HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/29/1988 - Regular~~ ~~
G~
t ~
~ ~a~ ~Q ~
` ~
~ T
/G', /~ _ ~C.
~~~~G~ natic impact on
to the County
c
f :;
~ ~~~ / ,~ --
~
~
~
°
2
e
~ pies, the Board
~izens
t-l
-~JG~ _~~~ ~~
~J ,.
x~
j~
~
.~ a
arge
Y presentative of
3y this problem
c in for a future
~ ~ ~ acres of land
system and the new Sheriff's offices are located) whichnecould
easily accommodate the entire County and School Administrations.
The area is immediately adjacent to Interstate 81, Interstate
581, and the Peters Creek Road Expressway and less than two miles
from U.S. Route 460, State Highway 419, and the Roanoke Regional
Airport. This facility could be built with funds from the sale
of existing facilities and from funds which would have been
appropriated to renovate and upgrade existing facilities.
SUMMARY AND CAVEAT
The Commission's report is strategic in nature and represents
what the members believe are serious but resolvable business
opportunities for the County. The Commission's a
been as objective as possible and based on sound businessach has
ciples. The members realize that many varied factorsprand
pressures will influence the decision-making process. As a
result, the members have avoided any political or personal asser-
tions in this report.
Respectfully submitted this date. .~~L `~~y~
Edwin N. LeGard, ,Jr.
vti
v o~eph P. Hanc~erhan
ck L. Shelto
~~~ ~~
se C. Thomas, Sr.
AT AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 1988
RESOLUTION 32988-1 RESCINDING BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS' ACTION TAKEN AUGUST 25, 1987
AMENDING ACTION TAKEN ON MARCH 9, 1988 AND
REQUESTING THAT THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION DEALLOCATE $128,145 OF
INDUSTRIAL ACCESS ELIGIBILITY AND
REALLOCATE $128,145 OF INDUSTRIAL ACCESS
ELIGIBILITY TO THE VALLEYPOINTE PHASE I
PROJECT IN ROANOKE COUNTY.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows;
That having duly considered and previously authorized
an escrow agreement on August 25, 1987 for industrial access
funds in the amount of $128,145 for the development of Southwest
Industrial Park in Roanoke County; and that those funds were to
be secured by letter of credit to ensure that qualifying indus-
tries were to be located within the park; and,
That a County-State agreement was approved between
Roanoke County and the Virginia Department of Transportation on
October 6, 1987 setting forth the respective responsibilities of
both the County and State regarding the design and construction
of the road; and,
That the Virginia Department of Transportation by that
agreement will reimburse Roanoke County for eligible construction
and engineering items incurred subsequent to September 22, 1987
in the event that the County locates significant and qualifying
industries on the remaining tracts; and,
That the County has received a number of requests from
local non-qualifying companies and individuals desirous of improv-
ing the remaining tracts; and,
That the County has other projects in need of indus-
trial access improvements which have strong potential for attract-
ing significant qualifying industry; and,
That the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County have
taken action on March 9, 1988 also reminding action taken on
August 25, 1987; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, Roanoke County requests that the County-
State Agreement of October 6, 1987 be voided and the County
deallocate the use of industrial access funds in the amount of
$128,145 for the Southwest Industrial Park in Roanoke County, and
reallocate industrial access funds in the amount of $128,145 for
industrial access improvements to the Valleypointe Phase I
project in Roanoke County making the total industrial access
allocation of State funding to Valleypointe to be $449,645
($128,145 reallocation, plus $171,500 requested remaining
industrial access funds and $150,000 matching State funds as
described in resolution 2988-4 dated February 9, 1988).
That the Clerk of this Board forthwith transmit certi-
fied copies of this resolution together with any necessary and
support data to the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor
Nickens, and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Supervisor McGraw
. "
A COPY - TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
3/29/88
cc: File
Brent Sheffler, Economic Development Specialist
Timothy Gubala, Director of Economic Development
Diane Hyatt, Director of Finance
Virginia Department of Transportation
AT AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 1988
RESOLUTION RESCINDING BOARD OF SUPERVISORS'
ACTION TAKEN AUGUST 25, 1987 AMENDING
ACTION TAKEN ON MARCH 9, 1988 AND REQUEST-
ING THAT THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANS-
PORTATION REALLOCATE $128,145 OF INDUSTRIAL
ACCESS ELIGIBILITY AND REALLOCATE $128,145
OF INDUSTRIAL ACCESS ELIGIBILITY TO THE
VALLEYPOINTE PHASE I PROJECT IN ROANOKE
COUNTY.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
That having duly considered and previously authorized
an escrow agreement on August 25, 1987 for industrial access
funds in the amount of $128,145 for the development of Southwest
Industrial Park in Roanoke County; and that those funds were to
be secured by letter of credit to ensure that qualifying indus-
tries were to be located within the park; and,
That a County-State agreement was approved between
Roanoke County and the Virginia Department of Transportation on
October 6, 1987 setting forth the respective responsibilities of
both the County and State regarding the design and construction
of the road; and,
That the Virginia Department of Transportation by that
agreement will reimburse Roanoke County for eligible construction
and engineering items incurred subsequent to September 22, 1987
in the event that the County locates significant and qualifying
industries on the remaining tracts; and,
That the County has received a number of requests from
local non-qualifying companies and individuals desirous of improv-
ing the remaining tracts; and,
Item
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
IN ROANOKE, VA., ON TUESDAY,
MEETING DATE: March 29, 1988
SUBJECT: Amendment to resolution addressing reallocation of
industrial access funds
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has suggested
that Roanoke County use specific verbiage in our request to
reallocate industrial access funds from the Southwest Industrial
Park project to the Valleypointe project.
This action clarifies the intended use of the industrial access
funds and establishes Roanoke County's request for State
industrial access and matching funds in the amount of $449,645
($299,645 of State access funds and $150,000 of State matching
funds. )
The Board should note that this will cause the total capital
investment requirement that qualifying industry must have on Site
A in Phase I of Valleypointe to increase from $4,715,000 to
$5,996,450.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Roanoke County is allocated $300,000 annually in industrial
access funds. By rescinding the $128,145 allocation on the
Southwest Industrial Park, the entire $300,000 will be available
for another eligible project.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
request the deallocation and reallocation of State industrial
access funds in the amount of $128,645 by resolution amending
action taken on March 9, 1988.
SUBMITTED BY:
Brent D. Sheffl
Economic Development Specialist
Approved
Denied
Received
Referred
To
Motion by:
ACTION
APPROVED:
,r..i
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
VOTE
No Yes Abs
Garrett
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
Attachment
AT AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 1988
RESOLUTION RESCINDING BOARD OF SUPERVISORS'
ACTION TAKEN AUGUST 25, 1987 AMENDING
ACTION TAKEN ON MARCH 9, 1988 AND REQUEST-
ING THAT THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANS-
PORTATION DEALLOCATE $128,145 OF INDUSTRIAL
ACCESS ELIGIBILITY AND REALLOCATE $128,145
OF INDUSTRIAL ACCESS ELIGIBILITY TO THE
VALLEYPOINTE PHASE I PROJECT IN ROANOKE
COUNTY.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
That having duly considered and previously authorized
an escrow agreement on August 25, 1987 for industrial access
funds in the amount of $128,145 for the development of Southwest
Industrial Park in Roanoke County; and that those funds were to
be secured by letter of credit to ensure that qualifying indus-
tries were to be located within the park; and,
That a County-State agreement was approved between
Roanoke County and the Virginia Department of Transportation on
October 6, 1987 setting forth the respective responsibilities of
both the County and State regarding the design and construction
of the road; and,
That the Virginia Department of Transportation by that
agreement will reimburse Roanoke County for eligible construction
and engineering items incurred subsequent to September 22, 1987
in the event that the County locates significant and qualifying
industries on the remaining tracts; and,
That the County has received a number of requests from
local non-qualifying companies and individuals desirous of improv-
ing the remaining tracts; and,
That the County has other projects in need of indus-
trial access improvements which have strong potential for attract-
ing significant qualifying industry; and,
-That the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County have
taken action on March 9, 1988 also recinding action taken on
August 25, 1987; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, Roanoke County requests that the County-
State Agreement of October 6, 1987 be voided and the County
deallocate the use of industrial access funds in the amount of
$128,145 for the Southwest Industrial Park in Roanoke County, and
reallocate industrial access funds in the amount of $128,145 for
industrial access improvements to the Valleypointe Phase I
project in Roanoke County making the total industrial access
allocation of State funding to Valleypointe to be $449,645
($128,145 reallocation, plus $171,500 requested remaining
industrial access funds and $150,000 matching State funds as
described in resolution 2988-4 dated February 9, 1988).
That the Clerk of this Board forthwith transmit certi-
fied copies of this resolution together with any necessary and
support data to the Virginia Department of Transportation.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Elmer Hodge, County Administrator
FROM: Diane D. Hyatt, Director of Finance ~'~
DATE: March 25, 1988
SUBJECT: Cost Related to the Implementation of the Meals Tax
The public hearing for the Meals Tax ordinance is scheduled for April 12, 1988.
This would be a good time to review the cost that will be associated with the
implementation of this tax.
Wayne Compton and I have met to discuss this matter as well as conferring with
the City of Roanoke to find out what procedures were enacted by them. As a
result of this research, Wayne and I both agree that the following expenses
will be needed, irrespective of which of our offices will be collecting the
tax:
One Person - $20,000
Personal Computer and Printer - 6,000
Forms - 3,000
Postage - 1,500
Furniture (Desk, Chair, File
Cabinet, and Calculator) - 1,000
Car Mileage - 1,500
~'~ 33 000
One new person will be necessary to administer the Meals Tax. Based upon our
best estimate, there are approximately 240 establishments which will be
required to file Meals Tax monthly with the County. We should constantly
monitor that these returns are filed on a timely basis and make occasional
visits to the establishment to audit the revenues which are submitted on the
monthly forms. Roanoke City has developed a computer program for the
collection of Meals Tax which runs on a personal computer. They have offered
to provide us with this customized software at no cost. Within the next week,
I will be going to Roanoke City with Elaine Carver, of our MIS Department, to
review the software which they are using to determine its applicability to our
situation. Based upon preliminary telephone conversations with their MIS
Department, we believe that this software should serve our purposes.
