5/11/2021 - Regular - DRAFT
May 11, 2021
283
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 first regularly scheduled meeting
of the month of May 2021. 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, a moment of silence was
observed. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Peters called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. The roll call was
taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman P. Jason Peters; Supervisors Martha B. Hooker,
Paul M. Mahoney, Phil C. North and David F. Radford
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Daniel R. O’Donnell, County Administrator; Richard
Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Rebecca Owens,
Assistant County Administrator; Peter S. Lubeck, County
Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public Information Officer and
Deborah C. Jacks, Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Proclamation declaring the month of May 2021 as Business
Appreciation Month in Roanoke County (Jill Loope, Director of
Economic Development)
Ms. Melissa Clements, Senior Manager, Strategy and Business
Operations at Elbit Systems of America - Night Vision, accepted the proclamation on
behalf of the business community.
May 11, 2021
284
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution adopting the fiscal year 2021-2022 operating budget,
the fiscal year 2021-2022 capital budget, and the fiscal year 2022-
2031 Capital Improvement Program for the County of Roanoke,
Virginia and Roanoke County Public Schools (Laurie Gearheart,
Director of Finance and Management Services)
Ms. Gearheart Laurie recognized Meredith Thompson, Steve Elliott and
Corey White from the budget office for their hard work on the budget. Ms. Gearheart
then outlined the request for resolution. There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 051121-1 ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-
2022 OPERATING BUDGET, THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022
CAPITAL BUDGET AND FISCAL YEARS 2022-2031 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA AND ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-2503 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended,
provides that the governing body of the County shall prepare and approve an annual
budget; and
WHEREAS, said budget shall be prepared and approved for informative and
fiscal planning purposes only; and
WHEREAS, this budget contains a complete itemized and classified plan of all
contemplated expenditures and all estimated revenues and borrowings for the ensuing
fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, a brief synopsis of said budget was published as required by the
provisions of Section 15.2-2506 of the State Code, and the public hearings as required
thereon were held on April 13, 2021 and April 27, 2021.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia:
1. That there is hereby approved the annual operating budget for fiscal year
2021-2022 for Roanoke County, Virginia, and Roanoke County Public
Schools as shown on the attached Schedules 1 and 2.
2. That there is hereby approved the capital budget for fiscal year 2021-2022
and Capital Improvement Program for fiscal years 2022-2031 for Roanoke
County, Virginia, and Roanoke County Public Schools as shown on the
attached Schedule 3.
3. That the preparation and approval of these budgets is for informative and
fiscal planning purposes only.
4. That there is hereby approved a Fee Compendium which lists all fees and
charges imposed by the County for providing specialized programs and
May 11, 2021
285
services. The Fee Compendium provides details on the type of fee,
authority to levy the fee, current fees, and proposed changes to the
current fees.
On motion of Supervisor North to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
2. Resolution naming the open space at old William Byrd High
School (Tax ID 060.11-04-17.00-0000) “Glade Creek Park” (Doug
Blount, Director of General Services and Parks, Recreation and
Tourism)
Mr. Blount outlined the request for resolution. There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 051121-2 NAMING THE OPEN SPACE AT OLD
WILLIAM BYRD HIGH SCHOOL (Tax ID 060.11-04-17.00-0000)
“GLADE CREEK PARK”
WHEREAS, Roanoke County owns a parcel of land located at 301 Gus Nicks
Road, Vinton, Virginia 24179, which is used as open space and athletic fields; and
WHEREAS, this parcel of open space and athletic fields has hosted the annual
Dogwood Festival and many recreation games and practices for football, soccer,
baseball and softball; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Vinton is currently constructing Glade Creek Greenway
through the parcel, as well as a new trailhead parking lot; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate for this multi-purpose space to be formalized as a
park; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends naming the park “Glade Creek Park”; and
WHEREAS, the Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Council voted
unanimously on April 19, 2021, to name the park “Glade Creek Park”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, as follows:
1. That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors does hereby designate
and name the parcel located at 301 Gus Nicks Road, Vinton, Virginia 24179 “Glade
Creek Park”.
May 11, 2021
286
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
3. Resolution authorizing the County of Roanoke to enter into a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Town of Vinton, for the
County to support the Gish Mill Redevelopment Project (Jill
Loope, Director of Economic Development)
Ms. Loope outlined the request for resolution. Supervisors Peters and
North commented on Economic Development’s hard work with this project.
RESOLUTION 051121-3 AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY OF
ROANOKE TO ENTER A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
WITH THE TOWN OF VINTON, FOR THE COUNTY TO SUPPORT
THE GISH MILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Town of Vinton’s Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Master Plan
have created a vision for downtown Vinton; and
WHEREAS, the County joins the Town in its desire to make economic development
in the downtown area of Vinton a priority; and
WHEREAS, the Town has proposed to enter into a performance agreement with the
Roanoke County Economic Development Authority and Gish Mill Davii, LLC, to redevelop a
group of parcels of real estate, to be known as the “Gish Mill Redevelopment Project,”
located Gus Nicks Blvd. in the Town of Vinton, comprised of the following:
Gish Mill Parcels
Tax Map No. Address
060.11-04-22.00-0000 (Roanoke County) 350 Gus Nicks Blvd
060.11-04-23.00-0000 (Roanoke County) 0 Gus Nicks Blvd
3410617 (Roanoke City) 0 Brook St. NE
and;
WHEREAS, the Town has requested the County’s financial support of the Gish Mill
Redevelopment Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That upon entry of a performance agreement by the Town, the Roanoke
County Economic Development Authority, and Gish Mill Davii, LLC, the County
May 11, 2021
287
Administrator is hereby authorized to enter a Memorandum of Understanding,
on behalf of the County, with the Town of Vinton, upon a form approved by the
office of the County Attorney, for the County to provide financial assistance to
support the Gish Mill Redevelopment Project.
2. Such financial assistance shall be limited to five annual payments not to
exceed $40,000 (in total not exceeding $200,000), from net new taxes
generated from the Gish Mill parcels during the preceding tax year. Net new
taxes shall be any taxes received in excess of any taxes received from the
Gish Mill properties for tax year 2020.
3. In addition, the County will contribute up to $20,000 as reimbursement of
permitting fees paid by Gish Mill Davii, LLC.
4. The first year of Gish Mill operations is expected to be 2023. Accordingly, the
County’s first payment to Vinton will be made in January 2024, and payments
will conclude in January 2028.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Emergency ordinance readopting Ordinance 033120-1 to
effectuate temporary changes in certain deadline and to modify
public meeting and public hearing practices and procedures to
address continuity of operations associated with pandemic
disaster (Due to the Pandemic Disaster, it is requested, upon a
four-fifths vote of the Board, the second reading be waived and
the ordinance adopted as an emergency measure) (Peter S.
Lubeck, County Attorney)
Mr. Lubeck outlined the request. There was no discussion.
EMERGENCY 051121-4 ORDINANCE READOPTING
ORDINANCE 033120-1, TO EFFECTUATE TEMPORARY
CHANGES IN CERTAIN DEADLINES
AND
TO MODIFY PUBLIC MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING
PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES TO ADDRESS CONTINUITY
OF OPERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PANDEMIC DISASTER
May 11, 2021
288
WHEREAS, on March 31, 2020, the Board adopted emergency Ordinance
033120-1, to effectuate temporary changes in certain deadlines and to modify public
meeting and public hearing practices and procedures to address continuity of
operations associated with the COVID-19 pandemic disaster; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15.2-1427 of the Code of Virginia, emergency
ordinances shall not be enforced for more than sixty (60) days unless readopted; and
WHEREAS, the Board readopted the ordinance on May 26, 2020, July 14, 2020;
September 8, 2020, November 4, 2020; December 15, 2020; February 9, 2021 and
again on March 23, 2021; and
WHEREAS, due to the ongoing nature of the COVID -19 pandemic, it is again
proposed that the Board readopt Ordinance 033120-1; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 11, 2021; and the
second reading has been dispensed with, upon an affirmative vote of 4/5ths of the
members of the Board, this being deemed to be an emergency measure pursuant to
Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Roanoke, Virginia:
1. That Ordinance 033120-1 is hereby readopted, with the following amendment to
Section 2(b), which shall now state:
a. “The chairman of each Public Entity shall have authority to decide whether to
hold any such electronic meeting. If the chairman is unavailable, the vice-chair
shall decide. If the vice-chair is unavailable, such authority shall lie with members
of the Board, in the order of their seniority (length of tenure) on the Board.”
2. An emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordinance shall be effective upon its
adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the ordinance as an emergency
measure and waiving the second reading with a 4/5ths vote; seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance approving a lease with Ft. Lewis Mountain Company,
LLC for ingress and egress on a private road to access
communications and information technology equipment (Bill
Hunter, Director of Communications and Information
Technology; Mary Beth Nash, Senior Assistant County Attorney)
Mr. Hunter outlined the request for ordinance; supports one of our four
critical communication sites for the public safety radio system.
May 11, 2021
289
Supervisor Hooker asked if the tower was on the property or is it just
ingress and egress. Mr. Hunter responded it is just the ingress and egress. We
actually own the property that the tower sits on.
Supervisor Mahoney advised we really thought we would resolve this
issue thirty (30) years ago. We are paying too much money for this, but it is our only
access to a critical public safety facility. Mr. Hunter advised staff is investigating
another route, but it has not happened yet.
Supervisor Mahoney’s motion to approve the first reading and set the
second reading for May 25, 2021, was seconded by Supervisor Hooker and approved
by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinances to appropriate funds for:
(a) Fiscal year 2021-2022 operations budget and approval of the
Classification and Pay Plan for fiscal year 2021-2022 for the County
of Roanoke, Virginia;
There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 051121-5 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 OPERATIONS BUDGET AND
APPROVAL OF THE CLASSIFICATION AND PAY PLAN FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, public hearings were
held on April 13, 2021 and April 27, 2021 concerning the adoption of the annual budget
for Roanoke County for fiscal year 2021-2022; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
approved said budget on May 11, 2021, pursuant to the provisions of Section 13.02 of
the Roanoke County Charter and Chapter 25 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia,
as amended; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on April 27,
2021, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 11, 2021, pursuant to
the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
May 11, 2021
290
1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective funds
for the period beginning July 1, 2021, and ending June 30, 2022, for the
functions and purposes indicated:
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2021-2022
County Operations
First Reading April 27, 2021; Second Reading May 11, 2021
Appropriation
Amount
Revenues:
General Fund - County:
General Government$ 128,082,761
Communications & Information Technology 11,644,488
Children's Services Act 7,900,007
Public Works Projects 176,054
Recreation Fee Class 4,660,474
Parks, Recreation & Tourism - School Operations 365,647
Police E-Citation 60,000
Community Development Technology Fee 40,000
Grants & Other Funds 2,216,977
Police Special Programs 2,500
Criminal Justice Academy 379,625
May 11, 2021
Fleet Service Center 3,380,610
Subtotal, General Fund158,909,143
291
Debt Service Fund - from County14,386,650
Debt Service Fund - from Schools4,125,345
Subtotal, Debt Service Fund18,511,995
Internal Service Fund - Health Insurance12,161,050
Internal Service Fund - Dental Insurance758,540
Internal Service Fund - Risk Management1,604,003
Subtotal, Internal Service Funds14,523,593
Total Revenue - County Operations Funds$ 191,944,731
Expenditures:
General Government - County Operations:
General Administration
Board of Supervisors$ 330,283
County Administration 783,941
Internal Auditor 119,433
Public Information 204,917
County Attorney 620,929
Human Resources 960,184
Subtotal, General Administration3,019,687
Constitutional Officers
Commissioner of the Revenue881,136
Commonwealth's Attorney1,288,751
Sheriff's Office11,763,238
Treasurer970,636
Clerk of the Circuit Court1,183,586
Subtotal, Constitutional Officers16,087,347
Appropriation
Amount
Judicial Administration
Circuit Court$ 257,068
General District Court 103,440
Magistrate 1,590
Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court 39,086
Court Service Unit 470,144
Courthouse Maintenance 50,000
Subtotal, Judicial Administration921,328
Management Services
Real Estate Valuation (Assessor)858,850
Finance & Management Services2,395,395
Subtotal, Management Services3,254,245
Public Safety
Police13,054,888
Fire & Rescue17,263,575
May 11, 2021
Subtotal, Public Safety30,318,463
292
Community Services
Economic Development472,690
Development Services3,267,447
Planning1,297,602
General Services8,341,378
Subtotal, Community Services13,379,117
Human Services
Parks, Recreation, & Tourism5,018,793
Public Health515,902
Social Services13,649,647
Library4,315,151
Virginia Cooperative Extension87,097
Elections (Registrar)424,777
Subtotal, Human Services24,011,367
Non-Departmental
Employee Benefits3,126,264
Transfer to Communications & Information Technology9,434,017
Contributions - Discretionary, Contractual, Dues & Memberships1,989,743
Miscellaneous1,512,923
Board Contingency50,000
General Government Expenditure Contingency252,597
Addition to Fund Balance491,803
Subtotal, Non-Departmental16,857,347
Appropriation
Amount
Transfers to Other Funds
Transfer to Debt Service - County & Schools$ 14,252,105
Transfer to County Capital 2,069,098
Transfer to Children's Services Act - County 1,934,000
Transfer to Internal Services - Risk Management 1,604,003
Transfer to Criminal Justice Academy 198,600
Transfer to Public Works Projects 176,054
Subtotal, Transfers to Other Funds20,233,860
Total, General Government - County Operations$ 128,082,761
Communications & Information Technology$ 11,644,488
Children's Services Act7,900,007
Public Works Projects176,054
May 11, 2021
Recreation Fee Class4,660,474
293
Parks, Recreation & Tourism - School Operations365,647
Police E-Citation60,000
Community Development Technology Fee 40,000
Grants & Other Funds2,216,977
Police Special Programs2,500
Criminal Justice Academy379,625
Fleet Service Center3,380,610
Total, General Fund - County Operations158,909,143
Debt Service Fund 18,511,995
Internal Service Fund - Health Insurance12,161,050
Internal Service Fund - Dental Insurance758,540
Internal Service Fund - Risk Management1,604,003
Total, Internal Service Funds14,523,593
Total Expenditures - All County Operations Funds$ 191,944,731
May 11, 2021
294
2. That the County Administrator may authorize or delegate the authorization of the
transfer of any unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one department to
another.
3. That all funded outstanding operating encumbrances at June 30, 2021, are re-
appropriated to the 2021-2022 fiscal year to the same department and account for
which they are encumbered in the previous year.
4. That all General Government Fund unexpended appropriations and all General
Government revenues collected in excess of appropriated revenues at the end of
any fiscal year not lapse but shall be re-appropriated and presented to the Board of
Supervisors for allocation based on guidance provided in Section 10-1 through 5 of
the County of Roanoke Comprehensive Financial Policy as approved by the Board of
Supervisors.
5. Account balances remaining in the Fee Class Fund collected by the Parks,
Recreation and Tourism Department will be allocated to accounts as defined by the
Fee Class Accounts Procedure.
6. Account balances remaining in Children’s Services Act (C111), Police Confiscated
Property (C120), Police Special Programs (C121), Forfeited Asset Sharing (C122),
Sheriff Confiscated Property (C123), Sheriff Jail Fees (C124), Inventory Accounts
(C125), Criminal Justice Academy (C126), Police Training Facility (C127), Garage -
Fleet Service Center (C130), Motor Pool (C132), Grants (C135), Communications
and Information Technology (C141-C144), Fee Class (C150), PRT Schools Ground
Maintenance (C151), Public Works Fund (C170), South Peak Community
Development Authority (C201), County Debt Fund (C310, C320, C330, C340, C360,
C365, C375), County Capital and Economic Development Funds (C420, C421,
C425, C428, C440, C445, C451, C455, C475), County Trust Funds (C501, C502),
Internal Service Funds (C700, C705, C710), Special Welfare (C810), Regional
Fire/Rescue Training Center (C814), Commonwealth Fund (C815), and Economic
Development Authority (C818) funds will carry over 100% and be re-appropriated to
the individual funds.
7. That the Board of Supervisors anticipates receiving various grants, donations, and
other miscellaneous revenues. These anticipated funds are appropriated to the
Grants Fund for the various functions and purposes as provided therein, and said
appropriation shall be acknowledged and allocated to the appropriate fund upon
approval by the Board of Supervisors on the Consent Agenda.
8. That the Board of Supervisors approves the County of Roanoke Classification and
Pay Plan. The Classification and Pay Plan included as part of this ordinance is
effective July 1, 2021. The County Administrator shall implement the County
Classification and Pay Plan pursuant to Board of Supervisors Resolution 082515-1.
9. This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2021.
May 11, 2021
295
On motion of Supervisor Radford to adopt the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
(b) Fiscal year 2021-2022 capital budget for the County of Roanoke,
Virginia;
There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 051121-6 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 CAPITAL BUDGET FOR ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, public hearings were
held on April 13, 2021 and April 27, 2021 concerning the adoption of the annual budget
for Roanoke County for fiscal year 2021-2022; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, approved
said budget on May 11, 2021, pursuant to the provisions of Section 13.02 of the
Roanoke County Charter and Chapter 25 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on April 27,
2021 and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 11, 2021, pursuant to
the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective funds
for the period beginning July 1, 2021, and ending June 30, 2022, for the
functions and purposes indicated:
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2021-2022
County Capital
First Reading April 27, 2021; Second Reading May 11, 2021
Appropriation
Amount
Revenues:
County Capital:
Transfer from General Government Fund$ 4,965,000
County Unrestricted Cash (excl. Transfer from General Govt. Fund) 2,982,992
County Restricted Cash 928,320
Total Revenue - County Capital$ 8,876,312
Expenditures:
County Capital:
FY 2022 Capital Fund supported by General Government Fund
excluding General Government Transfers to CIP & Fleet Replacement$ 3,365,000
May 11, 2021
FY 2022 Capital Year Budget - Public Safety1,310,000
FY 2022 Capital Year Budget - Community Services1,796,312
296
FY 2022 Capital Year Budget - Human Services800,000
FY 2022 Capital Year Budget - Internal Services1,405,000
Subtotal, FY 2022 Capital Year Budget5,311,312
FY 2022 Fleet Replacement Budget200,000
Total Expenditures - County Capital$ 8,876,312
May 11, 2021
297
2. That the County Administrator may authorize or delegate the authorization of
the transfer of any unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one project
to another so as to provide for the completion of a capital project.
3. That all funded outstanding capital encumbrances at June 30, 2021, are re-
appropriated to the 2021-2022 fiscal year to the same account for which they
are encumbered in the previous year.
4. That appropriations designated for capital projects will not lapse at the end of
the fiscal year but shall remain appropriated until the completion of the project
or until the Board of Supervisors, by appropriate action, changes or eliminates
the appropriation. Upon completion of a capital project, staff is authorized to
close out the project and transfer to the funding source any remaining
balances. This section applies to appropriations for capital projects at June
30, 2021, and appropriations in the 2021-2022 fiscal year budget.
That the Board of Supervisors anticipates receiving various grants, donations,
and other miscellaneous revenues. These anticipated funds are appropriated
to the Grants Fund for the various functions and purposes as provided
therein, and said appropriation shall be acknowledged and allocated to the
appropriate fund upon approval by the Board of Supervisors on the Consent
Agenda.
5. This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2021.
On motion of Supervisor North to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Mahoney and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
(c) Fiscal year 2021-2022 transfer to and on behalf of the Roanoke
County Public Schools budget for the County of Roanoke, Virginia
Supervisor Hooker made the following statement. “I am an employee of
Roanoke County Public Schools and have been advised by the Commonwealth
Attorney and County Attorney that she may participate in this vote.”
There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 051121-7 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 TRANSFERS TO AND ON BEHALF
OF ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2021-2022
Schools Revenue Sharing Transfer and
Children's Services Act Transfer
First Reading April 27, 2021; Second Reading May 11, 2021
Appropriation
Amount
Revenues:
General Government Fund$ 73,700,490
Total Revenue - Schools Transfers$ 73,700,490
Expenditures:
General Government Fund
Transfer to Schools Operations$ 71,821,490
Transfer to Children's Services Act on behalf of Schools 1,879,000
Total Expenditures - Schools Transfers$ 73,700,490
May 11, 2021
298
WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, public hearings were
held on April 13, 2021 and April 27, 2021, concerning the adoption of the annual budget
for Roanoke County for fiscal year 2021-2022; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, approved
said budget on May 11, 2021, pursuant to the provisions of Section 13.02 of the
Roanoke County Charter and Chapter 25 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on April 27,
2021, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 11, 2021, pursuant to
the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective funds
for the period beginning July 1, 2021, and ending June 30, 2022, for the
functions and purposes indicated:
2. That the transfer to Roanoke County Public Schools for operating per the
County and School revenue sharing agreement shall be transferred in its
entirety.
May 11, 2021
299
3. That the transfers made by Roanoke County on behalf of Roanoke County
Public Schools to the Children’s Services Act Fund shall be transferred in its
entirety.
4. This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2021.
On motion of Supervisor Hooker to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
(d) Fiscal year 2021-2022 operations budget for Roanoke County
Public Schools;
There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 051121-8 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 OPERATIONS BUDGET FOR
ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, public hearings were
held on April 13, 2021 and April 27, 2021 concerning the adoption of the annual budget
for Roanoke County for fiscal year 2021-2022; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, approved
said budget on May 11, 2021, pursuant to the provisions of Section 13.02 of the
Roanoke County Charter and Chapter 25 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on April 27,
2021, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 11, 2021, pursuant to
the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective funds
for the period beginning July 1, 2021, and ending June 30, 2022, for the
functions and purposes indicated:
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2021-2022
Roanoke County Public Schools Operations
First Reading April 27, 2021; Second Reading May 11, 2021
Appropriation
Amount
Revenues:
Schools Operating Funds:
General$ 156,382,733
Nutrition 5,955,651
Grants 7,272,325
Instructional Resources 1,470,960
Fleet Replacement 1,283,556
Technology Replacement 5,056,445
Student Activity Fund 7,200,000
Total Revenue - Schools Operating Funds$ 184,621,670
Expenditures:
May 11, 2021
Schools Operating Funds:
General$ 156,382,733
300
Nutrition 5,955,651
Grants 7,272,325
Instructional Resources 1,470,960
Fleet Replacement 1,283,556
Technology Replacement 5,056,445
Student Activity Fund 7,200,000
Total Expenditures - Schools Operating Funds$ 184,621,670
2. That all funded outstanding operating encumbrances at June 30, 2021, are
re-appropriated to the 2021-2022 fiscal year to the same department and
account for which they are encumbered in the previous year.
3. That all appropriations unexpended and remaining at the end of this fiscal
year shall, pursuant to Section 22.1-100 of the Code of Virginia, revert to the
fund of the Board of Supervisors from which derived, with the expectation that
such funds will be re-appropriated back to Roanoke County Public Schools
for use the next year, in accordance with Section 10-6 of the County’s
Comprehensive Financial Policy.
4. This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2021.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
North and carried by the following recorded vote:
May 11, 2021
301
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
(e) Fiscal year 2021-2022 capital budget for Roanoke County Public
Schools (Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management
Services)
There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 051121-9 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 CAPITAL BUDGET FOR ROANOKE
COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, public hearings were
held on April 13, 2021 and April 27, 2021 concerning the adoption of the annual budget
for Roanoke County for fiscal year 2021-2022; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, approved
said budget on May 11, 2021, pursuant to the provisions of Section 13.02 of the
Roanoke County Charter and Chapter 25 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on April 27,
2021, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 11, 2021, pursuant to
the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective funds
for the period beginning July 1, 2021, and ending June 30, 2022, for the
functions and purposes indicated:
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2021-2022
Roanoke County Public Schools Capital
First Reading April 27, 2021; Second Reading May 11, 2021
Appropriation
Amount
Revenues:
Schools Capital
Virginia Public Schools Authority (VPSA) Bonds$ 12,000,000
Schools Cash Sources2,854,592
Total Revenue - Schools Capital$ 14,854,592
Expenditures:
Schools Capital
William Byrd High School Renovation$ 4,650,412
W.E. Cundiff Elementary School Renovation 4,722,090
Glen Cove Elementary School Renovation 4,722,090
Other Minor Capital Items & Contingency 760,000
May 11, 2021
Total Expenditures - Schools Capital$ 14,854,592
302
2. That all funded outstanding capital encumbrances at June 30, 2021, are re-
appropriated to the 2021-2022 fiscal year to the same account for which they
are encumbered in the previous year.
3. That all appropriations unexpended and remaining at the end of this fiscal
year shall, pursuant to Section 22.1-100 of the Code of Virginia, revert to the
fund of the Board of Supervisors from which derived, with the expectation that
such funds will be re-appropriated back to Roanoke County Public Schools
for use the next year, in accordance with Section 10-6 of the County’s
Comprehensive Financial Policy.
4. Upon completion of a capital project, staff is authorized to close out the
project and transfer to the funding source any remaining balances. This
section applies to appropriations for capital projects at June 30, 2021, and
appropriations in the 2021-2022 fiscal year budget.
5. This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2021.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
May 11, 2021
303
2. Ordinance accepting and appropriating funds in the amount of
$28,480.20 from the former Catawba/Masons Cove Volunteer
Rescue Squad (C. Travis Griffith, Chief of Fire and Rescue)
Chief Griffith advised there were no changes. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 051121-10 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,480.20 FROM THE FORMER
CATAWBA/MASONS COVE VOLUNTEER RESCUE SQUAD
WHEREAS, after 36 years of service to the community, the Catawba/Masons
Cove Volunteer Rescue Squad has chosen to cease its operations, thus turning over
24/7 emergency care response to the Roanoke County Fire & Rescue Department; and
WHEREAS, the organization wishes to donate its remaining funds in the amount
of $28,480.20 to the Roanoke County Fire & Rescue Department; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Fire & Rescue Department anticipates using
these funds to support the Masons Cove emergency medical services (EMS) operations
and to effectuate needed building improvements to include historical markers to
commemorate the services of the Catawba/Masons Cove Volunteer Rescue Squad;
and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 27, 2021, and
the second reading was held on May 11, 2021.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the sum of $28,480.20 made available to the Roanoke County Fire &
Rescue Department is accepted and appropriated to the Fire and Rescue
capital account budget.
2. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Hooker to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
May 11, 2021
304
3. Ordinance accepting and appropriating Transportation
Alternatives Set-Aside Program funds from the Virginia
Department of Transportation in the amount of $200,000 and
$16,652 from the Roanoke County Revenue Sharing Program for
the East Roanoke River Greenway crossing of the Blue Ridge
Parkway along Highland Road (State Route 618) (Lindsay Webb,
Parks Planning and Development Manager)
Ms. Webb outlined the request; no changes since the first reading. There
was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 051121-11 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE PROGRAM
FUNDS FROM THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000 FOR THE
EAST ROANOKE RIVER GREENWAY CROSSING OF THE
BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY ALONG HIGHLAND ROAD (STATE
ROUTE 618)
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has awarded Roanoke
County with a second round of fiscal-year 2021/2022 Transportation Alternatives Set-
Aside Program (TA) funding in the amount of $200,000 for a 0.30-mile segment of the
Roanoke River Greenway proposed along the Highland Road crossing of the Blue
Ridge Parkway; and
WHEREAS, a reimbursement for the Roanoke County Revenue Sharing
Program was received from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and
$16,652 of the reimbursement is needed for the local match on this project; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 27, 2021, and
the second reading was held on May 11, 2021.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the sum of $200,000 from the Commonwealth Transportation Board –
Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Program is hereby accepted and
appropriated.
2. That the sum of $16,652 from the VDOT reimbursement to the Roanoke
County Revenue Sharing Program is hereby accepted and appropriated.
3. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor North
and carried by the following recorded vote:
May 11, 2021
305
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
4. Ordinance accepting and appropriating $15,000 from the Roanoke
Outside Foundation for improvements at Wayside Park to support
the Roanoke River Blueway (Lindsay Webb, Parks Planning and
Development Manager)
There were no changes since the first reading. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 051121-12 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
$15,000 FROM THE ROANOKE OUTSIDE FOUNDATION FOR
IMPROVEMENTS AT WAYSIDE PARK TO SUPPORT THE
ROANOKE RIVER BLUEWAY
WHEREAS, Project Outside is a community fund created by businesses,
governments, and individuals to support outdoor capital improvement projects, maintain
key outdoor assets, and help launch and support businesses in the outdoor sector; and
WHEREAS, Project Outside is a partnership between the Roanoke Outside
Foundation and local land managers (i.e. local governments) of identified regional
outdoor assets, such as the Roanoke River Blueway; and
WHEREAS, Wayside Park is a small 1.6-acre park located in western Roanoke
County with frontage on the Roanoke River, yet recreational access to the Roanoke
River is difficult and access improvements are needed; and
WHEREAS, County staff are planning a series of improvements at Wayside
Park, to include construction of a concrete boat ramp and aggregate surface path to
provide connectivity between the existing parking lot and the Roanoke River; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Outside Foundation has awarded Roanoke County
with funding from the Project Outside grant program in the amount of $15,000 to install
a new Roanoke River boat ramp in Wayside Park; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 27, 2021, and
the second reading was held on May 11, 2021.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the sum of $15,000 from the Roanoke Outside Foundation grant
program for improvements at Wayside Park is hereby accepted and
appropriated.
2. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Hooker to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
May 11, 2021
306
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
5. Ordinance accepting and appropriating funds in the amount of
$1,034,339.20 from the Virginia Department of Transportation for
the Fallowater Lane Extension Project, Cave Spring Magisterial
District (Megan G. Cronise, Transportation Planning
Administrator)
No changes since the first reading. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 051121-13 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $505,139 FOR THE PLANTATION
ROAD BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN AND STREETSCAPE
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PHASE II, HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Roanoke County is administering the Plantation Road Bicycle,
Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvement, Phase II, Project; and
WHEREAS, the project will connect to an existing shared use path and includes
sidewalk, curb, and gutter along the west side of Plantation Road between Walrond
Drive and Gander Way, pedestrian crosswalks and signals at the Plantation
Road/Gander Way/Friendship Lane intersection, widening and realignment of the
Walrond Drive intersection, and underground and overhead utility relocations to
facilitate these improvements; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County received, and on February 12, 2019, the Board of
Supervisors accepted and appropriated, a SMART SCALE award of $1,752,213 to fund
the project; and
WHEREAS, due to the lowest construction bid exceeding available project funds,
additional SMART SCALE funding in the amount of $339,929 was requested and
authorized by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) on April 8, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the County’s project will necessitate changes to the Western Virginia
Water Authority’s water facilities; the estimated cost is $165,210 and the Authority will
reimburse the County for the cost incurred for this facility betterment in accordance with
the Agreement between Western Virginia Water Authority and Roanoke County, Virginia
for Construction of Water Betterment, executed April 26, 2021, and such funds must be
accepted and appropriated by Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, the total of the above referenced funds equal $505,139; and
WHEREAS, the above referenced funds need to be accepted and appropriated
prior to execution of the construction contract for the project, and said construction
contract must be executed by May 17, 2021 due to construction bid time constraints;
and
May 11, 2021
307
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on April 27, 2021; and the
second reading will be held on May 11, 2021.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the sum of $339,929 is accepted and appropriated from the SMART
SCALE program for the purpose of completing the Plantation Road
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Streetscape Improvement Project, Phase II.
2. That the sum of $165,210 is accepted and appropriated from the Western
Virginia Water Authority for the costs of water facility betterment, said
costs being required by the improvements of the Plantation Road Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and Streetscape Improvement Project, Phase II.
3. That this ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor North to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
6. Ordinance accepting and appropriating funds in the amount of
$505,139 for the Plantation Road Bicycle, Pedestrian and
Streetscape Improvement Project, Phase II, Hollins Magisterial
District (Megan G. Cronise, Transportation Planning
Administrator)
Ms. Cronise advised bids were due next Wednesday. There was no
discussion.
ORDINANCE 051121-14 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,034,339.20 FROM THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE
FALLOWATER LANE EXTENSION PROJECT, CAVE SPRING
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the roadway concept for Fallowater Lane Extension was first
presented as part of the draft 419 Town Center Plan in September 2016; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors reallocated Secondary Six-Year Plan
Construction Formula Funding to initiate funding for this project on September 26, 2017;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors submitted an application for Revenue
Sharing Program funding in October 2017 for Fiscal Year 2019 and Fiscal Year 2020
May 11, 2021
308
that was awarded by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) on June 20, 2018;
and
WHEREAS, a Design Public Hearing was held on May 8, 2019, to obtain public
comment on the project; and
WHEREAS, due to project estimate increases, the Board of Supervisors
submitted a subsequent application for Revenue Sharing Program funding in October
2019 for Fiscal Year 2021 and Fiscal Year 2022; and
WHEREAS, on December 9, 2020, the CTB approved $920,057 in Revenue
Sharing Program funding State match for Fiscal Year 2021 and Fiscal Year 2022; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the Roanoke County Revenue Sharing Program match
includes a refund in the amount of $114,282.20 from the cancellation of the Merriman
Road Drainage Project, a Revenue Sharing Program project, issued by the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) in Fiscal Year 2020;
WHEREAS, the project is locally administered, and certain agreements between
the County of Roanoke and the VDOT must be executed for this cooperative work to be
accomplished; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 27, 2021, and
the second reading was held on May 11, 2021.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the sum of $920,057 is accepted and appropriated from the VDOT
Revenue Sharing Program for the purpose of completing the Fallowater
Lane Extension project.
2. That the sum of $114,282.20 is accepted from the VDOT Revenue
Sharing Program as a canceled project refund, and is appropriated for the
purpose of completing the Fallowater Lane Extension project.
3. That this ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
Chairman Peters recessed the meeting from 3:44 p.m. until 3:52 p.m.
May 11, 2021
309
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code by (1) amending
Chapter 13 (Offenses - Miscellaneous), Section 13-4 (Discharge of
Firearms or Any Chapter Similar Gun or Device, Generally); (2)
amending Chapter 21 (Taxation), Section 21-21 (Other
Classifications of Tangible Personal Property); and (3) adding
Chapter 21 (Taxation), Article X (Cigarette Tax) (Peter S. Lubeck,
County Attorney)
Mr. Lubeck advised there had been one change since the first reading
which pertains to the adoption of the cigarette tax by adding a new Article X to Chapter
21 of the County Code. Since the last meeting on April 27, 2021, he was advised by
Mr. Elliott, the County’s budget manager that the projected tax revenue of approximately
$250,000 is from the time period from January 1, 2022 to January 30, 2022, instead of
January 1, 2022 to July 1, of 2022 as originally stated in the Board report.
Supervisor Mahoney stated he has received numerous phone calls and
comments in opposition to the cigarette tax. When he had those conversations with the
citizens who called me, he attempted to explain how number one, the County was
searching for new sources of revenue for public safety and for education. Number two,
that the tax imposed, if this were adopted, was a significantly less than Roanoke City,
Salem, et cetera. He felt that we were still in a competitive advantage if we go forward.
Chairman Peters recessed the meeting from 3:56 p.m. until 4: 06 p.m.to
allow for ecomments.
Chairman Peters opened and closed the public hearing with the following
speakers:
“My name is Atul Patel, I operate 10 convenience stores in Roanoke
County, and in Salem, Roanoke city. Mr. Chairman and board of supervisor, I've been in
business for 30 years and we are representing our Asian-American Business Owners
Association. These all are multi-store owners in Roanoke county and Roanoke City.
Most are 8,200 convenience stores in Roanoke County. We are representing and
bringing our tax revenue to the Roanoke County. At least this pandemic period we are
struggling to keep our doors open. I know it always been an attacks on cigarette. Why
not anything else? Salons, spas, clothing, food, but always cigarettes been hitting. So
we request not to increase any tax at least for a year or two, or maybe three years,
because we are struggling right now to keep our doors open. And thank you for
considering our request.”
May 11, 2021
310
Pinkesh Patel stated, “I do run few gas stations and Roanoke county and
Salem. And I like to humble request that board to not to raise any taxes because we
recently came off in the pandemic and it was very harsh for us to survive at this
moment. So at least give us a break for a year or two before they think about raising the
taxes, because that will bring the less volume, lesser sales, and less revenue to the
county and for the store owners and \[inaudible\] members as well. So I like to really
request to, and oppose, not to raise the taxes at this moment. Thank you.”
Sheetal Patel stated, “I have a business in Roanoke County, and we have
been here for about 20 years now, my husband and I. We're 4782 Chippenham drive,
well, that's my home address, never mind. 4040 Electric road, which is right across the
street technically. So I think my thing is I've been through the Biden tax increase, which
was in 2009. And because of that I had to sell my business and find another occupation,
which made me go back to school. Which is better for me, of course, but I think it does
affect many of the communities around. And especially the store owners. There is
maybe a need for the county, but I think because of the pandemic, it would be great if
they can delay it. Especially as too many of the employees who come even from around
the surrounding areas, come to our store, which is the business offices. And I don't want
you to raise taxes on them. And like I said, I think it's affected a lot of communities
around here. And 2009 has closed many businesses in \[Vinton\] also. And I don't want
that to happen to Roanoke County. And I think we're bringing the business outside
instead of bringing business into the town, or the county. So thank you.”
Madhav Raichuria stated, “I’m a resident of Roanoke County as well as a
business owner in Franklin County. I have a store I Roanoke County as well as in
Franklin County. A couple of weeks ago, Franklin county it went up on the tax, so I
request you to hold my business in Roanoke county too, because my store is on the
boundary of Franklin county and Roanoke county. So the thing going to be my Roanoke
county business will get more effected if Franklin County don't go up on the tax and the
tax in the Roanoke County will go up. So I hereby request all of you to consider my
application and not to go up on a tax, especially in the pandemic. And federal
government went up tax $3 six months ago, so that's already gone up so much high.
Now it's very hard for us to create all these new taxes and everything for just $250,000
a year tax revenue saved by the gentleman. So if you consider my application, I really
humbly request you to consider my application. Thank you very much.”
Jatin Patel stated he lives in Salem, Virginia, “I have a few stores in
Roanoke County and I will send request or you guys to not raise the taxes. And I
already emailed you for in the detail. So you should get my email as well. So I don't
want to waste that much time. You should get my email. I emailed you like couple days
ago, so probably had an email too. Thank you very much.”
Amit Patel stated, “He has been a resident of Roanoke County since
almost two decades, and have some businesses around. I wanted to say that this is the
time where we need the most help from federal and state and all the counties. So rather
than going up, if we cannot do it right now and wait for like at least a year or two and
May 11, 2021
311
make that happen when we actually have some more business. All the customer comes
nowadays are smart buyers. They just look the price, they go to the county where the
prices are better. So if Roanoke County goes up, they will drive one mile to a Franklin
county. Franklin County don't have any tax, we went a couple of weeks ago, and they
declined it. So I have a store up there too, so businesses are going to gain, but they're
going to gain to their own counties. Another point I'd like to raise it up is, one out of 10
buy cigarettes, but nine out of 10 buy something else. So if they buy a burger or a fries,
they will pay a meal tax, which is 4% right now we paying. So if they are not stopping at
our store in Roanoke County, they're going to pay that 4%, which could be a six or $7
ticket, that's 25 cent, meal tax going to another county. So it's kind of some of them
would be washed out. Third thing I would like to say about is $250,000, that's a good
amount, but we might have to hire one or two people to do the accounting, to keep up
with the books. So again, we are not getting that much amount against all the
calculation we are assuming. So I would request not to have it, and at least give us like
a year or two to extend it.
“My name is Leo. I own a tobacco store in Roanoke County. So I want to
pay your attention, if you look at our sales before June, July, 2020, and after July of
2020, when the state made the decision to raise the texts all over the place on the state.
So the sales, went down 30% and I have evidence if you want to kind of bring it in
future. So I'm sure if you raise the price in the county, and other counties didn't do it,
we're going to lose a lot of business. And I've been in the business since long time ago,
a lot of customer coming in from out of county to our county because we have a good
the price. But now I think people going to start going out of county, and some of them
going to quit. In this case, I have a tobacco store, 90% of my business is cigarettes. So
I'm sure if you do that, like 70%, I'll go out of business, we have families and a lot of
people like me. We have a families, we have a mortgage to pay, we have a kids to feed,
and we have like a lot of stuff. If you're going out of business, so who going to pay all
these bills? You know what I'm saying? And we have lease terms and all that. So
please just keep it as is, and I have suggestion for you. If you want to raise the tax,
instead of raising the tax on cigarette, just add $500 on the license every year for all the
stores, it'll be fair. You know what I'm saying? Not just a tobacco store. I see lately, the
government to try and like to make us go out of business so bad, I don't know why.
Especially cigarette. Like if I'm in charge, I'll stop alcohol. People killing, stealing,
because of alcohol, not cigarettes, cigarettes didn't do nothing. You know what I'm
saying? So thank you. And I hope you didn't do nothing and raise the tax.”
Dharmenda Patadia stated, “Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors thank
you for give us opportunity to come in front of you. First of all, I'd like to thank you, Leo,
also, that he plays on very good argument in favor of people saying that tobacco is a
user, but it's a tobacco user is an addicts and they really need help. Why? Every time,
everyone, all government, federal state, local, everyone tried to go behind the tobacco
user. I don't know. And I would like to present a couple of more argument and
supporting all the argument made by my friends here. This world is going towards the
May 11, 2021
312
online shopping more every day. In this pandemic, many people going towards the
online shopping. To running in the convenience store we need people that come to the
store. We see that less and less people come to the store every day. If this tobacco that
is also a business, going down every day, every day, people tweeting or the way the
government, all the agencies going behind the tobacco user, tobacco industry is not
going to be survived. But we don't want to be a victim as a store owner that let our
customer go to the some of that places. Just like Franklin County, just say no to adding
any cigarette tax. We don't want that our customer go to that county. I got a store 8201
Williamson road, in a county. We don't want that our customer go out of county for that.
My other argument, one hand you county guys just a minute ago, you tried to give a
grant, a very good support to new business. You try to bring the new business in the
county and you're giving them a grant. Why you guys try to punish us that we already
existing in a business, we supporting the county, we collecting tax, paying you. Why you
force us out of business? Gentlemen make that argument for the county. That Vinton
already got tax, Salem already got tax, and Roanoke already got tax. Consider that we
in a county, we don't have that kind of density of the people that come to the store. If per
mile if you see five store in the county, we don't have enough customer, we barely
surviving. Please, I would like to request each and every board of supervisor say no to
increase any cigarette tax nowadays.”
ORDINANCE 051121-15 AMENDING THE ROANOKE COUNTY
CODE BY (1) AMENDING CHAPTER 13 (OFFENSES –
MISCELLANEOUS), SECTION 13-4 (DISCHARGE OF
FIREARMS OR ANY SIMILAR GUN OR DEVICE, GENERALLY);
(2) AMENDING CHAPTER 21 (TAXATION), SECTION 21-21
(OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL
PROPERTY); AND (3) AMENDING CHAPTER 21 (TAXATION),
BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE X (CIGARETTE TAX)
WHEREAS, it is proposed that Chapter 13 (Offenses-Miscellaneous), Section 13-
4 (Discharge of Firearms or any Similar Gun or Device, Generally) of the Roanoke
County Code be amended in order to delete a reference to a previously repealed article
of the County Code; and
WHEREAS, Section 13-4 (which pertains to the discharge of firearms or any
similar gun or device) sets forth specific instances when an individual can shoot or
discharge a firearm within the limits of the County, and includes a provision that
individuals may lawfully discharge firearms “when shooting in a match conducted in
accord with article III of chapter 4 of this Code”; and
WHEREAS, Article III of Chapter 4 of the County code was repealed by
ordinance on August 25, 1992; the reference is outdated and the provision is
unnecessary. Safe, non-commercial target practice is still authorized under the terms of
Section 13-4, and commercial shooting ranges are regulated under the zoning
May 11, 2021
313
ordinance (Section 30-87-5), which sets forth standards for fencing, posting, inspection
by the police chief, minimum distances, etc. This outdated reference should be deleted
from the code; and
WHEREAS, it is further proposed that Chapter 21 (Taxation), Section 21-21
(Other Classifications of Tangible Personal Property) of the Roanoke County Code be
deleted because it has been rendered moot by recent action of the Virginia General
Assembly; and
WHEREAS, Section 21-21 creates a tax benefit for disabled veterans by creating
a separate class of personal property, allowing the classification of one vehicle for
qualifying disabled veterans in a lower tax rate; and
WHEREAS, the recently enacted Section 58.1-3668 of the Code of Virginia
(enacted during the 2021 special session of the General Assembly) rendered County
Code Section 21-21 moot by creating a mandatory tax exemption for disabled veterans.
Qualifying veterans now receive a complete tax exemption (on a qualifying vehicle)
instead of the benefit of being taxed at a lower rate. Accordingly, it is proposed that
Section 21-21 be deleted from the County Code, and that Section 21-21 simply be
“reserved”; and
WHEREAS, during its 2020 session, the General Assembly adopted legislation
authorizing counties to impose a cigarette tax of up to $0.02 per cigarette beginning on
July 1, 2021; and
WHEREAS, it is further proposed that a new Chapter 21 (Taxation), Article X
(Cigarette Tax) be added to the Roanoke County Code in order to implement a local
cigarette tax of $0.0125 per cigarette; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 27, 2021, and
the second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on May 11, 2021.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors:
1. That Chapter 13 (Offenses - Miscellaneous), Section 13-4(a) of the Roanoke
County Code be amended as follows, which amendments shall become
effective immediately:
Sec. 13-4. - Discharge of firearms or any similar gun or device, generally.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to shoot or discharge any firearm, or any other
similar gun or device within the limits of the county, except when lawfully hunting
in accordance with the fish and game laws of the state or when safely engaged in
target practice or when lawfully and safely engaged in shooting upon a range or
gallery which has been properly licensed or approved or when shooting in a
match conducted in accord with article III of chapter 4 of this Code.
2. That Chapter 21 (Taxation), Section 21-21 of the Roanoke County Code be
amended as follows, which amendments shall become effective immediately:
May 11, 2021
314
Sec. 21-21. - Reserved.– Same – Other classifications of tangible personal
property.
The items of property set forth below are each declared to be a separate class of
property and shall constitute a classification for local taxation separate from other
classifications of tangible personal property provided in this article:
One motor vehicle owned and regularly used by a veteran who has either lost, or lost
the use of, one or both legs, or an arm or a hand, or who is blind or who is
permanently and totally disabled as certified by the Department of Veteran's Affairs. In
order to qualify the veteran shall provide a written statement to the commissioner of
revenue or other assessing officer from the Department of Veteran's Affairs that the
veteran has been so designated or classified by the Department of Veteran's Affairs
as to meet the requirements of this section, and that this disability is service-
connected. For purposes of this section a person is blind if he meets the provisions of
section 46.2-739 of the Code of Virginia.
The board of supervisors may levy a tax on the property enumerated in subsection (a)
at different rates from the tax levied on other tangible personal property. The rates of
tax and the rates of assessment shall not exceed that applicable to the general class
of tangible personal property.
For the tax year commencing January 1, 1993, and for all tax years thereafter, unless
otherwise changed, the rate of taxation on the property enumerated in subsection (a)
shall be at a percentage of the rate of tax applicable to the general class of tangible
personal property to be established annually.
3. That Chapter 21 (Taxation), Article X (Cigarette Tax) be added to the Roanoke
County Code as follows, which amendments shall become effective on
January 21, 2022:
CHAPTER 21 – TAXATION
Secs. 21-214 – 21-229. – Reserved.
ARTICLE X. - CIGARETTE TAX
Sec. 21-230. - Definitions.
For the purpose of this article, the following words and phrases shall have the
following meanings:
May 11, 2021
315
(a) Agent shall mean and include every dealer, seller, or other person who shall be
authorized by the director to purchase and affix stamps to packages of cigarettes
under the provisions of this article.
(b) Cigarette means any roll of any size or shape for smoking, whether filtered or
unfiltered, with or without a mouthpiece, made wholly or partly of cut, shredded or
crimped tobacco or other plant or substitute for tobacco, whether it is flavored,
adulterated or mixed with another ingredient, if the wrapper or cover is made of
any material other than leaf tobacco or homogenized leaf tobacco, regardless of
whether the roll is labeled or sold as a cigarette or by any other name.
(c) Commissioner means the commissioner of revenue of the county and any of his or
her duly authorized deputies and agents.
(d) Dealer means every manufacturer, jobber, wholesale dealer, or other person who
supplies a seller with cigarettes.
(e) Director means the director of finance and management services of the county and
any of his or her duly authorized deputies and agents.
(f) Package means any container, regardless of the material used in its construction,
in which separate cigarettes are placed without such cigarettes being placed into
any container within the package. Packages are those containers of cigarettes
from which individual cigarettes are ordinarily taken when they are consumed by
their ultimate user. Ordinarily a package contains 20 cigarettes; however, the term
"package" includes those containers in which fewer or more than 20 cigarettes are
placed.
(g) Person means any individual, partnership, society, association, joint stock
company, corporation, estate, receiver, trustee, assignee, referee, or any other
person acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity, whether appointed by a
court or otherwise, and any combination of individuals.
(h) Purchaser means every person to whom title to any cigarettes is transferred by a
seller within the jurisdictional limits of the county.
(i) Sale means every act or transaction, irrespective of the method or means
employed, including the use of vending machines and other mechanical devices,
whereby title to any cigarettes is transferred from the seller to any other person
within the jurisdictional limits of the county.
May 11, 2021
316
(j) Seller means every person who transfers title to any cigarettes or in whose place
of business title to any cigarettes is transferred, within the jurisdictional limits of the
county, for any purpose other than resale.
(k) Stamp means a small gummed piece of paper or decal to be sold by the county
treasurer and to be affixed to every package of cigarettes sold at retail in the
county and also any insignia or symbols printed by a meter machine upon any
such package under the authorization of the commissioner of revenue. The
treasurer may authorize the use of a meter machine in lieu of the method of paying
such tax by the purchase and affixing of gummed stamps, and, in consultation with
the commissioner of the revenue, prescribe and enforce necessary regulations
setting forth the method to be employed and the conditions to be observed in the
use of such meter machines. In the event that the treasurer is unable to provide
stamps to a person wishing to purchase them due a temporary unavailability of
stamps, the treasurer may, in consultation with the commissioner of the revenue,
authorize in advance a seller to submit an affidavit, sworn and attested under
penalty of law, of cigarettes sold during a defined time period and collect taxes
therefor.
(l) Treasurer means the treasurer of the county and any of his or her duly authorized
deputies and agents.
Sec. 21-231. - General powers of director under article.
In addition to the powers granted to him or her in other sections of this article, the
director is hereby authorized and empowered to prescribe, adopt, promulgate and
enforce rules and regulations relating to the delegation of any of his or her powers
granted by this article to his representatives; and any other matter pertaining to the
administration and enforcement of the provisions of this article.
Sec. 21-232. - Levied; amount.
There is hereby levied and imposed by the county, upon each and every sale of
cigarettes, an excise tax of one and twenty-five hundredths of a cent ($0.0125) per
cigarette sold within the county, the amount of such tax to be paid by the seller, if not
previously paid, in the manner and at the time provided for in this article.
Sec. 21-233. - Method of payment.
(a) The tax imposed by this article shall be paid by a local dealer or other agent
affixing or causing to be affixed a stamp or stamps, of the proper denominational or
face value, to each and every package of cigarettes sold within the county, in the
May 11, 2021
317
manner and at the time or times provided for in this article. Every dealer and every
seller in the county shall have the right to buy and affix such stamps as an agent,
and the director may appoint, in addition to local dealers, such other persons as
agents for the purpose of buying and affixing stamps as he or she may deem
necessary. Every agent shall at all times have the right to appoint a person in his
employ to affix the stamps to any cigarettes under the agent’s control. Stamps may
be purchased from the county treasurer.
Sec. 21-234. - Preparation and sale of stamps.
(a) For the purpose of making stamps available for use, the director shall prescribe,
prepare and furnish to the county treasurer, and the county treasurer shall sell,
stamps of such denominations and in such quantities as may be necessary for the
payment of the taxes imposed by this article. In the sale of such stamps, the
county treasurer shall allow a discount of five (5) percent of the denominational or
face value thereof to cover the costs which will be incurred by such dealer or agent
in affixing the stamps to packages of cigarettes.
(b) The director may, from time to time and as often as he or she deems advisable,
provide for the issuance and exclusive use of stamps of a new design and forbid
the use of stamps of any other design and he or she may make and carry into
effect such reasonable rules and regulations relating to the preparation, furnishing
and sale of stamps as he or she may deem necessary.
Sec. 21-235. - General duties of dealers and sellers with respect to stamps.
(a) Every dealer in cigarettes and every agent appointed under this article is hereby
required, and it shall be his or her duty, to purchase such stamps, at the office of
the treasurer, as shall be necessary to pay the tax levied and imposed by this
article, and to affix or cause to be affixed a stamp or stamps of the monetary value
prescribed by this article to each package of cigarettes prior to delivery or
furnishing of such cigarettes to any seller who is not also an agent. Nothing herein
contained shall preclude any dealer from authorizing and employing an agent to
purchase and affix such stamps in his behalf or to have a stamp meter machine
used in lieu of gummed stamps to effectuate the provisions of this article.
(b) Every seller shall examine each package of cigarettes prior to exposing the same
for sale, for the purpose of ascertaining whether such package has the proper
stamps affixed thereto or imprinted thereon, as provided by this article. If, upon
such examination, unstamped or improperly stamped packages of cigarettes are
discovered, the seller, where such cigarettes were obtained from a dealer, shall
immediately notify such dealer, and upon such notification, such dealer shall
May 11, 2021
318
forthwith either affix to or imprint upon such unstamped or improperly stamped
packages the proper amount of stamps, or shall replace such packages with others
to which stamps have been properly affixed or imprinted thereon.
(c) Should a seller obtain or acquire possession of, from any person other than a
dealer, any unstamped or improperly stamped cigarettes, such seller shall
forthwith, before selling or offering or exposing such cigarettes for sale in the
county, purchase and affix or cause to be affixed to such packages of cigarettes
the proper stamps, or the markings of a meter machine, covering the tax imposed
by this article.
(d) In the event any seller elects to purchase and affix stamps or imprints of a meter
machine, before offering cigarettes for sale, any dealer delivering and furnishing
cigarettes to such seller shall not be required to purchase and affix such stamps or
imprints to such cigarettes so sold or furnished; provided that any such dealer
shall, on the day following the day of such delivery and furnishing, file with the
director a copy of the delivery memorandum showing the name and address of the
seller and the quantity and type of cigarettes so delivered and furnished.
Sec. 21-236. - Visibility of stamps or meter markings.
Stamps or the printed markings of a meter machine evidencing payment of the tax
imposed by this article shall be placed upon each package of cigarettes in such manner
as to be readily visible to the purchaser.
Sec. 21-237. - Cancellation of stamps.
(a) The director is hereby authorized to prescribe, adopt, promulgate and enforce rules
and regulations relating to the method and means to be used in the cancellation of
stamps provided for in this article.
(b) In the event that the director shall promulgate rules and regulations so requiring,
every local dealer, agent or seller is hereby required, and it shall be his duty, to
cancel all stamps upon all packages of cigarettes in his possession in accordance
with such rules and regulations.
Sec. 21-238. - Redemption of stamps; refund for destroyed stamps.
(a) The director is hereby empowered to make and carry into effect such reasonable
rules and regulations relating to the redemption of stamps provided for by this
article as he or she may deem necessary.
May 11, 2021
319
Sec. 21-239. - Seizure and sale of unstamped cigarettes.
(a) In the event the director or the treasurer discovers any cigarettes which are subject
to the tax imposed under the provisions of this article, but upon which such tax has
not been paid and upon which stamps have not been affixed or evidence of
payment shown thereon by the printed markings of a meter machine in compliance
with the provisions of this article, such officers, or any of them, are hereby
authorized and empowered to seize and take possession forthwith of such
cigarettes, which shall be thereupon be deemed to be forfeited to the county. The
director or his designee shall, after providing notice of such seizure to the known
holders of property interests in such property and waiting the required length of
time for an appeal as further set forth in this section, destroy any seized cigarettes
or other property used in the furtherance of any illegal evasion of the tax. Such
seizure shall not be deemed to relieve any person from any of the penalties
provided in this article.
(b) Any such notice of seizure shall include procedures for an administrative hearing
for return of such property seized, in addition to any affirmative defenses set forth
in this section which may be asserted. Such hearing shall be requested from the
director within ten days of the notice of seizure, and shall set forth the reasons why
said cigarettes or other property should be returned. Within ten days after receipt
of a hearing request, the director shall review the appeal request and shall notify
the petitioner via certified mail of a date, time and place for the informal
presentation of evidence at a hearing or request further evidence, to be within 15
days of the date such notification is mailed. Any request for a hearing shall be
denied if the request is received more than ten days from the date of a notice to
petitioner of the seizure. Within five days after the hearing, the director shall inform
the petitioner of the final decision.
(c) The director shall cause the return of the seized property if convinced by a
preponderance of the evidence that the illegal sale of unstamped cigarettes or
possession of other property used in the furtherance of illegal evasion of the tax
was not intentional on the part of the petitioner and that seized cigarettes were in
the possession of a person other than the petitioner without the petitioner’s
consent at the time said cigarettes or other such property was seized, or that
petitioner was authorized to possess unstamped cigarettes or other such property.
Any petitioner who is unsatisfied with the written decision of the director may within
30 days of the date of said decision, appeal such decision to the county
administrator.
Sec. 21-240. - Administration of oaths, examination of witnesses, etc., for
enforcement of article.
May 11, 2021
320
The director and the treasurer are authorized and empowered to administer oaths
and to take affidavits in relation to any matter or proceeding in the exercise of their
powers and duties relating to the tax imposed by this article, and they shall have power
to subpoena and to require the attendance of witnesses and the production of books,
papers or documents, and to examine such witnesses, books, papers and documents,
for the purpose of securing information pertinent to the performance of such duties.
Sec. 21-241. - Dealers' and sellers' records.
(a) It shall be the duty of every dealer and seller to maintain and keep, for a period of
two (2) years, such records of cigarettes sold and delivered by him or her as may
be required by the director, to make all such records available for examination in
the county by the director or the treasurer upon demand, and to make available the
means, facilities and opportunity for making such examination at all reasonable
times.
(b) The director or the treasurer are hereby authorized and empowered to examine all
books, records, invoices, papers and any and all cigarettes in and upon any
premises where the same are placed, stored, sold, offered for sale or displayed for
sale by a seller.
Sec. 21-242. - Tax is in addition to other taxes.
The tax levied and imposed by this article shall be in addition to all other taxes of
every kind levied and imposed by any other ordinance or law.
Sec. 21-243. - Remedies.
(a) If the director has evidence of sale of cigarettes in this county without the payment
of the tax, he or she may perform an assessment of the tax due with respect to the
cigarettes, using the best information available. The director may request the
assistance of the commissioner in performing such assessments, as necessary.
The director shall mail, by certified mail, a notice of summary assessments to the
taxpayer. If the tax described in the notice is not paid within ten days after the
mailing, the director may collect the tax due by any method authorized by general
law.
(b) If the taxpayer shall fail or refuse to pay to the county the tax required to be paid
under this article within the time and in the amount as provided for in this article,
there shall be added to such tax a penalty in the amount of ten percent of the tax
due or the sum of $10.00 whichever is greater, provided, however, that the penalty
May 11, 2021
321
shall in no case exceed the amount of the tax due. The director shall also assess
interest on the tax and penalty at the rate of ten percent per year from the day after
the tax is due until paid.
Sec. 21-244. - Criminal penalties.
It shall constitute a class 1 misdemeanor for any person to violate or fail to comply
with any provision of this article or to forge, alter, steal, or use without paying for any
stamped or metered insignia described in this article. Conviction shall not relieve any
person from payment of the tax as provided in this article. Each violation or failure shall
be a separate offense.
Sec. 21-245. - Violations of article prohibited; acts enumerated.
(a) It shall be unlawful and a violation of this article for any person:
(1) To perform any act or fail to perform any act for the purpose of evading the
payment of any tax imposed by this article or of any part thereof, or for any
dealer or seller, with intent to violate any provision of this article, to fail or refuse
to perform any of the duties imposed upon him under the provisions of this
article, or to fail or refuse to obey any lawful order which the director may issue
under this article.
(2) To falsely or fraudulently make, forge, alter or counterfeit any stamp, invoice or
reports, to procure or cause to be made, forged, altered or counterfeited any
such stamp, or knowingly and willfully to alter, publish, pass or tender as true
any false, altered, forged or counterfeited stamp or stamps.
(3) To sell any cigarettes upon which the tax imposed by this article has not been
paid and upon which evidence of payment thereof is not shown on each
package of cigarettes.
(4) To reuse or refill with cigarettes any package from which the cigarettes have
been removed, for which the tax has been paid.
(5) To remove from any package any stamp with intent to use or cause the same
to be used after the same have already been used, or to buy, sell or offer for
sale or give away any used, removed, altered or restored stamps, to any
person, or to reuse any stamp which has theretofore been used for evidence of
the payment of any tax prescribed by this article, or, except as to the director, to
sell or offer to sell any stamp provided for herein.
(6) To possess, store, use, authorize or approve the possession, storage or use for
sale or resale of any cigarettes in quantities of more than 60 packages upon
which the stamp has not been affixed.
(7) To transport, authorize or approve the transportation of any cigarettes, in
quantities of 60 packages into or within the county upon which the stamp has
not been affixed, if they are:
May 11, 2021
322
a. Not accompanied by a bill of lading or other document indicating the true
name and address of the consignor or seller and the consignee or
purchaser and the brands and quantity of cigarettes transported;
b. Accompanied by a bill of lading or other document which is false or
fraudulent in whole or part; or
c. Accompanied by a bill of lading or other document indicating:
i. A consignee or purchaser in another state or the District of Columbia who
is not authorized by the law of such other jurisdiction to receive or
possess such cigarettes on which the taxes imposed by such other
jurisdiction have not been paid, unless the tax of the state or district of
destination has been paid the said cigarettes bear the tax stamps of that
state or district; or
ii. A consignee or purchaser in the Commonwealth of Virginia but outside the
county who does not possess a Virginia Sales and Use Tax Certificate, a
Virginia Retail Tobacco License and, where applicable, both a business
license and a retail tobacco license issued by the local jurisdiction of
destination.
Secs. 21-246 – 21-255. - Reserved.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 051121-16 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 May 11,
2021, 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 – March 23, 2021
May 11, 2021
323
2. Confirmation of appointment to the Roanoke County Economic Development
Authority (EDA)(District)
3. Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
consenting to the approval of the receipt of a refund previously appropriated
for the completed Plantation Road Phase I project and re-allocating $31,461
to Roanoke County’s Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) revenue
sharing capital project account
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
A-051121-12a
RESOLUTION 051121-16.b OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, CONSENTING TO THE
APPROVAL OF THE RECEIPT OF A REFUND PREVIOUSLY
APPROPRIATED FOR THE COMPLETED PLANTATION ROAD
PHASE I PROJECT AND RE-ALLOCATING $31,461 TO
ROANOKE COUNTY’S VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (VDOT) REVENUE SHARING CAPITAL
PROJECT ACCOUNT
WHEREAS, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors allocated $500,600 for
projects within the fiscal year 2010-2011 Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Revenue Sharing Program in Resolution 072710-5; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County allocated $60,000 for the Plantation Road Phase I
project through Resolution 072710-5 in the designation of funds for fiscal year 2010-
2011 Revenue Sharing projects; and
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2012, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors accepted
and appropriated $1,234,744 from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for
preliminary engineering in Action number A-061212-8.f; and
WHEREAS, on January 24, 2017, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
accepted and appropriated $921,970 in Ordinance 012417-3 for the Plantation Road
Phase I project, which included $317,318 from the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) Revenue Sharing Program from two canceled projects; and
WHEREAS, the Plantation Road Phase I project was completed in fiscal year
2018-2019, and VDOT had a surplus in revenue sharing match funds paid by Roanoke
County; and
May 11, 2021
324
WHEREAS, Roanoke County received $48,113 in fiscal year 2021 from VDOT
for a revenue sharing surplus on the completed Plantation Road Phase I project; and
WHEREAS, at a Board of Supervisors meeting on May 11, 2021, a second
reading of an ordinance to re-appropriate $16,652 of this refund to fund the East
Roanoke River Greenway crossing of the Blue Parkway is scheduled; and
WHEREAS, the remaining $31,461 is recommended to be reallocated to the
County’s VDOT Revenue Sharing capital project account (#5120002001) to be used for
future transportation projects as needed.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board of Supervisors hereby consents to and approves the receipt of
a refund previously appropriated for the completed Plantation Road Phase I project and
re-allocating $31,461 to Roanoke County's VDOT Revenue Sharing capital project.
2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Radford moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion was second by Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report
2. Outstanding Debt Report
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor North stated he has two items of interest. Number one, he
testified before the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Secretary of
Transportation on May 5th, Secretary Valentine and Dr. Smoot, the chair of the CTB
here in this area. He spoke to them and expressed our support and appreciation for
several projects of the physical year of 2022 through 2027, six year improvement plan.
He also thanked them for five (5) recommended SMART SCALE projects located on
Route 460 in Roanoke County and in the City of Salem. SMART SCALE funding
recommended for Valley Point Parkway access as well as other SMART SCALE
May 11, 2021
325
projects in the 419 Ogden road, Starkey road area. He also thanked them for the
Department of Rail and Transportation's help and the CORTRAN service that we
provide curb to curb transportation for residents with disabilities and for seniors in
Roanoke County. Also express thanks for their commitments to extend rail passenger
service with an addition of another train to Roanoke, and also for the additional service
in the future to Christiansburg. He expressed thoughts on why we were unsuccessful in
exit 2, 581, Peter's Creek, and indicated to them that that project and the revenues are
sorely needed to help with our industrial development efforts in Woodhaven Park.
Lastly, among other things, mentioned McAfee’s Knob and the need there for help with
parking, and also commended the VDOT staff and district engineer, Ken Kin\] and his
residency, as well as the DRPT staff in Richmond for all the help they've given our
County staff over the last year, doing this SMART SCALE iteration. Secondly, He has
been following finally after continued study and requests for a committee on school
construction and modernization since 2013. Finally, one has been established by
legislation that first met April 1st and its organizational meeting. It also will now meet
again on June 3rd after it has tasked the Superintendent of Education at the state level
to retrieve much information in detail from all of the school districts in the State of
Virginia. He will be following that along with the others that are interested to see what
this leads to in December with respect to a report and recommendation to the Governor
on school construction and modernization. He added the time has come for this
committee to do something, to help all in the State of Virginia. We are always being
tasked with unfunded mandates, Children's Services Act is an example, and many,
many other things, and never do we ever get any money for capital projects in the State
of Virginia from the Commonwealth, and it's time that that happened. Whether we get
much or whether we get more than our fair share, this is a statewide issue and
everyone should be following this every day. He looks forward to this discussion on this
subject going forward. Lastly, this decision today on imposing this tax on cigarettes is
one that wasn't taken lightly. It's one that was given to us by the General Assembly and
we did not act on it in the past. It's not going to have that large of an impact on Roanoke
County, but the monies that it will give to us will go to public safety, education, and as
well as the CSA increased costs, and it will be used wisely.
Supervisor Mahoney stated first of all, some of us were able to attend this
past Saturday the funeral service for our previous County Attorney, Ruth Ellen Kuhnel.
As you recall, she passed away a year ago but her husband, Paul, and because the
COVID, had delayed the funeral service for a year. It was at Second Presbyterian, it
was a beautiful ceremony. We understood from the comments of the Reverend that
Ruth Ellen designed the entire process, whether the music, the readings, the entire
service. So it was a very beautiful event. Second item, wanted to report back to the
Board that last week, the CEDS committee, the Comprehensive Economic
Development Strategy committee, met again and we whittled down our projects for...
There's still 120 some projects on the list with all the jurisdictions, but we attempted to
develop a short list of priority projects. All the members were able to list three. So we're
May 11, 2021
326
able to whittle things down to roughly 25. Then, after a second round of review, we
whittled it down to 10. And then finally, we got it down to seven (7) priority projects. We
have three (3) projects that are identified as regional initiatives and four (4) site-specific
projects that we hope would have a broader regional impact. The three (3) regionals
were initiatives to expand broadband access across the greater region, a regional
career and technical education center and finally for regional, additional flights and
runway capacity at the Roanoke-Blacksburg Regional Airport. The four (4) site-specific
projects, commerce center site development under the joint revenue sharing agreement
that they have up in Allegheny, the Woodhaven Technology Park and combined with
transportation network improvements where Roanoke County, Roanoke City, and
Salem are going forward with that project. Explore project, joint efforts with Roanoke
County and Bedford, and finally a further implementation of the housing study. So we
hope that maybe by winnowing down the list and we have seven (7) projects that maybe
we can all get behind, maybe there is an opportunity for some Federal funding
assistance through the EDA to support some of these initiatives.
Supervisor Hooker gave a quick reminder actually to some of the citizens
in her district for Timber View road, that we're having a community meeting on
Thursday, May 20th at 6:30 PM. The invitations have already gone out. There's a good
agenda on record, and she looks forward to meeting with them. There'll be people live
there in person in Kessler Mill facility, and it'll also be a Zoom. So there will be an
opportunity to participate in multiple ways and so I'm looking forward to that event.
Supervisor Peters stated his comments today kind of dovetail off of what
Mr. North was saying in reference to the cigarette taxes. It's nothing that any of us took
lightly, but thinks that through this past year, you've seen Roanoke county take a strong
stand when it came to our public safety. We're going to be meeting later today with our
schools. We know there's a great need there. So those some things we had to take into
consideration in the deliberation of whether to impose the tax that we just talked about.
Along that line, he is happy that the new budget will change our pay scale for our public
safety folks. He has already had a conversation with Mr. O’Donnell that I would like to
see dispatchers added to that next year, because as someone who served in public
safety for over 25 years, those dispatchers are first ones that he has contact with on my
way to whatever that scene is. He thinks that we need to re-evaluate how they're paid in
our grander scale. He has often said that no matter what we do in Roanoke County, if
we don't have a safe community and we don't have anything. He would like for our
citizens of Roanoke County to remember this week as police week, May 9th through the
15th, we have one of our officers with us today. Thank you for your service. He would
encourage all citizens of Roanoke County to thank our officers for keeping our
community safe, we are blessed and the risk that they're willing to take each and every
day. So with that, we will now go into work session. At 5:30, we will go into work session
up on the third floor. And the work session will be with the Board of Supervisors and the
Roanoke County School Board.
rd
At 4:25 p.m. Chairman Peters recessed to the 3 floor for work session.
May 11, 2021
327
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session with the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and
the Roanoke County School Board (P. Jason Peters, Chairman of
the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors)
The work session was held from 5:29 p.m. until 7:42 p.m.
Chairman Peters and Chairman Moretz provided opening remarks. Chris
Lowe, Director of Facilities and Operations provided an update on William Byrd High
School.
Mr. Lowe then proceeded to go through the existing CIP. As you can see
on the CIP orders is the William Byrd High School renovation. We also have the Cundiff,
Glen Cove and Burton projects in the timeline, at that time when we anticipated the
funding to be available for the construction to begin. Just a little bit of background. Glen
Cove was 71, Cundiff was 72, and both of them are right 60,000 square feet. They are
the old open floor plan design, which I believe some of you have been able to tour those
two schools and see what we mean by open plan. Basically it's four to five classrooms
per pod, so that you have four or five classrooms of kids, 70 to 120 kids learning in one
area. Teachers have separated the rooms by using bookcases and paneling and things
like that, to get a little bit of privacy and to cut down on some of the noise. Glen Cove's
currently enrolled 412. We have a current capacity for 470. Our recommendations,
we're trying to get to a planned capacity of 500 using the VDOE recommendations on
square footage, which just so you know, it's roughly 700 square feet per classroom on
most cases. Kindergarten and per-K are a little bit more, about 900 square feet per
classroom. We have a current enrollment of 500 at Cundiff, a capacity of 585, and we're
trying to plan for our capacity is 600 in our CIP. We do have some special programs
with both schools that some of the other schools do not have. We have four special
education classrooms at one school, three at the other. So right now in the existing
conditions, the classroom challenges we have in Glen Cove and Cundiff is basically the
classroom spaces are about 28% smaller than what the Department of Education
recommended. Second through fifth grade is about 13 smaller, and that's at Glen Cove.
Cundiff is 25% and 10% smaller than the DEW recommendations. Again, this is open
classrooms, shared classrooms; buildings are 50 years old and still have asbestos
containing materials within their buildings. We do have failing brick integrity in multi
areas at each facility. Structural block is showing significant cracking in multiple areas.
And we're watching those in the maintenance department and by sealing and going
back to inspect those seals. We have window frames that are corroded in both schools
and sealant repairs are continuously deteriorating. The water closets and sinks were all
original in 1971, they have about a 30 year life expectancy. Buildings are not sprinkled.
All condenser piping is original and beyond life expectancy at both schools. Existing
piping is in poor condition and needs to be replaced. So we're talking about storm,
May 11, 2021
328
sewer, sewer under the slabs, and sewer along the second floor. It's just all antiquated
and old and falling apart and we're replacing it as we can. New water heater and the
water circulation pumps are 10 years old with a life expectancy of 15 years at Glen
Cove. We have pressure boosters are from 1971 and one is not even operational right
now. We have existing boilers and pumps that are 12 to 14 years old with a 25 year life
expectancy, and 20 years old at Cundiff. We have 55 water source heat pumps to cool
the building, 10 of these units have been replaced the last three years. I'm getting ready
to make a request this week, we have to replace six more at Glen Cove. And they're
just old and beyond life expectancy. One good thing about these water source heat
pumps is they can be salvaged when we move into a new facility. Like I said, we're
replacing these as needed. Cundiff has a cooling power that's 28 years old and it's past
its life expectancy as well. We have existing switchboards that are original to the
buildings. Panel boards are original. Most schools have new panels to accommodate
basically just new receptacles within the buildings. And all of the cabling is still original
with the exception of the new outlets. Light fixtures are currently adequate, but they
would need to be replaced with LED during any new renovation and reconstruction. The
existing PA system is antiquated and it's not even used anymore. They're using our
\[inaudible\] telephones. The fire alarm panel has been replaced within the past 10 years,
but the remainder of the system is original to the buildings and needs updated. And
neither site has a generator.
Mr. Lowe stated basically that put us three to five classrooms. That's
probably 60 to 125 students. Students have to traverse two or three classrooms to get
to a destination in some places. And that's while teachers are teaching their class in
their spaces. Typically one set of restrooms, and they're located within the teaching
areas. A boys room may be in one classroom and girls is in the other for instance. So
it's a higher intrusive noise levels that reduces the student learning, a longer speech
perception ability, and that just means ability to hear words and sentences, slower
response times, and those are being taught in traditional classrooms. And the students'
brains can just become exhausted trying to concentrate in this kind of environment.
Safety, we have concern about safety with these open classrooms because a shelter in
place results in a higher number of grouped students in any location. For Glen Cove,
we've had the Thomas Litton and Associates do a study for us, a programming study for
us last year in spring of 2020. And they worked with us and we created a program for
each school, and we'll go with Glen Cove first. But basically that program tells us how
many classrooms do we need? What the classrooms are used for? What all these extra
spaces are needed used for and what the square footage we need for those? So they
provided us a renovation and a new construction option. So with the renovation, the
study determined that in order to meet the current program required by Roanoke County
Schools and meet VDOE recommendations, 60,010 square feet needs to be renovated,
but we also need to add an additional 17,000 square feet of new construction. So the
consultant used $305 a square foot last spring. So their cost with construction, well, just
construction cost was $23.5 Million at that cost. We used an in house numbers that we
May 11, 2021
329
based off experience on the last couple of projects, our most current projects, and
what's actually going on in the State of Virginia at that time before the mess we're in
now has happened. We used $220 a square foot for renovation and addition, and our
budget price was about $17 million. So you can ignore this off cost on the bottom, that is
a project total of putting furniture and things of that nature, where we're really concerned
about construction costs at this meeting. But the percent of new construction versus
renovation, the renovation costs 91% of what a new construction cost would be.
Typically when we hit the 60% mark of renovation versus new construction, we tend to
go new construction because there's no point in utilizing your funds to renovate a 50
year old facility when you could've bought a new facility for just about 10% more of the
project. So new construction, 76,000 square foot facility at Glen Cove, the consultant
used $340 a square foot, anything lower $25 million. We used $250 a square foot,
again, based off our most recent experience and what was going on in the State of
Virginia at the time, and we came up with the total project construction cost at $19
million. And this is the same numbers for, a little bit higher, you're asking for a little bit
more square footage, but renovation versus construction was 98% according to the
consultant, 91% for Roanoke County Schools. So as you can see, our renovation and
new addition cost was $20 million and a new brand new construction costs at $250 a
square foot was almost $22 million dollars.
Supervisor Hooker stated she wanted to go back in time a little bit. She
remembers when the Blue Ribbon Commission was started and there was this
extensive study that brought in a lot of community members, a lot of school people, and
they put together a plan for rebuild and priorities to make sure that all districts were
looked at equally. To make sure that all districts were looked at equally and had a fair
look at, because there's always some concern about one district getting more than
another. But what happened to that?
School Board member Butzer explained the Board member who had the
most “juice” got projects done. We changed it before the William Byrd and they stayed
out of it. We turned it over to the Superintendant to meet the instructional needs.
Supervisor Hooker stated but the Blue Ribbon Commission was different.
Supervisor Peters stated he went back and was very thankful for Ms.
Owens who sent me a whole bunch of information. I was able to review, it looks like that
the Blue Ribbon Committee, their findings, I can't dispute what the findings were in
1999, that's what he pulled up here and they went through phase one, it looked like they
accomplished phase one and then everybody went to sleep. So I was trying to figure
what happened after that. Can you bring any light to that? Because it looked like what
they were doing through the Blue Ribbon Committee was basically what you've come
back to now. That it's being selected by needs not by surveying which board member
throws the biggest tantrum. Supervisor Peters added he went back through here and
was looking because we've had a lot of conversation about Burton. Burton was
addressed in phase two, but everything in phase two was never addressed, can you
shed any light on that?
May 11, 2021
330
School Board Member Wray stated you answered most of that because it
went back to actually, we did have different phases and when he was there and was
chairman of the Blue Ribbon Committee at the time, co-chair or chair at the time. And
when we looked at it, we had one of the best folks that he's passed away now, I can't
think of his name now, but anyway, he put together and we visited all the schools and it
got to be you could do the phase and then here we go get into the second phase. Well,
that's when it all fell apart and people started, "Well, I want this done. I want that done."
And it's very obvious with Byrd that it never got really finished. All it did was get a facade
and that's it, "Let's move on. We want something else." Supervisor Peters added it has
been renovated three times.
School Board member Wray added that is really what happened, it was
very well organized. Supervisor Hooker stated the Blue Ribbon Commission was
awesome. The plan was great. School Board member Wray added we went out and
visited all the schools. We spent a ton of time.
School Board member Butzer stated it’s hard to explain what previous
boards did and why they did what they did. We tried to fix that. Supervisor Hooker
responded she is curious about is somewhere in that timeframe, Penn Forest
Elementary got walls.
School Board member Wray stated they got walls, but that did not really
solve the situation. Supervisor Hooker responded it doesn’t but it helps because her
heart goes out to the teachers. Mr. Wray added the Board of Supervisors members go
over and see how we've weaved our way through classrooms and classes that were
having class while we were, while the kids were walking through and it just doesn't solve
it. If you're going to do it, do it right. They should've done it right. And I even got a price,
how could we do it differently? And the way they got the mechanical system, the way
they have it, it was going to be like a half a million dollars just to go on the outside and
try to do something.
Supervisor North stated we looked at it, and it was a short term fix to help
mitigate the open interruptions. He asked this question of Dr. Nicely, because in my
business where he came from, if that was a problem, you addressed it system-wide if it
took you a few years, especially when it came to safety, well, this is instruction. So he
would agree with my colleague, Ms. Hooker why wasn't the other two schools done at
the same time to put walls up? We're 21 years later, and they have that problem in both
of those schools and some teachers have told me, at least they need walls. So I'm just
always wondering to myself after hearing that Penn Forest had them, how come those
other two school?
School Board Chairman Moretz stated to expand on Mr. Butzer’s point,
we'd have to take a time machine and go back and ask previous boards. He is just not
sure how useful that discussion is for us moving forward about why things weren't done
15 or 20 years ago. It is frustrating. He is sure there's things, no offense, Mr. Wray,
there's probably some things previous Board of Supervisors, you're wondering why you
didn't do this, why you didn't do that. Supervisor North stated, it’s always good to at
May 11, 2021
331
least to have an appreciation of the history of anything before you move forward, at
least you have questions, at least answer.
Supervisor Hooker stated she thinks also just to reflect on what was seen
as a priority those many years ago, because that was a great commission Mr. Wray,
and, and see why is that not still a priority. And if it was a priority, then even though it
wasn't a total fix to build walls, why that wasn't ever done for Vinton and the Catawba
district in those two elementary schools, She was just curious about that and while it's
not a fix or it's not a permanent solution, it's not the best scenario. It would sure help for
those individual classrooms, in my opinion, and probably the Penn Forest Elementary
teachers are thankful for those walls too.
School Board member Greenway stated there is so much to unwrap here,
but it's good discussion and one of the best things that happened to our board, and I'm
just going to be honest, but Mr. Butzer came along, and I'm going to give him credit he
helped us reset the narrative on the schools. I think we get in these positions and it's,
what can I do in Vinton? What can I do in Windsor Hills? What can I do in Cave Spring
and BCAT gets kicked down the road forever because we're pushing our agendas up
front in our communities. That's one of the issues with BCAT. But Mr. Butzer reset the
narrative and came in with some operations experience in different things. And he also
asked Dr. Nicely to go out, I brought it with me, the commission of our school system
and the group that was put together to identify these schools of need rather than me
lobbying for Vinton. Mr. Linden lobbying for Hollins and so on and so forth. So to go
back to the Blue Ribbon commission, and then where we are at with this list here is. I
thought that was a wonderful project, but you know what happens.
Supervisor Hookers stated she wonders if they are similar. School Board
Member Greenway responded in the negative and stated that is where he is going. So
you started out with the Blue-ribbon commission and you ended up with Dr. Nicely’s
assessment and group, the whole group and committee for here. But what happens in
the interim of that 20, 25 years span is five board members, five board members. And
that plan doesn't get followed the way that plan was set up. So I don't know if you may
remember this because you kid me a lot. But the first thing I did when I came on the
school board, the very first meeting was a CIP meeting. It was a work session. We were
identifying the schools for a 10 year CIP, very disappointed that we listed Cave Spring
High School as the only school for that 10 years. We learned we were all new, but we
thought that was a little disingenuous. But then my question after that was, nobody is
talking about William Byrd. Everybody thought it had been done. Now, I think we've all
been through that school and we see. So my point is, is that the last 20, 25 years, that
plan as good as it was, and as genuine as it was meant to be, we got in the way of that
plan and changed the dynamic.
School Board member Butzer asked if you could give him an example of a
project that shouldn't have been done, and he will probably make some previous board
members pretty angry with me, but if you look at the Northside middle gymnasium,
competition gym, beautiful gym. He wouldn't have done that project. He would have
May 11, 2021
332
probably done one of the elementary schools or at least half of an elementary school,
but that's an example of how it made no sense to me whatsoever. So we fixed it. I can't
answer what happened with previous boards.
Supervisor North stated he is just trying to understand the numbers, like
see William Byrd is in the CIP, so was it 21 without the soft cost with Mr. Lowe
responding in the affirmative. So if he is hearing you right, depending on what the
subcontractors come, there may be some change in these figures. Is that correct? Mr.
Lowe responded in the affirmative. Mr. North stated let's talk about VDOE just a minute.
For J department of education recommendations, are those mandated or are they
recommendations by the state superintendent of education for classroom instruction?
Mandated or recommended, which is it? Mr. Lowe stated it was recommendation with
School Board member Butzer asking what it is based on; the best instruction for the
students.
Supervisor North stated he understood. One of the problems we've had
with, with the recommendation or mandates, whatever you want to call them, is they're
not funded by the State of Virginia. Now I'm hopeful. Maybe some people in this room
aren't hopeful, but I'm hopeful that the school committee on modernization and
construction, which had its first meeting after eight years, it finally sat down with the
committee mandated by the general assembly, met on April 1st. They had a 40 minute
organizational meeting and like a lot of committees. They said, we need more data and
they sent a note out to all the schools, they were supposed to and report back on June
30th, the next meeting, they want to see the whole scope of what the needs are. And
boy they're probably going to get a big picture of data and hopefully they'll have a paper
to the next governor in December of what's needed going forward, because this is a
statewide problem. Then I don't disagree that you should have standards. If they're
recommended so be it, but you got to put some money to it, the State of Virginia needs
to do that. I don't care whether we get more or less than what somebody else gets. We
need to get something. This conversation needs to be escalated to the General
Assembly delegation and members, not only on that committee today that are made up
of Senator Stanley and others and led by Senator McClellan, but it also needs to occur
in conversations with the school board, but in the general assembly members. When we
put our legislative agenda together. With Mr. Lubeck, we might even want to engage
your conversation with us when we talk to these folks on that subject, because folks I'm
going to tell you something right now, the squeaky wheel gets the grease sometimes,
and we've got a new administration coming in and education has always been important
in the State of Virginia, and it needs to give some money to the schools and the school
systems.
School Board member Butzer stated he totally agrees, it's not fair to have
the localities in the cities burdened with the expense of building schools and that's who
has to do it because the State doesn't do it.
Supervisor Peters stated he was going to add one more thing to that. And
he has shared with his board, actually a couple of the school board members, but he
May 11, 2021
333
has listened to conversations over the last few months about, he knows there's been
conversation in Richmond about a large $3 billion referendum to spend money. He
keeps hearing from people that "Well, Roanoke County will get none of that because we
do a good job." We keep our schools up, we've done renovations most of our high
schools. And we overall, considered we've done a good job with our schools. And while
that may be true, I think the conversation needs to turn as we, and again I've talked with
Tim, with Jason, but we need to be working together when it comes to our legislative
agenda because we do have a need and it is our CTE. We need to be talking about the
dire need of that CTE building, where it sits in the flood plain. We don't have the most
modern school when it comes to that and he think’s that's the part that we need to be
pressing forward when it comes to our delegates in Richmond trying to get money for
that instead of, "Well if that money is passed, we will get very little of it." Well we may
get a very little of it because maybe we're not focusing where we need to be focusing
our attention. And again, that is the Burton center, but I've said it again to a couple of
you, but as we put our legislative agenda together for this year, I would like for all 10 of
us to be on the same page and working jointly with our legislators in Richmond. I think
it'll be very important.
School Board member Butzer stated as he understands that the three
billion that you're talking about, it's not based on how good your schools are. It's based
on the affordability of the locality. So there's an index. It has nothing to do with what
your buildings look like. It's where they see you with respect to being able to afford
school construction.
Supervisor Peters responded right, but there's also other conversations
beyond that. I guess is what I'm saying, is I think a lot of times we've, just again, I'm
having conversations where "We do such a good job, we'll never get any of that
money." We need to change that dialogue because we do have a dire need and it's
going to cost us. You can put 50 million on a piece of paper, but as I shared with Mr.
Moretz and Mr. Greenway, he doesn’t see how you can do it for less than 65. He thinks
for the project to be done correctly, we're going to have to really focus on what that's
going to look like and it's going to be very difficult to do that on our own. He hope that
we will again, work together to push for something out of Richmond.
School Board Member Greenway stated that's the one thing we can't lose
sight of. If we're relying on the State it may or may not be here. And he agrees we need
to go after that money. But one of the biggest economic drivers we have in this county
right now is how well we have done with our schools and the conditions of those
schools. One thing at our work session that he told our other board members this, I
think we work so well together, and I'm proud. Even though we'll have disagreements
just like anybody, family or anybody we've done really well at... not just my district, what
do you need? And so when we think of projects that are going on in other phases, we
try to identify them in all districts not just one. The one thing we can't do and you just
mentioned Penn Forest Elementary. We can't just say, and he has heard this and when
he heasr it, it just goes all over me for Cundiff and Glen Cove and Glenvar Elementary.
May 11, 2021
334
He also thinks this because you got to walk through classrooms to get into classrooms,
and so that bothers me. So put up walls. If he hears, "Put up walls." again, he is going
to lose his mind. Please, we've got to construct these schools not put up walls. He gets
brick and mortar never teaches a child, but it's also prideful in your community. It's the
economic piece, it's the educational piece, it's so many things other than that brick and
mortar. He just don't want us to think of putting up walls, he want us to construct.
Supervisor Hooker stated but it could be a temporary Band-Aid, a
temporary help. Mr. Greenway responded sometimes when you do temporary, you end
up with what Byrd and Cundiff look like, and Glen Cove.
School Board member Linden stated one of the options, or one of the
things that is not a statewide problem is that open floor concept. Because as the State
Superintendent was here last year and realized that there were still open concept floor
plans in use in Virginia. So that's not a statewide problem. We may have the only two in
the State.
Supervisor North responded maybe they'll give us some money, you never
know. Mr. Chair let me make a comment here. Is there anyone at the schools, staff, or
board that are interested or are they already signed up to listen to these meetings of the
committee on modernization and construction? Because I'd like to engage somebody to
contact MJJackson@senatedotvirginia.gov. The phone number is 804-698-7450. He
would like to solicit you folks, someone from your team or two to listen in to these calls
along with me, because I plan to. He thinks more than my ears other ears are just as
well welcome. School Board member Butzer inquired if these calls are for subject
matter expertise. Supervisor North replied these are committee hearings. You don't
talk, you just listen to what's going on and you get the straight scoop, right live and at
the time of the meeting, which the next one is supposed to be June 3rd. He added what
this is setting the pace forward to have this committee after eight years of talking about
doing something and kicking the can down the road. We need to, and that way we can
speak fluidly, probably even more so than what many delegates do, because if you're
not on the committee, you don't know what's going on necessarily.
Supervisor Peters added we also don't know with all the rescue money
being dumped in the state. What ultimately may happen to that? I think there's a lot of
opportunities that we just need to be focused on what our needs are. And like Burton
said earlier, it's a need for the entire county. It's not just one district. I think that again,
we need to be all 10 on the same page pushing that agenda.
School Board member Moretz stated Mr. Peters mentioned it when we
met. Is there one board member around here that doesn't think we need to do
something with BCAT? I mean, that's the first question and it’s a great idea, you feel
me? We need to lobby the state but I also think at the end of the day, we also need to
have a plan B if the state falls through, what's that going to look like, right? Go back 20,
30 years. Republicans, Democrats, they can talk about education, but at the end of the
day, what are they really doing for us? Unfunded mandates on our side, unfunded
mandates on your side, so what can we control? That's what I'd like to discuss and let's
May 11, 2021
335
get together and lobby the state. I think it would be beneficial if we were on the same
page there. I hope, and maybe our counterparts too, maybe it's getting other localities
involved in that too. They need some pressure.
Supervisor North stated he couldn't agree more. There're some that may
not want me to mention the word regional, but I'm a regional minded kind of guy. Gets
lot of energy sometimes, at least I think what we should do, Mr. Chair is get a county
schools and businesses together to have a conversation about what we got to BCAT
today, where we want to go with it and enlist those folks effort as well when it comes to
the politics of the state of Virginia, it doesn't cost anything except some people's time to
have some discussion and a round table meeting to invite selected businesses, to see
whether there's any energy or synergy or interest in talking about it. A simple lunch with
some sandwiches and then a discussion and a presentation; more specifically now
about BCAT and see where it goes because many of these businesses, also those that
support the State government elected officials, if you know what he means.
School Board member Wray stated with regard to Supervisor North’s
comment, we do have a general advisory committee where we have businesses on that
burden committee and they are involved. And that's where we got apprenticeships. This
is what's happening is there's some of those businesses are involved. Maybe you want
a bigger magnitude of this, but I'm just saying, we do have input from businesses on this
committee. Mike Altizer was here when we started our apprentice program with the
water authority.
School Board Member Moretz stated it might be maybe a good idea Dr.
Nicely, at the next GAC meeting to extend an invitation to our Board of Supervisors
counterparts to sit down on one of those. School Board member Greenways asked
didn't we do that over the last year with that study we just did. Didn't we get some input
from other folks?
Supervisor Peters asked if he was referring to the workforce development
Board.
Mr. Greenway continued we've asked Dr. Nicely for the temperatures,
some of the other superintendents for, and I'm not saying we can't get there, but he
thinks he wants to be a part of a board that solves this problem for BCAT today and
gets it done and gets it started in 2023. He thinks it's for the people and the citizens of
Roanoke County. Educationally it's beneficial, especially for students that want an
alternative to start for your education, for workforce development. Right? If we want to
study while we're building, I'm okay with that, but thinks it's time to get this one going.
Supervisor Hooker stated when she toured Burton several weeks ago, she
was totally impressed with how much partnership there was. There is an incredible
amount of partnership. She thinks it's on a smaller level, but if there was really buy-in to
whole department it could be a different ball game in my mind and thinks this is where
Supervisor North was headed.
Supervisor North stated he is looking at a specialized over and above
what's being done today because at the end of the day, here's the question hanging over
May 11, 2021
336
this room. The larger question is how do you market this to the taxpayers and citizens of
Roanoke County? You build momentum, you build it with businesses on a specialized
study. If they have the interest to want to buy in on a concept, it makes it stronger. Then
the other thing too, is when we get to it, you'll see the economic impact of Burton. He
can't tell you what the economic impact is because he has not measured it, nor probably
as anyone else, but there is an economic dollar impact and that is something that you
could use to sell that concept when the time comes. So those two points I'd like to leave
you with thinking about.
Dr. Nicely stated before he turned the meeting over to Mr. Lowe, he just
wanted to chime in for a moment, as the Superintendant, he appreciate the discussion,
because we are in a room full of all of the officials who are passionate about the
educational needs of Roanoke county and there's big problems to solve. But we've got
folks who are driven and committed to working together to do that. So thank you for the
discussion. So when we were charged by the school board to really look at our 27
facilities and really look at it on basis of instruction, did the needs there, looking at all the
studies that we've done in terms of assessment of infrastructure that's in place. Truly
what are the condition of those things and really making that priority list based on those
factors not anything else. We actually started about going back to those studies, we
looked at the Blue-ribbon studies. What did they say back then? Right? What did they
say? Well, we hired the OWPR study in a few years ago. And we asked her those same
questions, like "Where did Burton go?" Right. In terms of all that. So that's exactly why
we're back to the table here because whereas the Burton center was not even on our
CIP a few years ago and in previous iterations. It is now front and center, it's near the
top. We put these elementary schools that to your questions about "Why weren't those
done back then?" They were recognized as priorities. And that's why they are where they
are North Side Middle School. Mr. Butzer mentioned that that gym addition was put on
so people think, oh, some great things were done at Northside Middle School, which is a
beautiful gem and so forth. But the rest of the school wasn't touched. And so that's on
where it should be. So I feel really confident, just want to reassure members of both
boards that I think the priorities that were identified in the past, that's why you see them
back where they should be. So I felt really confident that we're on the right track in terms
of the priorities that we've identified. So some concluding remarks around the two
elementary schools. And then Mr. Lowe can talk about Burton Center.
Mr. Lowe stated obviously as you saw under all existing systems that
they're all in end of life expectancy they need to be replaced. The cost of conservation
versus new construction as well, about 60% cost difference differential and new
construction would offer opportunities for a better building analytics and sort of
maximum efficiency when it comes to energy conservation uses. It’s also going to allow
for more flexibility with terminating the green energy options. And just to get back to real
quick, but otherwise he was just talking about the structural, mechanical, electrical,
funding. That really set the foundation for this new CIP back in 2016, one of our former
director of operations spearheaded a facilities' assessment study with the architecture
May 11, 2021
337
firm out of the last named OWPR and we have a binder where they inspected and gave
an evaluation of every one of our mechanical systems, plumbing systems, electrical
systems, structural systems. That was the foundation of what started this new CIP, just
so that everyone's aware we had that study. So we're talking about Burton. So we're
talking about Burden for the first time this evening, occupied in 1962, 89,000 square
feet, sits on about 30 acres. It's located in the City of Salem and the maximum capacity
of that facility is 500. Some immediate concerns to address right off the front, obviously
it's an aging facility. It's about 60 years old, many systems have surpassed life
expectancy. We need additional student capacity. They're turning kids away every year
now because they don't have the capacity to handle all the wants for their programs.
Like I said, the programs are growing and they're filled to the max. Additional programs,
they want to expand their programs basically, that they have right now and add some
additional programs. And when they do that, right now, what they're doing is condensing
the existing programs they have. So they're reducing the amount of square footage that
those programs have when they need larger square footage. There's just a lack of room
on the site for potential expansion and I'll show you that here in just a minute, but back
to that \[inaudible\] study, this is some of the concerns that came out. Basically, they're 60
years old. There's asbestos in the building. There are structural cracks that are
appearing and they're being monitored. We have multiple speared doors which lack
accessible ingress/egress. There is no elevator in building A, which will be the main
building up by the road. Most areas in the building and restrooms are not accessible to
the latest ADA standards, signage hardware, drinking fountain spout facility do not
apply. Security for buildings B and C are solely dependent on fence gates and locks.
There's a vestibule in building A that provides minimal visibility from the office. There's a
security concern as well. Multiple spousal windows exist by the facility but many of the
frames are corroded and the sealant repairs continuously deteriorate. Most doors are
original doors on the facility and the hollow metal frames and doors themselves are
starting to rust. Mechanical plumbing concerns, as you can imagine, a building that's 60
years old, water closets, sinks, lavatories, and drains are all originally installed in the
60s. The building B boiler is 1978. Piping is insulated black steel and expectancy was
30 years old. Controls are a mix of old pneumatic controls by Johnson controls are
antiquated. Fire lines and hydrants having sufficient coverage and spacing. Their
closest hydrant to Burden is across the street. There is a potential infiltration within the
sewer system from groundwater causing backups and slow flow in the facility. We have
a fire alarm system that needs to be upgraded or replaced. There are limited smoke
detectors and horn strobe alarms. We're not up to current code. It's a grandfathered
system. We do not have an existing generator. Site lighting's antiquated, it needs to be
replaced. The parts are no longer available for the existing site lighting that we have
and the existing transformers on site are showing rust and age. Civil concerns, this is a
biggie. We have a shared entrance drive, which causes traffic congestion on the main
road in the mornings. We need to do some entrance modifications that could relieve
those congestion issues. Concrete walkways are starting to come up and are in poor
May 11, 2021
338
condition. Existing site railing does not meet current code. Concrete curb and gutter are
in poor condition. The majority of the site is either in a flood way, 100 year flood plain or
500 year flood plan. In a flood way, no structures were allowed to be built within the
flood way. Parking is permitted, but not for long-term storage. 100 year flood plain,
structures were allowed to be within a 100 year flood plain with written permission from
the governing body. Strict development and construction guidelines must be followed.
Example, the finish correlation must be two feet above the flood plain elevation. 500
year flood plain, there's no additional restrictions. The adjacent property belonging to
the Veterans Administration has an 80 to 100 foot of rise from the Burton property lines
to the building pad. So as you see by this map, the buildings up in the top center, those
are in the 100 year flood right now. The 100 year flood plain cuts through the existing
building A. The striped area to the left is the flood way. And then the really light blue is
in the 500 year flood plain. The adjacent property to the right, you can see that there's
about an 80 to 100 foot rise in elevation to the pad up above which the VA uses. In
order to get any kind of usable plan there, we're talking about walls about the size of
what you see over at slight hill.
So initially, we began our adoption CIP in December and we were
using about $270 a square foot for this project because it's a little bit more special than
in elementary schools in the terms of construction so we're using a little higher
construction costs there than what we were for the elementary schools. We were
looking at a 40,500,000 for 150,000 square foot estimate. That 150,000 square feet was
an estimate based on we did not have a complete program yet for what the new Burton
Center would look like. In February, we started getting that new program coming
together and we're sitting at about 176,410 square feet for a facility that meets all the
needs that BCAT's looking for right now. So when you had the $270 a square foot for
that, we were looking at a $47 million project before construction and soft costs
combined. Now, what I've shown in March and May is the inflation of construction costs
just this spring. And these come from some of the vendors we use, architects and
contractors and we are looking at $100 a square foot every month. The cost of
construction is going up and you can see that just by walking into Lowe's. We were in
there just last week for instance. We wanted to buy some plywood for a roof we're doing
over at Northside and it was $40 a seat. And we said, "No way, we'll go somewhere
else." He said, "It's going to $60 a board tomorrow." So we went to Home Depot, it was
already $60 a board. We went back to Lowe's and bought every piece of plywood they
had at $40 so we could still work. So that's the amount of call. You're paying $9 for a
two by four stud right now. So you can see, we just don't know where the inflation of the
construction market's going right now. So we did the best we could here by estimating
$300, 320 in March and about 400 right now. And the 400 number is actually coming
from a contractor who said a winning bid that he just lost came in at $460 a square foot
for new construction, not a school, but just general new construction.
Supervisor North stated this does not include the land that you might need
one day.
May 11, 2021
339
School Board member Butzer advised they have some free land, the
Poage’s farm belongs to the school system. How many acres – 22.4.
Supervisor Hooker asked to go back to the map? I had an interesting
conversation a few weeks ago, and so there was some conversation about someone
brought up, "It'd just be so cool if we could build into the side of the VA property, if we
could get just some acreage there." Correct me if I'm wrong, the light blue is the 500
year. So there is a little bubble of space there, and I know it's not nearly enough, but
then there's also a linear area there that's also in the 500 year flood plain. And I had an
opportunity to bring this up to our congressmen. And he visited with, actually his chief of
staff visited with the VA and there are some opportunities there for discussion. I don't
know that it could really materialize, and I gave Chris the information. I'm in agreement
that we need to keep all the cards on the table. Let's see what everything turns out,
what kind of situation we could get from exploring all options.
School Board member Greenway responded, he agrees – explore every
option we can do. I want us to get it out of Salem. I want us to bring the Sheriff, and this
is going out of my boundary, I want the Sheriff's office, the courthouse, there's a reason
they don't charge us anything for being there. Let's bring that back to Roanoke County.
Let's incentivize one of our areas. But that's my only point to the BCAT thing is I want to
get it out Salem. I don't care if it goes to Glenvar, Hollins, wherever, but that's my only
thing there. I realized Salem was a part of Roanoke County at one time, but unless
somebody tells me something I don't know, they're not paying us anything. So I'm
thinking about Roanoke County.
Supervisor Peters stated he does not like where it's at either, but I also
look at as we've had numerous discussion with Jill Loope, we're running out of land in
Roanoke County to develop a full land. So, I mean, that's the only thing and I've shared
with you a one-on-one. That's been my only thing that I have thought about because we
are not making anymore. We're trying to find ways to increase economic development.
And of course, we bought the Woodhaven property, whatever. But there's just not that
much left out there now.
Supervisor Greenway stated if we're talking about this in my mind, this is
an opportunity for Roanoke County. This ought to be celebrated and it's just like
bringing an industry, which we need to do. So, the same thing. This is an opportunity for
workforce development, for educational purposes, I mean, there's so much to it. I mean,
this ought to be celebrated and in the same vein of bringing a nice industry, same thing
of bringing the courthouse, and the jail, and everything back to Roanoke County. Think
of what that would do for an area and our County. These are wonderful opportunities to
me. Supervisor Peters added we have land in the business park. Mr. Greenway added
t's wherever, but I mean, let's incentivize Roanoke County.
School Board member Wray stated every time that I talk with business
folks, or we've had meetings in the past, workforce development. If we only had the
workforce, we would move here or we could really develop more our facility here, our
business here. And unless you get that, and you got to start somewhere, you got to train
May 11, 2021
340
and train these students where they will stay here, that they have the job opportunities
to stay here. And unfortunately, we keep sort of saying, "Okay, it's a good idea." but it
just keeps on going down and we're not moving forward. Where are we moving? Yeah, I
think we explore everything. I hadn't had the opportunity to tell my board, but I'll tell it
today. I guess, Congressman Ben Klein asked me to serve on a six-district education
committee, which to me, my point is getting the money, yes, but our facilities are in sad
shape. If we look at our overall, what we need to get done. I mean, look at the years on
these schools. They're just crumbling and we've got to have those funds, whether it's
State, wherever it comes from, we just got to have those monies to make it work. Mr.
Butzer mentioned, we do have a piece of property. What is it worth? I mean, you all
might know more of the value or things like that. Is it something that you could swap for
another piece of property or the values? I don't know, but I mean, it's something that
maybe the real estate folks know.
Supervisor Radford stated let’s take this discussion a little different
direction. He wants to talk about what I've been working on for about a month and a
half. I called you Supervisor Peters, about the solar schools and you pass it along to Mr.
Butzer. Mr. Butzer met with the gentleman on the YouTube guy. They've had a
presentation, Phil and I have had a presentation, very impressed with what I heard and I
saw. But one of the things that really tweaked my ear is that when I took my master's
program, got it in 2019. We had a class on green construction. And so the first day the
professor kind of set us up about, "Okay, what entity pollutes more in the world?" And
so we were taking shots of this and that, and none of us got it. So, he finally said, "Well,
let me clue you in. The biggest polluter of the world is the built environment that we're in
right now. You can't shut it off. It runs 24/7. You can take a car and park it and it's done
for the day or done for how many hours that you need to do it." So, that class really
opened up my eyes about the built environment. And so this solar company really kind
of honed in on that built environment and what I was able to hear, and I don't know
where you guys are with this, but to have energy positive schools where they produce
your own energy, your own power and you're off the grid, I think is a concept that will
help, just agreeing while you're talking about something with energy and creating
excitement, he thinks that will create a lot of excitement in our area. I know you guys
recently had Mr. Molly talked to you about the site over on Cove road. And I saw that
and the results of that. One of the things that this solar architect, the Feldman firm, they
see a compact school being more efficient two levels versus a winged one on one level.
So, he appreciates the study that you went through, but maybe we need to look at it, the
site, with a compact building. I'm not sure it'll still work on Cove road, but I'm glad you
brought up Poages Mill because actually the orientation of Poages Mill is facing south.
And so I think it has potential. It's got a flat part over here. It's got a null over here, but
he would like to go down and look at some of those schools. There's one in Myrtle
Beach that I've been invited to. It's a CTE and he showed me the 2014 to 2019
dashboard, the energy dashboard. And from the very first year they were energy
May 11, 2021
341
positive on it. So, you're talking about paying $1,000 in a monthly bill versus 25,000 of
power a school.
School Board member Butzer stated here's where we are, and we actually
had an architect, the architect that talked to us at our work session had an idea of what
a CTE should look like. And it was the exact opposite of what you just talked about. So,
the conventional architecture is that you have a lot of open space, a sprawling building,
which is quite different from this idea. This is the way to go. We have done almost all of
the programming work for what a Burton center should do. So, they've gone through a
lot of the detailed work that you could actually hand to an architect and say, "Look,
here's what we need with respect to programming. These are the programs that we're
offering. This is what we think we need in the space." So that document could easily be
handed off to this particular company and let them do their own thing and tell us what
they're looking for. The reason why I suggested that you all get involved in it is because
of the financial aspect of it, because that's a whole other ball game. When they talked
about the credits, they talked about federal credits. We also know, I think the law has
been changed recently with respect to buybacks with Appalachian power. So it is
definitely the way to go, no doubt in my mind, but what needs to be understood, I think,
on your side is what the financing is like. That's kind of out of our bailiwick, but with
respect to whether or not it would work based on everything he knows would be the way
to go.
Supervisor Radford added they're not going to present anything unless
they feel there's momentum with you five.
School Board member Moretz stated he had asked Chris Lowe about
getting them and to do a presentation to the whole board, and what was their response?
Mr. Lowe responded their response was their attorney advised them not to give a
presentation in public. Mr. Butzer advised the reason being is that if they do, based on
state procurement is they may get excluded. So, he has heard no objections from
anybody on this board to that plan to talk to those folks.
Supervisor Radford stated when he was talking to them, He was talking
about let's do three schools at one shot because you can build a power plant and copy it
and put it on all three structures.
Supervisor North stated he listened to the conversation you participated
with, it was an hour and a half and took four points away from it if he can remember
them. One was the tax credits for the locations, which all you needed was the
addresses. And he thinks you figured that out, but the 0% interest concept raise my
eyebrows. They've done that before in the past in North and South Carolina, however,
and they've worked through a Senator from North Carolina, U.S. Senator. And the
legislation, he thinks if he understood correctly David (Mr. Radford), was being
considered as part of the infrastructure bill. And if it's passed, you will not only have tax
credits, but 0% interest and you got the solar buyback. I mean, it just keeps getting
May 11, 2021
342
better and better. But one thing I noticed about it and I'm not an architect by any stretch
of imagination, but everything was located with open concepts. I mean like a community
area in the middle of the school and the rooms are on the outside. And to David's (Mr.
Radford’s) point, they were built not in the wing fashion and the solar energy and so
forth. But one whole county rebuilt all theirs, I think, two elementary schools, a middle
school, and a high school. Now, those counties down there in South Carolina and North
Carolina, they don't have probably the revenues that Roanoke County does. So it
caught my attention to be something worth looking into. So you have to find something
else to get that cost down to somewhere around 200, 200 and a quarter square foot to
make it even realistic.
Supervisor Radford commented when they do the financial studies, they'll
tell us and they'll use the rate of inflation, to show us we need to build it now and not in
2027. School Board member Butzer added what do you need from us to say, what do
you need? Supervisor Radford stated so, we need to show them the Poage’s Mill
property; would you be open to that for the Burton Center and asked for comments from
the other School Board members.
School Board member Moretz stated he is concerned that it's a little far
out for someone driving from Benton.
School Board member Butzer responded there's two schools that it's very
close to. Two of the high schools. Well, I actually did the math and I think Chris did too. I
looked at the driving distance from each one of the high schools. And I looked at it from
the Burton center, I looked at it from the site that they're talking about in Hollins, and I
looked at it from Poage’s Mill and there was no real slam dunk winner anywhere. If we
can get a Burton center, we can get it done at a reasonable cost that the Board of
Supervisors agree to, why would we say no?
School Board member Greenway stated we can have this discussion and
it can be a million or a hundred million, but we need it done. So I'm with Mr. Butzer and
probably the rest of the board that if that meets our needs and meets the needs of the
citizens and the County. Peter Lubeck, County Attorney, commented this sounds like a
fantastic area to explore, but would counsel any of you from negotiating or addressing
this topic one-on-one with any folks that offer this service. What I'd recommend is we
are in a position to receive unsolicited proposals with regards to this type of solar
energy construction. If someone approaches you with any information about it, feel free
to receive the information and say, “I'm going to pass this on to our permit folks. I'd
invite you to get in contact with them as well and to let that happen through our
purchasing department.”
School Board member Greenway advised aren't we just putting the cart a
little bit ahead? We're solving the problem, we need to talk about the funding and
thought that's where we were heading. School Board member Butzer responded if this
concept plays out, that really does attack the funding problem big time.
School Board member Wray advised it brings it down to a more
reasonable price.
May 11, 2021
343
School Board member Moretz commented that for people in the building
industry, he is not sure construction costs are going to go down anytime soon. If he is a
manufacturer and I know that I can get $8 for a two by four, even when everything slows
down a little bit; costs may come down a little bit, but I don't know if we're going back to
where we were before and that is his fear; the longer we wait the more expensive it is
going to be. Supervisor Radford stated he does not think we are talking about waiting,
your Board said you wanted it for 2023.
School Board member Linden stated he does not think we need to hone in
on one site to Ms. Hooker's point. We need to consider that as an option over there at
the VA and I agree with considering the Poage’s farm site, but then we also have if the
cost of land is only going to be a million dollars in the project's 65, that's a very small
percentage to pay. We need to find the best location that's going to serve the entire
County. Supervisor North stated he agreed with that, but we need to find the best
location too, with respect to the solar concept. Location with solar is important and I
don't disagree. Look at three options and see which one checks the boxes for the solar
and location, etc.
Supervisor Peters stated the only caution I would give David (Supervisor
Radford), maybe it'll give a little more insight, but the solar projects that he has been
involved in, in my world, have actually been more expensive in the front end. Your
payback is over the long term. So I guess in this concept, is it going to cost us more
money to build using a solar or green energy concept? Supervisor Radford stated
they're giving me $300 a square foot. That's less than the 400. Supervisor Peters
stated is that with a compact building, which Supervisor Radford responded in the
affirmative. Supervisor Peters stated so based on what we're looking at and based on
what's been shown to us today, and it's a more sprawling building, is it not going to be
more expensive? School Board member Wray stated there will be tax credits and other
things that may come along with that. Supervisor Peters asked how the tax credits
would benefit us.
School Board member Moretz commented when it comes to a CTE
center, it's a little bit different than building if we're comparing it to a high school for
instance, the layout. You do need a lot of ground floor space for the different areas. But
there's certainly no reason why you can't go vertical with your cosmetology, with your
criminal justice. There are a lot of things that you can build up as long as you have that
footprint for that ground floor access.
Supervisor North added there needs to be a lot of things done before you
get to the estimates and correct me if I'm wrong, he thought he also mentioned that
there are different arrangements and concepts. There's rent to buy, there's lease to buy,
whatever you want to call it. There's 20 year deals, there's 30 year, and he thinks one
school had 40. So, I mean, there are lots of options you've got to lay on the table.
School Board member Butzer stated the three North Carolina schools, the company
you're talking about built the buildings. They were the developer and they've leased
May 11, 2021
344
back to the county and saved them a lot of money. Supervisor Radford stated they then
give the property back to the school.
Supervisor Radford stated to Mr. Lubeck, he likes to use his site
development experience and the energy efficiency building, what's wrong with me
talking to those people about a structure? He is not talking about financing. He is not
talking about procurement. I'm talking about the fact finding. Mr. Lubeck responded he
does not have a problem with them. If they pass on information to you, he would receive
the information. He would pass it onto the procurement for our procurement folks, and
then they could help with any follow up conversations that that can happen. School
Board member Butzer asked Mr. Lubeck if a site visit be okay with the developer, and
David (Supervisor Radford), and maybe somebody from the school board just to walk
the property. Mr. Lubeck responded he cautioned against Board Members from
meeting one-on-one with the folks as much as possible. Mr. Butzer asked what about
our director of facilities? Mr. Lubeck advised them to involve the procurement
department and the director of facilities and yes, arrange a site visit. Supervisor
Radford questioned that he can't go down and see the school? Mr. Lubeck responded
Mr. Radford personally, could go down and take a look at it yourself but the principle
that he would recommend avoiding is having negotiations and conversations between
members of the board and a potential vendor. Supervisor North added if he goes down
there takes a tour, then what you just said means he's walking fine lines. Supervisor
Mahoney stated the problem is Peter (Peter Lubeck, County Attorney) can give us a
script, but what he can't guard against is the unsuccessful bidder who files a bid protest,
has the whole thing thrown out and you're delayed for five years in court and then you
got five years’ worth of inflation. Peter, or an attorney, can give you a script, but you're
still going to have two, three, four unsuccessful bidders that are going to look at
anything they can to file a bid protest. And yeah, you may win the bid protest. What's
your backlog now, Peter, in circuit court, 18 months? Mr. Lubeck responded at least.
Supervisor Mahoney advised Mr. Lubeck can work out a script. The risk you're trying to
avoid is, don't open the door to a successful bid protest and challenge. Supervisor
Radford asked how many bidders did we have on the Green Ridge Rec Center? Mr.
O’Donnell responded he thinks if you want to approach this, there is a way to do an
unsolicited PPEA proposal, where you put out a general statement saying we are
interested in preliminary proposals from school developers, so that it's now a
competitive process. The way we did it with the Green Ridge Rec Center, was through
the PPEA process, where a company came to us, unsolicited and said, "We'd like to
pitch for this." Paul (Mr. Mahoney) was involved in a lot of that, PPEA regulation as
county attorney, because I was the project manager for that. But it was a fair,
competitive, open process. We could have gotten solicitations from five companies, but
we only got one. Now we did for the public safety building, which was also PPEA. We
had three different proposals. But you need to craft your document that opens up the
process to everybody, before you start visiting places. And then if they come in with a
preliminary expression of interest and however you craft that, then I think you're open to
May 11, 2021
345
look at five different places, if you get them from five different people. You do have to
keep it open and competitive on the front end, whatever your process is. And it sounds
to me, you're talking about something that could easily be a PPEA, which is Public-
Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act project. But the other piece of that is
no matter how you do that, you're going to have to find a way to pay for it. They may
lease it back to you, but there's obviously going to be a development cost and a profit
for the developer, or they're not going to do it. Mr. O’Donnell added there are various
potential ways to pay for it. And you know, quite frankly, from where he is sitting, looking
at what we can do with our property taxes and what other options there are, even if we
went to 20, 20, 20 with these inflating numbers, He does not think we're going to get
there with property taxes.
Mr. Lubeck went through the PowerPoint presentation by stating let's
understand where we are at present and what we can look forward to in the future. And
that's when I went back in time to understand how did this happen and see where we
are at present, so let's start with in 2019 in Halifax County. Halifax County had found
legislators to sponsor a bill. It's almost been a year and a half. It was bill number and
58.160551 and authorized Halifax County to impose a general retail sales tax and a rate
not to exceed 100%, to provide solely through capital projects for the construction or
renovation of schools. And there's a four step process and while we do that, I'd like to
pause, talk through that process. The last slide in the presentation includes these four
steps, but just to highlight them all, go through that again, the first step is at the local
governing body, which was Halifax, needed to pass a resolution that initiated a
referendum and then also set an expiration date, and there's two different types of
expiration dates that can come into play. The first is if it's going to be funded. I know that
a lot of the focus is on how is this going be funded? It was going to be funded by funds
with bonds and an expiration date would be when those bonds are ready to be repaid.
The second is simply if there is no longer a loan to finance the project and it's going to
be funded just through these tax revenues, then it cannot last for more than 20 years
from the day that this resolution is passed by the governing body. So that's even before
anything else takes place. It's initiated by a referendum and the state when it expires.
The next step is the Clerk of the circuit court will publish for three consecutive weeks
before the election and there's going to be a referendum on this specific issue and it
sets forth in the Code that needs to be used, because this is for school capital projects
and it expires on this date, after the publication the referendum is held. The referendum
needs to state that the revenues for the sales tax solely for the capital projects, the
construction and renovation of schools and against its expiration date. The fourth step is
following the referendum, if it's supported by a majority of citizens, the matter goes back
to the local governing body and the governing body then can choose whether to impose
the tax. If they do choose to do so, they must do so by an ordinance. After they enact
the ordinance, it can then become effective no sooner than 120 days, or four months,
after the ordinance was enacted. So it's a process, again, those four steps and if there's
any questions at any time, feel free to jump in and interrupt me.
May 11, 2021
346
School Board member Butzer asked if the 20 year expiration, the
expiration of the bond, or the expiration of the tax itself? Mr. Lubeck responded it is the
expiration of the tax itself. Mr. Butzer added so there is a sunset on it, it just happens to
be 20 years, which Mr. Lubeck responded in the affirmative. School Board member
Linden asked if it can it be fewer than 20 years? Can it be 15 years with Mr. Lubeck
responding in the affirmative. Supervisor North added today, in the State of Virginia,
our tax around here is 5.3%. Everybody thinks, "Oh, man, that's all?" But we only get
1% and the State of Virginia's 4.3%
School Board member Butzer asked if we know, based on what sales are
typically, what revenue can you generate with a 1% tax? Supervisor Peters stated $12
million with Supervisor North advising $12.2 million to be exact. Rebecca Owens,
Assistant County Administrator added today, we received 1% of the 5.3%, so that's the
sales reflecting in the budget.
School Board member Moretz asked if we're using this for a specific
project, doesn't the tax increase need to match with our final outcome?
Supervisor Peters asked Mr. Lubeck for confirmation, if he understood
what you just said to us, we almost have to have the project ready and know when it's
going to be before we can even do any events. Once the decision is made if it's going to
be financed with the bonds that needs to be made up front when the resolution is
passed.
Mr. Lubeck asked to move forward to the year 2020 when the authority
was expanded to eight additional localities. The Virginia Code has changed its structure
a little bit and instead of in the 58.160551, instead of simply referring to our facts and
then it was amended to refer to a qualifying locality, may implement this tax, and the
definition section that preceded it, which was a 58.1602, included the definition of a
qualifying locality and then added the state of Halifax and they included these eight
additional localities. When looking at the chart, perhaps, in our handouts, the other
eight localities. So turn to page 3, if you will, to your handouts. It's directive three. This
sends forth under the counties Charlotte, Gloucester, Halifax, Henry, Mecklenburg,
Northampton, Patrick, Pittsylvania and the City of Danville. Then the chart that you see
shows those that enacted, that have held a referendum. Those that did and you will find
in that resolution all of them passed, all of them decided to impose the tax. All of them
passed. Three of the localities, Mecklenburg, Pittsylvania and the city of Danville, had
not yet acted, but Pittsylvania County has approved of the referendum, so that will
happen.
Mr. Lubeck stated as he discussed with Mr. North, a strategy about this.
He had some great insight as to whether it would be better to State specific projects, in
addition to the general language that's required in the code and there's a county that
did, more specifically state what the projects were. As this unfolds, that might be
something worth considering. Supervisor North added to Mr. Lubeck, only one
municipality has specifically named their complexes. The Northampton Middle/High
School complex was named in the Northampton referendum. People have to know
May 11, 2021
347
because if you go back and look at the history of the blue-ribbon committee that failed
70 to 30%, back whenever that was and then out of that came the blue-ribbon
committee stopped being established. But anyway. School Board member Linden
stated we think the taxpayers would like to know exactly what it is going for, rather than
just a general school funding. Supervisor North noted in reading the blue-ribbon
committee report, was he thinks it would involve a number of things that were supposed
to happen around the County and it didn't pass, because some parts of the county,
some magisterial districts, didn't want it to pass, because it was nothing for them in it.
So you got to be careful about what you ask for, because you might not get it. Now the
benefit of BCAT is that impacts the whole County and all five magisterial districts. When
you hang on to anything else, some people may be not so kind in other magisterial
districts, if the proposed school is not in their backyard.
Supervisor Mahoney commented he hopes Mr. North is correct. His fear
is we could relive the failed referendum in '95, if we use existing property, Pogue’s Mill,
because the other four regions of the county may look at, "Oh, you're putting BCAT in
Southwest County," and unfortunately, we have a rerun of what happened with the
failed referendum.. Mr. Butzer's correct. It's going to take a very robust public relations
campaign. But he can still see, unfortunately, a similar mindset surfacing. Now maybe
after 25 years, the citizens have changed. I'd love for it to be at Pogue’s Mill, but as you
pointed out, you have two high schools that feed right into it. School Board member
Wray stated we are going to have all five high schools participating and that's the PR
part. Mr. Mahoney then stated he think’s David’s (Supervisor Radford’s) point is that it
could help when you go to the citizens, when you specify the projects.
School Board member Moretz commented when we talk about Mr. North's
point with BCAT, we have a fairly even breakdown. These numbers were as of February
10, 2020. This is the makeup of BCAT. 21.5% from Cave Spring, 11.2 from Glenbrook.
That's our smallest. That could be due to the size of the school as well; 23.4 from
Hidden Valley, 20.1 from North Side and 23.8 from Byrd. That's a pretty good and even
distribution. Supervisor North stated you're turning people away. David (Mr. Radford)
and I have had this conversation with some others in the past. Why are they turning
people away for crying out loud? Go get some rental space, if you need to, for a year
and put some classes. That's a selling feature of doing something. The benefit, the
economic development impact, is a selling feature of doing something, so you have to
have your script and all 10 of us have to be singing from the same handbook.
Mr. Lubeck continued in 2021, SB 1170 was proposed to include the Isle
of Wight so they could be included in this definition of a qualifying locality and
unfortunately, this bill died. So after crossover, after it went into the house, it was
assigned to the house subcommittee on finance and they decided to lay it on the table
and what that means is it failed. They wanted to study it further, before taking action.
School Board member Butzer asked why did that one fail and all of the others pass? We
have some insight into that one. Mr. North, did you have something you wanted to say?
Supervisor North stated he had followed this closely. It was to pass the Senate and it
May 11, 2021
348
was bipartisan support. In fact, the proponent was the house of the Senate minority
leader, Tommy Norment, was the sponsor, because it was his county. So I figured,
when it passed the Senate, this is definitely going to pass the house. The last thing I
thought was it would not pass the house, so when it gets in the committee and they just
pigeonholed it. Part of the reason was because the chair of that committee knew that
this modernization committee was also going to be organized and so they want to see
what comes out of that report, whether it affirms this, because the VACo education
lobbyist, Jeffrey Bennett and I talked. He had lined up for this bill to be an omnibus bill
to cover the whole state of Virginia in early January, late December and he had to
delegates bipartisan support to sponsor the bill. Well, they came along and said, "You
can't sponsor with seven bills per delegate." And so they had already had other
commitments to sponsor bills and so they backed down at the last minute and there
wasn't any bill, other than that, in the way. There was hopes that there'd be a bill to
cover all the state of Virginia, much like there has been in some other areas, like
cigarettes. And so then it's up to the locality, because right now it's they got to ask the
general assembly, "May I do this?" And get a sponsor and it goes through this year and
a half process. That failed. And so Jeffrey's hoping that we're going through the process
now and we'll come out with a report saying, "Do an omnibus bill to cover the whole
state." General Assembly will pass it and then people don't have to go ask, because it's
a tried and true process to do that. He thinks that's part of the reason it failed.
Mr. Lubeck stated Mr. North has shared is correct. It appears that the
house finance committee wanted to take on a more global look and have to solve these
problems. And if yes, we are crossing our fingers that they're already some statewide
solutions and not leave the brunt of the expense by the localities. So at this point in
time, there is uncertainty on our stakes; uncertainty in several areas. So if we move it
forward, this is a next steps timeline. The first step if we want to move this forward
proactively ourselves, as part of our legislative agenda. There is some uncertainty in
that regard. He want you to know that. So not all of our local legislators voted in favor.
So we move on to have some sit downs and have conversations with them about what
concerns, if any, they had and why they'd voted against the bill. That would be the first
step. Our goal would be to get unanimous support from our local legislators. Often, if a
bill is introduced that favors or benefits one particular locality, other legislators will look
to see is their uniformity? Is our consensus among the legislators that represent that
locality? So mostly it's not, it didn't make it.
School Board member Greenway stated so at that point he asks our fellow
board members. He is assuming and I don't know this, but I've heard that our local
legislators were not on board with this. Have any of you all had discussions with our
local folks and will they come onboard. School Board member Butzer stated when we
went to lobby day, two years ago and met with Senator Sutterlein’s assistant, Dan
Webb and Delegate McNamara’s legislative assistant and we pitched the idea and they
basically said no, that their bosses wouldn't support that. He asked why and Mr. Webb
said that he didn't trust that you guys could spend the money wisely. That was it for that.
May 11, 2021
349
Mr. Lubeck stated yes, you are correct. We really need to have those conversations.
Mr. Greenway asked the question again, have you all had those discussions? We're
putting a lot of trust in that we can get this done. Have you had those discussions?
Supervisor North stated yes, there's been discussions and he has had a
couple himself. But there was one delegate that expressed an interest and that was last
year, as late as December and he won't mention his name. So I suppose that it's
something that's going to happen statewide one day. He said, "Let me think about it."
But then he thinks that he aligned with somebody else. Now what do think is going to
happen this year? I think there's going to be an omnibus bill that's put out and that bill is
going to be put out in the State General Assembly. Well, that's a State Delegate and a
Senator, or maybe it's just a Senator, or just a State Delegate. He does not know, but if
that bill is filed by whomever to apply it in the whole state of Virginia, then you don't
necessarily need a sponsorship by someone in your local delegation.
School Board member Greenway stated by us talking about this, we're all
in agreement that we want to push forward with this.
Supervisor Peters stated let me back up and answer your question a
different way. Mr. Greenway and I have talked about it, but this is for everybody else.
My feeling on the matter is simply this and have said this to a number of my colleagues,
is that all ten of us need to be singing from the same sheet of music. Supervisor North
agreed. Supervisor Peters continued so that is step one. He has great respect for Mike
Altizer, who came before both boards and the second thing we’ve got to do, and thinks
most important, is we need to get the citizens to buy in. He is very much an advocate of
the Citizens Committee, because they're going to be the one to help shape that
message to our communities and thinks that that's going to help shape the message to
our delegates. Supervisor Hooker added, “Our PR campaign.” So he thinks that we can
ask the question a hundred different ways, but he always stops and thinks, "What can I
do? How can I make this happen? How can I put my best foot forward?" The ten of us in
this room need to make a decision. Are we on board or not? If there's one deflection,
this conversation is dead.
School Board member Butzer asked what is the question with Supervisor
Peters responding moving forward with what Peter's proposing. Supervisor Peters
stated that message has already been answered when it was covered in the Roanoke
Times in February. Supervisor Peters added step two is one that he personally have a
lot of questions. We're talking about taking a building from 89,000 square feet to
176,000 square feet. My first question, going back to what Mr. Wray mentioned a
moment ago, is are we meeting the demands of our economy? If an employer wants to
come here, are we producing in Roanoke County through our career in technical
training? Are we producing what are our businesses are looking for? School Board
member Greenway asked if Mr. Peters was asking current or in the future. Supervisor
Peters stated he is asking at any point in time. He is asking whether it's today, or even
what we're looking at in the future. Are we spending time on things that may or may not
help evolve the economy of Roanoke County and the region? Are we doing what we
May 11, 2021
350
can do to keep students here after school? He can't answer that question; know the
answer, but he is saying that's something that we collectively should be working on; that
should be something a Citizen's Committee should be looking at, that's what the
economic development impact statement should look at. We need to know where we
need to be focusing this BCAT center.
School Board member Greenway stated to Mr. Peters, we're asking a
question, rhetorically, he thinks. Because we know what is going to keep those kids
here. He is getting drawn into bringing this out. What's going to keep those kids here are
those jobs, so that's not a question you can ask us. We need to get those kids ready
and ready to go forth, to work for these companies and you're going to bring us the jobs.
Supervisor Peters stated but his question is, and remembers this was glaring in our face
when Eldor came to Botetourt County. When they came here and said, "Oh, there's
nobody that can do this." He does not know what companies are looking forward to that.
He does not know what the next boom is going to be in businesses, but we should be
doing that most collectively on our side and your side. School Board member
Greenway asked if Supervisor Peters thought Botetourt had better workforce
development than we did with Supervisor Peters responding in the negative, that's the
whole problem. In this area, no one was prepared. School Board member Greenway
stated that is not a question for the School Board; it is the Board of Supervisors.
Supervisor Peters responded but your training was there in the company. School Board
member Greenway added they have the same workforce that we have.
Supervisor Peters stated what he is saying is that we bring the company
in, is BCAT putting out what we need to make this attractive for that company to come
in here. I'm not saying you're going to be the one luring the business in here, but I'm
saying when Eldor came to town, we did not have the workforce in this valley for that.
He is not pointing fingers at anybody, but he guesses when he is looking at a career
technical center, I do. I take that forward look and go, "When we do this..." And I'm
supportive of doing this. Jason stole it from me earlier, but that was one of the first
things he thought. Is there anybody in this room that disagrees that we need to do
something with working?
School Board member Butzer stated he did not think anyone would object
that having more input from businesses is wrong. He thinks you're going to find that we
got a pretty good head start on that. Supervisor Peters stated he is not saying
anybody's done anything right or wrong. He is just saying when we do this, we're
making probably the largest investment in Roanoke County schools that we have ever
made and this building needs to be right, because 50 years from now, when they go
look at that school we are not going to be here. All he is saying is let’s make sure we
are doing this right.
School Board member Moretz stated he would encourage everybody to
just revisit that BCAT moving forward, because part of that plan is our staff going
through and each department said this is what we need to train our people, but there's
May 11, 2021
351
also incorporated flexible spacing, which can be used to implement, for example,
HVAC, Industrial electricity, heavy equipment and so on.
Supervisor North stated he was on the phone with Senator Kaine's office
last Friday afternoon, Peter and I talked to Gwen Mason. We touched base on another
subject, then we shifted over to CTE, because Kaine is on the CTE sub-committee, or
lobbying committee, or some committee he's on. And I said, "Oh, by the way, what kind
of help have you got in the forecast for CTE schools?" He always asks that question.
She responded, "Well, if everything's up in the air now, he's getting ready to do the
Senate earmarks and all the websites you can put in there, your suggestions. Then he's
going to see what they are and formulated with, whatever the Senate earmarks." So
they just came out, the guidelines, some of them today. She suggested two things, one,
go take a look at the new Staunton High School and asked what is in the CTE area in
the valley. She pointed out Massanutten Technical Center, MTC. This was a regional
school built in the seventies, and it was an effort on behalf of Rockingham County and
the City of Harrisonburg. So he got on the phone, called him, talked to him today, briefly
and he is supposed to call back tomorrow. It excited him when he went on the website
after talking to Gwen on, Friday. These two guys, you can call one of them the Jason
Suhr of Rockingham County and another fellow, that are both in charge of the school,
put a video on sharing with the public, the 21 programs they offer. You got to go on and
look at mtc.com, or .org. Massanutten Technical Center, it sold him and he plans on
going up there as soon as he could take a tour of it. Now, I don't know whether it's
wings design or what, but you got to look at that. If nothing else, just for the energy that
they put into selling their program. He understands from Gwen that the foundation for
that was the business community, up in the Shenandoah Valley, who needed these
programs. So that's why you've got to energize your business community.
Supervisor Mahoney stated if this is option A, let's assume it doesn't work.
Let's assume we don't get a patron or let's assume there's not a statewide bill, what is
option B? This is great. If we get 12 mil a year, he thinks we can build BCAT and two
new elementary schools, if he does his math correctly. But if this doesn't fly, and I'm
optimistic it would because it sounds to me that both the R's and the D's are running for
election or reelection this summer, this fall, they both say nice things, but again, being
the pessimist, if this doesn’t fly, do we have an option B? And I don't know of any, quite
honestly. Supervisor North responded we need the revenue stream. That's why he is
hoping, never mind the local patrons, he is hoping that the bill is an omnibus bill that's
recommended by this committee. That's why he is listening to this committee as they
move along, because you'll be able to pick up hints as you get into third and fourth
meetings because they got a white paper they've got to write up by September. That's
why he is also encouraging you folks to listen in the committee because there's nothing
better than hearing it firsthand and make your own conclusions and share it with the rest
of your board members, or if staff does it, share it with the board. Because he firmly
believes this committee's challenge is two-fold. One, to drive the omnibus bill statewide
like they did on other taxes. And to do so, this committee would recommend it. He also
May 11, 2021
352
thinks the committee may be looking at some other funding mechanism that he cannot
speak about because he has not heard it. That's why he is excited they're finally
meeting after eight years and it took legislation to form this commission. So they have to
perform their job and make the recommendation. Stanley's on there, the two people that
are the chair, the Senator McClellan, who's running for the democratic governor and
Chris Hurst as vice chair, but they have eight people on the committee, or seven, and
it's four and three. So I mean, most parties are represented. He thinks something is
going to come out of it.
Supervisor Peters stated at the end of the day, we still have a plan in
place because we still have to sell it to our citizens. So, he goes back to and thinks
there was support of most of your board or maybe all of it. He truly think that we need to
put together a citizen's committee and our Board was for that, but thinks we need to
have that non-biased voice out there that researches this and helps us draw the same
conclusion, because we're going to need that. We don't want what happened in '95, '98,
or whatever it was. We need to build that PR.
Supervisor Linden asked just out of curiosity, what would this, and I know
Mr. O'Donnell mentioned the real estate tax increase couldn't support that, what would
the real estate tax increase be to get an additional $12 million a year?
Supervisor Peters responded when we originally looked at this, it was
looking for $91 million, was in the letter that he received from chairman Butzer at the
time and would put us at six (6) cents. Right now, the numbers that he believes are
more true are at $130 million; which would be approximately ten cents. School Board
member Linden commented a one cent sales tax increase is a whole lot more palatable
than a ten cent real estate tax increase.
Supervisor Peters added that's the point, but thinks we need to build PR to
have that conversation. The sales tax is something that's not on the backs of Roanoke
County citizens. That's when a lot of people come through here, stop off at I81, and if
you look at just a half a cent, you generate six million a year. We've got options out
there, but we've got a lot of homework to do. He wanted this meeting for everybody to
come together and have a brainstorming session to lay our cards on the table. As he
shared with Jason Moretz, he appreciates him meeting with him last Thursday and also
realistic numbers. The last schools have been $6 to $10 million over budget and that
wasn’t during a construction shortage. So, to sit here and think William Byrd will be less
than $30 million, he does not see happening. He thinks we need to have realistic
figures because going to our citizens with $50 million and it being $65 million will have
egg on our face. We need to make sure we know exactly what we're looking for in our
facility. We need the buy-in from the citizens, hopefully a citizen's committee and we
need to move forward from that.
School Board member Moretz stated Supervisor Peters is right on the
numbers with the other schools, which is why, with the lead of Mr. Butzer, we went to a
design build and he is fairly confident that if it wasn't for these 300, 400% rise in material
costs over the last 12 months, we'd be very darn close to our budget.
May 11, 2021
353
Supervisor North stated the citizens, the real estate property owners and
the homeowners don't want a 6.7 cent tax increase on a dollar three, it will put us up
with Fairfax County, Loudon County and those places. We're already the fourth highest
county in the State of Virginia on real estate property tax. Supervisor Peters added that
anything to do with real estate taxes will fail if it goes to referendum. The pressure that
we had this year to reduce real estate taxes, because of how much assessments went
up. So then you turn around, you try to push six cents, it's not going to happen. So that's
why, as I talk with School Board members that's why we have spent time, not stall
tactics, but we have truly spent time looking at other options, whether it be the sales tax,
whether Mr. North is knee deep in all these other options with the State. He thinks that
we need to make sure we are exercising every option we have, because at the end of
the day, we're going to be coming to our citizens, asking for their help. So we need to
make sure we've done our job first. Supervisor North stated the larger question, at the
end of the day, is how are you going to sell this? All ten of us on board and we sell it as
best we can. Then it's up to the voters and if the voters turn it down, that's a larger
question. Now what is option B?
School Board member Greenway commented let's circle all the way back
to his original question. We have to sell it to our local legislators too, right? We need
them on board. Supervisor Peters added that is why he was very thankful to hear
another option when Mr. Altizer spoke to both boards, because getting that citizen’s
engagement is going to help us. School Board member Greenway commented we need
those three to make sure we can get this done, right? So let's not say it in here that
we're for it and we got to go there and sell it to them too. Supervisor Peters stated he is
here to request the boards and that you're in agreement with me to create a citizens
committee. School Board member Greenway then added and then we start in 2023 to
build? Supervisor Peters replied, sure, we can make it happen.
School Board member Moretz stated if we're going to go the route of the
citizen committee, we got to get off the pot because time is of the essence. It's got to be
moving forward.
Supervisor Peters stated given the timeline that Mr. Lubeck has given us.
Yes, we need to get off our duff and get a citizen's committee. But also, the other part of
it is we're going to have to have something, a proposal by November 22, because that's
what's going to be going to the citizens. So we've got to have a project with a hard cost
to go to the citizens by November 22. Supervisor Peters then stated this body would ne
meet again in two months.
School Board member Moretz commented Supervisor Peters had
mentioned the citizen committee. If this omnibus bill does not go through, the citizen
committee as discussed would really need to be in place and to help lobby our local
legislators, which is, I mean, honestly, that's this fall.
School Board member Butzer added before you have a citizens
committee, you're going to need a mission and a scope of what they're supposed to be
doing, right? Supervisor Peters responded that we can create that pretty quickly. We
May 11, 2021
354
just need to decide what's going to make up the committee. He thinks our staffs are well
versed enough to come up with a mission, and agenda and go from there.
School Board member Greenway suggested the two chairmen getting
together to establish that with Supervisor Peters responding that is fine; we work pretty
well together. Supervisor North asked if we should have some businesses in the
committee? Supervisor Peters responded each district should be able to pick one from
each side and it would be up to them. Supervisor Peters stated if he had it his way and
this is just food for thought, but I would probably not have a member of either board on
it. He would have it directed by someone of our staff, because again, He thinks we're
trying to take the politics out of this, the bias out of it and have it led by someone of our
each staff respectively; ten (10) citizens and then a staff member from both the County
and one from the School Board.
School Board member Butzer asked what is it that the citizens will do?
Supervisor Peters stated he would like to hear their input on what's needed at Burton,
the sites. He want them to evaluate the whole process.
School Board member Butzer stated one of the things that we found that
really inflated the cost of school construction was getting the community input. Because
when you ask for it, they all want things that really you don't need. We really need to
define what it is we want them to go. Supervisor Peters stated when you have a
focused building, such as Burton, you can lay the parameters out for what we're looking
for, especially if you're trying to push your career in the technical center. School Board
member Butzer responded at the end of the day, the output of the Burton Center, it's
supposed to be highly trained, skilled workers, so you need a lot more than citizen input.
You need businesses. Supervisor Peters stated he would like to see the citizens
committee have community meetings or whatever. He thinks it'd be good to hear the
needs of our other citizens at some point. We have time.
Supervisor Hooker stated we have a really great CTE general advisory
board that already meets routinely. Can we use them and invite business and charge
them with this task?
School Board member Moretz asked Supervisor Peters if between now
and the end of next week, they could iron out the ins and outs of this committee. With
hopes of having something, a game plan. We need a game plan in place by the next
week. Supervisor Peters advised to let him know, we will make it work.
Supervisor Radford stated we are talking about three (3) schools. We are
replacing two (2) elementary schools; we don’t need a committee to tell us to replace
two (2) elementary schools. Supervisor Peters stated the committee is for Burton. The
discussion that we're having is the construction of the elementary schools, and correct
me if I'm wrong, is pretty much we're going to try to work that through the CIP, the
Burton Center's is going to be what we're looking at the legislative fix, because that's
going to be a very large ticket item.
May 11, 2021
355
School Board member Butzer stated he thinks there's a parallel track
though, which is all of that stuff should happen, but we should also explore the solar
deal here with a package of three bills. We could still do that work and compare what
the numbers are.
Supervisor Radford stated he had several phone calls with them and they
stated they can package the financing, the leasing, so we don't have to do a sales tax or
a referendum. So, allegedly, we haven’t heard the bottom of that.
Supervisor Peters suggested we have another meeting in August.
School Board member Greenway stated we had talked about, with those
schools, the only thing we need to leave on the table in talking about 2047 that our CIP
funding, I mean, it's underfunded. To get these schools done, to bring them into some
fashion of the next 10 or 15 years. Because by that time we're going to have the schools
behind it. And I know I'm putting a lot on us, but we had talked about the fact that we
were going to talk about that with you, right?
Supervisor Peters advised we had said the staff was working on that over
the summer. It would come back to us with a recommendation. School Board member
Greenway stated so we meeting again in two months and can discuss it at that time. To
Supervisor Radford’s point, if we're talking about BCAT and talking about maybe doing
the solar for the three schools or some fashion and if that's the case, then that moves
our schedule up a good bit, right? And that's okay. If not, then we're back to the CIP
funding.
Supervisor Peters responded in the negative stating no, that's why he said
he does not think we need to be waiting too long between meetings, because we waited
19 months, or whatever it is, with no meetings. But with the magnitude of what we're
talking about, we need to be meeting more frequently and I think that every three
months is not unreasonable, unless there's an objection to that?
It was the consensus of both boards to have another meeting on August
10, 2021, at 5:30 p.m.
Chairman Moretz adjourned his meeting at 7:43 p.m.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Peters adjourned the meeting at 7:43 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
________________________ ___________________________________
Deborah C. Jacks P. Jason Peters
Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman
May 11, 2021
356
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY