HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/26/2019 - Regular
March 26, 2019
117
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the March 2019. Audio and video recordings of this
meeting will be held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office of the Clerk to
the Board of Supervisors.
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
Before the meeting was called to order an invocation was given by Pastor
Vannie Harrell of Church Alive International. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by
all present.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman North called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was
taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Phil C. North; Supervisors George G. Assaid,
Martha B. Hooker, David F. Radford and P. Jason Peters
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Richard Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Rebecca
Owens, Assistant County Administrator Ruth Ellen Kuhnel,
County Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public Information Officer
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
There were no changes, however, Richard Caywood, Assistant county
Administrator noted that in item F.1 – There is a scrivener error with the tax parcel
identification on the agenda in the item title. All the references to the tax parcel
identification in the body of the Board Report as well as the plats and ordinance are
correct and he will read out the difference in the parcel number when that item is
brought forward.
March 26, 2019
118
Secondly, under Reports, item K, an item K-2, Outstanding Debt Report
was left out of the packet and a copy has been placed with each Board member at the
dais and K-3, currently reads Comparative Statement of Budget and Actual
Expenditures and Encumbrances and a second report for Revenues is normally
mentioned with that Statement and a copy has been provided at the dais.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Recognition to acknowledge successful projects completion fully
complied with Stormwater Management and Erosion & Sediment
Control of Roanoke County Ordinances under the Stormwater
Clean Award - Contractor Appreciation Program (Tarek Moneir,
Acting Director of Development Services)
Recognition was given. In attendance from Property Catalyst Group and
Bowman Excavating, Inc. was Jonathan Yates. The other awardees were unable to
attend.
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Briefing to introduce Kenneth Fay, RES, Director of Real Estate
Valuation (Daniel R. O'Donnell, County Administrator)
Rebecca Owens, Assistant County Administrator, provided the
introduction and briefing.
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of a new easement across
Tax Map Parcel 087.07-03-08.00, for Ingress and Egress to the
Roanoke County Administration Center from Penn Forest
Boulevard (Richard Caywood, Assistant County Administrator;
Peter Lubeck, Senior Assistant County Attorney)
Mr. Caywood reiterated the correct tax parcel number to be 087.07-
03-07.01 and outlined the request for ordinance.
Supervisor Assaid’s motion to approve the first reading and set the
public hearing and second reading for April 9, 2019, was seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisor Assaid, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
March 26, 2019
119
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance approving an amendment to Section 7.1 of the
Comcast Franchise Agreement regarding Comcast Local Office
(Mary Beth Nash, Senior Assistant County Attorney)
Ms. Nash outlined the request for ordinance.
Chairman North opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens
speaking on this agenda item. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 032619-1 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 7.1 OF A CABLE TELEVISION NEGOTIATED
FRANCHISE WITH COMCAST CORPORATION
WHEREAS, by Ordinance 102213-12 adopted on October 22, 2013, Roanoke
County granted a non-exclusive cable franchise agreement to Comcast Corporation
(“Comcast”); and
WHEREAS, Section 7.1 of that Ordinance requires, inter alia, that Comcast
“maintain a local office, or agent, at a location which is conveniently located for
customers residing in the County”; and
WHEREAS, Comcast currently maintains a storefront office in the City of Salem
to serve County and Salem customers; and
WHEREAS, the current office serves primarily as a venue for County and Salem
customers to pay their cable invoices; and
WHEREAS, the number of County residents who visit the storefront office has
declined significantly since the inception of this Franchise Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Comcast avers that County residents who are Comcast customers
can receive all customer service benefits from alternative payment venues in the
County, its U.S.-based call center, and internet-based customer service applications;
and
WHEREAS, the current employees of the Comcast store will be offered
employment at the Blacksburg Comcast store; and
WHEREAS, this Franchise ordinance amendment will have no adverse fiscal
impact on the County; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County staff supports the execution of this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 12, 2019, the
second reading and public hearing was held on March 26, 2019.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, as follows:
March 26, 2019
120
1. That Section 7.1 of the Comcast Cable Franchise Agreement be modified to
relieve Comcast of its obligation to maintain an office in the County and that
the amended Section 7.1 shall read shall read as follows:
7.1 Customer Accessibility & FCC Records Availability. The Franchisee
shall maintain a local office, or agent, at a location which is
conveniently located for customers residing in the County, subject to
County approval. Pursuant to Part 76, Subpart U, §l 700(b) of the
rules of the FCC, as be amended from time to time, all records,
reports and documents required to be maintained in the public
inspection file of the Franchisee shall at all times be maintained at
the Franchisee's office as herein described. At all times during the
term of this Agreement, the following documents and records shall
be subject to public review in the public inspection file: i) requests
for cablecast time made by or on behalf of a candidate for public
office, together with appropriate notations showing the disposition
made on each request; and the charges made, if any, in the event
the request was granted; ii) record of free time provided candidates
if such time was made available; iii) copies of any Equal
Employment Opportunity ("EEO") Reports required to be filed with
the FCC; iv) commercial records on children's programs sufficient to
verify compliance with Section 76.225 of the FCC's rules; v) proof
of performance test data required by Section 76.60 I of the FCC's
rules; vi) signal leakage logs and repair reports as required by
Section 76.614; vii) a written designation and location of
Franchisee's principal headend and the designation of any new
principal headend; and, viii) all other records and reports as required
by Section 1700(b) of the rules of the FCC, as amended.
2. The remaining portions of the Comcast Cable Franchise Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect.
3. Roanoke County, by its County Administrator, or Assistant County
Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute the amended Cable Franchise
Agreement establishing the rights and obligations of the Franchising Authority
and the Franchisee consistent with the provisions of Section 15.2-2108.20 of
the Code of Virginia.
4. That this ordinance shall become effective from and after the date of its
adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Hooker to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Radford, the motion was carried by the following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
March 26, 2019
121
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 032619-2 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM I- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for March 26,
2019, designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 3 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes – November 26, 2018, November 28, 2018, December 4,
2018, December 18, 2018
2. Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of $1,929.88 to the Clerk
of the Circuit Court from the Commonwealth of Virginia
3. Request to accept and allocate grant funds for two cardiac monitors in the
amount of $35,763.00 from the Virginia Department of Health (VDOH)
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker, the motion was carried by the following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
A-032619-2.a
A-032619-2.b
IN RE: CITIZENS’ COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Salvatore Monastra of 750 Wysong Mill Road in Hardy, Virginia stated he
is a Vietnam veteran and is here to request that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County to pass a resolution for the POW/MIA flag to be flown on all the County
flagpoles under the American flag. This is to honor the men and women who gave their
full measure of devotion for their Country. This will be a symbol that the County of
Roanoke will remember their sons and daughters who served their Country. This is a
tribute to those who provided the freedoms of this Country, cities and towns. He added
that a lot of them did not come back.
Chairman North asked Ms. Kuhnel if she had any comments on this issue.
Ms. Kuhnel stated that she was alerted that Mr. Monastra was going to
speak and she did a bit of research into the display of the POW/MIA flag. In the Code
March 26, 2019
122
of Virginia, the General Assembly designated six (6) days that the State buildings would
fly the POW/MIA flag. Obviously that statute does not apply to local governments, but
looked at it as guidance that they designated six (6) days to fly. They did not say on the
flag pole, so it does not necessary needs to be on a flagpole. She also called around to
other local governments and she believes that the one that Mr. Monastra has spoken to
so far is Franklin County and they have not made a decision yet. If you choose to
deliberate, you can put on another agenda to have the discussion. Mr. Monastra
advised he spoke to Bedford yesterday. Chairman North advised the Board would take
under advisement and advise at another time.
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Peters moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion was seconded by Supervisor Assaid and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report
2. Outstanding Debt Report
3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of
February 28, 2019
4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of February 28, 2019
5. Accounts Paid – February 28, 2019
6. Statement of Treasurer’s Accountability per Investment and Portfolio
Policy as of February 28, 2019
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
Supervisor North moved to go into closed meeting following the work
sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A 1, Personnel, namely
discussion concerning the performance measures of the County Attorney
The motion was seconded by Supervisor Hooker and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
Closed session was held from 6:01 p.m. until 6:21 p.m.
March 26, 2019
123
Chairman North recessed to the fourth floor at 4:11 p.m. for work session
and closed session.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors the County
Administrator's Proposed Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Operating
Budget (Daniel R. O'Donnell, County Administrator; Christopher
R. Bever, Director of Management and Budget; Anne Marie Green,
Director of Human Resources)
Mr. Caywood gave a brief overview in Mr. O’Donnell’s absence. This first
of three work sessions would go into further detail of the County Administrator’s
proposed budget introduced at the last meeting. Today’s topic will be employee
compensation, CORTRAN, and a few other issues. Mr. Bever was introduced, who
turned the meeting over to Ms. Green.
Ms. Green gave a detailed look at the five components of total
compensation. She added we are not keeping up with the market and lag behind
inflation regarding salary.
Supervisor Hooker asked how the 58% of all full time employee salaries
below $45,000 compares to the median salary of Roanoke County residents as a whole.
It was determined to be $50,934 per Google. Mr. Caywood responded that there would
be follow up, as there are a number of different data sources and you must be specific
as to what you are looking for.
Mr. Bever presented the elements of the budget regarding the salary
increase and number of positions.
Supervisor Assaid asked when comparing what the schools are giving
their employees, at one time we used to give the same percentage increase, when did
that stop? Ms. Green responded probably when we started giving zero increases, and
when we came out of the recession, we never went back to that. Supervisor Assaid then
asked since that time, has the school board been able to give their employees a higher
percentage than what Roanoke County has been able to give their employees?
Supervisor Peters stated that since he’s been on the Board, we’ve always
given the same amount. This is the first year he’s been aware of that it’s been different.
Ms. Green responded that they implemented a salary survey that gave them significant
pay increases about two years ago. Mr. Caywood stated there would be follow up.
Supervisor Assaid stated he didn’t want to be the source of that information but that it’s
interesting that we are not able to keep up with what the schools are, it’s important that
we do.
Supervisor North requested a budget memo on school salaries, similar to
the history of pay adjustments for the County. He’d like to see it laid out compared to
March 26, 2019
124
inflation. If added to the one you have here, make sure you put at the bottom what the
school’s pay adjustment is.
Supervisor Radford inquired about our trend for building permits. Back in
the day, we were issuing 700+ building permits. Mr. Monier responded that we are
picking up this year and last year and is glad to supply the exact percentage. It is
increasing but we are not back to the 2006-07-08 level.
Mr. Bever said they will prepare one budget memo to answer all the
questions.
Supervisor Radford would like to see a timeline, when the permits fell off,
how we are trending back up; he knows we had a big drop.
Supervisor Assaid asked if the Planning II position is the zoning inspector
position. Mr. Caywood responded yes.
Supervisor Peters stated he thought that the new CORTRAN position was
coming over from Parks and Recreation. Mr. Bever responded that they do it with part-
time counter staff that we need to actually manage this program if we are to continue.
Social Services has already begun managing to the best they can at this point.
Supervisor North stated there is another set of figures that he has spoken
to Mr. Hutchins on and he would like the Treasurer to speak on the new position
following the PowerPoint presentation, so the Board can hear what you shared with him
in terms that the principal and interest owed is in decline and will be lowered more with
a focused approach and perhaps some contingencies.
Supervisor Assaid asked staff to confirm that the only revenue we’re
getting out of this new position for over half a year is about $28,000 because the other
portion goes to the schools. Mr. Bever responded that $43,000 pays for the position, as
Personal Property Tax is shared revenue since the schools funding formula is now an
adopted county policy. In years past, we were able to net this out, but we don’t have
that option anymore, because the revenue sharing formula is an adopted policy, so the
schools get about $54,000 of the $125,000 the position is expected to bring in. This is
outlined in Budget Memo #8.
Supervisor Assaid said that if we’re asked to approve positions, why are
we not approving the two Deputy SRO positions. He understands they are using over
hire funds, but these are two positions that were created, and they should be on this list.
We’re not going to get rid of these in two years, so they should be ongoing positions,
and we should see those. They are taking them out of their funds, but their funds are
not their funds come July 1. They are our funds that we’re giving to the Sheriff’s
Department. It should be noted that we are doing this.
Supervisor North agreed, if we are funding those positions with our funds,
it should be so noted in some fashion. Mr. Bever responded that they can be added to
the full time account.
Supervisor Peters stated his concern is that we allow other over-hires that
they can continue to do. Mr. Bever responded that they may have to change the policy
administratively. Ms. Green noted that police and fire also have regular over hires that
March 26, 2019
125
are not actually part of our count. Supervisor Assaid stated that they are not
circumventing the Board of Supervisors. They are creating two positions, and we should
be in agreement with it, not that they aren’t in agreement with it.
Supervisor Peters stated the bigger picture is that if it is over hires, they
will do it again. Supervisor Assaid asked is that a policy, or is that just the letter that
Clay Goodman put together as Administrator. Mr. Bever responded that it’s an
administrative policy, fire and rescue, police, ECC, even the sheriff, it’s allowed them to
stay at full staffing, because people come and go, and you have to put new employees
through the Academy, and it allows them to maintain a minimal level of staffing. They
know they have to fund that out of their budgets.
Supervisor Assaid stated that is not what is happening here. These are
positions that have been created to serve as SROs within the schools. Whether they
came to us as full time positions or not, they are now full time positions.
Ms. Owens responded that we have a third work session that is reserved
for a deeper and longer conversation, perhaps the over hires can be reviewed then.
Supervisor North said it probably does need to be revisited if it’s been around since
Clay Goodman. Ms. Owens said we’ll add it to the third session in addition to anything
else you all want to talk about then.
Supervisor Assaid said he’s been against this position for the Treasurer,
every time it has come before us. He just thinks that even after year one, we’re looking
at $56,000-$57,000 potentially in new revenue for the year for us. The schools will have
more, and we’re paying for this position. Is this the highest priority for the County to
collect that little bit of money. If it were $400,000-$500,000 estimated collecting, he’d be
on board with it, but we are not there. Mr. Bever responded that even $250,000 in a
budget when you’re struggling to give 2.5% compensation adjustment, it’s not
insignificant, but he understand what you’re saying. Supervisor Assaid said that the
other piece to this is that we used one time capital funds to balance our budget, and that
money is used like the EDA funds, $1M. What happens next year when the funds are
no longer available? He would like to know what that number is of one-time funds that
we are using. Is it restricted and unrestricted cash? Mr. Bever stated that Supervisor
Assaid is referring to the capital budget; not a part of the operating budget. Supervisor
Assaid asked for clarification that debt service is not operating. Mr. Bever responded
that the debt service that we budget to pay for the two economic development initiatives
that we have, Woodhaven and Roanoke County Broadband, are budgeted in the capital
budget, they are set up in a capital account, and we pay the debt service out of those
two. It’s different than the debt service we have on the County side, because we don’t
carry the debt. Supervisor Assaid asked where does the money come from? Mr. Bever
responded in fiscal year 2020 and 2021, it will come from the EDA, and then in fiscal
years 2022 thru 2027 for Roanoke, it will come from Roanoke County unrestricted cash,
and whatever time frame Woodhaven has left. Supervisor Assaid said that once that
money is dried up, we have to have more revenue right? Mr. Bever replied that the ten-
year plan shows where we will get that revenue. Each project has a specific revenue
March 26, 2019
126
source. Supervisor Assaid agrees, except he didn’t recall seeing the $1M from the EDA
as part of those funds. It’s like robbing Peter to pay Paul, and he doesn’t want to get to
that. He sees that we’re going to have to tighten up even more, or we’re going to end up
with a fee in the upcoming years because we’ve taken from all these pots to pay debt
service, whether it’s from our $18.1M or whatever it is. When he compares Mr. Bever’s
PowerPoint presentation from one of May of 2016 about where those funds were going
to come from, he can’t find it. Mr. Bever replied that we didn’t have those funds from the
EDA, those funds from the EDA were related to the sale of property, and we wanted to
use those one time funds specifically to fund economic projects. Supervisor Assaid
asked if you didn’t have it, where would you have gotten that money? Mr. Bever said
he’d go back and look at the CIP that lists every project and every funding source.
Supervisor Assaid said he thought Mr. Bever saw his point, that we are using one time
funds to pay debt service for the capital this time and asked where is all the one time
money going now, and how much do we have left? What’s going to happen next year, if
we have enough to cover this year, plus whatever else we have in the CIP or CMP? Mr.
Bever responded that, assuming the Board takes action and approves the CIP, we
develop that in a way that, in theory, you could do everything in there, and provided an
example. If the Board didn’t want to use the EDA funds, they could be taken out of the
capital budget and either replace $1M in funding in CIP or cut $1M in projects, but you
couldn’t cut Woodhaven and Roanoke because we made a commitment to pay the debt
service, or you would reduce the EDA funding and increase the General Government
Transfer by $1M and cut your operating by $1M. Supervisor Assaid said it looks like
we’ve cut additional funds that might be needed from Economic Development. If Ms.
Loope, for example, needed $500-$600,000 that we didn’t have before, we’d have to go
into our reserves. Ms. Loope replied that we have balances in some of the capital funds.
Mr. Bever added that we have several million dollars in our accounts for Economic
Development funds. Supervisor Assaid asked isn’t that what we are depleting? Mr.
Bever answered no, that this money that came in goes to the EDA, and Supervisor
Assaid acknowledged he understood that. Mr. Bever explained that it’s one time
revenue money coming into the EDA, and we feel that we should use Economic
Development funds. We could have used our own funds, but we’ve been drawing those
down and not putting additional funds in. We’ve had other needs in our capital program
over the last couple of years. We’ve been able to do a number of development
initiatives, and there is still money available in those funds. Mr. Caywood addressed
Supervisor Assaid: What I think you are addressing, and what has been a theme of this
year’s budget is that when you look at the long term revenue trend relative to inflation,
we’re not keeping up, which drives a lot of difficult choices. We’d like to see growth.
Your general observation is that the budget is under a lot of pressure, and each budget
cycle, it is increasingly challenging to do what we’ve done before. Supervisor North
concurred, adding that entitlements are a part of that, the outside agency requests that
are not contractual but the others. It’s a national problem as well as a local problem.
Supervisor Assaid stated he is concerned what will happen next year or the year after.
March 26, 2019
127
Is this Board going to be forced to increase fees or tax increases, and he is not sure
what the difference is there.
Supervisor Peters commented he understands what Supervisor Assaid is
saying with regard to the Treasurer’s office position. He does think that dedicating some
resources to that would be in our favor.
Supervisor North redirected the meeting back to the presentation.
Mr. Bever continued with the elements of the budget.
Supervisor Peters asked a question about the number of employees given
earlier, if it includes the Vinton employees that will be added to the County. Mr. Bever
responded no, that number only included the employees currently on the payroll.
Mr. Bever continued with health insurance.
Supervisor Hooker requested clarification on categories for health
insurance, County couple x1 and County couple x2. Mr. Bever advised County Couple
x1 means 1 person is on wellness and x2 means both.
Supervisor North commented that under this budget, employees would
see a 2.5% pay increase, but due to rising health insurance costs, they will not take
home any more money.
Ms. Green responded they would have some.
Mr. Bever responded that the vast majority of employees will not be
negatively affected.
Supervisor Hooker then asked for confirmation that staff would eliminate
the County couple rate next year, with Mr. Bever responding in the affirmative.
Ms. Green gave a brief presentation about compensation.
Supervisor Assaid asked if staff would be coming back to ask for more
funds with Ms. Green responding not in this budget year.
Supervisor Peters asked the cost for the salary survey by an outside
company. Ms. Green responded with information about the recent school salary survey,
which she thought was $60,000 to $70,000. Supervisor Peters asked why we would not
do this now, since there will be a process to implement any expected salary increases.
Ms. Green said she thought we may find money in this year’s budget and expects next
year’s budget talks to include impacted salaries. Supervisor North asked for
confirmation that it’s been at least 19 years since an outside salary survey was done.
Ms. Green responded in the affirmative. Supervisor North asked about the experience
of the prospective employees who were turning down jobs due to low salaries. Ms.
Green reported that they were new to Roanoke County but not new to the workforce.
Supervisor North added that an additional challenge is the low employment rate gives
job seekers leverage in negotiating. He continued that we do have a good retirement
program, and Ms. Green noted the hybrid program is not nearly as attractive as VRS 1
and 2.
Supervisor North suggested a 5 minute break.
The session continued with Mr. Bever discussing the CORTRAN aspect of
the budget.
March 26, 2019
128
Supervisor North asked what no-shows cost, and Mr. Bever said we are
charged $39 per hour. Supervisor Assaid asked if that was per trip or per person. Mr.
Beaver stated 1,700 no shows multiplied by $39 per trip is equal to $66,300. Supervisor
Bever stated so $66,300 for nothing. Supervisor North asked why we charge $4 cash
rather than incentivizing riders with debit or credit cards. Mr. Bever responded that the
busses are not equipped to handle cards and that cash transactions may be more
convenient for the clientele. Mr. Bever noted if we make changes, RADAR has said we
may not qualify for funding.
Supervisor Hooker asked if the no show clients care, since they aren’t
impacted. Jessica Webb (DSS) responded that outreach indicated the clients were not
aware that no shows were charged to the County, and that there were discrepancies
between what clients reported and documentation received from RADAR, which was
still being sorted through.
Supervisor North asked if there were other providers in this area and how
the RFP would be put out. Mr. Bever responded that we will know more about other
providers when the RFPs go out and that the RFP would be processed online through
our Purchasing Department. Supervisor North asked how no shows might be handled in
the future. Ms. Webb responded they are looking at a policy that was suggested several
years ago but has not been enforced, but before making any decision, they want to be
sure why the no shows are happening and that the no show data is accurate.
Supervisor Radford inquired if the number of 1700 no shows is reliable,
and Ms. Webb replied that number is correct based on RADAR’s information but that
there may be data reliability issues that need to be addressed. Mr. Caywood added that
we also want to be sure we are being billed correctly.
Supervisor Hooker commented that we are helping local facilities fund
their process, since 40% of RADAR’s ridership is residents outside of Roanoke County.
Supervisor North asked about residency. Mr. Bever responded that
RADAR can’t require residency because of ADA grant requirements for ADA-Par transit,
except that we aren’t ADA Para-Transit but follow those guidelines to receive grants.
Supervisor Assaid asked if 40% of users are non-residents, would a 40%
reduction in revenue affect the $4 cost to riders. Mr. Bever replied that’s why we’d like to
put out an RFP.
Supervisor Peters asked why ambulatory people couldn’t partner with
Uber or Lyft. Mr. Bever responded that is what makes it a difficult RFP, because there
are different transport needs for different people. Mr. Caywood added that he expects
we’ll be looking at CORTRAN over the next several years, and that this is just one step.
Supervisor Hooker commended Joyce Earl and her department for taking
on the management of this program. They run a great department.
Supervisor North looks forward to hearing the progress made over the
next year.
Mr. Bever briefly mentioned contractual obligations to outside agencies.
March 26, 2019
129
Supervisor Hooker asked how much of the $260,000 funding toward Blue
Ridge Behavioral meets the 10% goal. Mr. Bever and Mr. Caywood responded that it’s
8-1/2 to 9%.
Supervisor Radford asked if the amount of $41,280 is an increase or
contractual. Mr. Bever said that is less than 1/2%, and $20,000 is discretionary, and Mr.
Bever explained where the $41,280 is going.
Mr. Bever discussed the upcoming budget work sessions.
Supervisor North returned back to the discretionary amounts and asked
what the requested amount was in the discretionary accounts. Supervisor Peters
responded that $641,886 was requested.
Per Supervisor North’s earlier request, Treasurer Kevin Hutchins outlined
the new clerk position he is requesting.
Supervisor North noted that between February 2018 and February 2019,
the numbers show a $269,000 decline in the principal and interest portion, which was a
good leap. Mr. Hutchins has assured there is at least $125,000 in the budget, but it
takes six (6) months to train someone. Last year he did not support it but wanted
Treasurer Hutchins to give a report this year on the efforts of his office without the
additional position. But given that we have such a tight budget this year, Supervisor
North thinks we should give this position a chance, like an investment.
Supervisor Assaid countered that he does not gamble. It’s a $28,000
position to get an estimated $125,000.
Supervisor Hooker asked if that estimate of $125,000 was what the
County would actually have, since the schools would receive amounts out of the totals
of any monies collected. Treasurer Hutchins predicted that we could easily do amount,
but did not want to put it in the budget that way.
Supervisor Assaid asked Mr. Hutchins if he believed he could collect 5%
of what is delinquent. Mr. Hutchins said yes, based on what is delinquent today, but the
delinquent figure would rise on July 1.
Supervisor Hooker asked and Mr. Hutchins responded that 92% is the
combined collection rate for the first year.
Supervisor Hooker asked if there is a certain percentage that is just
uncollectible. Mr. Hutchins replied there can be, but that’s he’s never run that
percentage.
Supervisor Hooker asked what happens in the worst case if we hire but
don’t get the expected return. Mr. Hutchins stated that we can analyze on a one or two
year basis. If it’s not working, he can just not fill another opening through attrition.
Supervisor Hooker said that this approach would minimize the gamble.
Supervisor Peters stated that if the budget increases, that number will
increase. Mr. Hutchens replied that the $128M in real estate and personal property has
gone up $3M in the past last years, and it will only keep going up.
Supervisor North asked the Treasurer if he could live with that, and Mr.
Hutchins replied absolutely.
March 26, 2019
130
Supervisor North said the Board trusts the Treasurer, but to garner
support, we want to be confident in why we’re doing this in case the Treasurer is not
here in two years.
Supervisor Hooker asked if there could be a report in two years for
analysis.
Supervisor North confirmed that the Board would like a report after year
one and after year two. If it doesn’t look like it’s been successful, then that position can
fill the next open position in the office.
Supervisor Assaid suggested hiring two part time people instead of one
full time, in case one doesn’t work out, the training time is minimized. Mr. Hutchins
replied that creates difficulties in hiring, training and deputizing a part time worker.
Supervisor North asked if it was the consensus of the Board to do what
was outlined.
Supervisors Peters, Radford, and Hooker responded in the affirmative
Supervisor Assaid declined.
Supervisor Hooker stated that there are other items to incorporate into the
April 23, 2019, work session.
Supervisor Assaid wanted to add his that there were other requests for
part time staff that did not make it to the Board. We are trying to provide citizens with
the best service we can through positions that are stretched so thin but are not revenue
generators.
The work session was held from 4:30 p.m. until 6:00 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 7:02 p.m., Chairman North called the meeting back into session and
moved to adopt the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 032619-3 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member’s
knowledge:
March 26, 2019
131
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Assaid to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker, the motion was carried by the following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Proclamation declaring March 2019 as Girl Scout Month (Barbara
N. Duerk, Girl Scouts of Virginia Skyline)
Proclamation was presented by Chairman North.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING
1. Public hearing for citizen comments on the Real Estate Effective
Tax Rate for calendar year 2019 (Christopher R. Bever, Director of
Management and Budget; Kenneth Fay, Director of Real Estate)
Chairman North opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens to
speak on this agenda item.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS
1. Public hearing for citizen comments on the maximum 2019
calendar year tax rates for Real Estate, Personal Property and
Machinery and Tools Taxes (Christopher R. Bever, Director of
Management and Budget)
Chairman North opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens to
speak on this agenda item.
2. Resolutions to set the following maximum tax rates for calendar
year 2019 to support this fiscal year 2019-2020 operating budget:
(a) Resolution to set the Real Estate maximum tax rate at $1.09 for
calendar year 2019
March 26, 2019
132
RESOLUTION 032619-4 SETTING THE REAL ESTATE
MAXIMUM TAX RATE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2019
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia will set
maximum tax rates for calendar year 2019 to support the fiscal year 2019-2020
operating budget; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for citizen comments on setting maximum tax rates
was held on March 26, 2019, at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will adopt final 2019
calendar year tax rates on April 9, 2019, following a public hearing for citizen comments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, set the following Real Estate maximum tax rate for calendar year
2019:
(A) The Real Estate Tax for calendar year 2019 is set at a rate of not more
than $1.09 per $100 of assessed valuation.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker, the motion was carried by the following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
(b) Resolution to set the Personal Property maximum tax rate at
$3.50 for calendar year 2019
RESOLUTION 032619-5 SETTING THE PERSONAL PROPERTY
MAXIMUM TAX RATE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2019
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia will set
maximum tax rates for calendar year 2019 to support the fiscal year 2019-2020
operating budget; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for citizen comments on setting maximum tax rates
was held on March 26, 2019, at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will adopt final 2019
calendar year tax rates on April 9, 2019, following a public hearing for citizen comments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, set the following Personal Property maximum tax rate for calendar
year 2019:
(A) The Personal Property Tax for calendar year 2019 is set at a rate of not
more than $3.50 per $100 of assessed valuation.
March 26, 2019
133
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Assaid, the motion was carried by the following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
(c) Resolution to set the Machinery and Tools maximum tax rate
$2.85 for calendar year 2019 (Christopher R. Bever, Director of
Management and Budget)
RESOLUTION 032619-6 SETTING THE MACHINERY AND
TOOLS MAXIMUM TAX RATE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2019
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia will set
maximum tax rates for calendar year 2019 to support the fiscal year 2019-2020
operating budget; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for citizen comments on setting maximum tax rates
was held on March 26, 2019, at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will adopt final 2019
calendar year tax rates on April 9, 2019, following a public hearing for citizen comments;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, set the following Machinery and Tools maximum tax rate for calendar
year 2019:
(A) The Machinery and Tools Tax for calendar year 2019 is set at a rate of not
more than $2.85 per $100 of assessed valuation.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Radford, the motion was carried by the following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE
1. The petition of Skyway Towers to obtain a Special Use Permit for
a broadcasting tower (cell tower) approximately 199 feet in height
in an AR, Agricultural/Residential, District on approximately 4.00
acres, located near the 6700 block of Split Oak Road, Cave Spring
Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Acting Director of
Planning)
March 26, 2019
134
Mr. Thompson outlined the petition. William Shumate, with Woods Rogers
outlined the petition on behalf of Skyway Towers.
The consultant for Roanoke County, George Condyles, President of
Atlantic Technology Consultants was in attendance to answer any questions. He gave
a brief overview. He added that he agrees and confers with the petitioner on everything
accept what the National Park Service will do. In that area, there is a power line that
goes through the area and there are four (4) existing structures. Verizon and U S
Cellular have towers on the existing structures because the Park Service advises what
will go where due to the view shed.
Chairman North opened and closed the public hearing with the following
citizen to speak:
Cassandra Nolan of 6620 Split Oak Road stated she would be directly
impacted by the construction of the tower as she is one of the two most adjacent,
neighboring properties. A lot of the stuff that they have already discussed in the
Planning Meeting she has written her pertaining to the other co-location sites as a viable
option for the applicant as opposed to the tower. One thing she would like to draw
specific attention to is there representation of the coverage map as compared to some
of the documentation she found online as well as the balloon test. She thinks they are
somewhat misrepresented pertaining to the height particularly when you look at the
photos that were provided or in their PowerPoint. The existing power line, as the
consultant said, is 120 feet tall. So, please image the second tower, which is on a very
similar elevation grade base, would almost be twice as tall. Some of the photos that the
applicant has provided were taken as he admitted in inclement weather. She did not see
what they provided for yesterday’s photos, but she goes recall yesterday as being quite
foggy and cloudy as well. They also show the proposed tower with a white background
as opposed to our traditional blue sky on most days. She also obtained twenty (20)
signatures of the nearby residents that are not in favor of the tower. In addition to their
signatures, she asked each resident to identify whether they are an existing T-Mobile
customer and they are not, not a single one of the neighboring residents are a T-Mobile
customer.
March 26, 2019
135
Furthermore, she would like to show that yesterday, she looked on their T-Mobile
website and this is Split Oak in the Center (shows picture to Board). This is the
coverage they represent. They currently have on their website as of yesterday. Again,
none of the residents are T-Mobile customers so she happened to pull the Verizon
coverage and the dark red signifies 4G coverage and you can see it is to the similar
scale and identifies that we have more than adequate coverage in the area for those
who are Verizon customers. Furthermore, U S Cellular also as the consultant identified
as being on an existing power line, excellent coverage from U S Cellular as well. The
applicant noted that 9 1 1 calls were a safety concern. As a resident, of course they
agree, but as you can see with the existing leading carriers in the area having co-
locations available, the 9 1 1 calls will be picked up by them.
The petitioner responded to the concerns addressed.
Supervisor Assaid asked if we approve a special use permit, with
conditions on this site, what happens if the FED does not approve. Mr. Thompson
stated it runs with property and if does not get built in a two-year period, it will be void.
He added if the federal government is not going to approve it, they could allow it at an
alternative height.
Supervisor Assaid stated he would be more inclined to wait on the Park
Service so that we know what we are voting on.
Supervisor North inquired as to the height of the other towers that are
there now. Mr. Condyles stated the AEP towers are approximately 120 feet in height.
Just to mirror what Mr. Thompson was saying, you could approve the tower with the
condition of the National Park Service. They could come back with the first decision as
fine. The second decision is lower it to 140 feet or thirdly, you cannot build it at all.
Supervisor Hooker asked Mr. Thompson with regard to the condition of
being approved by the Parkway. Is that a condition that is typically put in play for a
special use permit? Mr. Thompson stated we have never done before. Supervisor
Hooker asked if it was problematic. Ms. Kuhnel explained it is problematic to the extent
that we cannot control it. She believes that it has been stated accurately, under her
understanding of the way these things work, if you approve it as a SUP and you have
put whatever condition in, if they don’t get it, they cannot build it. So, it is in theory
already conditional, so she does not know what added benefit the Board adding a
condition that they have no control over. The Board is just a step in their process. They
have other tests they have to meet and that would be one of them. Supervisor Hooker
reiterated there is no benefit of adding that as a condition, but there is also no harm in it
being approved with our special use permit process and then were unable to do so,
does not harm the property.
March 26, 2019
136
ORDINANCE 032619-7 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN
AN AR (AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT TO ALLOW
THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A
BROADCASTING TOWER, ON AN APPROXIMATELY 4.00-
ACRE PARCEL (TAX MAP NO. 096.01-02-25.00-0000),
LOCATED NEAR THE 6700 BLOCK OF SPLIT OAK ROAD,
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, a broadcasting tower is not a permitted use in the AR (Agricultural/
Residential) zoning district, but is allowed as a special use; and
WHEREAS, Skyway Towers has requested a special use permit for the
construction and operation of a broadcasting tower, on an approximately 4.00 acre-
parcel (Tax Map No. 096.01-02-25.00-0000), located near the 6700 block of Split Oak
Road, in the Cave Spring Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on March 5, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the special use
permit with one condition: that the maximum height of the broadcasting tower shall be
199 feet; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on February 26, 2019,
and the second reading and public hearing were held on March 26, 2019; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement have been provided as required by
law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. The Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to allow construction
and operation of a broadcasting tower on an approximately 4.00 acre-parcel
(Tax Map No. 096.01-02-25.00-0000), located near the 6700 block of Split
Oak Road, in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is in conformance with the
requirements of Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County Code, and further
conforms with County’s comprehensive plan and with official County policies
adopted in relation thereto. Further, the Board finds that the proposed use will
have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and
community. In considering impacts, the Board has given due regard to
operation, site design, access, screening, and other matters which might be
regulated to mitigate impact.
2. The Board grants this special use permit subject to the following conditions:
a. The maximum height of the broadcasting tower shall be 199 feet.
3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its final passage. The
Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect
the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Assaid to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
March 26, 2019
137
Hooker, the motion was carried by the following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
IN RE: CITIZENS’ COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Matthew Gallimore of 3913 Hummingbird Lane stated he has grown up in
Roanoke County, except for the time he was in college he has lived here all his life. He
is a graduate of Northside and a member of North Roanoke Baptist and work as an
engineer in North County. His father and grandfather build houses in the Catawba
District and lived there until he purchased his house in the Cave Spring area. He
always wanted to come back home; did not want to be a part of the brain drain. He
heard that term growing up. He voted for the Vice Chairwoman in 2015 and was glad to
see a quote from her last fall in the Roanoke Times, “In Roanoke County, we need to
think more about place making and building quality of place, not only to attract new
corporate investment, but in support of new population growth.” He really liked the
quote. Since nobody comes here without a complaint, his complaint is that he would
like to let the Board know that the interaction that he has had with Roanoke County
since moving into his house has been a County notice, that seemed kind of threatening,
but noncompliance with an ordinance that he owns, but does not drive daily is non-
complaint because it does not have an up-to-date inspection sticker sitting on his
property. He will of course comply with the order, he is getting it fixed on Friday as he
works a four-(4) day week, and he just has not had time to fix it. The reason he is here,
maybe he watched too much “Andy Griffith” growing up, but this being the first thing he
ever got from the County seemed a little threatening for just a vehicle sitting on his
property. All he is saying is that if our community wants to be attractive to young
professionals like himself, maybe the County could be a little more tactful in its
enforcement of ordinances. He is a graduate of VMI and was instilled with the
knowledge that ignorance is no excuse in violation of the law, but he was ignorant of
this ordinance and it would have been nice instead of something that looks like a ticket,
the police give warnings before they move on to the next step. He hopes that
something could be done so others might have better experience with this. He does not
want anybody else’s first experience with our County to be a threatening, certified letter,
which would be second interaction because the first is revenue related. Aside from this
incident, he likes it here and likes the fact we have a well-managed County and is a
quality place to live. Thank you for your service to the County.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Hooker asked staff regarding Mr. Gallimore’s comment, are we
usually sending out notices like that. Is it correct they are complaint driven? Ms.
138 March 26, 2019
Kuhnel responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Hooker added so it must have been a
neighbor or someone in the community who may have noticed it and alerted the staff.
Supervisor North stated there are two events for businesses in April. The
Blue Ridge Sales Summit on April 8, 2019, 8:30 a.m. until 12:20 p.m. at the Vinton
Water Memorial. This summit will provide resources for businesses looking to increase
sales. Scale up your Business on April 10, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. until 11 a.m. at the South
County Library. This workshop will provide businesses with strategies to take the
business to the next level. To register for both of these events, please call Jay
Brenchick in the Economic Development Department at 772-2070. Lastly, we
concluded the Hollins Town Center reveal on Saturday and Sunday and had about 140
plus guests and citizens that stopped by personally, not to mention the ones that filled
our surveys and input online. We look forward to that information being shared later on
down the line this year on the Hollins Town Center project. Thank you to staff for
everything they did to pull that together. It was a great success.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman North adjourned the meeting at 7:58 p.m.
emitted by: Approved by:
/ litim a
/A-AlitiN Aftr&r.1 zy,
'P'L-(, -, - AK,/
Asp, iii - •orah C. . P it C. North
Chief Deputy - to the Board Chairman