052714-12.c
IN RE: CITIZENS’ COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
May 27, 2014
424
The following citizens spoke.
Tori Williams of the Roanoke Regional Chamber and also a County resident
stated as you know the Chamber works on behalf of its members to create a thriving
business climate, to improve the regions quality of life and strengthen the free-enterprise
system. A free-enterprise system requires a level playing field for all businesses. Currently,
online retailers are allowed to take advantage of an anachronistic loophole in the tax code
to avoid collecting State sales tax. This loophole provides online retailers with a major
competitive advantage as their products appear cheaper to consumers. To clarify, and he
wants to be clear here, E-Fairness legislation will not create any new taxes, but will simply
end an unacceptable status quo where online retailers unfairly benefit from a pricing
advantage in the marketplace. Currently, the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by our
own representative, Bob Goodlatte, is currently exploring ways to close this unfair loophole.
The Chamber urges the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to support a resolution
asking Congress to prioritize E-Fairness legislation so our local businesses can compete
and create jobs in our community. Fortunately today, we have several representatives from
local businesses to share their viewpoint on why this legislation is so important.
Larry Davidson who has a business in Roanoke County on Electric Road
stated he appreciated the opportunity to be here and hopes that the Board will vote in
support of that resolution. It has been very clear from listening today, the importance of tax
revenues and the State has got quite a leakage from revenues not being collected. As an
owner of a small business here in the County, we are asked to collect and remit sales taxes
to the State and the internet businesses operating out of State and shipping goods into this
State are not asked to do that. We are asking for federal legislation to make that fair; to
eliminate that State tax deduction that online shoppers get. We certainly have advantages
as a personal business that internet shoppers do not get. Many times we get shoppers
coming in to ask for our expertise before they get that discount on not having to pay the tax
when they go online to make a purchase. The most important thing is that the internet
business has matured to the point where the level playing field can now be there where they
can be asked, the technology is there to support it, where they can be asked to collect and
remit State sales tax as well. He certainly hopes that the Board would be in favor of that
resolution.
Melissa Palmer stated she is a resident of Roanoke County and has a family
business on Electric Road, Chocolate Paper; hope you have been there. We have been
very excited to be part of this group because we do believe our brick and mortar business is
bringing a service that you cannot get when sitting in front of your computer. She stated
she makes a personal pledge that when she is buying a shower gift or Christmas gifts, she
does not take the easy way out and sit in her pajamas by the fireplace. It is important for
our business, our clients, our customers come out and see us and make our purchases and
pay their sales tax while they are there. We try to have our internet business, our internet
presence. There are obviously many barriers. We know there is precedents set. Small
businesses do get a little bit of favor whether it is less than twenty (20) employees or those
May 27, 2014
425
types of things. We see that and she is all for a fair playing field when coming to giving the
big guys the same set of rules that they play by. She asked for the Board’s support in their
small business. They do employ people in Roanoke City and Roanoke County and are
trying to compete on an area where we want to have individuals walk in our doors and we
also want to have our presence where everyone can look; like a big retailer on the internet.
So, we can actually play there too, but we have to be able to compete with our prices, both
here in our store or when online. We ask for your support.
Charlie Overstreet of 2065 Richland Hills Drive, off Wildwood Road stated he
works at Northwest True Value Hardware Store and they have three (3) locations: one on
Brambleton, one in Hollins and one in Vinton in Roanoke County. Roanoke County has
been very good to him. By the way, he likes what the Board is doing; he is enjoying this. If
the Board will pass this resolution and Congress will listen to you and agree with you, then
we can open our libraries 24/7. I think about seventeen percent (17%) of sales tax would
be internet sales tax. He has not looked at the County budget, but knows it was $350
million when he came here today, but he has a feeling that a decent portion of that is sales
tax revenue. If we increase that by seventeen percent (17%), he thinks we have more
money to spend. The easy thing about this, it is only fair because if he sells an item at
Northwest Hardware and the same person can buy it on Ebay for five percent (5%) less
because they don’t pay sales tax, he is at a disadvantage. It is only fair and it is money. So
he would like the Board to take this resolution and send it to Mr. Goodlatte in Congress.
Wendy Jones stated she is the Executive Director of the Williamson Road
Area Business Association at the address of 4804 Williamson Road. She stated the brick
and mortar businesses in the area have a really difficult time competing with the internet at
this point. It would be extremely advantageous to them to put them on a level playing field.
She thinks that Mr. Overstreet’s point of the revenue this could generate for the County to
continue to do the things the County needs to do and wants to do is very pertinent to this
conversation and she thinks it is probably one of the bigger points that needs to be made.
You want to do your Economic Development so you have businesses that can survive and
a lot of businesses just cannot do that anymore because they are competing in an
environment where they are not having to pay this. So, she would ask that the Board would
consider this.
May 27, 2014
426
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
4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of April
30, 2014
5. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of April 30, 2014
6. Accounts Paid – April 30, 2014
7. Treasurer’s Statement of Accountability per Investment and Portfolio
Policy as of April 30, 2014
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:45 p.m., Supervisor McNamara moved to go into closed meeting
following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A 1, To
discuss and consider the employment, appointment and resignation of specific public
officers, appointees, or employees, namely the County Administrator and Section
2.2.3711.A.1 namely discussion concerning an appointment to the Virginia Western
Community College Board and the Western Virginia Water Authority
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
The closed meeting was held from 5:40 p.m. until 6:07 p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss supporting Congressional action to enact
legislation that promotes fairness for brick and mortar and internet
businesses within Roanoke County (B. Clayton Goodman III, County
Administrator)
May 27, 2014
427
In attendance for this work session with Mr. Goodman were Joyce Waugh
representing the Roanoke Regional Chamber and Anne Marie Green representing the
Salem Roanoke County Chamber.
Mr. Goodman outlined the request from Mr. Goodlatte. Ms. Waugh provided
the Board with the position of the Roanoke Chamber and Ms. Green the position of the
Salem Roanoke County Chamber. Ms. Green provided a copy of a resolution urging the
legislature to pass the bill.
Supervisor Church advised this has been debated in Washington for at least
four (4) years.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked is there something else that we have not looked
at which is why the House cannot come together.
Chairman McNamara stated there is going to be more and more internet
buying and the internet businesses should be paying the same tax as the brick and mortar.
There are databases that exist now to make this easier is a normal cost of doing business.
The work session was held from 5:03 p.m. until 5:29 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 6:59 p.m., Supervisor McNamara moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 052714-13 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a
closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with
the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the
Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted
in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member’s knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements
by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution
applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the
closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
May 27, 2014
428
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution supporting Congressional action to enact legislation that
promotes fairness for brick and mortar and internet businesses
within Roanoke County (B. Clayton Goodman III, County
Administrator)
Mr. Goodman outlined the request for a resolution of support. Supervisors
Bedrosian and Church both commented they were in support.
RESOLUTION 052714-14 SUPPORTING CONGRESSIONAL
ACTION TO ENACT LEGISLATION THAT PROMOTES FAIRNESS
FOR BRICK AND MORTAR AND INTERNET BUSINESSES WITHIN
ROANOKE COUNTY
WHEREAS, local retailers have been hurt in recent years by online and catalog
purchases by customers who believe they get a discount by not paying sales tax, and
WHEREAS, a brick and mortar retailer collects the sales tax at the time of purchase in a
store, but the responsibility for paying the tax from a remote online purchase shifts to the
Internet customer who should pay the sales tax when filing an annual state tax return; and
WHEREAS, most taxpayers are not aware of the responsibility to remit these taxes;
and
WHEREAS, State and local governments do not have a mechanism to collect such
Internet sales tax and thus put retailers located in Roanoke County at a five point three
percent (5.3%) competitive price disadvantage to remote sellers; and
WHEREAS, the current taxation system creates a confusing sales tax payment
system; and
WHEREAS, local brick and mortar retailers serve as a foundation of the local
economy and are permanent, engaged members of the community who employ County
citizens and support the local community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors does hereby encourage Congress to enact appropriate legislation consistent
with the seven principles defined by the House Judiciary Committee to help level the playing
field between brick-and-mortar retailers and remote online competitors; and
FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is
directed to send an attested copy of this resolution to the appropriate federal
representatives for Roanoke County.
May 27, 2014
429
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
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing the issuance of not to exceed $20,000,000 of
General Obligation School Bonds to be sold to the Virginia Public
School Authority (VPSA) and appropriation of funds in the amount of
$22,255,000 for the renovation of Glenvar High School (Rebecca
Owens, Director of Finance)
Ms. Owens outlined the ordinance and noted there were no changes from the
first reading held on May 13, 2014. Chairman McNamara opened and closed the public
hearing with the following citizens speaking:
Chris Craft of 1501 East Gate stated he just came to ask the Board to move
forward with the project of Glenvar. He has been a public advocate for education for many
years. He has fought for many things for our kinds. Many years ago, when Christiansburg
wanted to rebuild the old high school, he went up and gave them the same speech. He
stated do not look at it as a building; don’t even look at the money as being borrowed. Look
at it as our future; the next mayor, governor. Look at the children and look at their needs for
a quality building with today’s technology. Under Dr. Lange’s leadership, Roanoke County
schools have excelled. She has done a wonderful job and will continue to. So, he just asks
that the Board run with this, not just for the money sake, but for the kids because they are
our future and they are the ones that need it.
Supervisor Church recognized Dr. Martin Misicko, Director of Operations for
Roanoke County Schools; Dr. Lorraine Lange, Superintendent; David Wymer, School
Board; Joe Haffey Principal, Leonore Downey, President of the PTSO
David Wymer spoke regarding the groundswell of support.
Supervisor Church asked Dr. Misicko to outline the problems with the School.
Supervisor Peters spoke in support of the project.
Supervisor Bedrosian commented he is very concerned about the debt,
knows he in the minority. In 2015, our debt will be $188 million. $7 to $8 million in interest
payments per year and is bothersome to him.
Supervisor Moore thanked everyone who has worked so hard on this.
Chairman McNamara thanked the schools for all their hard work; noted it was
overdue.
Supervisor Church thanked the community and the people in attendance.
ORDINANCE 052714-15 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO
EXCEED $20,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BOND OF
May 27, 2014
430
THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, TO BE SOLD TO THE
VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY AND PROVIDING FOR
THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County of Roanoke,
Virginia (the "County"), has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow an
amount not to exceed $20,000,000 and to issue its general obligation school bond (as more
specifically defined below, the "Local School Bond") for the purpose of financing (a) capital
school improvement projects for public school purposes (collectively, the "Project"),
consisting primarily of the renovation of Glenvar High School and (b) costs of issuing the
Local School Bond; and
WHEREAS, the County held a public hearing, duly noticed, on May 27, 2014, on the
issuance of the Local School Bond in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.2-2606,
Code of Virginia 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code"); and
WHEREAS, the School Board of the County has, by resolution, requested the Board to
authorize the issuance of the Local School Bond and consented to the issuance of the Local
School Bond; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Public School Authority ("VPSA") has offered to purchase the
Local School Bond along with the local school bonds of certain other localities with a portion of
the proceeds of certain bonds to be issued by VPSA (the "VPSA Bonds"); and
WHEREAS, the Bond Sale Agreement (as defined below) shall indicate that
$20,000,000 is the amount of proceeds requested (the "Proceeds Requested") from VPSA in
connection with the sale of the Local School Bond; and
WHEREAS, VPSA's objective is to pay the County a purchase price for the Local
School Bond which, in VPSA's judgment, reflects the Local School Bond's market value (the
"VPSA Purchase Price Objective"), taking into consideration of such factors as the
amortization schedule the County has requested for the Local School Bond relative to the
amortization schedules requested by other localities, the purchase price to be received by
VPSA from the sale of the VPSA Bonds and other market conditions relating to the sale of the
VPSA Bonds; and
WHEREAS, such factors may result in the Local School Bond having a purchase price
other than par and consequently (i) the County may have to issue the Local School Bond in a
principal amount that is greater than or less than the Proceeds Requested in order to receive
an amount of proceeds that is substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested, or (ii) if the
maximum authorized principal amount of the Local School Bond set forth in section 1 below
does not exceed the Proceeds Requested by at least the amount of any discount, the
purchase price to be paid to the County, given the VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market
conditions, will be less than the Proceeds Requested; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 13, 2014 and the
second reading of this ordinance was held on May 27, 2014.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA:
May 27, 2014
431
1. Authorization of Local School Bond and Use of Proceeds. The Board
hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and issue and sell its general
obligation school bond in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $20,000,000 (the
"Local School Bond") for the purpose of financing the Project. The Board hereby authorizes
the issuance and sale of the Local School Bond in the form and upon the terms established
pursuant to this Ordinance. The Board hereby accepts the proceeds of this Local School
Bond and appropriates these proceeds and $2,255,000 from debt fund reserves to the
School Board for the Project.
2. Sale of the Local School Bond. The sale of the Local School Bond, within
the parameters set forth in paragraph 4 of this Ordinance, to VPSA is authorized. Given the
VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market conditions, the County acknowledges that the
limitation on the maximum principal amount on the Local School Bond set forth in paragraph
1 of this Ordinance restricts VPSA's ability to generate the Proceeds Requested, however,
the Local School Bond may be sold for a purchase price not lower than 95% of the
Proceeds Requested. The Chairman of the Board, the County Administrator, or either of
them (each a "Delegate") and such other officer or officers of the County as either may
designate are hereby authorized and directed to enter into an agreement with VPSA
providing for the sale of the Local School Bond to VPSA (the "Bond Sale Agreement"). The
Bond Sale Agreement shall be in substantially the form submitted to the Board at this
meeting, which form is hereby approved.
3. Details of the Local School Bond. The Local School Bond shall be dated 16
days prior to the date of its issuance and delivery or such other date designated by VPSA;
shall be designated "General Obligation School Bond, Series 2014"; shall bear interest from its
dated date payable semi-annually on each January 15 and July 15 beginning on a date
designated by VPSA (each an "Interest Payment Date"), at the rates established in
accordance with paragraph 4 of this Ordinance; and shall mature on July 15 in the years (each
a "Principal Payment Date") and in the amount acceptable to a Delegate (the "Principal
Installments"), subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 of this Ordinance.
4. Interest Rates and Principal Installments. Each Delegate is hereby
authorized and directed to accept the interest rates on the Local School Bond established by
VPSA, provided that each interest rate shall be five one-hundredths of one percent (0.05%)
over the interest rate to be paid by VPSA for the corresponding principal payment date of the
VPSA Bonds, a portion of the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the Local School
Bond, and provided further that the true interest cost of the Local School Bond does not
exceed five and fifty one-hundredths percent (5.50%) per annum. The Interest Payment Dates
and the Principal Installments are subject to change at the request of VPSA. Each Delegate is
hereby authorized and directed to accept changes in the Interest Payment Dates and the
Principal Installments at the request of VPSA based on the final term to maturity of the VPSA
Bonds, requirements imposed on VPSA by the nationally-recognized rating agencies and the
final principal amount of the Local School Bond; provided, however, that the principal amount
of the Local School Bond shall not exceed the amount authorized by this Ordinance and the
final maturity date of the Local School Bond may not be later than 21 years after the issuance
thereof. The execution and delivery of the Local School Bond as described in paragraph 8
May 27, 2014
432
hereof shall conclusively evidence the approval and acceptance of all of the details of the
Local School Bond by the Delegate as authorized by this Ordinance.
5. Form of the Local School Bond. The Local School Bond shall be initially in
the form of a single, temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
6. Payment; Paying Agent and Bond Registrar. The following provisions shall
apply to the Local School Bond:
(a) For as long as VPSA is the registered owner of the Local School
Bond, all payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Local School Bond
shall be made in immediately available funds to VPSA at, or before 11:00 a.m. on the
applicable Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or
redemption, or if such date is not a business day for Virginia banks or for the
Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next
succeeding such Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for
prepayment or redemption.
(b) All overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted by law,
interest shall bear interest at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Local School Bond.
(c) U.S. Bank National Association, Richmond, Virginia, is designated as
Bond Registrar and Paying Agent for the Local School Bond.
7. Prepayment or Redemption. With respect to any Local School Bond sold to
VPSA in the Fall 2014 sale, the Principal Installments of the Local School Bond held by VPSA
coming due on or before July 15, 2024, and the definitive bond for which the Local School
Bond held by VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2024, are not subject
to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities. The Principal Installments of the
Local School Bond held by VPSA coming due on or after July 15, 2025, and the definitive
bond(s) for which the Local School Bond held by VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or
after July 15, 2025, are subject to prepayment or redemption at the option of the County prior
to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2024, upon
payment of the prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of Principal
Installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Local School Bond to be redeemed)
set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption:
Dates Prices
July 15, 2024 through July 14, 2025 101%
July 15, 2025 through July 14, 2026 100½
July 15, 2026 and thereafter 100
Provided, however, that the Local School Bond shall not be subject to prepayment or
redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above without first obtaining the written
consent of VPSA or other registered owner of the Local School Bond. Notice of any such
prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to VPSA or other registered
May 27, 2014
433
owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the
date fixed for prepayment or redemption.
With respect to any Local School Bond sold to VPSA in a subsequent sale, the
Principal Installments of such Local School Bonds will be subject to similar prepayment or
redemption provisions as may be set forth by VPSA at the time of such sale.
8. Execution of the Local School Bond. The Chairman or Vice Chairman and
the Clerk or any Deputy Clerk of the Board are authorized and directed to execute and
deliver the Local School Bond and to affix the seal of the County thereto.
9. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. For the prompt payment of the principal of,
premium, if any, and the interest on the Local School Bond as the same shall become due, the
full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any
portion of the Local School Bond shall be outstanding there shall be levied and collected in
accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in the County subject
to local taxation sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of the principal of and
premium, if any, and the interest on the Local School Bond as such principal, premium, if any,
and interest shall become due, which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and in
addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the
County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose.
10. Use of Proceeds Certificate and Tax Compliance Agreement. The
Chairman of the Board, the County Administrator and such other officer or officers of the
County or the School Board as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to
execute and deliver on behalf of the County a Use of Proceeds Certificate and Tax
Compliance Agreement (the "Tax Compliance Agreement") setting forth the expected use and
investment of the proceeds of the Local School Bond and containing such covenants as may
be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable regulations relating to the exclusion from
gross income of interest on the VPSA Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County
that (i) the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Local School Bond will be invested and
expended as set forth in such Tax Compliance Agreement and that the County shall comply
with the other covenants and representations contained therein and (ii) the County shall
comply with the provisions of the Code so that interest on the VPSA Bonds will remain
excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes.
11. State Non-Arbitrage Program; Proceeds Agreement. The Board hereby
determines that it is in the best interests of the County to authorize and direct the County
Treasurer to participate in the State Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with the Local
School Bond. The Chairman of the Board, the County Administrator and such officer or
officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute
and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the deposit and investment of proceeds of
the Local School Bond by and among the County, the other participants in the sale of the
VPSA Bonds, VPSA, the investment manager and the depository, substantially in the form
submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is hereby approved.
12. Continuing Disclosure Agreement. The Chairman of the Board, the County
Administrator and such other officer or officers of the County as either may designate are
May 27, 2014
434
hereby authorized and directed to execute a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, as set forth in
Appendix F to the Bond Sale Agreement, setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the
County and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with
the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12, under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and directed to make all filings required by Section 3 of
the Bond Sale Agreement should the County be determined by VPSA to be a MOP (as
defined in the Bond Sale Agreement).
13. Refunding. The Board hereby acknowledges that VPSA may issue refunding
bonds to refund any bonds previously issued by VPSA, including the VPSA Bonds issued to
purchase the Local School Bond, and that the purpose of such refunding bonds would be to
enable VPSA to pass on annual debt service savings to the local issuers, including the County.
Each of the Delegates is authorized to execute and deliver to VPSA such allonge to the Local
School Bond, revised debt service schedule, IRS Form 8038-G or such other documents
reasonably deemed necessary by VPSA and VPSA's bond counsel to be necessary to reflect
and facilitate the refunding of the Local School Bond and the allocation of the annual debt
service savings to the County by VPSA. The Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is authorized
to affix the County's seal on any such documents and attest or countersign the same.
14. Filing of Ordinance. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are
hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Ordinance to be filed with the
Circuit Court of the County.
15. Election to Proceed under Public Finance Act. In accordance with Section
15.2-2601 of the Virginia Code, the Board elects to issue the Local School Bond pursuant to
the provisions of the Public Finance Act of 1991, Chapter 26 of Title 15.2 of the Virginia Code.
16. Further Actions. The members of the Board and all officers, employees and
agents of the County are hereby authorized to take such action as they or any one of them
may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Local
School Bond and otherwise in furtherance of this Ordinance and any such action previously
taken is hereby ratified and confirmed.
17. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance and carried by the following
roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian
2. The petition of Airport Road Holdings II, LLC to amend the proffered
conditions including the Masterplan in a R-4C, High Density Multi-
Family Residential Development District with conditions for the
Suncrest Community, a residential development with a maximum of
115 dwelling units, located on approximately 6.656 acres near 6044
Peters Creeks Road, Hollins Magisterial District. The amended
proffers and Masterplan would replace thirty-six (36) townhomes
with thirty-six (36) multi-family dwelling units (apartments,) which
May 27, 2014
435
would result in all the residential units being multi-family dwelling
units (apartments) (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the petition and provided a PowerPoint presentation.
Mr. Thompson noted the Board will need to amend proffers with the renderings. Planning
Commission approved May 6, 2014.
Chairman McNamara opened the public hearing and closed the public
hearing with the following citizens speaking: None
ORDINANCE 052714-16 AMENDING THE PROFFERED
CONDITIONS INCLUDING THE MASTERPLAN IN A R-4C, HIGH
DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS FOR THE SUNCREST COMMUNITY,
A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH A MAXIMUM OF 115
DWELLING UNITS, LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 6.656 ACRES
NEAR 6044 PETERS CREEK ROAD, HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT. THE AMENDED PROFFERS AND MASTERPLAN
WOULD REPLACE THIRTY-SIX (36) TOWNHOMES WITH THIRTY-
SIX (36) MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS (APARTMENTS),
WHICH WOULD RESULT IN ALL THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS BEING
MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS (APARTMENTS)
WHEREAS, the petitioner, Airport Road Holdings II, LLC, is seeking to amend
voluntarily proffered conditions accepted by the Board of Supervisors by Ordinance 102709-
5 adopted on October 27, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 22, 2014, and the
second reading and public hearing were held May 27, 2014; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
matter on May 6, 2014; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the proffered conditions on a certain tract of real estate containing
approximately 6.656 acres located at 6044 Peters Creek Road (Tax Map Numbers 026.16-
02-14.00-0000 and 14.06-0000) in the Hollins Magisterial District, are hereby changed as
follows:
1. The developer hereby proffers substantial conformance with the "Suncrest
Masterplan", prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc. dated 3/17/2014. -3-09,
revised 8-7-09, and last revised 8-31-09. The “Suncrest Masterplan” is further
revised by closing the easternmost entrance for the townhomes so that traffic will
be encouraged to exit through the commercial entrance and away from Nover Ave.
2. The developer proffers a maximum of 115 residential units for the R-4 portion of
the subject property.
May 27, 2014
436
3. There will be no vehicular access from Vivian Avenue to the subject parcel.
4. Signage for the Suncrest community will be provided by a monument style sign not
to exceed 8’ in height and 15’ in width and be in compliance with Section 30-93
Signs of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance.
5. Site and parking lot lighting shall be provided utilizing residential post top mounted
fixtures. and be in compliance with Section 30-94 Exterior Lighting of the
Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance.
6. A 15’ buffer yard shall be provided along the eastern property line and a portion of
the northern property line as indicated in Section 30-92-6 of the Roanoke County
Zoning Ordinance.
7. The community walking trail shall be a minimum of 5’ in width and be constructed
of asphalt, concrete, or a crushed stone material to be completed with each
residential phase of construction.
8. The developer hereby proffers substantial conformance with the "Suncrest
Multifamily Residential Development Front Elevation", prepared by Balzer and
Associates, Inc. dated 4/15/2014. 9-16-09
9. The developer shall dedicate fee simple to the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors approximately 5.5 acres as shown on the “Suncrest Masterplan”
prepared by Balzer & Associates Inc. dated 4-3-09, revised 8-7-09, and last
revised 8-31-09. This dedication shall take place upon the approval of the
subdivision plat or site plan for the first residential phase of the project.
10. The only construction entrance for this development shall be from Peters Creek
Road.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Airport Road Holdings II,
L.L.C.
3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Tax Map Nos. 26.16-02-14.00-0000 and 026.16-02-14.06-0000 containing 6.656 acres
4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to
amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by
this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Bedrosian to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
3. The petition of Corporate Properties Services, Inc. to obtain a special
use permit for a restaurant, drive-in or fast food in a C-1, Low
Intensity Commercial, District, on approximately 1.3825 acres
May 27, 2014
437
located at 3814 Challenger Avenue, Hollins Magisterial District
(Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the petition; provided a PowerPoint presentation. He
noted the traffic study has been revised. Planning Commission approved May 6, 2014, with
three conditions.
Chairman McNamara opened the public hearing and closed the public
hearing with the following citizens speaking:
Chris Craft stated as the Vice President for the Wildwood Civic League
adjoining the Roanoke County property, they are asking that the Board consider approving
this. As you know, he has been vital in a bunch of businesses in the County as Mr. Church
can tell you and he is looking forward to making Rt. 460 as busy as Williamson Road. He
knows there are ways to fix the traffic in some ways and that adjusted during the building
and the planning of the property. We ask that you approve this so that we can keep
businesses growing, tax money coming in for not only the County, but the more revenue
that comes in for the County also goes into the schools. We ask that you seriously consider
this as a neighbor, we are behind you one hundred percent (100%) no matter what you
decide, but ask you as residents of the eastern part of Roanoke City that you do approve
with the conditions the Planning Commission made and working on the traffic situation.
Max Beyer of 2402 Coachman Drive, LaBellvue stated back on the first
reading, several citizens spoke to you about our concerns about this project. Since then,
they have been working quite a bit with community meetings, about sixty (60) people
attended those meeting and some of who are in attendance tonight. Also, we have been
working with staff and two of the supervisors who have been good enough to come out and
help us out, but we have not been successful. Despite our efforts, we are here to present a
petition with one hundred and forty-four (144) names on it asking that you deny this petition
for special use permit. He stated he believes the Board understands the background of
where we are as far as the neighborhood and the people coming down to that intersection,
st
which is one of the most congested intersections in the County. On April 1, we attended a
Planning Commission meeting at which time, we presented our concerns. There was a
VDOT traffic analysis that was incomplete and continued to be modified. The Commission
also asked the petitioner to look at the feasibility of using Trail drive, which they did with
Option #2. Also, they wanted to look at the limiting some of the egress, which the Board
th
has already been told about with regard to a left-hand turn. On May 6, at the Planning
Commission meeting, the developer proposed a revised proposal, which did not make many
significant changes to reduce safety concerns. The developer looked at option two, but he
did so in such a manner as to close completely the exit on West Ruritan. As a result of that,
this made the whole idea of option 2 not feasible. There would only be one entry on a
undeveloped road into the property. So, that was a bit of concern. The options
recommended by the Planning Commission the Board has already been briefed on and he
will not go into any of those with the exception of the trash disposal units were moved from
one location all the way over to another, which created a problem when it became in closer
proximity to the well of the house indicated on the map. This problem will be addressed a
May 27, 2014
438
little later on. So, the developer has done about all he is planning to do. VDOT has the
ability to continue to negotiate traffic management, citizens have no further influence or
option after this Board meeting. Therefore, our concerns are that option two be reevaluated
using both (showed on the map) as entrances. Look at the shortened tapered distance will
be talked about a later on; there is a waiver there. The entire area is extremely congested
and people will speak about that later on. The trash dumpsters has a potential pollution
problem. Accordingly, we oppose the special use permit in its current configuration. We
seek the Board to exercise its authority and ability to seek other alternatives with the
development before they make a final decision. Again, we welcome Chick-fil-A into the
community, but under safe traffic conditions. He would like the Board to address why are
citizens not allowed to comment on changes made to an application. If the final decision by
the Planning Commission is delayed or continued to a later date due to the postponement,
require for additional information by the Commission or the initial presentation is incomplete
or in error. If we get no chances regarding significant changes to the proposal, we have no
other chance to talk about it in a public manner.
Ron Roop of 1431 West Ruritan Road stated he had just handed the Board a
drawing. Please look at the one with green on it first. As you can see, this is showing a
significant departure from what their entrance was at the beginning. As you can see, they
now propose to have exiting traffic swing all the way out into traffic approaching from the
southbound lane. This is the very same lane that VDOT waived one hundred and twenty
feet (120’), nearly one-third of the safe site distance. Then, the exiting vehicle has to swing
all the way back into a very short taper lane to be able to get into the southbound right-
hand, turn lane. VDOT also waived fifty percent (50%) of this. The taper lane was
supposed to be one hundred feet (100’) long and they gave them a fifty foot (50’) waiver on
it. The reason they did this was to make the right-hand, turn lane a little bit longer so they
could get another vehicle or two in there, but what it does is causes a steeper angle of
approach to get back into that right-hand, turn lane and it keeps a vehicle in jeopardy longer
before it clears that southbound thru lane. It will add to the thru-lane stacking problem
behind it. We are already stacked three (3) vehicles in that right-hand, turn lane now; that
lane is only going to accommodate a couple of vehicles. So, all that has been
accomplished is to place existing vehicles in jeopardy for a longer period of time. The next
drawing, scenario number two, which is green and blue cars shows what is likely to happen
between those two vehicles marked n and o shown on the drawing. Also shown on that
drawing is what we believe is a design flaw. This would be the yellow colored cars. What
happens is when A is backing out of a parking spot right near that entrance. There is the
stacking lane for only two vehicles, B. and C. If B is already committed to following C in
there and A backs out, B and C both stop, blocking D out in the middle of the road. That is
where you are going to see crashing into that. You have to consider these problems as
different scenarios instead of viewing at the same time to make sense out of it. We think
that these two scenarios are the most likely to happen; not the only scenarios to crash
because of the way this thing is zoned. Common sense and a little understanding of human
nature will tell you that those scenarios are real possibilities if not probabilities. We know
that the Supervisors do not value the revenue of any business over the value of people’s
May 27, 2014
439
lives and we thank you for that. The document that is about to be handed to you is in his
opinion not in agreement with that.
Shabo Karkenny of 1635 West Ruritan Road stated he along with the vast
majority of his neighbors share the safety and traffic concerns of this fine restaurant. As
important as it is to show support for our views, he did not allocate enough of his time as he
had hoped for asking others to devote their time also and that showed less promise. He
spent most of the Memorial Day himself collecting signatures to our petition from among the
people that were at home on this holiday. The sixty (60) or so signatures that he collected
and had only been turned down by five (5) people. Of the sixty-five (65) people he talked
to, five (5) people disagreed with the petition at all; sixty (60) did sign it. He had only gone
over five (5) square blocks to get these signatures and that shows you about ninety percent
(90%) of the people we spoke to shared the same views and were agreeing with the
petition. Five people just did not want to get involved and put their name on anything. So,
that is over ninety percent (90%) who shared our view concerning safety and the traffic
congestion that will contribute to potential accidents is our number one concern. No one
was surprised at the number of accidents that we currently have at the intersection of
Challenger Drive and West Ruritan. Also, regarding waivers from the Department of
Transportation. Most were surprised that there was such a thing. They were surprised at
the DOT disregarding their own rules that serve all Virginians, not just the people on West
Ruritan or Challenger Avenue. The same rules that they use for every single Virginian for
all the roads in our State are disregarded with a pen stroke. Not one of these things that
they are asking a waiver for do they meet; not even close. So, we hope that this can be
adjusted. Most people did say they like the idea of the restaurant. He explained that a
common response was our efforts would be in vain and the Counsel would do what they
think regardless of our concerns. This is what people told him and he explained that he
hoped our representatives would look to the safety of the voters over the prospect of extra
revenue. They will think of us as they would their family and their own neighbors. Other
common responses were that people noticed that there were many other appropriate
properties in Roanoke County close to Challenger Avenue that are already approved for this
type of business and there are a few restaurant pads already ready. Why are they not
choosing these instead of congesting a tight intersection? They wondered what the push
for this particular property was. It seems like there are more problems than there are
benefits. Beside the traffic issues, he personally has an objection to the proximity of the
waste containers and used oil containers that will be about fifty (50) feet from the well on his
property next door. As anyone knows, a drop of contaminant or oil can contaminate
thousands of gallons of water and the aquifer that serves our well, serves the well at the top
of the hill that serves the residents in that area and that part of the County. So, that is
something to consider. He would hope the property owner would continue to test the water
before construction started to get a baseline, continue to test the water, at least bi-annually
as some piece of mind to the neighborhood. He is disturbed that the promises that he had
with the prospective owner and engineers that he met that the dumpsters would stay as far
away from the well and the home at the corner of the property was disregarded and there
was no mention at any time after that they would move it and no consideration to any of us.
May 27, 2014
440
He stated he and his wife has lived and raised the family in his home on West Ruritan for
over twenty-four (24) years. His brother lives one block closer to the restaurant site for over
twenty (20) years and his son will be on the property adjacent to the restaurant. We plan on
growing old there. Please consider our safety first. My family will most likely outlive the
restaurant. Again, there is a reason that this property is zoned light commercial. Please do
not try to jam a square peg in a round hole. My neighbors and their families will pay the
price for this if you do. The main concern was there was a lot of other properties available
or they could do some more consideration than just pushing this through.
Gary Rouse, GBC of Akron, Ohio and is the Site Engineer for the project.
Chick-fil-A is excited about coming to this location. He honestly does not know where they
looked and so forth. He was given the site to engineer to go through the approval process
and they do very much want to be here. The site is not without challenges. It is kind of a
weird shape. It has great challenges to it, but we feel we did a pretty good job of making it
work. We have an adequate number of parking spaces for Chick-fil-A. They normally shoot
for fifty-five to sixty (55 to 60), we are at fifty three (53). We are handling all of the
stormwater and clean water via underground tanks. Dumpster locations were moved in
order to get additional amount of space from the intersection near the property line. We had
to put kind of an interesting little curve in the entrance and in order to gain back the parking
spaces we would have lost and to avoid doing that, we did relocate the dumpster over right
off the drive thru. It is a spot that Chick-fil-A likes because they can see it better; it is right
outside the door of the drive thru windows. Our eyes were open when we made that
change quite frankly. We did have some design waivers that we were asking for. Mattern
and Craig worked closely with the County and VDOT and think we did a pretty good job in
making everything set. The turn lane, which apparently not everybody is in favor of is going
to cost Chick-fil-A about $100,000 to put in and the reason we are doing it is because it is
going to greatly ease the amount of traffic on West Ruritan Road. Right now you can go
straight, left or right. The majority of the traffic does go right and that was the reason for
opting for the right-turn lane. We viewed that as being a very positive thing; not a cheap
thing in order to help alleviate probably a traffic problem that exists today to a great extent.
Supervisor Church asked Mr. Blevins (Virginia Department of Transportation)
information concerning a raised vertical hump that blocks some site distance. If that were
lowered, would it cost $250,000 with Mr. Blevins responding that is a ball-park estimate?
Supervisor Church asked if anyone has discussed this at the public meetings with the
community. It appears to him to be one of the major obstacles for safety on this particular
road. Mr. Blevins advised the estimate is only construction and does not include obtaining
the right-of-way. More than likely with the type of lowering we would require, we would
have to purchase right-of-way from the neighboring property owners possibly on both sides
of the roadway. Supervisor Church asked if this was one of the deterrents for Arby’s in
2005. Mr. Blevins stated to his knowledge it was, but he was not in VDOT at the time but
has looked back through some prior documentation. At that time, there was no waiver
process for site distance.
Supervisor Bedrosian thanked the people from the Community for all the hard
work; really organized and documented. There was a lot of good information. Thanked
May 27, 2014
441
Supervisor Peters for being in attendance. There seems to be a lot of issues, but not with
Chick-fil-A. At this point, needs to be a good negotiation point to start with and not a day for
a final approval. As congested, all these pieces seemed to be forced. At this point in time, it
seems like in order to keep this project alive is that we postpone a vote on this for a month
and allow people to come together: the community and the developers and sit down and
see if anything can be worked out. He stated right now he feels very uncomfortable about
voting yes for this with these conditions. It seems like now is the time to start talking. This
thing has been shifting so much, waivers, exemptions, etc. and you never know what is the
final thing. He thinks that has made a lot of people uneasy; nothing to do with Chick-fil-A. It
has to do with the process. His recommendation would be to give it thirty days. As the
Supervisor for this area, he wants this happen and this community wants this to happen;
they are just uneasy the way it is right now.
Supervisor Bedrosian then moved to postpone the second reading of this
ordinance until the second meeting in June.
Supervisor Peters stated Supervisor Bedrosian is correct; we have sat in on
many of the citizens groups to hear what the concerns were. It is amazing to him that we
can do waivers, exceptions, exemptions, etc. but when it comes to what would really help
the problem cannot be done. He was looking at the design earlier and had asked for a
right-only turn exiting the property on the Ruritan side; this would allow someone leaving
Chick-fil-A to come down to the right, and then make a left and go on their way to Bedford.
The second piece of that is putting a driveway in on the left side of the property, which
would be against the property line of a Cleaner World; a shared driveway. He was told we
cannot that. He was going to ask that those be conditions of that approval to find a way to
get a waiver for those items. He thinks this would elevate most of the concerns the citizens
have. As a volunteer for Fire and Rescue, the number of incidents we have at Ruritan and
just one block down at Valley Gateway at the new Kroger just one block over is just mind-
boggling. To him, having the shared driveway, the center of that block, would elevate a lot
of problems at that light. If there is any way we can work with VDOT to get an exception or
waiver.
Chairman McNamara asked Mr. Thompson when you look at the C-1 zoning,
could he clarify what can go by right in a C-1 zoning relative to a C-2 zoning. Mr.
Thompson responded typically it is office use. Last year we looked at our ordinances and
made some adjustments to allow more uses by right in a C-1 district. It is typically of a
lower intensity. The Board wants to look on a case by case basis in a C-1 district, fast food.
Chairman McNamara then asked does a special use permit currently require as a part of
the drive thru. Mr. Thompson advised it had nothing to do with the drive thru, it has to do
with the use – fast food restaurant. Chairman McNamara then asked if the fast food
restaurant was in C-2 with Mr. Thompson responding it would be a by right use. Chairman
McNamara then asked if it would require a special use permit for the drive thru with Mr.
Thompson responding in the negative. Chairman McNamara asked if he had much
experience in the past three to five years with VDOT providing these exceptions they are
providing in this scenario. Mr. Thompson advised Mr. Blevins would the one to better
May 27, 2014
442
answer, but he thinks this is probably indicative of a lot of the commercial property left in the
County; not great sites.
Supervisor Peters advised just a little bit further down was the turning lane to
go onto Trail Drive, why. Mr. Blevins stated the reason is to move traffic; not for access to
property. Whenever you access property on a corridor like that you are going to get
congestion, not just because of the extra traffic, but because of the side friction. Supervisor
Peters stated there is only a five mile per hour difference between the front of this property
and El Rodeo, which is half a mile down the road. You are not really accomplishing a lot
with having lesser driveways. The other piece of this whether you are talking about Rt. 460
or Rt. 220 to Clearbrook, we are going to have this issue anytime anybody looks at any
property along those two corridors. People are going to be slowing down and stopping
because this is going to be developed. This is why he is having a little bit of trouble
applying that. Mr. Blevins says if it is their only means of access, our minimum must require
them some form of access if they can meet other safety guidelines. At a minimum they are
going to get a right in and right out.
On the motion to postpone the second reading to the second meeting in
June, the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
4. Ordinance amending Chapter 2. “Administration”, Article V. –
“County Board Organization and Procedure”, Section 2-112 – “Rules
of Order”, Section 2-113 – “Order of Business”, Section 2-114 –
“Agenda”, Section 2-115 – “Rules of Debate” (Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the changes and advised sections 2-114(c) and (d)
from unanimous consent to majority consent.
Chairman McNamara opened the public hearing with the following citizens
speaking:
RoxAnne Christley of 7259 Willow Valley Road in the Windsor Hills District
stated a couple of ideas were posed to this Board not long ago about making Roanoke
County government more user friendly to its citizens. The ideas were to put citizen
comments at the beginning of Board meetings and to have an open work session here in
this chamber. Both of these ideas were sent to this Board to consider and she does not
think we need to remind anyone just how long some of these meetings last. She stated she
thinks it is somewhat rude to make a concerned and involved citizen wait until the end of the
meeting to say what they want to say to our elected officials. This is particularly true when
the citizens comments might pertain to something that the Board might have voted on in the
same session. Let’s change this part of the Board agenda for the benefit of the citizenry
and not say that is the way it has always been done. We are better than that and besides
the fact citizens are who you represent and their input should have merit when you vote.
May 27, 2014
443
Having attended a number of crowded work sessions on the fourth floor, it also seems
reasonable to conduct the open sessions right here in this room. It is much more
accommodating for all and again it is sensible. Closed sessions would then be adjourned to
the fourth floor. She hopes that the Board will consider these.
Mike Bailey stated he is a Hollins resident and in reference to the motion to
revise Section 2 (115) Rules of Debate by limiting the renewal of a motion on discussion
within eleven (11) months after a decision has been made unless there is a majority of the
Board. He would like to ask someone on the Board to offer a compromise in order to save
the rights of expression for those in the minority. He understands the intent of the motion to
try to stop some of the endless debate that sometimes occurs in this meeting. He
appreciates Mr. Peter’s efforts trying to work a compromise by offering a vote of three Board
members to readdress an issue if the issue has been defeated. The motion gives too much
power to the majority and prevents a minority view from resurfacing within eleven (11)
months; honestly eleven (11) months is too long. He is here tonight to ask one of the Board
members to make the amendment to have two (2) people on the Board to support an issue
before it comes up instead of the three (3) or majority. That way, the minority position has
an opportunity to be heard. The dissenting Board of Supervisor does not even have to
agree; all they have to do is get one other person that feels the issue was important enough
to the citizens to simply say let’s take another look at it. So, he is asking that someone
make the motion that would only need two (2) to bring up an issue again within the eleven
(11) months. This way his right of expression will be heard as a minority and we can still
have a way of moving the process forward.
Chairman McNamara closed the public hearing and opened the floor for
questions.
Supervisor Peters stated he would like to move forward with a motion. There
has been a lot of questions regarding what is in this as far as the rules of debate. There
was a lot of talk about the ten (10) minute speaking about the motion. He just wanted to let
them know it is in Robert’s Rules. We adhere to Robert’s Rules. To outline exactly what it
says, “maximum time for each speech in a non-legislative body or organization that has no
special rules for the length of speeches, the member having obtained the floor while a
debatable motion is immediately pending can speak no longer than ten (10) minutes.”
There has been talk that was pulled out of thin air. If you read this, we do govern by
Robert’s Rules and that is what is in here. Item H, regarding the eleven (11) months, he
would like to have the whole section removed. He is making this as a motion that we keep
everything intact with the highlighted section on the Board’s copy be removed. He would
like to have one added as Item J that would bring up the Call for the Question and that
would be a majority of the Board.
Chairman McNamara repeated the motion and opened the floor for
discussion.
Supervisor Church stated he always thought the call for the question was
majority to begin with. If he stands to be corrected, we can check quickly. He stated he
thought and has said it before, other than a couple of minor tweaks, one being to use the
Eleventh Edition 2011 Roberts’s Rules and the fact that we will now call an executive
May 27, 2014
444
session a closed meeting he is good with both. He questions the entire process of putting
something in and he is looking at with all due respect to Robert’s Rules, our Board has been
operating however many years without ever having the need for these items. He has been
here fifteen (15) years. In 2014, we did not just begin suddenly to have long meetings. The
Chairman was here in 2007 or 2008, Keagy Village, we were here until 1:15 in the morning.
There were three hundred (300) people; this room was full and two (2) more floors. We had
a long debate, we had discussion and a heated debate, which is healthy and if there ever
was a time we could have thought “what is going on” that would have been a good example.
We have had Mennel Mill in another part of town, asphalt plant in his area, Walmart in
Clearbrook. We have had items that the room has been overflowing and people upstairs.
The regional jail was so large, we had to move to the Salem Civic Center with five hundred
plus (500) speaking. There never was a need to have this kind of reaction. No Board
member suddenly saw the need to change, because we never felt like it was excessive.
We never felt like it was out of line. We never felt like it was needed. We all felt like, with
respect to the sitting Board members, that each of us are elected by 18,000 citizens that we
are here to represent the wishes and the thoughts and desires of the people that elected us.
th
We do not routinely go past ten minutes; that is the key here. March 25 of this year, we
had a long meeting and this is what prompted this. We all got an email, we immediately got
a FOIA on it and because of some complicit items suddenly we have a whole new game
plan. We had been dealing with one set of guidelines and it is like after sixty (60) years in
baseball we are going to reverse the bases and start running backwards, etc. He does not
see the need; thinks this is egregious, uncalled for. He just really does not see the need,
the only thing that has changed in the last fifteen to eighteen (15 to 18) years is some new
members came on in January of 2014, but never before then have we ever addressed and
talked about these types of drastic changes. He had already circled 115 (H) as needing to
go. Robert Rules of Order is set up for debate guidelines, but it gives some flexibility to
every sitting body. It speaks to not addressing individual Board members in person.
Sometimes we do that; we do not do it maliciously, but it says to address them by their
designation. We do not need to cut thin hairs and start marching like tin solders. People do
not elect us to be robots; they want us to come forward and bring their desires. We take an
oath to impartially and faithfully discharge the duties incumbent upon us to represent our
district, that is what the oath says when we put our hand on the bible. We have had so
many changes, first it was super majority, and he agrees with Mr. Bailey, but does not think
it should be two; he does not think it should be in there. He does not think any Board
member should be restricted to ask for an item to be placed on our agenda and to do
otherwise is being restrictive and condescending to the people of that area, whoever they
may represent. Again, the ten (10) minutes has never been a major problem. There have
been hundreds of meetings we have had over the years, very few times has it happened.
He just feels like we should be able to talk and address situations as they come up. A
super majority should be out. The eleven months is being taken out; that is like saying no
matter how bad the legislation we passed is we cannot touch it for eleven (11) months. It is
ludicrous and does not make sense. If something is bad, we need to say we made a
May 27, 2014
445
mistake and let’s take a look at it and get rid of it. He would hate to hang something for
eleven (11) months that is totally wrong.
Chairman McNamara stated he thinks the gentleman from Vinton
summarized it well, we are not making egregious huge changes to our Board’s Rules and
Procedures. We are just restating some things that are in our procedures. Our procedures
state if something is not covered in our Rules and Procedures, then we refer to Robert’s
Rules of Order. We have Robert’s Rule of Order because we need some mechanism to
govern our meetings and it has been proved over the past couple of hundred years to be an
effective mechanism to govern meetings. This is simply putting things into our County
Board’s Rules and Procedures. He supports the motion that is on the floor at the current
time, but in the original ordinance as presented in our Board report, if there was some
terrible legislation that we were imposing on our citizens that we were stuck with for eleven
months, there was a clause in there for the majority of the Board to revisit that legislation.
There is already a clause in our Board’s Rules and Organizational Procedures, which we
had to use earlier today that allows a super majority or four (4) members of the Board to
suspend the rules temporarily for a particular issue. So, there are ways to work around
these types of things. He thinks it is good to spend time to look at some of things we are
looking at to make ourselves more efficient and user friendly. He sees this as making us
more user friendly. He does not see it shutting down people or in any way making it more
difficult for the Board members to operate or our citizens to have their voices and opinions
heard.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated we have talked about this in so many meetings
that he is probably repeating himself. He always gets a little nervous or suspicious when
something is changing and he does not know what the catalyst was for that change; you
always have a little suspicion about it. He stated he can remember our most senior
member from Catawba saying over the years no one has ever thought we needed to do this
and yet now we are. What is the reason? We always talk about we have so much to do
why are we piddling around with things that are unimportant. Let’s get to the business of
governing and yet we do take time to do these little things, why, what problems has it ever
caused. Can you point to something and say this is the reason why we are making this
change? He just does not know why we are doing it and so he would always want to vote
on the side of more freedom and more ability to talk unless he saw something that was just
so out of line and kept happening. Then, he could say yes. He stated he feels the same as
when we had the issue with the Clerk. If he saw something that was so out of line all the
time and then we brought up a motion, then he could say okay now he understands why.
But it seems like those two items especially, the Clerk issue and then this, seem to come
out of nowhere. No reason, we are just doing it. So, that is the issue he has with it. It does
seem to kind of limit some things and he does not know why. Also, when we first started
talking about this we had the eleven months and now we have taken it out. Did we really
think it through in the beginning? He thought that was really unreasonable and he made the
reference to Obamacare. Could you image if they did this in Congress and no one could
bring up the issue. The minority voted it in and now you are saying you cannot say anything
about it and could not say anything. He is glad our Congress did not do that. So, he looks
May 27, 2014
446
at why would we even think of doing that on the eleven months rule; luckily someone has
brought something up to remove altogether, but the fact that we would even think of doing
that gets him nervous.
Supervisor Peters commented he thinks the majority of what we are doing
here is putting this into an easy to read, something to put our hands on. The ten (10)
minutes is up to the Chairman to enforce; we have not had to enforce it yet versus reading
669 pages of Robert’s Rules. So, he does not really think this is about trying to limit
anybody; it is making it more procedural for us to make it in our normal book that we have
with us at all times in order to keep us from referring back to Robert’s Rules.
ORDINANCE 052714-17 AMENDING CHAPTER 2.
“ADMINISTRATION”, ARTICLE V. - “COUNTY BOARD
ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURE”, SECTION 2-112 - “RULES
OF ORDER”, SECTION 2-113 - “ORDER OF BUSINESS”, SECTION
2-114 - “AGENDA”, SECTION 2-115 - “RULES OF DEBATE”
WHEREAS, by Ordinance 011299-2 adopted by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County on January 12, 1999, the Board adopted Rules of Organization and
Procedure for the conduct of its meetings; and
WHEREAS, the Board has amended its procedures from time to time; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 22, 2014, and a
public hearing and the second reading was held on May 27, 2014.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia as follows:
1. That Chapter 2 of the Roanoke County Code, be amended to read and
provide as follows:
Chapter 2 – Administration
Article V. – County Board Organization and Procedure
Sec. 2-112. - Rules of order.
"The Scott, Foresman Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (Eleventh Edition 2011)"
shall govern the proceedings of the board in all cases, unless Robert's Rules are in conflict
with these rules.
Sec. 2-113. - Order of business.
Promptly at the hour set by law on the day of each regular meeting, the members of the
board shall take their regular stations in the board meeting room, and the business of the
board shall be taken up for consideration and disposition as follows, provided however, that
the chair may, during the meeting, rearrange items on the agenda to conduct the board's
business in a more expeditious manner, subject to consent of majority of the board.
Opening Ceremonies
Requests to postpone, add to, or change the order of agenda items
Proclamations, resolutions, recognitions and awards
Briefing.
New business
May 27, 2014
447
Request for public hearings and first reading of rezoning ordinance-consent agenda.
First reading of ordinances
Second reading of ordinances
Appointments
Consent agenda
Citizens' comments and communications
Reports
Work sessions
Closed meeting or session (as required)
Public hearing and first reading of ordinances
Public hearing and second reading of ordinances
Reports and inquiries of board members
Adjournment
Sec. 2-114. - Agenda.
(a) The chairman of the board and the county administrator shall establish the
agenda for each meeting, arrange a list of the matters to be considered
according to the order of business, and shall see that all items are properly
coordinated and prepared. All reports, communications, ordinances, resolutions,
action items, contract documents, or other matters to be submitted to the board
will be prepared by the appropriate department and reviewed and approved by
the county administrator. The finance director, or his/her designee, shall review
all matters for their fiscal impact, and certify the sufficiency of funds or
recommend a source of supplemental appropriation. Ordinances, resolutions,
contract documents or other matters requiring action by the county attorney shall
be submitted to the county attorney, or his/her designee, for preparation or
review, as necessary. The clerk to the board shall assist in the preparation of the
agenda and shall furnish each member of the board, the county administrator
and the county attorney with a copy of the same at least twenty-four (24) hours
prior to the board meeting and as far in advance of the meeting as time for
preparation will permit.
(b) After distribution of the agenda, matters requiring the board's immediate attention
shall be presented to the board, as requested by the county administrator or the
county attorney.
(c) The agenda shall provide a time when any board member may bring before the
board any business that he feels should be deliberated upon by the board. These
matters need not be specifically listed on the agenda, but formal action on such
matters shall be deferred until the next board meeting, except that immediate
action may be taken upon the unanimous majority consent of the members of the
board.
(d) Any board member may request a public hearing on any matter not otherwise
required by the general law or the County Charter only upon majority consent of
the members of the board.
Sec. 2-115. - Rules of debate.
May 27, 2014
448
(a) The chair or vice chair or such other member of the board as may be presiding
may move and debate from the chair, subject only to such limitations of debate
as are by these rules imposed on all members and shall not be deprived of any
of the rights and privileges of a board member by reason of acting as the
presiding officer.
(b) Every member desiring to speak shall address the chair, and, upon recognition
by the presiding officer, shall confine himself to the question under debate,
avoiding all personalities and indecorous language.
(c) A member, once recognized, shall not be interrupted when speaking unless it is
to be called to order, or as herein otherwise provided. If a member, while
speaking, be called to order, he shall cease speaking until the question of order
be determined, and, if in order, he shall be permitted to proceed. A board
member may speak no longer than ten (10) minutes on any motion, reports and
inquiries, unless he or she obtains the consent of two-thirds (four (4) members)
of the board.
(d) The board member moving the adoption of an ordinance or resolution shall have
the privilege of closing the debate.
(e) When any motion, resolution, or ordinance has been once acted upon the board,
it cannot be considered again at the same meeting except by a motion to
reconsider. Any action of the board, including final action on applications for
changes in land use classifications, motions to suspend the rules, an affirmative
vote to lay on the table or to take from the table, shall be subject to a motion to
reconsider. When a motion to reconsider has been once acted upon, it (the
motion to reconsider) cannot be repeated on the same question unless the
question was amended when previously considered. A motion to reconsider any
action taken by the board may be made only at the meeting such action was
taken or at the next regular meeting. Such motion must be made by one (1)
member of the prevailing side, and may be made at anytime and have
precedence over all other motions or while a member has the floor; it shall be
debatable. All motions to reconsider shall be decided by a majority vote of the
members present; provided a quorum is present.
(f) Upon passage of a motion to reconsider, the subject matter shall be placed on
the agenda of the next regular board meeting for any action the board deems
advisable. Upon passage of a motion to reconsider on an application for change
in land use classification, the subject matter shall be scheduled for a public
hearing after publication of legal notice at a subsequent meeting of the board.
(g) When the board wishes to annul some action it has previously taken and it is too
late to reconsider the vote, a motion to rescind the objectionable resolution,
order, or other proceeding may be made. Any action of the board may be
rescinded regardless of the time that has elapsed. A motion to rescind is not in
order if action has already been taken which cannot be undone.
May 27, 2014
449
(h) 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.
(i) No second to motions shall be required in order for the board to consider that
motion.
(j) A motion to call for the question will require the majority consent of the members
of the board.
2. That this ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian, Church
IN RE: CITIZENS’ COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following citizens spoke
Linda Laprade stated she is from the Cave Spring District and advised
Roanoke County residents want to be more informed and they want to be more involved in
their local government and there are ways that the Board can encourage this. We care
about our County. We are not going to be a member of ICLEI anymore, but we are still
going to be stewards of our environment. A group of Roanoke County residents with varied
interests and varied skills would be far more effective in examining the environmental issues
in our County than a group with a political agenda. With the Board setting bylaws and
goals, a new committee could be an important step to volunteers and to achieve results that
could benefit every one of us. Other counties have such groups in place and that is a good
place for the Board to start; looking to see what other are doing. There are ways as Ms.
Cristley mentioned that you could encourage more people to become more involved in
Board of Supervisors meetings. People are interested. Did you know that the Board of
Supervisors meeting had over 650 views and it is growing all the time? We want to
understand our government. If the IT staff could develop a simple way to link items in
agenda with the detailed report, it would make things so much easier for people. A lot of
people cannot download 300 pages on their computer and even if they can get it
downloaded, they do not have the time to go through all three hundred (300) pages to find
the one item that is important to them. So, if that could be linked, it would be so helpful.
The Board of Supervisor minutes are absolutely superb; they are clear, they are concise
and exact, but again linking to those items would be very helpful. Knowing the concerns of
Roanoke County residents as you address issues is very important. Perhaps it is time for a
detailed survey for Roanoke County residents so you will have full picture of our concern
and of our priorities. Citizen input can be very important as you examine the issues you
have to examine at every meeting; these are issues that affect every one of us. There are
many opportunities to create a more open transparent and accountable government. One
that encourages the involvement of County residents. Now, take the first steps.
May 27, 2014
450
Bob Crawford stated to meet its responsibilities as the County’s governing
body, which to seek and utilize the best available information in its decision making is why
he comes before the Board. That responsibility and rationality itself demands that in
matters in which scientific findings are pertinent, such findings be ascertained and applied in
your decision making. Therefore, he recommends to the Board the following resolution.
“We, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, in affirmation of the Board's dedication to
its public obligation to provide sound and effective governance, hereby declare our resolve
to 1) base decisions upon the best available information, in accord with the consensus of
credentialed scientific sources where applicable; and 2) expect speakers or participants in
its proceedings to cite a recognized scientific source if asserting or contesting a matter of
science.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Moore thanked all of our veterans and servicemen and women for
serving our Country.
Supervisor Bedrosian commented it was great evening tonight; a lot of
participation on a lot of different issues and as he always states that is what government is
about; get the people involved. We may agree and disagree that is fine; he has been on the
end of losing votes so he is okay with it. He would like to say a few things. As you know,
the issue of prayer has come back up with the Supreme Court decision and would like our
attorney the next time we meet to review our current policy and how it compares to the
Court decision. If our attorney could kind of review that and take out the pertinent pieces of
that and compare it with the current policy we have in Roanoke County he would really
appreciate. We could do that right down here and just kind of review it. Another item that
he would like to do in a work session is we did remove funding for ICLEI. We have not
really talked much about in during the budget. It is kind of one those areas that went by
today and thinks we need a confirmation that the costs associated with ICLEI were also
removed. Some of it was a little ambiguous; when talking about a $1,200 fee that we paid
to get the software, but when we really looked behind it there was really $70,000 that the
County actually allocated to implementing ICLEI in people’s time, etc. He just wants to
make sure that is actually out of our budget. Then, what he would like to do and a speaker
just talked about it here to create an organization, a group of citizens, and his suggestion
would be since RCCLEAR came about from ICLEI in the beginning that we start from
scratch and really get a clean air, clean water local citizen group that really concentrated on
those issues. He thinks the divisive thing that has been here is the whole thing about
manmade global warming and carbon footprints, etc. He thinks that has kind of muddied
the waters a little bit. It has gotten us off into different people’s beliefs and thought process
and none of it scientific fact; it is theory and an evolving theory. Just by the fact that we
keep changing what is happening, freezing, warming and then it is just climate. So, he
would suggest that we start fresh and thinks now would be a good time to do it; let’s get a
group that all of us would have a vested interest in appointing people to. Let’s talk about
the real issue. When you really talk about our environment, what people are really
May 27, 2014
451
interested in is clear air and clean water and he is all for that. So, let’s find the areas we
agree on and create a group that will help us move forward and that way we would have
one hundred percent (100%) buy in on that. In closing, he has gone through his first budget
this year and he has learned a lot and does have a difficulty himself looking at things
differently than he does at home. It is just the kind of guy he is; he is a pretty simple
person. If he does not have it, he waits until he saves up for it and then he gets it. If he
does have to encumber debt, which he does, if he has to buy something a car that is
$15,000 to $20,000; he does not have it, but he immediately pays it off. This is just the way
he has been raised and he finds himself very rich because of it. That is just the way he
looks at his personal life and the way to do things. He is not encumbered by debt, interest
and all that. It is a very liberating way to live. So, he brings those views to the Board and
really would like to do that for us to lessen the amount of debt that we have and the amount
of debt that we carry because it isn’t free. He keeps mentioning the interest payments. We
pay the interest payments because we have to and there is so many other things that we
could do with those interest dollars. Our budget this year, the reason he voted against it, it
is very difficult when we keep raising the budget. This year we raised it $3.5 million, roughly
two percent (2%). He advised he keeps trying to find efficiencies in government where we
can become more efficient and still do some things we want to do and not keep raising the
level of government. He has been told we need to raise it four or five percent (4 or 5%)
every year just to keep up. He is thinking, wow, if we do that we are going to have a huge
budget and we are going to have to keep taxes high in order to pay for everything. That is
the issue he has; our budget is getting bigger and bigger and he just thinks we need to start
giving some money back to the people. He advised he tried to push for a real estate tax
rate reduction. He hopes our Board when we start looking at the next budget, where are we
going to get this money and put money aside so we can start reducing the tax rates. He
thinks that would be a good thing and would attract a lot of people to Roanoke County if we
really had a plan for reducing our tax rates. Finally, the school project came up this year
and he must admit and he is going to be real blunt. He is a homeschooled dad. He has a
very different perspective about education. He goes to a church that has a private school
attached to it; Roanoke Valley Christian School. He does look at education very differently.
He looks at it that it does not have to be that expensive. We pay $10,000 a child for
government education. We homeschool three of our children for $1,500 a year and we
have the best curriculum in the world with the best teachers. All he is saying is that he has
grown up with five (5) children and has educated them all, one is at Liberty University now
and does well; all home schooled and he sees there are other alternatives. We are in the
st
21 century, technology is there. He sees buildings and we keep building these buildings,
$25 million, $40 million and he guesses that is what bothers him. It is not that he does not
want children educated; not that he does not want things for them, but sees it as money that
we have to keep borrowing in order to do it. So, he brings that point up because he has
seen how education is done in a different environment. In ninety-five percent (95%) of the
schools in the Roanoke Valley, it is less expensive than our schools, i.e. less expensive
than the $10,000 that we spend in the County for schools. How are they doing it? They
have such small economies to scale. A school like Roanoke Valley Christian School only
May 27, 2014
452
has three hundred (300) children in it. They do not have the huge economies of scale that
the County does, but somehow they can provide an education for less. They do it with all
kinds of children in the school. He just wants people to understand. We disagree on things;
it is not that one person does not like the children and one person does, it is different. It is
different perspectives on how we have grown up and raised our children and how we have
done things and he just wants to say there are different ways of doing things that may help
us. Tough times are coming up; economies are still tough. We have to find new and
innovative ways to do things, not just doing it same always.
Supervisor Church stated he has asked four or five maybe six or seven times
to hold our work session in the Board room. Let’s put a new business item on the next
meeting so we can put this thing to bed once and for all. He looks around and sees what
we should be looking at upstairs. This comes with many, many requests from citizens like
the library issue was asked for. This has been for a number of years where we have room
upstairs that at best can hold six or eight ( 6 or 8) citizens. We even had the County
Administrator reconfigure the chairs, trying to make the room look bigger and he was asked,
“Did you increase the size of the room”? No he did not. This means that we cannot get
people in there. People are uncomfortable. They have to trip over staff. The ones of you
that come upstairs know what he is talking about and there are many like you that quit
coming. They cannot get in; they cannot see who is speaking. The backs of the presenters
are usually to the audience. They do not feel included in the meeting. You cannot see the
faces nor hear what is being said by Board members and here you have over one hundred
(100) seats. It does not have to be televised. Nothing changes. You have microphones,
you can see what is going on, you can be comfortable. If you want to leave, nobody knows
you are going. If you want to go to the restroom, that is fine. Upstairs is a balancing act as
you are tripping over and walking in front of people. We are being very inconsiderate as
Board in his opinion to not hold all of our meeting down here. There is nothing that should
distract us from doing that. He cannot think of one item, not one and he has been asking
for what seems like forever. Please put on the next meeting for a vote and hopes and prays
that our Board will take a look at and do what is right for our people. That way, we will have
more than three or four (3 or 4) come to the work session. Something was mentioned about
the Supreme Court. He asked Mr. Mahoney to make two changes that we should be able
to do quite easily. First, bring the invocation back into the parameters of our meeting. He
thinks the Supreme Court made that clear; no question. Secondly, eliminate the
requirement that we have been doing of our Clerk having to go to a fifty or sixty (50 or 60)
mile radius, which is the requirement in trying to find clergymen. We should be able to find
them in Bedford, Roanoke Botetourt, Salem whatever. Commonsense should dictate those
two changes. Lastly, he wanted to say thanks to our veterans. Over the weekend, he was
able to see quite a few. We are losing our veterans every day; each time the D-Day
Memorial comes up there are missing faces and missing people. He believes our country is
going backwards when it comes to our vets and the ones who have died, their families have
died, they are crippled, maimed and they are coming back and have no idea what to expect
when they get back. He advised his long-time friend, Bob Slaughter, the D-Day Memorial is
his “baby.” He was his coach, a giant of a man. He had a vision to try and restore a site to
May 27, 2014
453
forever honor. You see these articles on television and it really disturbs me. When
stopping people on the street and asking them what are our houses of Congress called.
How many people do we have? Who is the Vice President? Who is your State Senator?
Hardly any know, but if you ask them who Miley Cyrus or Justin Bieber is, that is the people
they recognize. If you hold up a picture of Joe Biden, and some of the names are
unbelievably. He stated he really believes our nature is losing his heritage. He really
wished there was a requirement, it may be, teach what really happened in World War I and
II. Teach our children, let the veterans come more often. Tell them a story that they won’t
forget. They shouldn’t only learn about it from their uncle or a grandfather. We need to do
what we can as a County government to never forget, never forget what these men and
women have done for us.
Supervisor Peters stated he has been a part of a citizens group since 2006
who along with this Board who was very active with it, the Vinton Roanoke County Veterans
Monument that we established in Vinton at the war memorial site. That too is there for
those who serve and have served. Memorial Day is set aside for those who have lost their
life to fight for our country; to fight for the freedoms that every one of us enjoy. So, he also
adds his thanks to the veterans and to those who have lost their loved on. The sacrifice
does not go unnoticed. He then stated he wanted to make some comments similar to what
Mr. Bedrosian brought up on the RCCLEAR group. We have asked for a work session and
hopefully at the next meeting to address reevaluating their bylaws and what they are going
to be accomplishing with the County. He hopes that will be of great benefit to us.
RCCLEAR does have a seat at the table with the Board and he thinks they can add a lot of
insight to where we need to go. The other issue is the budget. He shared his comments
earlier that staff has done a great job putting it together, we gave some parameters to Clay
and he passes it down, but there are a lot of areas in the budget that he wants to get a little
deeper into. He actually has begun a process of getting citizen input and tonight he is
asking publically if there are any citizens who would like to join him in this, please let him
know. It is a citizen group just for him as he is beginning to look at the budget for next year
and things that are important to the citizens. What do we need to look at and what do we
need to change and where do we need to dig a little deeper.
Chairman McNamara stated he had a couple of comments. He wanted to
touch base on a few things the Board did today. First he would like to reassure people. He
thinks the gentleman from Vinton did well when he said we are taking a very large book; a
very large complicated book, which we have varying levels of understanding on. There is a
lot of interpretation in this book and simplifying it down to five (5) pages. He thinks that is
appropriate and the right thing to do. Unfortunately, we had to utilize that knowledge today
relative to getting a budget passed and that is unfortunate. He does want to touch base on
that. The implication is some late night events that occur. Well, there is no late night
events and late night calls. What happened was the lady from Cave Spring has had an
interest and he has been aware of it for at least a month. The gentleman from Catawba
thth
was aware of it on April 6 or whatever date the document, May 6 perhaps, when the
memo went out on the cost for staffing libraries. He assumed that in the back of her
thought, if we could find a way to do it, it would be a great thing. She touched base with me
454 May 27, 2014
and he heard from folks who have an interest in opening libraries on Sunday in South
County. He is a frequent user of the library, a very frequent user of the library and has
driven to the library; not recently but has driven to the library on Sunday. He stated he now
knows they are closed on Sundays, but he has used the library in Salem. When we looked
at what it cost to reopen for a four (4) hour period, it was very low. It was a lot of money,
but in an overall scheme of things and the benefit we were providing to our citizens seemed
reasonable. He knows the lady from Cave Spring also touched based and talked to the
gentleman from Vinton. At exactly, the same time, he personally called all of the Board
members within minutes of one another when he got back into town and asked what they
thought of this idea if we can figure out how to do it within the budget and open libraries for
four or five (4 or 5) hours and maybe even look at opening several of the libraries, actually
four (4) of the libraries, maybe two (2) of the libraries, maybe three (3) of the libraries. So,
there was no secret dealings going on by any stretch of the imagination. The other thing he
wanted to point out is we are here to govern, we are here to lead, depending on what
number you say our budget is, if our budget is $365 million and you take out transfers, is it
$269 million, and is it the general fund. What number do we want to use as the
denominator. Let's say we use $198,000 as the general fund with some debt service funds,
we are talking about $89,000. To put that into perspective, let's say you have $100, this is
less than five (5) cents out of that $100 budget. So, it wasn't some huge portion of the
budget that we were changing, moving, reallocating or any way shape or form trying to do
anything fast and under the table. We often have changes to items on second reading as
we did on other items tonight on second reading. So, he thinks we had an opportunity to
very easily make that improvement. We decided to postpone that and had to go through
various reiterations of Robert's Rules just to get the budget passed and he appreciates
everyone's patience as we did work through that. One other thing, Ms. LaPrade talks about
our Board reports and being able to go right to certain areas. There is a way and perhaps
should be explained better on our website. There is a way where we can exactly go directly
to items. So, if Ms. LaPrade is still here after the meeting, if you want to come up here, he
would be more than happy to work through that with you. For the folks that are watching, if
you are using Google Chrome as a browser, the thumbnails do not work for whatever
reason. So, if you are using Google Chrome, download Internet Explorer and your
thumbnails, which will take you directly to the items referenced in the agenda should work.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman McNamara adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m.
S b itted by: Approved by:
1i "
•eiorah C. Jai J ph P. McNamara
Deputy Clerk t. e Board airman