Of the above $33,000 which will carry us through June 30, 1989, we need
approximately $3,500 as soon as the Meals Tax ordinance is passed so that we
may order forms and send out preliminary mailings to the establishments
concerned.
At this time, Wayne Compton and I are working together to establish procedures
for the collection of the tax. It is still unclear which of our off ices may
be responsible for the tax. Paul Mahoney feels that it is the responsibility
of the Commissioner of the Revenue, but we realize there are advantages to
placing it in the Finance department. Please be aware that the amount of work
required to properly administrate this Meals Tax cannot be absorbed into the
present staffing level of either the Commissioner of Revenue's department or
the Finance department. We anticipate that the new person requested will be
occupied at least 40 hours per week with the billings and collections of this
Meals Tax.
DDH/slm
cc: Wayne Compton
Reta Busher
z
F
i
W
uH9
n
H
H
O
V
W
V
i
J
P.
W
A m
W
D
Z
O
4.
S.
W
Z
iy
H
F
i
0
0
F
O ~ O
iWt
F
m V
y
y
• 2 41 ~
6 ~ . 1
O O
O! W 00
W
W
W
O V] i+ W
V
W 6
' Z ~ V I [~.1 ~
J O~ Vl
V a H G i pi 1
W
q
. Q
Z
W
Z
m
~.]
V
z .-.
S
6 [+
i
F CW'J ~
~ ~ H
4i
F Z
•~ s
~ ~ w
~ = Z
hVi
r W S
`'
m ~
0 0 0
o .
~ 0 0
n o 0
O [
N
~ M
N A b
.--i O O
` V1 ~O
N a
1 ti
O vt N l~
N ~ N
I
I
N ~ ~ N l+Oj
i
s
W
s
z
O
`~.
w
WH
V
J
0
F
0 0
0 0
~l /I
N N
ti o
0
O
~
r-1 ui
.n
m
O
C7
ti N M
F
x V
i
W 6
L iL
H O S
V
s o
a m a W
r
wsm
O
O F 6
> pia
M
i W]
V V V
4 6 PWG V V M W W
H H ~-+
F
yy O a W
W O P
~~
p
W
41 0 W V W V 6
= r.1 ~
S
W
V 4 V]
a
6 Z ~ S Z (N
~
p
0
Y u 6 H S
W W
?
6 6 t 4
S
S
6 6 V V U ~ V V V [
y
] V
cC aO V
i
1
a W ~ 4
a ~-
H
i
.
-
.
° sq r
-1
~
w
w wam ~°,. a mom ~
aa
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 00
O O O O 0
O 0
O 0
O 0 0 0
0 0 O
O ill O O .G ~ V1 Vf N N C7
N N N~ N N ~O N [~
rl .-~ N
N ~
H .--~ .-~ N N
N
r-1 .-~
ti .~y
-~1 rl [~
I
N C
1
N ~-1
0
0
C
r1 0
0
C
1
1
; rl
H
Z
4
~ O
1
1
~
1 I
.~
H
CI]
Z P
O
s i p
h
i
a'
i F
i ; ~ ~
V
D 1 cO~ y~ yy ~
a
W 1 O
W
W F {/~
F
W y
O j I
i i
i Z
V
~~
1 .1
.
]
{d .
ti i ti~ rV- r ti .t
y~ .
tI
W H H V ~ O 00
W Z
O r
+
P tWj p V
~ s
""~~ W 2
F
1
~ S~
? .~T~. M 1 V]
o F
T. W ; H iL !L
p Cr] Z V
F pS
W H S
>
Oyy i O W b P
?
4
i
P
P
~ p
~ i S W
~ i i+pWii
i
H
9
J
6 W W y
~
tW/] H H
~ 4 i =
0
V V V i M y
4i V ~ 1 ~ p
p
pWq
i ~ w
S
W t
y ~ y i
i ~
~
i {
.
~
J
J
J
Z i W
Z O
>
a G
i N O p. v
C
j P. !
6 V]
i i
~ a 33
H N
yVy NN
N
• - p
p
S
V i V fir W M
d p
p
a LL }i
F i i W W
a~ 6 4
~
d
~
a W 6 Z 6 W
O 4i !
1
J
O
m
W
s W L
P1 H V
r
i
W ~ OC V V V O to GO
V V' CC S
pt
- p V il] O pC
V CS L4 it Fr c
r] i !
4
l i+1
1 0. ~
P. 1 W 1 pp
t ,'. ~ .,
m
rn
rn 7G
rn i V
a S P
6 V m
F
m Z
s ~ ° E
Z
O i
m i 0 P
= W D
V' F
V P. ~ O
m s F
r
w+ O a-I I -t
F
t O
?
~"f W S~
I
N W
rl
O V MO 6
V w ap a
W
0 a
o Y
~ a ~ V
I d H iZt ~
O 0 0 0 0 1 0
O O O O O O
F
O
to ` [~ O [~
7
O
V t O
.'I N e
M Ot
~-+
W O
1
6
pap~
W
~ m
W
A
z
P r1 N N N F Vl
W
Z
P
~ 1
W
Z
N
F N rl .H .-t r-I YI
F
Z
i
O
O
F
N
O
V
W
V
6
a
a
W
m
0
w
0
z
0
w
a
w
>+
rF+
i
6
1 O
o
F w
a :r
w
O V ~
6 A4 W a
P
6 V ~
Z
_ D
Z ~ O W O
F H 461 [ail ""
H ~ N N W O
W .-a ti m D P. {
/
l
.W-1 IW-1 6 S W V O V Z {
~l
r
ti V_ s V
~ N O S t=.) F Gx] O 5 tVa1
~
a
F
F o
m •c
n~ .^.
F V
OwG ~ w
H f+~ a
S V
W ~ ~ V W tZ+i d W ~ O
S ~ ~ 6 W W W W 6
~ ~ ~
a a s ~w .6i a a
sp W m ~
w' O
4 H H ~ ~ a Z 4 W
0
O O O O O O 0 0 O
O
.p N O
~ O O O
/t N O O O rn
Ot O
O N O
~ O
V
F
..y .
-I N F
N
1
.-I N 1 •
tl' T
V1 Vl
N rl
l N
-I N H
1
1
N r-t N
1 N 1 N
1
~ N [~
1
1
1
O O O i O O
O
O
O I O
~ O o
O
ti N N lNR .Oi .~-I N
1
.-,I
.-+ 1
N
1
r-t
1
N N
i
i
.~ i .+ i o
r
•1
i
r1 N
l i
t
N I N
a
'
~
-
'
1
O
1 iL
OF• Z~
~ I F F
y~l
W 1 W Vwl
c i a o
v m
I
I W [+qi
t'l/l F
I i i
i N i rl i
i W N
I W I
t m I
m
W
C
Z ...i O
4l F
064 m 4
•- v a
ti w V
F O ~l H
{V~l m 6 pZp
r] ~~ 064 F
a H
J iZL H G N
m
M
t ••
I (p,•Jf 2
tJ i W m
4mazll
Z i C~ S
V i S
Z I 4i
w l
O
H V
V m~
W F
w
Z m
O { Cyy
P i~l
t1V~
Z VI
O
V m
F
F
W
W
O
w
Y
V
w F
C7 m
4 G
m
D
t
V I
z l
W i y
F I i
Z_ I 9
~ O
i F
C i eh
a l
~ i
m l
I
1
I
C'J 1
z s
o
N m
W
i I W
z t h
Z i ~I
S I~
J i
d I
I
t
1
I
1
~
~
W 1
ym ~ W
l~l 1 H
rO] i~
W I W
W 1 Z
O I "~
V i
~
W 1
N
V' I
~ 1
M i
o
m
W t~+
H i r rV-I
H 1 i~
h t 4]
O i Z Z
V t
;
i
z i
y I
L.1 1
F m
i ~ N y F
ps ,pL pV. ,
= 1 V=
S i d O
[.7 1
o:
6
Z
D
a ~
~' o
1 nG o O
1 O
m
a
~
o
.
-1
m
a a
O N
6
W Vf
i.4
1 6 U P.
6 6
F
w
a ~
U.
C
[-~~
[
a
u 1
V ~ H ? w
a m
4W1
w y ~i~ cwa cl
v w
w
pNp P. G W V G W
1-- ~ n
~
m
m
4 n
E'-~ m
[~
n
m
~
0
~
y ti
~ ~
-1 ti .
-1 r
.
N
W W W W W W i]
t
~
W
U
W
p V U U V U 4
w W
ca
~ a mmaa a a
o ui o h o i .n o
0
O N ~/t M N can ~
~
~ N
N
~ ~
M ~
O N
U
~ '+ '-1 r-1 N I V'1
1
W
V N
¢
.
]
~ I
W
W a ` 1
Q 1 j
Z ry
"'~
W
Z
O ~
W
L
I
,y ti .--1 .-i N ~G
H '~
H
Z
1
4
i O 1 I
1
O O
0
o O
O X1
1
M
C!] I
~
M O~
.
-1
O j
V 1
W
V
rt ~
.]
P,+ ~
OL
W
~ O
Z j
~ 1
1
Z
W
Z
N ~.y ti ~-`I
1
~
6
^~ 1
1 O
1
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
y ~
1
1
1
;
1
1
1
I
O ~
p C I I
1
H 1
I I
A'-~
~ 1 6
r
a
W
H
U y N W
N
~
°
v E
o j m
'
.
-.y z
~ z
i
~~ N~
C I ~
1 i
~
?
C
W =
~ ;
a .
N
G
1
~ ~ Z G W y 6 Z 6
y `
H Lj
7 z N F N
1 N
1 W i U Q i S V1
..
A
y V] W 1 N V N en 1 U V 1 Z 4]
C 6ry = On6. d d 1 W ~
~ H
~ O yl O N O /1 H
1 C7 I
~ 1 O
H
y~ N V` 6 ey V~
1 ~ '~ ~ 1 W F
6
1 LL ~ y 1 U 1 ~
F
z
6
W
m s
ti V
¢ z ~
F
p Z [~ n n n .W-1
(!J a =
V
W
Z > > C
V V V
p
.
V
,..] 6 6 6 6
y s a a m m W
y
F H
W W H H 7
I ~
n_
m
1 U
l
M
II
1
11
N
M
n
O O O O
O O O 11
O V1
O O O O
P ~O ~O Ill O HOl 0
.D N O
~
ti [7 ; ~
y ti .--1
-1 eti I
1
it
N'1 N
1
M „y I
I
.--1 1
N n
1
st' .--i r-1 'a .-y .--1 '-1
1
1
1 O CM7
1
W
O
U
V
U
N
4 Y P. 6 6
F
S F> > Z j 6 H
o a a ? °
a
6
V T~ ~
a V 6 V E
4 y S W C a
W d A F
~ ~
~ ~
Item
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
IN ROANOKE, VA., ON TUESDAY,
MEETING DATE: March 29, 1988
SUBJECT: Amendment to resolution addressing reallocation of
industrial access funds
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has suggested
that Roanoke County use specific verbiage in our request to
reallocate industrial access funds from the Southwest Industrial
Park project to the Valleypointe project.
This action clarifies the intended use of the industrial access
funds and establishes Roanoke County's request for State
industrial access and matching funds in the amount of $449,645
($299,645 of State access funds and $150,000 of State matching
funds. )
The Board should note that this will cause the total capital
investment requirement that qualifying industry must have on Site
A in Phase I of Valleypointe to increase from $4,715,000 to
$5,996,450.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Roanoke County is allocated $300,000 annually in industrial
access funds. By rescinding the $128,145 allocation on the
Southwest Industrial Park, the entire $300,000 will be available
for another eligible project.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
request the deallocation and reallocation of State industrial
access funds in the amount of $128,645 by resolution amending
action taken on March 9, 1988.
SUBMITTED BY:
~ ~ ~
Brent D. Shefflp ecialist
Economic Develo ment Sp
APPROVED:
.r.-i
,Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
--------------------
-------------- VOTE
ACTION No yes Abs
Approved
Denied
Received
Referred
To
Motion by:
Garrett
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
Attachment
COUNTY OF ROANORE VIRGINIA
BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION
REPORT
A "bottom-line" oriented study outlining cost reduction potential
within the Roanoke County governmental infrastructure
March 18, 1988
BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION
REPORT
CHARTER
On July 14, 1987, a Blue Ribbon Commission was established by the
Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. The purpose
of this Commission, as provided in the letter of appointment, was
"to study all services offered by the County to avoid duplica-
tions by the various departments."
MISSION
The Blue Ribbon Commission was to contribute their professional
expertise and business experience in analyzing and evaluating
all aspects of services provided by the Roanoke County govern-
mental system and determine if there were any areas where,
from a businessman's point of view, the County could save tax-
payer dollars and/or improve the efficiency of its operations.
SCOPE
The Commission was asked to examine all departments of the County
Administration, to include the General Administration, Management
Services, Public Facilities, Development, and Health and Social
Services, as well as the County School System.
The members of the Commission are as follows:*
Mr. Edwin N. LeGard, Jr., Chairman Mr. Joseph P. Handerhan
LeGard Petroleum Company Ingersoll-Rand Company
4502 Starkey Road, S.W. 7500 Shadwell Drive
Roanoke, VA 24014 Roanoke, VA 24019
Mr. Jack L. Shelton Mr. Joseph C. Thomas, Sr.
Shelton Management ~ Tax Service, Inc. Thomas Brothers, Inc.
1041 Broad Hill Drive 494 Glenmore Drive
Vinton, VA 24179 Salem, VA 24153
* For the qualifications and relevant experience of the members,
see Appendix.
-a-
GSNSRAL
The first meeting of the Blue Ribbon Commission was held
Thursday, September 3, 1987, at which time a chairman was elected
and a mission established. Since that time the Commission has
attended presentations and reviewed the operations of all perti-
nent departments of the County Administration and .County School
System. These meetings were attended not only by the members of
the Commission, but also senior representatives of the County and
County School Administrations.
It must be emphasized that it was not the objective of the
Commission members to delve into the details of day-to-day
operations of County and School Administration functions. It
chose rather to take a broad, objective managerial view of the
functions, reviewing operations for duplication and overlap of
effort.
In the course of the briefings and tours, the Commission found
areas where small savings or efficiencies could be attained.
Suggestions for improvements, as deemed appropriate, were made
to individual department heads and are not embodied in this
report.
During the review, the Commission found the staffs of both
County and School Administrations to be most cooperative. The
Commission would like to take this opportunity to express its
appreciation to all personnel who were involved in these meetings
for their courteous and helpful assistance.
-3-
T. FINDING•
Duplication of Administrative Functions
Review of both the County and County School Administrations
indicated to this Commission that there exists a significant
duplication in the ongoing operations of the two systems. These
duplications are most apparent in the following departments:
Procurement
Finance and Budget.
Payroll
Insurance
Grounds and Maintenance
Human Resources
The elimination of these duplications under County administra-
tive management should produce considerable savings by reducing
the number of personnel currently required to manage duplicate
functions, as well as produce more efficient operations. Addi-
tional savings could result through economies of scale, and
reduced requirements for facilities,- equipment, transportation,
utilities and supplies.
Conclusion:
From an objective business perspective, it is the opinion of this
Commission that the Roanoke County Administration and the Roanoke
County School Administration should create an effective organiza-
tional vehicle designed to plan and implement the consolidation
of the above mentioned operations. It is the Commission's opinion
that both the County and School system will realize a consider-
able reduction in expenses, and it further believes this con-
solidation can be accomplished without a reduction in service or
a lowering of quality of service.
.4_
II. FINDING;
County Administrative Staffincr
.There has been a 17.8Rs increase (89) in staffing over the past
four -years in the County Administration and Constitutional
offices. The greatest increases have been in Fire and Rescue,
Sheriff's Department, Utility Maintenance, Planning, Engineering,
Real Estate Assessment, Data Processing, and Youth Haven II. The
Commission also observed that the County presently employs three
full-time CPA's (two in County Administration and one in School
Administration).
Conclusion:
There appears to be areas where contract services might well ful-
fill some needs without incurring the added costs associated with
the payment for full-time staff and fringe benefits (i.e. Real
Estate Assessment, Maintenance, Engineering and Accounting). A
question exists as to the need and associated cost for three
CPA's as opposed to other job-qualified individuals.
The Commission suggests an in-depth study of current staffing
patterns to justify skill levels of employment in each functional
area and to determine whether contract services or part-time per-
sonnel, without fringe benefits, might serve some of the func-
tional needs at less cost to the County.
-5-
III. FINDING•
Roanoke County Public Service Center
(Ressler Mill Road)
It is the observation of this Commission that the Ressler Mill
Road facility has the potential of being a "cash hog" to the
County. The building seems to be overdone for functional use.
It is not energy efficient nor functional, and the flood plane
risk of this facility is evident and potentially costly. The
facility has much empty space and experience indicates that
"Murphy's Law" sill prevail and services will expand to fill
the space available.
An ongoing example of this reality is the plan to put a carpenter
shop in this facility. The County School system already has a
carpenter shop.
Conclusion:
The Commission recommends that a lonct-range facilities elan be
developed by the County, with a view towards consolidation of
facilities to reduce the operational costs inherent in multiple
buildings. Consideration should be given to abandoning the
Ressler Mill Road facility in the not too distant future in
order to avoid the inevitable future liabilities. (Please see
further comments on this facility under Finding VI entitled
"Consolidation of All County Facilities" at the end of report.)
-6-
IV. FINDING•
Cafeteria Grounds Maintenance; Architectural, Envineerinu.
aad Janitorial Services
Both the County Administration and School System provide internal
services which the business sector has generally found to be more
economically provided through contract vendors.
Experience has shown that the contracting to third parties for
services such as cafeteria, grounds maintenance, architectural,
engineering, and janitorial services can be accomplished in a
significantly more economical fashion without sacrificing quality
of service. If one were to apply this concept to the existing
County and School services, the Commission feels that substantial
savings in operating and overhead costs could be achieved.
Conclusion:
The County Administration and School System should study the
feasibility of contracting out cafeteria, grounds maintenance,
architectural, engineering, and janitorial services.
-7-
V• FINDING_
The Commission found that the Roanoke County School enrollm
has declined annually for the 10
current level Year ent
of 13,676 students. Period since 1978 to a
1983, Roanoke County student Since the exit of Salem in
students. It has also been observedlthat des decreased b
in pupil enrollment Y 262
. there has been an increase inhthedecrease
of Instructional Personnel.
princi als (Instructional number
P assistant principals, Personnel include
fans, as well as teachers.) guidance counselors, librar-
The total number of personnel employed b
School System is 1,877 Y the Roanoke County
sonnel. The Count °f which 1,066 are instructional
personnel y School System employs 77.8 Per-
per 1,000 students. instructional
1- If the number of instructional
state mandated requirement of 5personnel equaled the
nel per 1,000 students instructional person-
780 instructional the County would employ only
personnel.
2. The additional instructional
g Y
pro rams as elementar school musicnteachinPPort such
fists, elementary guidance counselors g sPecial-
reading specialists, and elementar elementary
specialists. There Y Physical education
high and hi are other programs in the junior
gh schools similar to these mentioned above.
3• The County must pay 100 of the salaries in excess of
the state mandate. Applying the 1986-87 average annual
salary for Roanoke Count
additional costs to the Y instructional personnel, the
mandate was over seven millionl'dollarsess of the state
4. Even if the County maintained an instructional erso -
nel level equal to the state avera e of 67p2 n
1,000 students, using the same average annual salary
as noted in Item 3, the extra cost to the County would
exceed 3.5 million dollars.
5. There are also
costs inherent °ther personnel and administrative
tional in maintaining these extra instruc-
personnel on the staff, which could result in
additional costs.
-8-
Conclusion:
The Com:pission stresses an apparent need for an °h4instructional
and awareness of the extra cost of maintaining
personnel in excess of the state supported mandate and the state
average. Perhaps an independent study should be commissioned
to determine to what extent the quality of education is enhanced
by the additional costs.
Statistical basis for our findings on this subject comes from
the following:
Statistical Data on Virginia's Public Schools, 1985-86, pub-
lished by the Virginia Department of Education, June, 1987.
Comprehensive Annual Financial_ Report., County of Roanoke,
Virginia, year ended June 30, 1987.
Roanoke County Schools Budget, 1987-88.
-9-
VI. FINDING:
Consolidation of All County Facilities
An outgrowth of our studies has been the realization of a very
serious problem facing the County due to the number of separate
operational .facilities and their. dispersion throughout the
County. Service inefficiencies, duplications, and wasted man-
power result daily due to the dispersion of functions, limiting
not only timely work accomplishments, but also cooperation. The
Commission feels that the seriousness of the subject requires
immediate attention.
In order to fully understand the complexity of this problem, one
must know the circumstances which are as follows:
- Presently, certain elements of the County Administration are
housed in a renovated school building on Brambleton Avenue,
which is already overcrowded and could require approximately
1.5 million dollars in expansion improvements.
- The Sheriff's Department has been relocated recently to the
renovated Southview School.
- The School Administration is located on College Avenue in
Salem in a building which needs to be remodeled. There are
plans to move the School Administration to the old William
Byrd Junior High School in Vinton,. which could require an
expenditure of up to $4,000,000 to renovate, according to
an official estimate.
- The Public Service Center, which currently houses the Refuse,
Grounds and Maintenance Departments, is in a flood plane and
has cost and will continue to cost untold amounts of dollars
to improve.
- The County, due to overcrowding, recently purchased a resi-
dence adjacent to the County Administration Building for a
Voter Registration operation.
-10-
Conclusion:
The Commission recognizes that history had a dramatic impact on
this situation; however, it recommends that prior to the County
appropriating any more money for piece-meal facilities, the Board
should seek to build a central Administration facility in the
very near future. For example, the County now owns approximately
26 acres of land behind the newly renovated Southview School
(where the new 911 system and the new Sheriff's offices are
located) which .could easily accommodate the entire County and
School Administrations. The area is immediately adjacent to
Interstate 81, Interstate 581, and the Peters Creek Road Express-
way and less than two miles from U.S. Route 460 and State Highway
,~ 419. This facility could be built with funds from the sale of
existing facilities and from funds which would have been appro-
priated to renovate and upgrade existing facilities..
SUMMARY AND CAVEAT
The Commission's report is strategic in nature and represents
what the members believe are serious but resolvable business
opportunities for the County. The Commission's approach has
been as objective as possible and based on sound business prin-
ciples. The members realize that many varied factors and
pressures will influence the decision-making process. As a
result, the members have avoided any political or personal asser-
tions in this report.
Respectf y sub it d hi date: ~! ~4,~
E win N. Le ard,
7 ~ .~
Joseph P. Hand rhan
1.
ck L. Shelton
Jose h C. Thomas, Sr. ~~~
-11-
APPENDIX
MR. EDWIN N. LEGARD, JR.
Mr. LeGard is President and a director of LeGard Petroleum
Company, a Virginia Corporation. He graduated from Emory and
Henry College, Emory, Virginia with a Bachelors Degree in
Economics and did post-graduate work. at George Washington
University. Mr. LeGard was associated with duPont Walston, Inc.
as an Account Executive, where he was primarily involved in tax
advantaged investment programs. In 1975 Mr. LeGard founded
LeGard Petroleum Company, specializing in the structuring and
marketing of oil- and gas Limited Partnerships. Mr. LeGard has
over 22 years of diverse and extensive management experience.
MR. JOSEPH P. HANDERHAN
As the Manager of Manufacturing Operations for the Rock Drill
Division of Ingersoll-Rand Company, Mr. Handerhan is responsible
for the manufacturing, planning and inventories for. plants in
Roanoke, Virginia, as well as locations in England, Italy, Japan,
China, South Africa and India. He has been with Ingersoll-Rand
Company for five years. Prior to Ingersoll-Rand, Mr. Handerhan
held various positions in manufacturing at Massey-Ferguson, Inc.,
Allis Chalmers Corporation, and Emerson Electric Company. He
received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business from the
University of Pittsburgh and has 22 years of manufacturing expe-
rience.
MR. JACK L. SHELTON
A retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel, Mr. Shelton has 28 years
of managerial experience in Hospital Administration and four
years of experience as a tax and management consultant. He has
eight years of government management experience as a member of
the Vinton Town Council, and is currently serving as Vice-Mayor.
He received an Associate in Applied Science Degree in Accounting
from Virginia Western Community College, a Bachelor of
Arts Degree in History and Economics from Roanoke College, and
a Masters Degree in Hospital Administration from the Medical
College of Virginia. He has served as a member of the Airport
Advisory Board, the Vinton Lions Club and the Valley Beautiful
Foundation.
-la-
MR JOSEPH C. THOMAS,__SR.
Mr. Thomas is the founder and President of Thomas Brothers, Inc.
in Salem, Virginia. He has served as a member of numerous civic
and government organizations, including the Roanoke County Board
of Supervisors, Roanoke County Public Service Authority,. Roanoke
County School Board, Salem-Roanoke County Chamber of Commerce and
the Medical Foundation of Roanoke. Mr. Thomas is a graduate of
Virginia Polytechnic Institute, where he received a Bachelor of
Science Degree in Industrial Engineering. He is currently
serving as President of CST Corporation, Vice-President of
ilestclub Corporation, and is Chairman of the Board of Directors
of First Virginia Bank.
Gf]
H
W
S
W
~ V•
C
m
W W m
x cn rn
O aC r-1
~sva:
a ~ N
a m
o w a
H W ~
~ `~ o
o w
V O 6
tfJ
a
6
H
W
w
v7
6
W
•--~
1 1
1 O 1
1 1 O 1
1
O 1 I
1 1
O I
1
01 1 1
I 1
1 1
~ I I
1 1
1
01 1 1 1
O~ 1 1 1
.--1 1
1 1 1
1 1 I
1 1
I 1
1
1
1 1 1
1
1 1 O 1
1
11'1 1 1
1 I
O 1
~ 1
1 1
I 1
1
I
~ 1 1
I 1
I
01 1 1 I
Ol 1
1 1 1
ti
1
1 1
I 1
I
1
1 t
1
1 I
1
1
1
1 1 O I
1 1 O 1
1
d' 1 I
1 • 1
O 1
O~ 1 1
1 I
1
1 I
M 1 1
1 1
1
O 1 1 I
O 1 1 1
~ 1 1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
I
1 1 1
1
1 I 1
I .-i 111 O N h 1 ~O 1
I
M 1
iT ap CO N •O 1
I I
N I
pl 1 ~ .p N M N I r-1 1
1 1 h aD aD <!' h I ~O 1
N I
01 1 + + + +
i11 M Ln 1!1 111 1
1 + I
L!1 1
O+ 1 N 11'7 11Y r'1 +O i ~ ~
e--1 t N 1 1
I
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1 I
1 1
1
O
~
j ~ 1
-/ O O h I Ol 1
1
N 1
O~ ~D fD ~ ~O 1
I 1
C' I
O~
1 h h Cd CO h 1 01 1
r-1 1 + + + + I . 1
O~ 1 N I!1 L11 M O 1
N I
1
N 1
I I
V
1
1
1 1
1 1
I
1 1 1
1
1
O 111 0 0 <f1 1
I 1
O~ 1
1 r-1 .--I O O h ~ O~ ~
I
r-1 I
01 ~C 00 V1 ~O
I
d' 1
1 °D
n
n~ i rn
O
, a
O
n
O 1
Q1 1 + + + +
s>• M 111 O ~fl 1
1 + I
O 1
OI 1 N N 117 M +O i ~
N 1
1 1 I
1 1 I
1 I I
1
1
1 I
1 1
I O Q~ O 11'1 O O ~' 1 O I
1
O 1
~O ~O 01 ~O m an ~ I
1 I
[~ l
O~ i
I to O h h C17 CD h 1 ~ ii
W 1 V' 00 ~' M IL1 O 11') I M
p~ 1 N N N ll'1 M ID 1
r-1 I 1
1 V
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
I
1
ID O O O O 1.!) O O V' 1
I
~
1 O~ O~ O 11'1 .--1 .--1 O O h 1 M
I
p1 I
e--1 1!] 10 ~ O~ •O OD Il'1 ~O I
I
~'
CO 1 a0 O~ O r1 1.1"1 10 N a0 N
I I
.-4 m l1'7 .-1 h h aO CO h I IC
1
Qi N r1 N N~ M IG h'
; 1
1 V
I
1 1
I 1
1
1
1
.o 0 000
H I (~ O O .-~ O
a ~O O O IG l~
O
y~ 1
, 11'7 O O O~ to
Inoohh
H 6
0 1 + +
O N
h
1..
.1 .Z i In N
i
O
O N ri M
0 0
a 1
1 ~
1
1
i
to 1
Y1 ~ ~ 6 W ~
O i W W 6 --+ H W
r1 I V E G1 O H
p, 1 O 6 P+ a W E"1 tl~
W i PW-1 OWG 6 W O W Z tHf]
1~-1 i W CH17 WO-1 W W W A V• ?0L
1 V 1"1 H P4 ~-+ .a-1 1~-1 ~
W i 6 PWII w G701 7C d o OG OG
O I H H O O ~cC W ISO 1,_,1 H
q.. 1 E C7 CZ V W 1-I LL V7 C
,°~ ; oWCE3sowcoovw
it Al M 1[
I I
pl p1 O1 t h 1
M M M 1 .-+ 1
1 1
t}1 ~1 v1 1 N 1
N N N 1 h 1
~ ~ ~ 1 I
1 1!1 I
Q~ pt p1 I G7 1
1 N 1
1 I
1 1
1 1
1 I
1 1
~ M M M M 1 M 1
1 1
a0 •W `01 V1 V' t In 1
tl' N N N N 1 ~' ~
O In ~ 11'7 V] 1 .-1 1
01 O~ 01 01 Ol
.--1 1 Ln 1
I 1
1 I
1 1
1 1
I 1
h M M M M M 1 h I
1 1
OO V1 iM V1 V1 C 1 O+ 1
V' N N N N N 1 `O I
1 1
O 1f7 If1 In In ~ I ~D 1
01 Q1 01 01 Q1 Q~
.-d 1 ~O I
1 I
I 1
1 I
1 I
1 I
01 h M M M M N I ~O I
1 • I
p~ pp ~. d1 ~ t}1 M 1 a0
O tl1 N N N N O~ ~ ~ it
I17 O In Ln l1'1 1~1 O~ 1 ~O ~
~U' O1 Q1 Q~ Q>t ~ h
.-i I
1
1
I
p~ (~ M M M N 1 N
I
O st1 N N N ~O 1 ~
01 m ~ 1W ~ M 1 M
O Q1 N N N O~ ~ N
ul O 1~1 1.l1 117 01 1 .-/
1D O1 Q~ O~ O~ ['~
~ 1 10
1
1
1
1
1
O~ h M M N 1 CO
1
O V' N N ~D 1 `a
O~ m ~ ~ M 1 O~
O V1 N N O ~ O~
N O l.n ~ O~
.o rn rn rn
n 1 N
ri 1 In
I
1
1
I
pl I
1 M
O~ [~ M N 1 V'
1
O ~!' N ~O I V'
M 1 /)
O V1 N O~ 1 h
1
I!l O Ifl O~ 1 O
w rn rn h I M
r.l 1 C
1
1
I
I
1
1 N
L1'1 OD h I N
V1 O
r-1 1
1 h
~ O ~p 1 O
O N O~ I M
I
01 V1 h I .--1
M rl V1 1 O
1 N
r,l
i
i
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
In o In In In v7 In o
.D V'1 h h h h h 1/1
N ~ ~i1 st1 •T d1 C M
1
I
1 A4 Cf] Cf] ~.!] CI] G]
1 W W W W W ~ W
1 W W t'J7 U] U] CfJ f1]
1 L>'. O O O O O .">
Ol 1 V L1L7 CC 00 OO CA PO W
°O i aaaa.-~aaaz
W I V O O O O O O 4
00 I 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 V
.O-1 1 O V V V V V V A
I 1 W tJ] C/] Cn Cn C1I ZaC
N 1
w I H O In IA ~A 1/1 1~1
1 Z M .-1 •--1 r-1 N '-i 'iC
H i E W w w w w w~
[.I) I p1 0 0 0 0 0 0 a'.
5 i D W W W W W W H
d 1 O V] Ir7 CJ] C!] G] fJ] E
a i W S Y x z~ S a
1 W V V V V V V
~ 1 W a a [a [>:t a a w
s i wn°.wwwao,a°1o
h II
.-1 11
• II
h 11
N 11
h 11
+ 11
~ 11
W 11
N 11
11
11
II
11
M 11
M 11
u
cN 11
~ 11
~' II
+ II
r1 11
h 11
L!1 11
1
11
11
11
11
N 11
h 11
11
~p 11
O~ II
Ip II
+ 11
•O II
ID II
~D II
pl 1
N 1
~' I
O 1
O I
1
N 1
M 1
ti 1
1
~ 1
1
O 1
N I
I
C1 1
O I
N I
N 1
In I
O I
.-1 I
I
I
r-1 I
aD I
~ ~
O~
N
O
W
m
h
•-i
h
s~
ID
cn
cn
W
0
a
a
•Z
H
a
6
F
O
m
A
W
_N
a
6
Sr-1
w
Z
W
m
H
O
2
W
6
2
W
rJ]
W
a
O~ •oA ~F
~.
Z
J ::.. Z
¢.a
18 150 88
SFSQUICEN7ENN~p~
ABea utifulBeginning
JOHN M. CHAMBLISS, JR.
ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
C~nuttfg of ~Rnttnukr
TO: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator
FROM: John M. Chambliss, Jr.~~
Assistant County Administrator-Human Services
DATE: March 29, 198$
SUBJECT: Use of County Owned Vehicles
MANAGEMENT SERVICES
At your request, the Committee of John Hubbard, John Willey,
Diane Hyatt, Cliff Craig, Nancy Bailey and myself, reviewed the
inventory of County owned vehicles, including those which were
being driven home overnight, and submitted a questionnaire to
each of the departments to be completed as to the justification
for having the vehicle assigned to the department and also the
justification for overnight privileges. The committee also
reviewed standards to be considered in the establishment of a
vehicle use policy and their proposed document is attached for
your consideration .
Attached is a table of the vehicles owned by Roanoke County with
a breakdown as to the major classification. You will note that
the three items represented by an asterisk showing sedans, vans
and pickups to other departments, represent only 76 of the total
365 vehicles and represents only 24 of the 144 vehicles assigned
for overnight use. The remaining vehicles represent heavy,
specialized equipment and public safety vehicles, for which
little justification was found to remove any of these from our
inventory. It is suggested that the attached proposed policy be
submitted to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration and
upon approval returned to the County Administrator's office for
enforcement. If the committee can provide additional assistance,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
JMC/cw
cc: John Hubbard
John Vu i l ley
Diane Hyatt
Cliff Craig
Nancy Bailey
Attachments
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2002
TOTAL VEHICLES Number Ni ht
Time Use
365 144*
Heavy Equip,
119
Pick UPs/Special Equip, 53
Vans Spec. Equip 14
,
12
Sedans - Sheriff 2
93 93
Sedans - Fire
12 11
Plck UPs Other
16 * 4
Passage Vans - Other
6 *
0
Sedans Other
54 * 20
*General Government Departments
VEHICLE UTILIZATION POLICY
Pur ose
It is necessary and proper for many County employees to have County-
owned or personal vehicles at their disposal to properly perform their
assigned duties. The County does not desire to curtail the use of
vehicles that are necessary for effective sereice delivery, however, it
is essential that guidelines be established to ensure that the vehicles
are being used with the utmost care and discretion and that they are
being used in a manner consistent with the intent of the assignment.
This policy will establish the criteria under which vehicles will be
assigned to departments, the criteria under which vehicles will be
authorized for take-home by employees, and the criteria for equitable
compensation for County employees utilizing personal vehicles in the
performance of their duties.
Policy
1. General
2.
a. County-owned vehicles may be used only for official County
business. Official County business need not be considered only
that activity which occurs during regular business hours.
After-hours work is required of some employees. This policy
applies to use of County-owned vehicles at all times.
b. Personal use is prohibited under this
personal use (such as transportation tooandyfromemealland break
periods) is allowed under this policy,. provided that it occurs
solely in travel to and from job assignments.
c. Only County employees who have valid and current Virginia motor
vehicle operator's license may drive a County-,owned vehicle. In
addition, only County employees or those individuals enga ed in
County business may ride in a County-owned vehicle. g
Assignment of Vehicles to Departments
a. Regular full-time assignment of vehicles to a department must be
justified and proven cost effective. A department's request
shall be based on at least one of the following;
1. A vehicle is or does contain special equipment necessary for
the proper and effective performance of County work.
2. A vehicle will be used for official County business a
minimum of 5,000 non-commuting miles per
of 20 hours away from the office Year or a minimum
3. No vehicle already assigned to theedepartment can be
reassigned on a time-sharing basis to fill the department's
requirements.
b. On June 1st of each fiscal year, each department shall submit to
the Department of Management and Budget a listing of all
vehicles assigned to their department. The list shall include
the vehicle number, description, and a brief justification as to
why the department needs that vehicle.
-2-
3, Nighttime Assignment of Vehicles to Individuals
a, A County-owned vehicle shall not be taken home on a regular
basis unless authorized by the County Administrator or his
designee. A list of vehicle assignments to be authorized shall
be submitted by each department manager through his Director to
the County Administrator annually on June 1st, The list shall
include detailed justification for each vehicle recommended and
shall cite the specific criteria outlined below upon which the
recommendation is based. This list may be combined with the
list required from Section 2, but must also include the
employee's home address, round-trip distance to the employee's
residence, and a more deter a justification,
b, The following criteria shall be used in recommending approval
for taking a County-owned vehicle home on a regular basis:
1, The employee must answer emergency calls involving the
potential loss of life or property where an immediate
response is required.
2, The employee must attend to work-related functions, away
from the normal work site and outside of normal working
hours, on the average of at least twice per week.
3. Documented evidence must prove that it is to the County's
benefit from an economic or level of service standpoint for.
an employee to have a vehicle assigned to him for take-home
use.
c. No employee may drive a vehicle to and from his residence
outside of the County's borders without specific approval from
the County Administrator
4, Utilization of Personal Vehicles on County Business
a. Employees using personal vehicles in the
assigned duties shall be compensated for suchousageeatftheeir
current mileage reimbursement rate established by the Board of
Supervisors. These employees must receive prior authorization
from their department managers or Director and file a monthly
report of mileage to receive compensation.
b, The employee must also satisfy the following criteria to receiv
the mileage reimbursement: e
- The vehicle driven must be currently licensed by the Common-
- wealth of Virginia and meet inspection standards,
- The employee must be the owner or lessee of the vehicle,
The employee must have on file with the Department of Finance
a certificate of vehicle insurance meeting the minimum
requirements of liability established by the Commonwealth of
Virginia for property damage and personal injury coverage.
~,
NEWPOSIT
3/29/68 COUNTY OF ROANOKE
REQUESTS FOR NEW POSITIONS
BUDGET FY 1988-89
COST ESTIMATE
DEPARTMENT DESCRIPTION INCL FRINGES
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FUNDED:
UTILITIES: UTILITY MAINTENANCE FOREMAN
TWO POLLUTION INSPECTOR AIDES
TWO LABORERS
TWO WATER OPERATORS
ENGINEERING ASSISTANT
WATER OPERATIONS FOREMAN
TOTAL FUNDED ~ _ ~ P
UNFUNDED:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
HUMAN RESOURCES PERSONNEL ANALYST
CLERK TYPIST
TREASURER DEPUTY TREASURER II
SHERIFF
20,263
30,497
26,481
35,145
24,521
20,263
157,170
40,000
26,983
13,877
40,860
15,985
15,985
445,758
116,884
18,426
20,263
46,754
26,908
24,407
715,385
20,263
31,156
41,581
13,877
UNIFORM DIVISION SECRETARY II
20 DEPUTY SHERIFFS
CRIMINAL INVEST DIV FIVE INVEST/POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS
SERVICES DIVISION COMMUNICATIONS DISPATCHER
LEAD DISPATCHER
TWO YOUTH & FAMILY SRVCS OFFICERS
JAIL CORRECTIONS COMPUTER SUPERVISOR
CORRECTIONS PARAMEDIC
COUNTY ASSESSOR
FINANCE
RISK MANAGEMENT
PROCUREMENT
FIRE,RESCUE AND
EMERGENCY SERVICES
APPRAISER TRAINEE
FINANCIAL ANALYST
RISK MANAGER
CLERK TYPIST II
SECRETARY (RECLASS CLERK TYPIST)
HAZ MAT OFFICER
SECRETARY - TRAINING DIV AND EMS
4,000
25,000
15,985
w
COST ESTIMATE
DEPARTMENT
--------------------- DESCRIPTION
----------------------------------- INCL FRINGES
---
SECRETARY - FIRE PREVENTION -----------
15,985
FIVE PARAMEDIC/FIREFIGHTERS 101,315
FIRE INSPECTOR 23,377
ASSISTANT TRAINING OFFICER 24,521
210,163
REFUSE SOLID WASTE COORDINATOR 22,288
AUTOMATED REFUSE EQUIP OPERATOR 16,754
TWO MOTOR EQUIP OPERATORS 30,496
SUPPORT SERVICES COORDINATOR 22,288
91,826
ENGINEERING CE-2 ENGINNEER (DRAINAGE) 43,683
CONSTR. INSPECTOR COORDINATOR 36,984
PROJECT MANAGER 43,683
124,350
GENERAL SERVICES BUILDING PROJECT COORDINATOR 28,596
TWO PAINTERS 33,526
CUSTODIAN 14,500
TWO LABORERS 27,000
103,622
PLANNING & ZONING ASSOCIATE PLANNER 23,366
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT CLERK 15,985
CONSTRUCTION BUILDING
SERVICES PLUMBING INSPECTOR 23,376
BUILDING INSPECTOR 23,376
46,752
PARKS & REC. INSTRUCTOR - THERAPEUTICS 16,760
RECREATION LEADER - SR CITIZENS 16,760
RECREATION LEADER - LEISURE ARTS 16,760
50,280
ANIMAL CONTROL ASSISTANT ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER 18,426
YOUTH HAVEN II GROUP HOME COOK 14,546
MGMT INFORMATION SVCS MGR -SYSTEMS DESIGN & PROGRAMMING 45,791
SPECIALIST - OFFICE AUTOMATION 37,76
COMPUTER OPERATOR 2
21,263 ~~ 2
104,816
DEPARTMENT COST.ESTIMATE
------------------------DESCRIPTION---_-__-- INCL FRINGES
--------------------------
COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS TECHNICIAN I
21,251
TOTAL UNFUNDED ---"'-"----
1,944,510
COUNTY OF ROANOKE
PERSONNEL POSITIONS ADDED AND DELETED
FISCAL YEARS 1984-1988
Department
Ol Board of Supervisors
Trans - Clerk
Trans - Secretary
02 Management Services
Add - Dir. of Mgmt and Budget
Trans - Dir, of Finance
Trans - Secretary
03 County Administrator
Trans - Clerk
Trans - Secretary
Add - Sesquicentennial Dir.
Del - Public Infor. Officer
04 Data Processing
Add - Programmer Analyst
Add - Programmer
Del - Prograxm~x
Add - Director of MIS
Add - Computer Operator
OS Central Accounting
Add - Account Clerk III
Trans - Asst. Dir, of Finance
Trans - Secretary
06 Utility Billing
Add - Meter Reader
07 County Attorney
Add - Paralegal
Add - Asst. Co. Attorney
08 Human Resources
Add - Personnel Analyst
Add - Secretary II
09 Radio Communications
Add - Communications Tech I
10 Procurement
Add - Clerk Typist
Add - Storekeeper
11 Commissioner of Revenue
Add - Tax Clerk II
12 Real Estate Assessment
Add - Real Estate Clerk I
Add - Appraiser II
Add - Appraiser I
14 Clerk of Circuit Court
Add - Deputy Clerk Recorder
16 Utilities Maintenance
Add - Clerk Typist
Add - Poll Abate Inspect Aide
Add - Pollution Inspector
Add - Water Operator IV
FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 Program
1
1
1 Est. Budget Dept.
1
1
(1)
(1)
1 Sesquicentennial
(1)
1 1
1
(1)
1
1
1
(1)
(1)
1
1
1
1
1
1 1 E911 Technician
1
1
3
2 2
1 3
1
1
1
3
1
1
Proration of PP
Annual Reassessment
Annual Reassessment
Annual Reassessment
Meter Replace/SSE/R
Meter Replace/SSE/R
Meter Replace/SSE/R
Meter Replace/SSE/R
Department
Add - Util Main Foreman
Add - MEO I
Add - MEO II
Add - Util Line Location Tech
Add - Meter Replacement Wkr
Add - Asst Dir of Utilities
Del - Wastewater Oper III
17 Corm~onwealth's Attorney
Add - Legal Secretary
18 Public Facilities
Add - Clerk Typist I
Add - Clerk Typist II
Add - Trans Coord
Add - Traffic & Roads Coord.
Del - Clerk Typist I
Add - MEO I
Add - MEO II
Trans - Adm Asst To Supt
Trans - Transportation Coord
Trans - MEO I
Trans - MEO II
Del - Project Manager
Trans - Clerk Typist II
Del - Traffic & Roads Coord
21 Sheriff's Department
Add - Deputy
Add - Detective
Add - Bailiff
23 Jail
Del - Correction Officer
24 Dispatchers
Add - Dispatchers
26 Fire and Rescue
Add - Clerk Typist
Add - Fire Inspector
Add - Firefighter
Add - Fire & Emg Svc Mechanic
Add - Fire Lieutenant
Add - Firefighter
Add - EMS Supervisor
Add - Paramedic Firefighter
27 Engineering
Del - Right of Way Tech
Trans - Clerk Typist II
Add - Asst Dir of Engineering
Trans - MEO I
Trans - MEO II
28 Development
Add - Economic Develop Spec
Trans - Secretary II
FY 86 FY 87 FY 88 Pr ram
1
1
2
1
1
Meter Replace/SSE/R
Meter Replace/SSE/R
Meter Replace/SSE/R
Meter Replace/SSE/R
Meter Replace/SSE/R
1
(1)
1
1
1
1 CORTRAN
1
(1)
1
1
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
1 4
2
1
(1)
3 2 E911
1
1
2
1
1
5
1
6
(1)
1
1
1
1
1
Econcxnic Dev Dept.
(1)
Department
30 Planning and Zoning
Add - Planner
Add - Community Specialist
Add - Community Develop Coord
Trans - Secretary II
32 Refuse
Add - Laborer
Trans - N1E0 I
Del - Account Clerk II
Del - Dispatcher
Del - Refuse Collectors
Del - MEO I
Add - Refuse Collect Foreman
Trans - Refuse Collect Fore
37 Registrar
Add - Asst Registrar
40 Buildings and Grounds
Trans - MEO I
Add -Custodian I
Add - Custodian II
Add - Secretary
Trans - Asst Dir B & G
Trans - Trans Coordinator
Trans - Grounds Maint Worker
Trans - Laborer
Trans - Maint Foreman I
Trans - MDp II
Trans - MEO I
Trans - Maint Foreman II
Trans - Asst Dir of Parks
Add - Dir General Services
Del - Trans Coord
41 Grounds Maintenance
Trans - Grounds Maint Worker
Trans - Laborer
Trans - Maint Foreman I
Trans - MDp II
Trans - MEO I
Trans - Maint Foreman II
Trans - Asst Dir of Parks
43 Library
Add - Head Librarian
47 Parks and Recreation
Add - Recreation Leader
Add - Director of Parks & Rec
49 Air Pollution
Del - Air Pollution Officer
Del - Air Poll Control Insp
60 Youth Haven II
Add - Secretary
Add - Program Director
Add - G.H. Counselor III
Add - G•H. Counselor II
Add - G.H. Counselor I
Add - G.H. Night Counselor
TOTALS
1
3
(1)
(2)
1
1
FY 86 FY 87 FY 88
1
1
1
1
2
1
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
1
1
1
(2)
1
1
1
1
1
(6)
(11)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(1)
1
(1)
6
11
2
2
3
1
1
1
Program
Girls Group Home
Girls Group Home
1 Girls Group Home
1 Girls Group Home
3 Girls Group Home
1 Girls Group Home
31 52 6
~~s
~~ W ~ ~ fJ1
A
W N
_ O ~ OD
- II
J.v
_ _.
Ql
- _ -
~
_
A
_
W _ _
N r-.
O cD
_. _--
00 V ~
~
~
W
o
i
'V
,D
`
.~
p ~
`0
~
~
~ _ t
~ N ~ Q
~
v ~~
1
~ N
~ 1"
~i i
w N *.
v.
N
r
0
~_
Q~
D ~
~ ~ ~ r
A
V a N
O
i~ CC~
3 r W
~ Z z~
o t
h~
A
L
g
H
t
~~
9 ~ ~
z~
~ ~.
~~
8
~ Z~~
~^ ~ r ~ cn
~ ~ c~
o y ~; ~
O $
~ SY3
"T ~~ i o
? 8 '~
~ tD ~ 00 V Q c.n I ? i V i N ~ .N-. N
O ~-+
i lD r-.
~ 00 ~ .r
V .J
' (T _. r-
'_n ' t~ '~ W - '-
~ -
W OD ! V
1 ~
`n A
W i N
' I r-+
~
i '.
~
i ~ ~
~
I
i i I
I l i I i ~
~ ~ ~
~
~
i
p~p~~
'V ~
I ~~
~
~
~ ~~
-n ~
(
,~
I i~
o i ~
°(
o ~
~
C ~
~ ry
~9
v
n
a
a
o a, o °O a
c o,
~
•
~
°
C r
A
0 ~ 1
~~ ,
t
~ O
O
2 T
n ^
~~ j~ ~ H C
r
~
~ r ~ ~ ~
~ r
\ C r=
r ~' ~ ~
0 0 ~ ~ o o i
- - ~~
~ 3`
n
~ A
~ ~
~ u~ L
_ w
O R
3
r
r.. ~ a
e
i
h n
-- ~
C ~ ^
~
n. n
A ~ i j 00
O O
0 C ~,
~~ C' 4
,
` ~ cD
_ ~a s r
~ ~
W
~ o " ~` O C
C
" (~ _ ~
'T
i
C g I c C
N
N
D
IQ
N~~ .
n»
fps
-R=
F
C°
00
'~
~ aoaNO~
o ;
Z ~ C~~a~~~ ~~ ~~~~tu~~e
~$ ~~ sa
SFSQUICENTENN~P~
A Beauli/ul Beginning
JOHN M. CHAMBUSS. JR.
ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
T0: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator
FROM: John M. Chambliss, Jr.~~'~'
Assistant County Administrator-Human Services
DATE: March 29, 1988
SUBJECT: Use of County Owned Vehicles
MANAGEMENT SERVICES
At your request, the Committee of John Hubbard, John Willey,
Diane Hyatt, Cliff Craig, Nancy Bailey and myself, reviewed the
inventory of County owned vehicles, including those which were
being driven home overnight, and submitted a questionnaire to
each of the departments to be completed as to the justification
for having the vehicle assigned to the department and also the
justification for overnight privileges. The committee also
reviewed standards to be considered in the establishment of a
vehicle use policy and their proposed document is attached for
your consideration .
Attached is a table of the vehicles owned by Roanoke County with
a breakdown as to the major classification. You will note that
the three items represented by an asterisk showing sedans, vans
and pickups to other departments, represent only 7b of the total
365 vehicles and represents only 24 of the 144 vehicles assigned
for overnight use. The remaining vehicles represent heavy,
specialized equipment and public safety vehicles, for which
little justification was found to remove any of these from our
inventory. It is suggested that the attached proposed policy be
submitted to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration and
upon approval returned to the County Administrator's office for
enforcement. If the committee can provide additional assistance,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
JMC/cw
cc: John Hubbard
,john Willey
Diane Hyatt
Cliff Craig
Nancy Bailey
Attachments
P.O. BOX 29800 - ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 - (703) 772-2002
TOTAL VEHICLES Number
-----_
Ni h t Time Us e
365
144*
Heavy Equip,
119
Pick Ups/Special Equip, 53
Vans Spec. Equip, 14
12
Sedans - Sheriff 2
93 93
Sedans - Fire
12 11
Pick Ups Other
16 *
Passage Vans - Other 4
6 * 0
Sedans Other
54 * 20
*General Government Departments
VEHICLE UTILIZATION POLICY
Purpose
It is necessary and proper for many County employees to have County-
owned or personal vehicles at their disposal to properly perform their
assigned duties. The County does not desire to curtail the use of
vehicles that are necessary for effective service delivery, however, it
is essential that guidelines be established to ensure that the vehicles
are being used with the utmost care and discretion and that they are
being used in a manner consistent with the intent of the assignment.
This policy will establish the criteria under which vehicles will be
assigned to departments, the criteria under which vehicles will be
authorized for take-home by employees, and the criteria for equitable
compensation for County employees utilizing personal vehicles in the
performance of their duties.
Policy
1. General
a. County-owned vehicles may be used only for official County
business. Official County business need not be considered only
that activity which occurs during regular business hours.
After-hours work is required of some employees. This policy
applies to use of County-owned vehicles at all times.
b. Personal use is prohibited under this policy. De minimis
personal use (such as transportation to and from meal and break
periods) is allowed under this policy, provided that it occurs
solely in travel to and from job assignments.
c. Only County employees who have valid and current Virginia motor
vehicle operator's license may drive a County-owned vehicle. In
addition, only County employees or those individuals engaged in
County business may ride in a County-owned vehicle.
2. Assignment of Vehicles to Departments
a. Regular full-time assignment of vehicles to a department must be
justified and proven cost effective. A department's request
shall be based on at least one of the following:
1. A vehicle is or does contain special equipment necessary for
the proper and effective performance of County work.
2. A vehicle will be used for official County business a
minimum of 5,000 non-commuting miles per year or a minimum
of 20 hours away from the office per week.
3. No vehicle already assigned to the department can be
reassigned on a time-sharing basis to fill the department's
requirements.
b. On June lst of each fiscal year, each department shall submit to
the Department of Management and Budget a listing of all
vehicles assigned to their department. The list shall include
the vehicle number, description, and a brief justification as to
why the department needs that vehicle.
-2-
3. Nighttime Assignment of Vehicles to Individuals
a. A County-owned vehicle shall not be taken home on a regular
basis unless authorized by the County Administrator or his
designee. A list of vehicle assignments to be authorized shall
be submitted by each department manager through his Director to
the County Administrator annually on June lst. The list shall
include detailed justification for each vehicle recommended and
shall cite the specific criteria outlined below upon which the
recommendation is based. This list may be combined with the
list required from Section 2, but must also include the
employee's home address, round-trip distance to the employee's
residence, and a more detailed justification.
b. The following criteria shall be used in recommending approval
for taking a County-owned vehicle home on a regular basis:
1. The employee must answer emergency calls involving the
potential loss of life or property where an immediate
response is required.
2. The employee must attend to work-related functions, away
from the normal work site and outside of normal working
hours, on the average of at least twice per week.
3. Documented evidence must prove that it is to the County's
benefit from an economic or level of service standpoint for
an employee to have a vehicle assigned to him for take-home
use.
c. No employee may drive a vehicle to and from his .residence
outside of the County's borders without specific approval from
the County Administrator
4. Utilization of Personal Vehicles on County Business
a. Employees using personal vehicles in the performance of their
assigned duties shall be compensated for such usage at the
current mileage reimbursement rate established by the Board of
Supervisors. These employees must receive prior authorization
from their department managers or Director and file a monthly
report of mileage to receive compensation.
b. The employee must also satisfy the following criteria to receive
the mileage reimbursement:
- The vehicle driven must be currently licensed by the Common-
wealth of Virginia and meet inspection standards.
- The employee must be the owner or lessee of the vehicle.
- The employee must have on file with the Department of Finance
a certificate of vehicle insurance meeting the minimum
requirements of liability established by the Commonwealth of
Virginia for property damage and personal injury coverage,
COUNTY OF ROANOKE VIRGINIA
BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION
REPORT
A "bottom-line" oriented study outlinin4 cost reduction potential
within the Roanoke County governmental infrastructure
March 18, 1988
BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION
REPORT
CHARTER
On July 14, 1987, a Blue Ribbon Commission was established b
Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Su
of this Commission Aerviaors. Y the
"to stud as Provided in the letter of a The purpose
Y all services offered by the Count pp°intment, was
tions by the various departments." Y to avoid duplica-
MISSION
The Blue Ribbon Commission was to contribute their
expertise and business experience Professional
all aspects of in analyzing and evaluating
mental system anderdeterminevlded by the Roanoke Count
from a businessman's if there were any areasgwhere,
payer dollars and/or improve the efficiencyCofni~scould save tax
Aerations.
SCOPE
The Commission was asked to examine all departments of the Co
Administration, to include the General Administration, Mana eme
Services, Public Facilities, Development, and Health and Sotctnty
Services, as well as the County School System, q nt
ial
The members of the Commission are as follows:*
Mr. Edwin N. LeGard, Jr., Chairman
LeGard Petroleum Company
4502 Starkey Road, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24014
Mr. Jack L. Shelton
Shelton Management & Tax Service, Inc.
1041 Broad Hill Drive
Vinton, VA 24179
Mr. Joseph P. Handerhan
Ingersoll-Rand Company
7500 Shadwell Drive
Roanoke, VA 24019
Mr. Joseph C. Thomas Sr.
Thomas Brothers, Inc.
494 Glenmore Drive
Salem, VA 24153
* For the qualifications and relevant experience of the members,
see Appendix.
-a-
GSN- ERAL
The first meeting of the Blue Ribbon Commission was held
Thursday, September 3, 1987, at which time a chairman was elected
and a mission established. Since that time the Commission has
attended presentations and reviewed the operations of all
nent departments of the County Administration and Count perti-
System. These meetings were attended not onl b the Y School
the Commission, but also senior representatives of the Countrs of
County School Administrations. Y and
It must be emphasized that it was not the objective of the
Commission members to delve into the details of da
operations of County and School Administration functions-dIt
chose rather to take a broad, objective managerial view of the
functions, reviewing operations for duplication and overlap of
effort.
In the course of the briefings and tours, the Commission four
areas where small savings or efficiencies could be attaineda
Suggestions for improvements, as deemed a
to individual department heads and are notoembodiedwein this
report.
During the review, the Commission found the staffs of both
County and School Administrations to be most cooperative. The
Commission would like to take this o
appreciation to all personnel who werepinvolved inotheaermeetings
for their courteous and helpful assistance.
-3-
I. FINING.
Du lication of Administrative Functions
Review of both. the County and Count
indicated to this. Commission that there Sexists Aadministrations
duplication in the ongoing operations of the two systemsnificant
duplications are most apparent in the followin
These
g departments:
Procurement
Finance and Budget
Payroll
Insurance
Grounds and Maintenance
Human Resources
The elimination of these duplications under County admire
tive management should produce considerable savings b r
the number of istra-
personnel currently required to mans e Y educing
functions, as well as produce more efficient operationsuplicate
tional savings could result through economies of scaleAddi-
reduced requirements for facilities, equipment t
utilities and su and
pplies.
Conclusion:
ransportation,
From an objective business perspective, it is the opinion o
Commission that the Roanoke Count A
County School Administration should create tanteffectivehe Roanoke
tional vehicle designed to plan and implement the conaolid
of the above mentioned operations, organiza-
that both the Count It is the Co ation
Y and School system will realizeloa,considern
able reduction in expenses, and it further believes this c
solidation can be accomplished without a reduction in service o
a lowering of on-
quality of service. r
-4-
ZI. FINDING•
County Administrative Staffing
There has been a 17.8 increase (89) in staffing over the past
four years in the County Administration and Constitutional
offices. The greatest increases have been in Fire and Rescue,
Sheriff's Department, Utility Maintenance, Planning, Engineering,
Real Estate Assessment, Data Processing, and Youth Haven II. The
Commission also observed that .the County presently employs three
full-time CPA's (two in County Administration and one in School
Administration).
Conclusion:
There appears to be areas where contract services might well ful-
fill some needs without incurring the added costs associated with
the payment for full-time staff and fringe benefits (i.e. Real
Estate Assessment, Maintenance, Engineering and Accounting). A
question exists as to the need and associated cost for three
CPA's as opposed to other job-qualified individuals.
The Commission suggests an in-depth study of current staffing
patterns to justify skill levels of employment in each functional
area and to determine whether contract services or part-time per-
sonnel, without fringe benefits, might serve some of the func-
tional needs at less cost to the County.
-5-
III. FI_NDING•
Roanoke County Public Service Center
.(Kessler Mill Road)
It is the observation of this Commission that the Ressler Mill
Road facility has the potential of being a "cash hog" to the
County. The building seems to be overdone for functional use.
It is not energy efficient nor functional, and the flood plane
risk of this facility is evident and potentially costly. The
facility has much empty space and experience indicates that
"Murphy's Law" will prevail and services will expand to fill
the space available.
An ongoing example of this reality is the plan to put a carpenter
shop in this facility. The County School system already has a
carpenter shop.
Conclusion:
The Commission recommends that a long-ranee facilities elan be
developed by the County, with a view towards consolidation of
facilities to reduce the operational costs inherent in multiple
buildings. Consideration should be given to abandoning the
Ressler Mill Road facility in the not too distant future in
order to avoid the inevitable future liabilities. (Please see
further comments on this facility under Finding VI entitled
"Consolidation of All County Facilities" at the end of report.)
-6-
IV. I~INDING•
Cafeteria. Grounds Maintenance Architectural Enaineerinct
and Janitorial Services
Both the County Administration and School System provide internal
services which the business sector has generally found to be more
economically provided through contract vendors.
Experience has shown that the contracting to third parties for
services such as cafeteria, grounds maintenance, architectural,
engineering, and janitorial services can be accomplished in a
significantly more economical fashion without sacrificing quality
of service. If one were to apply this concept to the existing
County and School services, the Commission feels that substantial
savings in operating and overhead costs could he achieved.
Conclusion:
The County Administration and School System should study the
feasibility of contracting out cafeteria, grounds maintenance,
architectural, engineering, and janitorial services.
-7-
V. FINDING:
Roanoke County School Instructional Personnel
The Commission found that the Roanoke County School enrollment
has declined annually for the l0 .year period since 1978 to a
current. level of 13,676 students. Since the exit of Salem in
1983, Roanoke County student enrollment has -decreased by 262
students. It has also been observed that despite the decrease
in pupil enrollment, there has been an increase in the number
of Instructional Personnel. (Instructional Personnel include
principals, assistant principals, guidance counselors, librar-
ians, as well as teachers.?
The total number of personnel employed by the Roanoke County
School System is 1,877, of which 1,066 are instructional per-
sonnel. The County School System employs 77.8 instructional
personnel per 1,000 students.
1. If the number of instructional personnel equaled the
state mandated requirement of 57 instructional person-
nel per 1,000 students, the County would employ only
780 instructional personnel.
2. The additional instructional personnel support such
programs as elementary school music teaching special-
ists, elementary guidance counselors, elementary
reading specialists, and elementary physical education
specialists. There are other programs in the junior
high and high schools similar to these mentioned above.
3. The County must pay 100 of the salaries in excess of
the state mandate. Applying the 1986-87 average annual
salary for Roanoke County instructional personnel, the
additional costs to the County in excess of the state
mandate was over seven million dollars.
4. Even if the County maintained an instructional person-
nel level equal to the state average of 67.2 per
1,000 students, using the same average annual salary
as noted in Item 3, the extra cost to the County would
exceed 3.5 million dollars.
5. There are also other personnel and administrative
costs inherent in maintaining these extra instruc-
tional personnel on the staff, which could result in
additional costs.
-8-
Conclusion:
The Commission stresses an apparent-need for an ongoing analysis
and awareness of the extra cost of
personnel in excess of the state su maintaining instructional
average. Perhaps an independent Pstuded mandate and the state
to determine to what extent the y should be commissioned
by the additional costs, quality of education is enhanced
Statistical basis for our findings on this subject comes from
the following:
lished by-theyVirginiavDepartment of 1$ducationS~June5 1987.pub-
Comtirehenaiv$ Annual Financial Retiort,
Virginia, year ended June 30, lgg7. County of Roanoke,
Roanoke Count Schools Bud et, 19g7_g8.
-9-
VI . FIN_ DING_
Consolidation of All Count Facilities
An outgrowth of our studies has been the realization of a very
serious problem facing the County due to the number of se
operational facilities and their Parate
County. Service dispersion throughout the
inefficiencies, duplications, and wasted man-
power result daily due to the dispersion of functions
not only timely work accomplishments, but also cooperation1tThe
Commission feels that the seriousness of the subject requires
immediate attention.
In order to fully understand the complexity of this problem, one
must know the circumstances which are as follows:
- Presently, certain elements of the Count
housed in a renovated school building onABrambleton1Avenuee
which is already overcrowded and could require approximately
1.5 million dollars in expansion improvements.
- The Sheriff's Department has been relocated recently to the
renovated Southview School.
- The School Administration is located on College Avenue in
Salem in a building which needs to be remodeled. There are
plans to move the School Administration to the old William
Byrd Junior High School in Vinton, which could require an
expenditure of up to $4,000,000 to renovate, according to
an official estimate.
- The Public Service Center, which currently houses the Refuse,
Grounds and Maintenance Departments, is in a flood plane and
has cost and will continue to cost untold amounts of dollars
to improve.
- The County, due to overcrowding, recentl _
dence adjacent to the County AdministrationrBuilding forla
Voter Registration operation.
-10-
Conclusion:
The Commission recognizes that history had a dramatic impact on
this situation; however, it recommends that
appropriating any more money for Prior to the County
should seek to build a centralPAdministrationlfacilityheinothe
very near future. For example, the County now owns a
26 acres of land behind the newly renovated Southview1School
(where the new 911 system and the new Sheriff's offices are
Located) which could easily accommodate the entire County and
School Administrations. The area is immediately adjacent to
Interstate 81, Interstate 581, and the Peters Creek Road Express-
way and less than two miles from U.S. Route 460 and State Highway
,~ 419. This facility could be built with funds from the sale of
existing facilities and from funds which would have been appro-
priated to renovate and upgrade existing facilities.
SUMMARY AND CAVEAT
The Commission's report is strategic in nature and represents
what the members believe are serious but resolvable business
opportunities for the County. The Commission's a
been as objective as possible and based on sound businessach has
ciples. The members realize that many varied factorsprand
pressures will influence the decision-making process. As a
result, the members have avoided any political or personal asser-
tions in this report.
Respectf y sub it d hi date: ~! C.~~CO
E win N. Le ard,
~ J ePh P. Hand rhan
l..
ck L. Shelton
Jose h C. Thomas, Sr. ~~'
-11-
APP--- E_ NDI~{
MR. EDWIN N. LEGARD JR.
Mr. LeGard is President
Company, a Vir inia and a director of LeGard Petroleum
g~ Corporation. He graduated
Henry College, Emory, Virginia with from Emory and
Economics and did post- a Bachelors Degree in
University. Mr. LeGard graduate work at George Washington
was associated with duPont Walston, Inc.
as an Account Executive, where he was
advantaged investment programs. In 1975arMry LeGardedfounded
LeGard Petroleum Company, specializing in the structuring and
marketing of oil and gas Limited Partnershi s.
over 22 years of diverse and extensiv;: management experience, has
MR. JOSEPH P. HANDERHAN
As the Manager of Manufacturing Operations
Division of Ingersoll-Rand Company, Mr. Handerhanhis responsible
for the manufacturing, plannin
Roanoke, Virginia, as well as locations~ineEnoland fItalplants in
China, South Africa and India. He has been with ~IngersollaRand
Company for five years. Prior to
held various positions in manufacturingeatoMassend, Mr. Handerhan
Allis Chalmers Corporation, and Emerson ElectricerCompanylncHe
received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business from the
University of Pittsburgh and has 22 years of manufacturing expe-
rience.
MR. JACK L. SHELTON
A retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel,
of managerial experience in Hos Mr. Shelton has 28 years
years of experience as a tax and mana1ementlconsultant.and four
eight years of government g g He has
the Vinton Town Council mana ement experience as a member of
and is currently serving as Vice-Mayor.
He received an Associate in Applied Science Degree in Accounting
from Virginia Western Communit
Arts Degree in Histor Y College, a Bachelor of
Y and Economics from Roanoke College, and
a Masters Degree in Hospital Administration from the Medical
College of Virginia. He has served as a member of the Airport
Advisory Board, the Vinton Lions Club and the Valley Beautiful
Foundation.
-sa-
MR. J~SSPH C. THOMAS SR.
Inc.
Mr. Thomas is the foundhasanservedlasna membermof nwaerous/civic
in Salem, Virginia. He Board
Roanoke
and government organoketCounty1PublienServiceoAuthorityn y
of Supervisors, Roan
County School Board, Salemfg,RoanokeCouM~Y ThomasrisfaCSJ~duateaof
the Medical Foundation o
Virginia Polytechnic Instiiaie~EngineeringeceiHed isBacurrently
Science Degree in Industr Vice-President of
serving as President of CST. Corporation,
pestclub Corporation, and is Chairman of the Board of Directors
of First Virginia Bank.