Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/1/2005 - Special 257 March 1, 2005 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 March 1, 2005 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the th Roanoke County Administration Center, 4 Floor Conference Room, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia, this being an adjourned meeting from February 22, 2005, for the purpose of a budget work session. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order for the County of Roanoke at 5:38 p.m. The roll call was taken with Supervisor Church absent. Supervisor Church arrived at 5:43 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Michael W. Altizer, Vice-Chairman Michael A. Wray, Supervisors Joseph McNamara, Joseph B. Church, Richard C. Flora MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer; Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Teresa Hall, Public Information Officer; Mary V. Brandt, Acting Clerk to the Board 258 March 1, 2005 IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Mahoney requested the citation for the closed meeting be amended to add Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (6) discussion concerning investment of public funds where competition or bargaining is involved and if made public initially the financial interests of the County would be adversely affected, namely the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority, to provided a more accurate description of the subject. IN RE: WORK SESSION 1. Joint work session with Roanoke County Planning Commission to discuss the Community (Comprehensive) Plan. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney; Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) The work session was held from 5:40 p.m. until 5:55 p.m. Staff present included: Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; Janet Scheid, Chief Planner; Tim Beard, Planner; Anthony Ford, Traffic Engineer; David Holladay, Zoning Administrator; and Paul Mahoney, County Attorney. Planning Commission members present included: Martha Hooker, Chair; Steve Azar, Gary Jarrell, and Rodney McNeil. Ms. Scheid advised that the purpose of the joint work session was to brief the Planning Commission on the changes recommended by the Board to the Community Plan. She stated that she had provided a list of these changes to the Planning Commission as well as the two map amendments. She asked if the Planning 259 March 1, 2005 Commission members had any questions regarding the recommended changes. Chairperson Hooker stated that the Planning Commission had no questions or comments regarding the changes. Chairman Altizer asked if there were any other comments or questions. Supervisor Wray stated that he believed that stormwater management would need further review in the future. He also inquired how the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) would handle future water and sewer line extensions and if that should be included in the Community Plan. Chairman Altizer asked if there was a consensus to move forward. It was the consensus of the Board to move forward with the Community Plan. Janet Scheid advised that the plan would be brought to the Board for approval at the March 22 meeting. Mr. Mahoney responded to Supervisor Wray’s inquiry about water and sewer extensions. He stated that under the agreement between Roanoke County and the City of Roanoke, there was specific language whereby major extensions would have to be reviewed by the County under the Community Plan. He inquired if Supervisor Wray thought it was necessary to address each extension on a case-by-case basis. Supervisor Wray responded that he preferred a general procedure; and if such a procedure was in place, he felt that was sufficient. Mr. McNeil asked if the WVWA would do the planning for extensions or would the planning be done by the County? Chairman Altizer stated that any plans made by the WVWA would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and 260 March 1, 2005 approved by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Mahoney added that if a developer wanted to extend water and sewer lines in the County, he envisioned that the developer would go to the WVWA first to find out if the WVWA was interested in extending lines and then come to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for approval. If the County decided to extend water and sewer to a certain portion of the County, the process would be similar. Mr. Hodge stated that the procedure needed to be clarified to prevent costly mistakes. Mr. Mahoney reported that other localities put major water and sewer line projects in their Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) adding that this type of project should be a part of the County’s long-range planning. Mr. Mahoney suggested further discussion with Community Development staff to find out how they envision the planning process working. It was the consensus of the Board that a procedure for water and sewer line extensions be developed. Mr. Mahoney was directed to schedule a public hearing for public comments on the CIP for the March 22 meeting. 2. Work session to discuss fiscal year 2005-2006 budget development. (Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) The work session was held from 5:58 p.m. until 7:45 p.m. Staff present included: John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Daniel O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Brent Robertson, Management and Budget Director; Ray 261 March 1, 2005 Lavinder, Police Chief; Rick Burch, Fire and Rescue Chief; Steve Simon, Fire and Rescue Division Chief; Chad Sweeney, Budget Administrator; Cathy Tomlin, Budget Analyst. Mr. Hodge reported that he had two areas of concern that needed to be addressed. The first is competitive salaries for the Police and Fire and Rescue Departments. Mr. Hodge advised that this would be discussed in further detail as part of a work session on employee benefits. He added that Senate Bill (SB) 873 which passed recently will have a tremendous impact on salaries. He reported his second concern is funding for ten additional police vehicles. Mr. Robertson advised the Board that the Police and Fire and Rescue Department budgets were presented in a draft format similar to a business plan and included short-term and long-term strategic goals. Supervisor McNamara asked if these were actual recommendations from staff. Mr. Robertson responded that these are tentative recommendations only. Supervisor Wray inquired how grants were figured into the operating budgets. Mr. Robertson reported that self-funded grants are placed in a separate fund, but grants requiring matching funds from the County are reflected in the operating budget. Supervisor Church inquired what effect the new public safety building will have on the budget. Mr. Hodge replied that the operating expenses for the new building are still being developed and are not available in great detail yet; however they will not need to be factored into the budget for approximately three years. Supervisor Church 262 March 1, 2005 suggested that projections for the public safety building be incorporated into the current budget. Police Department Budget Presentation. Chief Lavinder reported that completive salaries were an important issue for the department to avoid losing personnel to other localities. He advised that the Human Resources Department is undertaking a benchmark salary study with neighboring localities to address the issue. He added that additional money for overtime pay was also needed. He reported that officers worked approximately 12,000 hours of overtime last year, but the department was only able to pay them for approximately 5,000 of those hours. The remaining overtime had to given to the officers as compensatory (comp) time. Chief Lavinder stated that is the equivalent of losing 4 full-time officers for a year. He reported that he had requested $130,000 for overtime pay, but that the actual amount is $152,000. Chief Lavinder reported that with SB 873, the General Assembly has recently mandated that overtime compensation for police officers must be calculated using the same method used to compensate fire and rescue personnel. Chairman Altizer inquired if that meant the County will no longer be able to give officers comp time. Chief Lavinder responded that it would still be possible to give officers comp time but the method of determining overtime hours will change. 263 March 1, 2005 Supervisor Wray asked what the actual amount in last year’s budget was for overtime. Chief Lavinder reported that last year overtime was budgeted at $108,300 and that $107,100 was actually paid. Mr. Hodge asked Chief Lavinder if the additional funding he has requested would cover the normal increase in workload, overtime pay, and the changes due to SB 873. Chief Lavinder responded that it would. Mr. Hodge asked the Chief if he needed additional staffing beyond the six grant funded positions. Chief Lavinder responded negatively. Supervisor Church inquired what personnel grade was most susceptible to turnover. Chief Lavinder responded that the three-to-five year uniformed officers were the most at risk. Supervisor Church asked if something could be done to target the at- risk grade without being unfair to other grades. Chief Lavinder responded that he was working with the Human Resources Department to address that issue. Mr. Hodge advised that Human Resources benchmarks the department against neighboring localities to get comparable salaries. He added that to keep pace with the city and other neighboring localities, the department is going to need somewhere between $40,000 and $80,000. Supervisor McNamara advised that he is concerned when turnover becomes excessive in departments with lengthy training periods such as Police or Fire and Rescue. He stated that turnover should drive pricing and that other factors may help affect turnover such as job satisfaction and benefits. Supervisor McNamara 264 March 1, 2005 inquired if a college degree was still a hiring requirement. Chief Lavinder replied that was no longer a requirement. Supervisor McNamara inquired if that helped with recruiting. Chief Lavinder reported that the department looks at 20 people for every one hired. He added that there is not a good pool of applicants due to the strong economy and the demanding schedule. Chairman Altizer inquired what the turnover rate was currently. Chief Lavinder responded that it was very low. Supervisor Wray inquired what other things can be done to improve retention such as opportunities for promotion. Chief Lavinder reported that opportunities for promotion are good since the department’s policy is to promote from within whenever possible. Mr. Hodge inquired what segment of the department’s work is growing fastest. Chief Lavinder responded that there has been a decrease in bad checks and an increase in identity theft. Supervisor Wray asked if all patrol cars have computers. Chief Lavinder reported that 50 percent of marked cars have computers on board and that the goal is to eventually have all vehicles equipped with them. Chairman Altizer inquired why there had been such a large increase in training. Chief Lavinder responded that the department was currently receiving $48,000 for training, but the department has to pay the academy dues of approximately $27,000 and that leaves approximately $20,000 for the additional training needs of 155 people or $140 per person. 265 March 1, 2005 Supervisor Flora suggested that a market analysis be performed for both the Police and Fire and Rescue Departments to make sure each department receives equal treatment. He asked if the County is paying overtime based on federal legislation. Chief Burch stated that the Fire and Rescue Department follows federal standards. Mr. Mahoney advised that the General Assembly has added a requirement to the Fair Labor Standards Act defining how over time hours are determined. Chief Lavinder reported that he is asking for six new patrol cars to cover the new grant positions. He advised that the cost is approximately $38,000 for the new vehicles. He stated that the fleet needs to be updated, and he is hoping that the Board will consider funding two additional vehicles as fleet replacements. Mr. Hodge advised that the funding for replacement vehicles is included in the police budget. He reported that the department needs twenty vehicles but has budgeted for ten; and he requested that the Board fund the ten additional vehicles this year and consider additional funding in the future for fleet replacements. Chief Lavinder advised that the department tries to replace vehicles after 5 years and/or 100,000 miles on emergency vehicles. Mr. Chambliss added that the Vehicle Replacement Committee attempts to place older vehicles with departments that don’t need a new vehicle. Mr. Hodge reported that the six grant funded positions will enable the County to add a new police district. 266 March 1, 2005 Supervisor McNamara asked if District 3 would be split. Chief Lavinder reported that the department plans to create a new police district around the Wal-Mart store on Route 460 since the number one call for service is the parking lot of the Wal- Mart. This will help the eastern district of Vinton as well as the Peters Creek Road area and the Catawba district. Chairman Altizer asked how life threatening response time compared to last year. Chief Lavinder replied that it has gone up by a minute or so due to an increase in calls for service. He advised that the solution to increased response times is adding personnel and police districts. Fire and Rescue Department Budget Presentation. Mr. Robertson advised that the Fire and Rescue Department’s budget presentation would be similar in format to the Police Department’s budget presentation. He noted there had been a request at the last meeting to go over the fee for service rates. Supervisor Flora asked whether the salaries contained the annual raise. Mr. Robertson responded that raises were not reflected in the salary figures. Supervisor Flora requested that the annual raise be included in the actual budget. Mr. Robertson stated that he would make the necessary revisions. Chief Burch reviewed the new proposed mutual aid agreement between the County and City to provide reciprocal services in the areas around the Hollins and Mount Pleasant Stations in the County and Stations 11 and 13 in the City. He reported 267 March 1, 2005 that this agreement not only provides mutual benefits to both jurisdictions and service enhancements for the citizens, but it expands regional cooperation. Chief Burch reported that to implement this agreement, eight paramedic/firefighter positions will be required. The fee for ambulance transport revenue, with adopted increases, is projected to be sufficient to cover this amount. Supervisor Flora noted that with the exception of a small increase in fire equipment and supplies, the balance of the department’s operating budget is additional personnel. Chief Burch reviewed the ambulance transport fee projections and the recommendations for the proposed fee increase. He began by identifying the payers in the system and the percentage each is paying. He reviewed the fees currently charged by the County, the City of Roanoke, and Medicare for each type of service as well as current mileage charges. Chief Burch proposed that the County raise its charges to match the Medicare maximum rates rounded off to an even figure. Chief Burch reviewed the projected collections for fiscal year (FY) 05-06. He noted that $300,000 has been allocated to implement a new data reporting system for Medicare compliance. He advised that he would bring a funding request for this system to the Board at the March 22 meeting. He reported that if this request is approved, the department plans to have the system in place by July 1, 2005. Supervisor Flora asked if the data reporting system had been discussed in a previous work session. Chief Burch responded that it had been discussed during the 268 March 1, 2005 CIP presentation. Mr. Hodge reported that the CIP committee had reviewed the issue and recommended that it be addressed immediately. He added that the request for funding is on the agenda for the March 22 meeting. Chief Burch reported that due to the projected increase in calls, the Medicare fee schedule increase, and the implementation of the County’s proposed fee increase, the department will be able to fund ten new positions. Chief Burch advised that the two options for the proposed fee increase are matching either the City’s rates or Medicare’s rates. He noted that either scenario will allow fire and rescue to hire two additional people for a total of twelve new positions. Supervisor Flora inquired if the fee for transport revenue has to be used for fire and rescue purposes or could a part of these fees be set aside for capital expenditures. Chief Burch reported that excess fee revenues for the last two years had been used to purchase a new paging system currently being implemented. Ms. Hyatt added that $400,000 goes to debt service for the new public safety building. Mr. Hodge asked the Board for their direction. Supervisor Flora noted that enhanced coverage for the Back Creek Station was needed to improve service in the Cave Spring and Bent Mountain areas. Chief Burch advised that four additional firefighter positions would be necessary to provide the enhanced coverage. Mr. Hodge advised that a resolution would be required for the rate increase and a separate action would be needed to approve funding for the purchase of 269 March 1, 2005 the recording system. He added that he would bring this matter to the Board at the March 8 meeting. Mr. Hodge reported that the Board will need to approve an agreement between Roanoke County and Roanoke City to provide mutual aid as agreed as well as a personnel request for the necessary staffing. He stated that he would present these items at the joint meeting with Roanoke City on Monday since the City will also have to execute the agreement. Chief Burch asked if the Board preferred to match the Roanoke City rate or the Medicare rate. Supervisor McNamara stated that matching the City rate would allow all citizens to pay the same amount regardless of jurisdiction. It was the consensus of the Board to match the City’s rates. Chief Burch reported that he supports the proposed pay plan study that the Human Resources Department has been working on. He noted that there is a high demand for skilled fire and rescue personnel in most jurisdictions but added that the department hasn’t lost any personnel yet. Chief Burch advised that increasing the department’s support staffing is a priority. The department has grown in size and has high training requirements. He reported that the department has been sending personnel elsewhere for training and paying overtime to outside instructors. He added that the department also needs a full- time person to work with the new CAD system. 270 March 1, 2005 Chief Burch reported that additional funds were required for building maintenance, and that some of the fire stations are in poor condition. He added that the CIP Review Committee agreed that the department has maintenance issues that need to be addressed. Supervisor Wray asked if the Homeland Security Manager position would be funded by federal grants. Chief Burch responded that federal funds were no longer available for salaries so the County has to absorb the cost. Mr. Hodge noted that grants are becoming more regional in nature. Chief Burch stated that in the future localities receiving federal homeland security grants will be required to meet federal standards to continue to receive funding. Supervisor Altizer asked how many new vehicles would be purchased with the requested funding. Chief Burch responded that the department planned to purchase three vehicles including radios for the new positions. Prioritization for the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Robertson reported that the funding stream resulting from E-911 fees is decreasing and will need to be addressed in the next few years. These fees are used for recapitalization of the E-911 center as well as personnel and maintenance costs. He added that legislation may be passed in the next year that will alter what percentage of these fees localities will be allowed to keep in the future. Mr. Mahoney advised that voice over internet protocol (VOIP) will also erode the funding stream as it gradually gains market share. 271 March 1, 2005 Mr. Robertson advised that the CIP report is a draft document for the Board to use as a tool for prioritizing the projects submitted to the committee. He reported that there were three sections he wanted to bring to the attention of the Board. The first section contains a five-year cost summary. This section presents the requests as submitted by each department. He reported that many of the projects submitted by the departments have requested funding within the next year or two which is not possible with the current funding stream. The second section is approximately 80 to 90 pages long and contains all 65 projects including the project details and justification. The third section contains the CIP review committee’s evaluations and recommendations. Mr. Robertson advised that the next step is for the Board and staff to evaluate and prioritize these projects within the next year taking into consideration the existing funding stream. He noted that many of these projects are already funded. Supervisor McNamara suggested that the projects be prioritized first, listed in order from top to bottom, and assigned funding based on the funding structure that the County has established with the school system. He noted that the first $20 million is earmarked for the new regional jail. Mr. Hodge advised that the next big capital project would be the public safety building. Supervisor Altizer requested that the highest-ranking projects in each of the four categories in Section 3 be identified. 272 March 1, 2005 Supervisor McNamara suggested removing currently funded projects from the list and prioritizing the remaining projects. Mr. Robertson agreed to do so. Supervisor McNamara then suggested that one method of prioritizing the projects would involve looking at the total funding available within each grouping and allocating a percentage of the funds to each type of project, Phase I, Phase II, etc. The next step would be to compare those figures to the existing revenue stream and then make adjustments. Supervisor Flora stated that he didn’t feel that some of the projects on the list belonged there. He suggested setting a limit for major capital projects rather than allowing all projects to compete for the same funds. Ms. Hyatt advised that major capital projects had been defined as those costing $500,000 or more, but that had been determined after the CIP committee began their review. She suggested that the criteria be revised next year. Supervisor McNamara noted that might create difficulties for a department with a small budget. Supervisor Flora responded that smaller projects could be funded through the minor capital account set aside from excess year-end revenue. Mr. Hodge asked if operating costs were reflected in the project figures. Mr. Robertson responded that operating costs are identified on the individual project sheets with capital costs listed first and then the associated operating costs underneath. Mr. Robertson advised that this is a draft document that will change. He added that he had received sufficient direction from the Board, and he would make the 273 March 1, 2005 requested changes and bring a revised version back to the Board. Supervisor McNamara noted that, after the revision, the list should go from 50 projects to 20 projects. Supervisor Flora suggested that the projects also be ranked by how beneficial the project is to all citizens or the County as a whole. Mr. Robertson replied that had been one of the grading criteria, and that it would be possible to rank the projects in the manner suggested. Mr. Robertson distributed the capital maintenance recommendations made by the Committee. He reported that the Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Department as well as the General Services Department maintain a list of capital maintenance projects he wanted to look at in more depth. Mr. Hodge suggested that these needs should be reviewed as a part of those department’s budget presentations. Mr. Robertson stated that he would implement the Board’s recommendations and have the revisions ready for the Board’s review by the March 29 meeting. It was the consensus of the Board that the process move forward. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 7:46 p.m., Chairman Altizer moved to go into closed meeting pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (5) discussion concerning a prospective business or industry where no previous announcement has been made, and pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (6) discussion concerning investment of public funds where competition or bargaining is involved and if made public initially the 274 March 1, 2005 financial interests of the County would be adversely affected, namely the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: CLOSED MEETING The closed meeting was held from 7:50 p.m. until 8:43 p.m. IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R-030105-1 At 8:43 p.m. Supervisor Flora moved to return to open session and adopt the certification resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None RESOLUTION 030105-1 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 members 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 March 1, 2005 275 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None IN RE: ADJOURNMENT At 8:45 p.m. Supervisor McNamara moved to adjourn the meeting to Monday, March 7, 2005, at 12:00 p.m. for the purpose of a joint meeting with Roanoke City Council, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, Room 159, Roanoke, VA 24011. The motion carried by the following voice vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None Submitted by: Approved by: . Brandt Clerk to the Board ~ z+.Ikz- Michael W. Altizer ~ Chairman 276 March 1, 2005 This page intentionally left blank