Loading...
December 08, 1982 Regular Meeting719 A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on December 8, 1982, at 7:00 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT S. Roger Koontz, Chairman; Will L. Owings, Vice- Chairman; William H. Baker; Rhoda W. Maddox; David L. Smith and Kenneth Y. Stiles. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order. VOCATION The invocation was delivered by the Reverend Conrad Christianson of the Bethel Lutheran Church. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Baker stated that he had a memo from Mr. John Horne that he would like to add under "Planning Commission Business ". Mrs. Maddox stated that upon the arrival of Mr. Ambrogi, Commonwealth's Attorney, she would like for him to comment on an article that had appeared in the local newspaper. Mr. Stiles stated that he too had a question for the Commonwealth's Attorney. Mr. Koontz stated that he had a comment under "New Business ". Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles, seconded by David L. Smith and passed unanimously, the agenda was adopted as amended. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Will L. Owings and passed unanimously, the minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 10, 1982 were approved as submitted. MRS. PHOEBE SEAMAN APPOINTED TO THE CHAPTER 10 BOARD - APPROVED Mr. Owings stated that Mrs. Catherine Monte has served for two terms on the Chapter 10 Board and according to their By -Laws she cannot be reappoint- ed. He further stated that he would like to thank Mrs. Monte for her years of service on the Board and he asked that a letter of appreciation be sent to Mrs. Monte from the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Owings further stated that he would like to nominate Mrs. Phoebe Seaman of Middletown to serve on the Chapter 10 Board as one of the County's representatives. Upon motion made by Will L. Owings, seconded by William H. Baker and passed unanimously, that Mrs. Phoebe Seaman be appointed to the Chapter 10 "4 720 Board for a four year term, said term to commence on January 1, 1983 and terminate on December 31, 1986. RECOMMENDATION TO CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF Z ONING APPEALS - TABLED Mr. H. C. Christianson's term on the Board of Zoning Appeals expires December 31, 1982. The Board discussed this reappointment and decided to wait until the January 12, 1983 meeting to make a recommendation to the Circuit Court Judge for the reappointment /appointment to the Board of Zoning Appeals. DAVID SCHWEMER, DIRECTOR, NORTHWESTERN COMMUNITY SERVICES, ADDRESSES BOARD Mr. David Schwemer appeared before the Board and introduced the follow- ing Board and Staff members to the Board of Supervisors: Mrs. Catherine Monte, Mrs. Nancy Omps and Staff member Elaine Urin. Mr. Schwemer stated that he would like to recognize Mrs. Monte for her years of service on the Chapter 10 Board. Mrs. Nancy Omps appeared before the Board and gave a brief outline of the activities of the Chapter 10 Board during the past year. Mrs. Elaine Urin, Staff member, appeared before the Board and presented an Annual Report of the Chapter 10 activities and gave a copy of this report to each of the Board members for their information. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - APPROVED Mr. John Horne appeared before the Board and stated that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan. Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Will L. Owings and passed unanimously, the Comprehensive Plan, as presented at the Public Hearing on November 17, 1982, be approved. UEST BY THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND NSPORTATION FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF A SMALL SECTION 20UTE 803 INTO THE SECONDARY SYSTEM - APPROVED Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Rhoda W. Maddox and passed unanimously, the following resolution was approved: WHEREAS, the Frederick County Road Viewers, on November 29, 1978, recommended to the Board of Supervisors that the Board request that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation accept a section of a road extending North of Route 803 into the Secondary Road System as a Rural Addition; and, WHEREAS, the Board does hereby guarantee the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation unobstructed right of way of forty (40) feet for maintenance of said roadway along with all cuts and fills, as evidenced in deed recorded in Deed Book 554, page 226, in the Office of the Frederick County Clerk of the Circuit Court. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the 721 County of Frederick, Virginia, requests that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation accept a short section of road extending North from Route 803, opposite Route 654, in the Back Creek Magisterial District, into the Secondary Road System as a Rural Addition. COMMONWEALTH'S AGAINST COUNT` TTORNEY DISCUSSES SETTLEMENT OF LAWSUIT Mrs. Maddox stated that an article had appeared in the newspaper with reference to a lawsuit that had been brought against the County and various members of the County Staff at the Jail, the article stated that a settle- ment of $6,000.00 was paid by the County and she would like for Mr. Ambrogi to explain that this was in fact paid by the Insurance Company and not from County funds. Mr. Ambrogi stated that the $6,000.00 was paid by the Insurance Company as part of the Sheriffs Association Plan. He stated that the bill that had been submitted from his Office for $905.00 was for his fees for representing the County and not the individuals named in the suit. Upon motion made by Will L. Owings, seconded by David L. Smith and passed unanimously, that the statement submitted by the Commonwealth's Attorney in the amount of $905.00 for services performed in the Court case of Carl Shoji Hamilton vs. Roscoe Bruce, et als. be approved for payment. ADVERTISEMENT OF 1981 -82 AUDIT - APPROVED Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Will L. Owings and passed unanimously, that the 1981 -82 Audit be advertised as prepared by the firm of Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates. STATE SUPREME COURT RULES IN CASE OF KOONTZ AND MALC AND THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE ON SCHOOL BOARD APPOI NTMENTS Mr. Stiles asked Mr. Ambrogi if he had received a written opinion in the case of Board members S. Roger Koontz and R. Thomas Malcolm and their right to vote on School Board appointments. Mr. Ambrogi stated that he had received a written opinion and the Court stated that they would not be allowed to vote on School Board appoint- ments. Mr. Stiles requested that this opinion be made part of the record. The opinion follows: Present: All the Justices LAWRENCE R. AMBROGI, ETC. -v- Record No. 801408 OPINION BY JUSTICE GEORGE M. COCHRAN December 3, 1982 722 S. ROGER KOONTZ, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FREDERICK COUNTY Robert K. Woltz, Judge S. Roger Koontz and R. Thomas Malcolm, who held administrative posi- tions in the public school system of Frederick County, filed a bill for declaratory judgment in the trial court against Lawrence R. Ambrogi, the Commonwealth's Attorney of the County. Koontz and Malcolm sought a determination whether, as members of the Board of Supervisors, they were prohibited by the Virginia Conflict of Interests Act (the Act), Code Section 2.1 -347 to - 358, from voting on the appointment of members to the County School Board. The facts were stipulated. Koontz, Chairman of the Board of Super- visors, was elected in 1975 and took office in January of 1976. He had been employed by the School Board continuously since 1951 and was a school principal at the time this suit was brought. Malcolm also was elected to the Board of Supervisors in 1975 and took office in January of 1976. He had been employed by the School Board continuously since 1965 and was a general supervisor of instruction when this litigation began. The Act became effective in 1970. Acts 1970, c. 463. Code Section 2.1 -352 provides in pertinent part as follows: Any officer or employee of any governmental agency or advisory agency who knows, or may reasonably be expected to know, that he has a material financial interest in any transaction, not of general application, in which the agency of which he is an officer or employee is or may be in any way concerned, shall disclose such interest to the governing board thereof, and disqualify himself from voting thereon or participating in any consideration thereof in behalf of such agency. As amended in 1971, Section 2.1 -348, the definition section of the Act, provides: As used in this chapter: (f) "Material financial interest" shall include a personal and pecuniary interest accruing to an officer or employee or to his spouse or to any other relative who resides in the same household. Notwithstanding the foregoing: (5) The provisions of this chapter relating to personal services or employment contracts shall not apply to any persons who were regularly employed by the same governmental agency or unit of government on or prior to June thirty, nineteen hundred seventy -one, with regard to personal service or employment contracts with such aovernmental aaencv or unit of government. (Emphasis added.) 723 The trial court, acknowledging that exemption from statutory restric- tions are "often" narrowly construed, was of the opinion that the exemption of Section 2.1 -348 (f)(5) was broadly drafted without limiting exceptions. The court ruled, therefore, that Koontz and Malcolm were exempted by this grandfather clause from the strictures of the Act. Without this exemption, the court added, Code Section 2.1-352 would have prohibited them from voting on the appointment of members to the School Board because, as School Board employees themselves, Koontz and Malcolm would have had a "material financial interest" in that "transaction ". By decree entered June 5, 1980, the court denied Ambrogi's Motion to Reconsider and declared that Koontz and Malcolm were exempt because each was regularly employed by the School Board on or before June 30, 1971. Ambrogi contends that the grandfather clause merely validates the personal service contracts of persons who on the effective date of the 1971 amendment were employed in a dual capacity otherwise proscribed by the Act. He says that Koontz and Malcolm were not exempted from the Act because, although regularly employed by the School Board on the effective date of the Act, they were not at that time members of the Board of Supervisors. Koontz and Malcolm argue that Section 2.1 -348 (f) (5) is clear and unanbiguous and was intended to exempt employment relationships existing at the effective date of the 1971 amendment from the definition of "material financial interest ". Since Section 2.1 -352 requires them to abstain from voting only when they have a "material financial interest" in the trans- action, they say that the effect of Section 2.1 -348 (f)(5) is to suspend the operation of Section 2.1 -352 where the "material financial interest" is created by a grandfathered employment relationship such as their employment by the School Board. Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous rules of statutory construction are not required. See Harbor Cruises v. Commonwealth 217 Va. 458, 460, 230 S. E. 2d 248, 250 (1976). However, Section 2.1 -348 (f) (5) must be read as a part of the entire Act rather than as an independent statute. Examining the language of Section 2.1 -348 (f)(5), we observe that it limits the Act's provisions "relating to personal service or employment contracts ". The grandfather clause states that such provisions "shall not apply to any persons" employed by the government before 1971 "with regard to personal service or employment contracts with such governmental agency or unit of government ". 724 The language of Section 2.1 -348 (f) (5) is ambiguous in two respects. First, whether Section 2.1 -352 is a provision "relating to personal service or employment contracts" is uncertain from the fact of the Act. Thus, although Section 2.1 -349.1 specifically refers to and deals with employment relationships, Section 2.1 -352, by contrast, makes no direct reference to employment relationships and focuses on conflicts in governmental decisionmaking. Second, whether the application of Section 2.1 -352 which Koontz and Malcolm seek to avoid is one "with regard to personal service or employment contracts" is also unclear from the statutory language alone. The phrase could mean the grandfather clause protects grandfathered employees only where the validity of their employment is directly challenged. Read this way, Section 2.1 -348 (f) (5) would not shelther Malcolm and Koontz in this case since their jobs are not threatened. Alternatively, the quoted words could suspend any application of the Act which directly or indirectly affects a grandfathered employment relationship. Under this interpretation, Malcolm and Koontz would be protected from the Act as the conflict in this case does arise out of employment relationships. Furthermore, allowing Koontz and Malcolm to vote on the selection of School Board members could indirectly affect their employment contracts with the School Board, just as barring them from voting would limit them in the performance of their duties as County Supervisors. When the proper construction of a law is not clear from the words of a statute, the legislative intent is to be "gathered from the occasion and necessity of the law, ... the causes which moved the Legislature to enact it ". Vicars v. Sayler 111 Va. 307, 309, 68 S. E. 988, 989 (1910) (quoting Fox's Adm'r v. Commonwealth 57 Va. (16 Gratt.) 1, 9 (1860)) ; see also Richmond v. Sutherland 114 Va. 688, 691 -93, 77 S. E. 470, 471 -72 (1913). We turn, therefore, to the legislative history of the Act, as the events that prompted this legislation may illuminate the intent of the General Assembly in enacting the grandfather clause. The Act in Section 2.1 -347 provided that it repealed and superseded all general and special acts which were inconsistent with it. Shortly after the adoption of the Act, the Attorney General ruled that the Act prohibited a governmental agency such as a School Board from employing persons who were married to each other or who were related and lived in the same household. The Attorney General concluded that the Act would invalidate certain pre- 725 existing employment contracts. See 1970 -71 Report of the Attorney General 439 (1970); 1969 -70 Report of the Attorney General 313 (1970). Under this construction, the new Act was apparently read as implicityly repealing Section 22 -206 (Repl. Vol. 1969) which had previously exempted from certain conflict -of- interest provisions teachers who were already employed by the School Board at the time that a conflict arose by virtue of a close relative's appointment to the School Board or selection as superintendent. The record in the present case reflects that in July of 1970, the Virginia Education Association, Incorporated, obtained a temporary injunc- tion in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond prohibiting the Common- wealth and the Attorney General from enforcing the provisions of the Act in derogation of the employment by the Commonwealth, or any of its boards, commissions, agencies, or committees, of husbands and wives and other relative residing in the same household. After the effective date of the 1971 amendment to the Act, the temporary injunction was dissolved and the cause dismissed on the ground that the issues in controversy had been mooted by the amendment. The 1971 amendment, Acts 1971, Ex. Sess., c. 176, added to Section 2.1 -348 (f) not only subparagraph (5) hereinabove set forth but also sub- paragraph (4) which read as follows: (4) The employment by the same governmental agency of an officer or employee and spouse or any other relative residing in the same household shall not be deemed to create a material financial interest except when one of such persons is employed in a direct supervisory and /or administrative position with respect to such spouse or other relative residing in his household and the annual salary of such subordinate is seventy -five hundred dollars or more. The amendment also explicitly repealed Section 22 -206 (Repl. Vol. 1969) and incorporated into the Act as Section 2.1 -349.1 its pertinent provisions prohibiting employment by a school board of persons closely related to the superintendent or a member of the school board, except for those employed before the superintendent or member took office. It thus appears that the legislative intent in 1971 was to protect those persons whose existing contractual rights had been jeopardized by the recent interpretations of the new Act by the Attorney General. Subparagraph (5) might reasonably be construed to apply only to members of the same household or certain closely related persons who on or prior to June 30, 1971 were regularly employed by the same governmental agency. So construed, 726 the preexisting contracts of such persons would be protected and the legislative purpose accomplished. We may assume, as the parties appear to have assumed, that if Koontz and Malcolm had been members of the Board of Supervisors and supervisory employees of the School Board on or before June 30, 1971, they would have been permitted, under the grandfather clause, to vote on members of the School Board. Even if that were the law we would nevertheless conclude in this case that, as they did not occupy their present dual positions on and before the deadline, there was no conflict, and the grandfather clause does not confer upon them exemption from the provisions of Section 2.1 -352. Furthermore, we observe that it was not their respective elections to the Board of Supervisors that subjected Koontz and Malcolm to the disclosure and abstention requirements of Section 2.1 -352. The conflict arose upon the subsequent determination by the voters of the County by referendum, which the record shows was held on November 7, 1978, pursuant to the provisions of Section 22 -79.4 (Repl. Vol. 1973), that members of the School Board should thereafter be appointed under Section 22 -79.3 (Repl. Vol. 1973) by the Board of Supervisors. Nevertheless, the conflict exists, and Koontz and Malcolm are not exempt under Section 2.1 -348 (f)(5) from compliance with the Act. Counsel for Koontz and Malcolm conceded in oral argument that under his theory his clients would be forever exempted from the restrictions of the Act under the grandfather clause. Thus, it logically follows, as he further acknowledged, that if public school employees were elected to a local governing body twenty years after the 1971 amendment became effective the immunity provided by Section 2.1 -348 (f)(5) would spring up and embrace them. We will attribute to the General Assembly no such unreasonable legislative intent. As an exception to the Act, we will construe this provision narrowly. See, e.g., Piedmont & Northern Ry. Co. v. ICC, 286 U. S. 299, 311 -12 (1932); USV Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Richardson 461 F. 2d 223 (4th Cir. 1972) (narrowly construing a grandfather clause exception), affd 412 U.S. 655 (1973); see generally 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction Section 47.08 -47.12 (C. Sands 4th ed. 1972). Furthermore, a statute should, if possible, be given a reasonable construction which will effect rather than defeat a legislative purpose evident from the history of the legislation. American Airlines, Inc. v. Battle 181 Va. 1, 8 -11, 23 S. E. 2d 796, 800 -01 (1943). We hold that the grandfathering provisions of Section 2.1 -348 (f)(5) apply only to contract rights in effect on June 30, 727 1971, and that they are inapplicable to the governmental conduct which Koontz and Malcolm seek to authorize in this suit. We think it is significant that Section 2.1 -352, which proscribes voting by governmental officials like Koontz and Malcolm on matters in which they have a "material financial interest ", was not altered in any way by the amendments of 1971. This is further evidence that the legislature did not intend by its changes in 1971 and particularly by Section 2.1 -348 (f)(5) to protect the conduct challenged in this case. Under Section 2.1 -352 Koontz and Malcolm are required to abstain from voting because, as employees of the School Board, they have a "material financial interest" in the appointment of School Board members. Their contracts of employment are negotiated individually with the School Board and are not, therefore, transactions of "general application" within the exception provided in Section 2.1 -352. We will reverse the decree of the trial court and enter a final decree here in favor of Ambrogi consistent with the views herein expressed. Reversed and final decree NEW BUSINESS Mr. Koontz asked Mr. Owings and Mrs. Maddox to meet with Mrs. Locke, Data Processing Director, to discuss a personnel matter within her Depart- ment. Mr. Owings stated that he felt this should be handled by the Personnel Committee. Mr. Baker requested that Mrs. Locke meet with Mrs. Bayliss and set up a meeting as soon as possible. CODE AND ENGINEERING COMMITTEE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. Owings, Chairman, presented the following report: The Code and Engineering Committee met on December 1, 1982 with all members present. The Committee makes the following report: Current Landfill Status The current Landfill status was discussed: 1. State Equipment has been advised of our desire to execute the buy- back agreement on the 250C. The only response has been some picture taking by a company representative. There was no action taken. 2. The 955L has been repaired and is operating satisfactorily. The bill was $36,212.91. Negotiations are on going with Virginia Tractor con- 728 cerning possible reduction in that cost. The tractor is in excellent shape and performing well. There was no action taken. 3. The State Department of Health (Division of Waste Management) has concurred verbally with our plans to use the recently opened ravine and to pile refuse as high as we consider practical. The Public Services Director will be confirming this agreement with them in writing shortly. The new ravine will require a ponding basin lined with clay and a clay lined ditch or corrugated drain line to our other basin. These are under construction now. These new areas should extend the life of the Landfill a minimum of at least 5 years from the present. There was no action taken. 4. The cash flow in the fund is satisfactory. There was no action taken. 5. The ripper was removed from the 955L while at Virginia Tractor's shop and the County has been offered $1,500 for it. (See Attachment) It is recommended that the County accept the offer and sell the equipment. Upon motion made by Will L. Owings, seconded by Rhoda W. Maddox and passed unanimously, that the above recommendation be approved. Container Sites 1. The conversion to the new system has been extremely smooth. All container sites have been changed. There was no action taken. 2. Two of the four compactor sites have been completed (Albin and Clearbrook). Fence repairs have been started. The sites at Route 11 Scales and Roundhill are scheduled for conversion the second week in December contingent upon equipment delivery. There was no action taken. 3. The County has approximately 75 old four and eight yard containers, most of which are in poor shape. A company from Pennsylvania has offered the County $12.50 a can regardless of condition or size. It is recommended that the Director of Public Services be authorized to sell the cans as scrap, retaining 4 of the better ones as spares. Mr. Harriman stated that he had since been contacted by other interested parties and he felt he could get more than $12.50 for the cans. The Board instructed Mr. Harriman to get the best price possible. 729 FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. Baker, Chairman, presented the following report: The Finance Committee met on December 7, 1982 with Mr. Will Owings and Mr. William Baker attending. Mr. Hugh Dailey was unable to attend. Budget Adjustment The Committee reviewed a budget adjustment request from the Parks and Recreation Director in the amount of $6,500.00 The Parks and Recreation Department expects to collect $9,000 in trips and excursion fees during the last six months of the fiscal year and $6,500 would be expended toward these trips. The Committee recommends approval. Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Will L. Owings and passed unanimously, the above recommendation was approved. Capital Improvement Plan The Committee reviewed a memo from the Planning and Finance Directors requesting a recommendation on the CIP list of projects as presented by the Planning Commission, and further suggesting that communication between the Finance Committee and all agencies be made concerning the status of the various project requests. The Committee recommends that the list of Capital Improvement Projects, as presented by the Planning Commission, be approved as to priority, and that the Planning Director draft a letter, for review by the Finance Committee, to be sent to the agencies notifying them of the status of the various projects. A recommendation on funding will come during the budget process. Report on Inspections Department The Committee reviewed the report on Inspection Department operations through October 31, 1982. The Committee noted that receipts should reach estimates for the year and if expenditures continue at the present rate a savings of approximately $40,000 will be achieved for the year. There was no action taken. Mr. Stiles stated that he would like to compliment the people respons- ible for this. Collection Fee on Delinquent Taxes A bill in the amount of $1,416.18 was presented from the Commonwealth's Attorney. This amount represents 5% of delinquent taxes collected during September and October, 1982. The Committee recommends approval. 733 Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Will L. Owings and passed unanimously, the above recommendation was approved. Request for Funds from Virginia Association of County Administrators The Committee reviewed a letter from the President of VACA requesting $75 to assist with a study comparing Virginia with other States regarding State funding for Constitutional Officers. The study would analyze problems associated with Virginia's system of financing Constitutional Officers and review the mechanisms for funding. The Committee recommends approval. Mr. Stiles stated that he had some problem with this even if it is only for $75.00 and that it would probably just stir up trouble with the Constitutional Officers. Upon motion made by William H. Baker and seconded by Will L. Owings the above request was passed by the following recorded vote: Aye - Will L. Owings, William H. Baker, Rhoda W. Maddox and S. Roger Koontz. Nay - Kenneth Y. Stiles and David L. Smith. Payment Schedule to Frederick - Winchester Service Authority The Committee reviewed a memorandum from the Secretary /Treasurer of the FWSA requesting payments totalling $85,000 for the current fiscal year. It is recommended that advances be made to the FWSA as requested: December 15, 1982 $28,000 March 14, 1983 28,000 June 15, 1983 29,000 It is further recommended that the same stipulations apply to these advances as has been applied to previous advances, in that advances are to be repaid when the Authority obtains sufficient working capital from operations and /or sale of bonds. Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Will L. Owings and passed unanimously, the above recommendations were approved. Transfer Requests The following appropriation transfer requests were reviewed by the Committee. These transfer requests are all within budgets prepared by the County Administrator, require no additional funds and are recommended for approval. Dept. Transfer Fm. Transfer To Amount Personnel Postage and Telephone Office Supplies 500.00 Bd. of Sup. Office Supplies Cent. Stores OS 1,500.00 Personnel Hospital /Med. Plans - 300.00 Bd. of Sup. - Hosp. Med. Plans 300.00 County Admin. Office Supplies Cent. Stores OS 1,000.00 731 County Admin. " " Cent. Stoes Gas 200.00 Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Will L. Owings and passed unanimously, the above recommendation was approved. Business and Professional Occupations License The Committee discussed the recently proposed BPOL Tax which will not be enacted during 1983. The Committee plans no further discussion during the upcoming budget sessions unless directed to do so by the Board. There was no action taken. Ten for Life Program The Committee reviewed a request from the Lord Fairfax Emergency Medical Services Council to support the Ten for Life Program being proposed in the 1983 Virginia General Assembly. The Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors support this proposal. Mr. Stiles asked where would this money be going to and would volunteer positions now become paid positions and before he would vote to approve this he would like to have this information, therefore he would like to table this request. Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles and seconded by David L. Smith that the "Ten for Life Program" be tabled until the next Board Meeting in order that more information might be obtained. The above resolution was denied by the following recorded vote: Aye - Kenneth Y. Stiles and David L. Smith. Nay - S. Roger Koontz, Will L. Owings, William H. Baker and Rhoda W. Maddox. Upon motion made by William H. Baker and seconded by Will L. Owings, that the above "Ten for Life Program" as recommended by the Finance Committee be approved. The above resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Aye - S. Roger Koontz, Will L. Owings, William H. Baker and Rhoda W. Maddox. Nay - Kenneth Y. Stiles and David L. Smith. Request for Copies of Board Minutes The Handley Library has requested that they be furnished copies of the Board of Supervisor's Minutes after each Board meeting. They would purchase microfilm copies of all previous Board Minutes so their records would be complete. The cost to the County, not counting staff time, would be approximately $4.40 per month based on 40 two -side copies. The City of Winchester furnishes the Library with copies of minutes of all regular Council meetings at no charge. 732 The Committee recommends that copies of Board of Supervisors Minutes for all Regular meetings be furnished the Handley Library free of charge. Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Will L. Owings and passed unanimously, the above recommendation was approved. JACK STRIMPLE RETAINED AS APPRAISER - APPROVED Mr. Ambrogi stated that an Appraiser would be needed in a particular Court case and that Mr. Strimple would be available to do this. Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles, seconded by David L. Smith and passed unanimously, that Mr. Jack Strimple be retained as an Appraiser not to exceed twenty hours at a rate of $20.00 per hour. BOARD RETIRES INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by Kenneth Y. Stiles, seconded by Rhoda W. Maddox and passed unanimously, the Board retired into Executive Session in accordance with Virginia Code Section 2.1 -344, Subsections A (1) and (6) to discuss Personnel and Legal matters. BOARD WITHDRAWS FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by Rhoda W. Maddox, seconded by David L. Smith and passed unanimously, the Board withdrew from Executive Session. BOARD RECONVENES INTO REGULAR SESSION Upon motion made by Rhoda W. Maddox, seconded by David L. Smith and passed unanimously, the Board reconvened into Regular Session. JOHN T. P. HORNE, ROBERT H. HARRIMAN AND CHARLES POE EVALUATIONS CERTIFIED Upon motion made by William H. Baker, seconded by Will L. Owings and passed unanimously, that Mr. John T. P. Horne, Planning Director; Mr. Robert H. Harriman, Public Services Director and Mr. Charles Poe, Division of Court Services Director evaluations be certified as submitted. UPON MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOW ADJOURN. irman, a d upervisor Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors