4/12/2011 - RegularApril 12, 2011 179
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 second Tuesday and the first
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of April 2011. 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: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Church called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. The roll call
was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph B. "Butch" Church; Supervisors Michael
W. Altizer, Eddie "Ed" Elswick, Richard C. Flora
MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chairman Charlotte A. Moore
STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Diane D.
Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator; Daniel R. O'Donnell,
Assistant County Administrator; Teresa Hamilton Hall,
Director of Public Information; Paul M. Mahoney, County
Attorney; Deborah C. Jacks, Clerk to the Board
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Dr. Maurita Wiggins of Valley Community
Church — Divine Science. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Proclamation declaring April 10 through 16, 2011, as National
Public Safety Telecommunicators Week in the County of Roanoke
(Bill Hunter, Assistant Director of Communications)
Bill Greeves, Director of Communications /Information Technology; Bill
Hunter, Assistant Director of Communications and Pat Shumate, Chief Communications
Officer thanked the Board for the proclamation. Communications Officers present were
Paige DeSilvey and Aleta Coleman. All of the Supervisors expressed their thanks.
80 April 12, 2011
2. Proclamation declaring the month of April as Parliamentary Law
Month for 2011 in the County of Roanoke (Jennie Sue Murdock,
President, Roanoke Valley Unit of the National Association of
Parliamentarians)
Jennie Sue Murdock, President of the Roanoke Valley Unit of the National
Association of Parliamentarians was present for the reading of the proclamation. All of
the Supervisors thanked Ms. Murdock for bringing this to the attention of the Board.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding proposed
amendments to the fiscal year 2010 -2011 budget in accordance
with Section 15.2 -2507, Code of Virginia (W. Brent Robertson,
Director of Management and Budget)
No citizens spoke on this item.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to adopt the Roanoke County School Budget for the
fiscal year 2011 -2012 (Diane D. Hyatt, Assistant County
Administrator; David Wymer, Chairman, Roanoke County School
Board; Dr. Lorraine Lange, Superintendent of Schools and Penny
Hodge, Assistant Superintendent of Finance, Roanoke County
Schools)
A- 041211 -1
In attendance from the School Board were Chairman, David Wymer; Dr.
Lorraine Lange and Penny Hodge. All of the school representatives thanked the Board
of Supervisors for the great working relationship between the two organizations.
Mr. Tim Summer, Vice President of the Roanoke County Education
Association spoke in support of approving the Roanoke County School Budget and in
support of the one -time payroll supplement for Roanoke County Schools.
Supervisor Elswick expressed his appreciation to Diane Hyatt and Penny
Hodge for their work in this process.
Chairman Church moved to approve the request. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
April 12, 2011 181
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
2. Request to appropriate the rollover of 2009 -2010 Federal Stimulus
State Fiscal Stabilization Funds in the amount of $3,009,271.36 for
existing teaching positions in the County Schools (Diane D. Hyatt,
Assistant County Administrator; Penny Hodge, Assistant
Superintendent of Finance, Roanoke County Schools)
A- 041211 -2
Ms. Hyatt advised the Board these funds were a rollover item from the
2009 -2010 budget and will be used for existing teaching positions and reallocating the
existing school personnel budget to technology. The School Board approved this
request on March 24, 2011.
Supervisor Flora moved to approve the request. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
3. Request to appropriate Federal Stimulus Education Jobs Funds in
the amount of $3,079,343.64 to provide a one -time payroll
supplement for Roanoke County Schools (Diane D. Hyatt,
Assistant County Administrator; Penny Hodge, Assistant
Superintendent of Finance, Roanoke County Schools)
A- 041211 -3
In attendance from the School Board were Chairman, David Wymer; Dr.
Lorraine Lange, Superintendent and Penny Hodge, Superintendent of Finance. All
spoke in favor of this appropriation.
Supervisor Flora thanked the School Board for slowing down the process
through the General Assembly budget cuts. He commented that the recession has
gone on longer than anticipated and appreciated the diligence both Boards have made
to make the best of the situation.
Supervisor Altizer congratulated everyone for a job well done, reiterating
Supervisor Flora's comment of appreciation for waiting until the General Assembly
budget was completed. He further commented next year is a new biannual budget, is
uncertain of what will happen but feels the stimulus funds will not return.
82 April 12, 2011
Supervisor Elswick remarked having been in the teaching profession; the
work does not stop when the last bell rings. He noted Roanoke County has some very
dedicated teachers.
Chairman Church thanked both sides for "driving slow" until the General
Assembly budget process was completed. He further commented that both sides have
been very diligent and is appreciative of the cooperation and working together.
Chairman Church moved to approve the request. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
4. Resolution approving the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission
Budget for fiscal year 2011 -2012 (Diane D. Hyatt, Assistant County
Administrator; Jacqueline Shuck, Executive Director of the
Roanoke Regional Airport Commission)
Ms. Hyatt explained it is a requirement for the Commission to submit their
budget each year for approval by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County and
Roanoke City Council. Ms. Hyatt further advised that this commission is self- sufficient
and does not require any funding.
Ms. Shuck explained airline rates were flat as well as parking rates, which
resulted in a decrease in surplus.
Supervisor Altizer stated upon his review of the budget, he noted an eight
point four percent (8.4 %) budget, but projected revenues show more expenditures than
revenue. Ms. Shuck explained the budget is heavier this year due to maintenance that
has been delayed and next year should be lower.
Supervisor Alitzer remarked of the eight point four percent (8.4 %)
budgeted, seven point one percent (7.1 %) was salaries. Ms. Shuck advised the
Commission would be filling two positions frozen for two years, an increase in the
pension plan and health benefits in addition to booking paid leave.
RESOLUTION 041211 -4 APPROVING THE ROANOKE
REGIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2011 -2012 UPON CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS
WHEREAS, Section 24.13 of the Regional Airport Commission Act and Section
17.(a) of the contract between the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County and the Roanoke
Regional Airport Commission provide that the Commission shall prepare and submit its
operating budget for the forthcoming year to the Board of Supervisors of the County and
City Council of the City; and
April 12, 2011 183
WHEREAS, by report dated March 16, 2011, a copy of which is on file in the
office of the Clerk of the Board, the Executive Director of the Roanoke Regional Airport
Commission has submitted a request that the County approve the fiscal year 2011 -2012
budget of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia that the fiscal year 2011 -2012 budget and proposed capital
expenditures for the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission as set forth in the March
16, 2011 report of the Commission Executive Director, a copy of which is incorporated
by reference herein, is hereby APPROVED, and the County Administrator and the Clerk
are authorized to execute and attest, respectively, on behalf of the County, any
documentation, in form approved by the County Attorney, necessary to evidence said
approval.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
5. Request to approve the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority
(RVRA) Budget for fiscal year 2011 -2012 (Rebecca E. Owens,
Director of Finance; Anne Marie Green, Director of General
Services; Daniel Miles, Chief Executive Officer, RVRA)
Mr. Miles explained per the Member Use Agreement, the charter members
of the Authority must approve the budget each fiscal year. He outlined the $9.5 million
budget, which is a reduction from the prior year. He stated in order to present a
balanced budget; funds must be drawn down from the contingency reserve fund. Mr.
Miles explained the Authority is anticipating depleting the reserve after the next fiscal
year, which coincides with the pay off of revenue bonds and will rebuild the contingency
fund going forward. He indicated the principal fees will remain unchanged with no major
rate increase. Several proposed minor rate changes are being proposed and a public
hearing is scheduled for June 22, 2011, with a public comment hearing to be held on
June 15, 2011, to discuss these changes.
Supervisor Altizer inquired with the elimination of the debt and all of
RVRA's draw downs, what is anticipated for next year as far as tipping fees for the
member localities and do they anticipate continuing at the same rate for the next couple
of years. Mr. Miles stated RVRA is looking at some minor increases projected for the
long term. Mr. Miles explained they try not to look at just one year; they try to look at a
ten -year window to compensate for equipment purchases and try to avoid any major
impacts or great reductions that could possibly turn around in the next year. Mr. Miles
further explained the debt service is approximately $2.7 million, and they are drawing
184 April 12, 2011
down a contingency reserve of approximately $1.6 million. As a result, they will have
about a $1.1 million difference after the bond debt is retired next year. He stated the
$1.1 million next year will actually be used to go back and reestablish some funds in
contingency reserve to provide a safety net. He stated they are anticipating next year or
the following year, maybe a minor increase of $1 per ton on the municipal tipping fee,
going from $45 to $46 per ton and probably a $1 per ton on the commercial fee as well
and that would be in order to prevent us from having to look at a $4 to $5 per ton tipping
fee increase four to five years down the road.
Supervisor Altizer then asked with so much going on with the Virginia
Retirement System (VRS), it appears that your VRS payments will increase next year
and has the Board considered reducing that by not paying that fee for all of the
employees coming onboard at a later date. Mr. Miles responded the RVRA typically
mirrors what Roanoke County does.
Chairman Church asked Mr. Miles to talk briefly about the host community
fund. Mr. Miles explained when the resource authority was formed, by citing the land fill
in the County jurisdiction, one of the benefits that came back to the County was a host
community payment of $300,000. Each year, a $300,000 lump sum payment goes back
to the County. Conversely, where the transfer station is located in the City, they also
provide a $100,000 reimbursement back to the City for hosting the Transfer Station
within its jurisdictional limits as well.
Chairman Church remarked these funds are important to the community
directly affected and adjacent to the field. We are trying to make some strides to do
some things that are going to help that community since they are the occupant holding
this landfill. Mr. Miles responded that he had originally misunderstood Chairman
Church, and there is also another fund for the residents that surround the Smith Gap
Landfill. The Authority has set up a program that contributes a sum of money each year
into a fund that is capped at $150,000. Right now that fund is projected to be at
$148,000 at the end of this fiscal year. Accordingly, the cap of that contribution is
rapidly approaching with the understanding that the residents of the Smith Gap Landfill
community, the Bradshaw Road community, can come back with a program to use
those funds and expend those funds in a manner that is agreeable with the Board of
Supervisors as well as the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Board. Chairman
Church stated he feels this program is the most beneficial thing that can be done for the
host community.
RESOLUTION 041211 -5 APPROVING THE ROANOKE VALLEY
RESOURCE AUTHORITY BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
2010 -2011
WHEREAS, Section 5.9 of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Members Use
Agreement provides that the Authority shall prepare and submit its operating budget for
the forthcoming fiscal year to the Board of Supervisors of the County, the City Council of
the City of Roanoke and the Town Council of the Town of Vinton; and
April 12, 2011 185
WHEREAS, by report dated March 25, 2011, a copy of which is on file in the
office of the Clerk to the Board, the Chief Executive Officer of the Roanoke Valley
Resource Authority has submitted a request that the County approve the fiscal year
2011 -2012 budget of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA that the fiscal year 2011 -2012 budget for the
Roanoke Valley Resource Authority as set forth in the March 25, 2011, report of the
Authority Chief Executive Officer, a copy of which is incorporated by reference herein, is
hereby APPROVED, and the County Administrator and the Clerk are authorized to
execute and attest respectively, on behalf of the County, any documentation, in form
approved by the County Attorney, necessary to evidence said approval.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
6. Request to approve a resolution supporting the removal of the
bridge over Carvins Creek on John Richardson Road, Route 743,
and construction of a cul -de -sac, Hollins Magisterial District
(David Holladay, Planning Administrator)
Mr. Holladay outlined that the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) has requested this resolution and explained the reason for this request. In
attendance from VDOT were Brian Blevins, Anthony Ford, Pat Wood and Scott
Woodrum to answer any questions.
Supervisor Flora stated the primary reason this bridge was taken out was
because it provided very little benefit to Roanoke County. He clarified by stating it is a
very short road that comes off of Plantation Road and goes over to Oakland Blvd, which
is in the City of Roanoke. Additionally, the primary user was in all probability Roanoke
City residents and with the closing of Harris Teeter, he suspected there were not that
many City residents that used the bridge either. Staff choose to take it out in order to
use the money on other more important projects. He advised he did not have a problem
with the bridge coming out and doubted that anyone in the Hollins area of the County
has any objection to it being removed.
RESOLUTION 041211 -6 SUPPORTING THE REMOVAL OF THE
BRIDGE OVER CARVINS CREEK ON JOHN RICHARDSON
ROAD, RTE. 743, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A CUL -DE -SAC,
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
186 April 12, 2011
WHEREAS, the bridge was closed to traffic on September 12, 2007, by Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) as a result of an inspection that determined it to
be in critical condition; and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2010, staff presented the project to demolish the bridge
and construct a cul -de -sac at a work session on fiscal year 2011 -2016 Secondary Six -
Year -Plan with the Board of Supervisors, and there was no opposition to the proposed
scope of work; and
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2010, a public hearing was held at Mountain View
Elementary School to present the proposed scope of work, with VDOT and Roanoke
County staff attending; and
WHEREAS, the majority of public hearing comments included converting the
existing bridge to a pedestrian and bicycle crossing only, however, based on the
structural deficiencies, this option is not feasible; and
WHEREAS, the existing right of way will remain for possible future pedestrian
facilities; and
WHEREAS, current revenue sharing funds applied to project are expected to
cover costs of bridge demolition and construction of the new cul -de -sac;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board hereby supports the
removal of bridge over Carvins Creek and construction of a cul -de -sac on the east side
of existing crossing; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution is forwarded
to the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Request to adopt an ordinance to approve a one -time salary
supplement for certain County of Roanoke employees (Diane D.
Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator)
There was no discussion. Supervisor Flora moved to approve the first
reading and schedule the second reading for April 26, 2011. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
April 12, 2011 187
2. Request to adopt an ordinance authorizing the lease for eighteen
months (plus options to extend for additional three and six -month
periods) of commercial property on Route 11/460W in the City of
Salem, Virginia, as a location for a temporary Glenvar Branch
Library (Daniel R. O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator)
There was no discussion. Chairman Church moved to approve the first
reading and scheduled the second reading for April 26, 2011. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
1. Social Services Advisory Board (appointed by District)
David Scott Hudson, who represents the Cave Spring Magisterial District,
has resigned. Supervisor Moore has appointed Angela J. Beckner to complete Mr.
Hudson's term, which expires on July 13, 2013. Confirmation of this appointment was
placed on the Consent Agenda.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the Consent Resolution, with Item 3
removed for separate consideration.
RESOLUTION 041211 -7 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 April 12,
2011, designated as Item Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred
in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 5
inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes — March 22, 2011
88 April 12, 2011
2 Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Claude C. Pullen III, Firefighter /EMT, upon his retirement
after twenty -five years of service
3. Request to oi �TCe —exe ltion of an updated with the I Inifica
Huma S er - ViGes Transpportation Cyc=�aa .to provide the GORTRAN
corVi�# r Roanoke County L ly 1 01 1 through Lino 30 2012 2
�crvT r�� 2 i - rc - v�
4. Confirmation of appointments to the Roanoke County Community Leaders
Environmental Action Roundtable (RC CLEAR); Roanoke Valley - Alleghany
Regional Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)
Committee; Social Services Advisory Board
5. Request to approve the Fiscal Agent Agreement between Roanoke County
and the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
RESOLUTION 041211 -7.a EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO CLAUDE C. PULLEN III, FIREFIGHTER/EMERGENCY
MEDICAL TECHNICIAN, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER
TWENTY -FIVE YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Claude C. Pullen III was employed by Roanoke County on March
24, 1986, as a Paramedic and Firefighter and became a firefighter /emergency medical
technician on February 20, 1995; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Pullen was one of the first six original paramedics hired by
Roanoke County and helped establish the foundation for the current Emergency
Medical Service (EMS) Program; and
WHERAS, Mr. Pullen has mentored the majority of current paramedic /firefighters
to be compassionate while providing the highest standard of patient care; and
WHERAS, Mr. Pullen has been a tremendous asset to the Department by
participating in numerous committees to improve patient care through his involvement
with the Patient Quality Improvement Program; and
WHERAS, Mr. Pullen took on the responsibility of repairing all fire department
hose by volunteering to be trained in the use of specialized equipment for no added
benefits while saving the County thousands of dollars each year; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Pullen retired from the Fire and Rescue Department as a
Firefighter /EMT on April 1, 2011, after twenty -five years of expert and committed service
to Roanoke County.
April 12, 2011 189
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens
of Roanoke County to CLAUDE C. PULLEN III for twenty -five years of capable, loyal
and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy
and productive retirement.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
IN RE: REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AN UPDATED CONTRACT
WITH THE UNIFIED HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM,
INC. TO PROVIDE THE CORTRAN SERVICES FOR ROANOKE
COUNTY JULY 1, 2011 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2012
I_Q11 I PAS `ff:3
Supervisor Altizer explained in the Board Report, it states that Roanoke
County would be putting someone on the Cortran Board and he did not see that
anywhere in the agreement.
B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator explained that was
discussed at the last work session. He explained during the work session, staff advised
there were some issues of whether or not we could have someone on the Board and
Cortran recommended as an alternative to reinstate the advisory committee. At that
time, the Board directed staff to pursue membership on the Board and also requested
staff continue with the contract in order to freeze the pricing. Additionally, staff will
continue addressing the issue regarding participation on the Board for the RADAR
group. Mr. Goodman stated RADAR advised it is prohibited. Staff will continue to work
on this issue as they are well aware of the Board's position, but requested the contract
be approved in order to freeze the prices now for the full year.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
IN RE: REPORTS
190 April 12, 2011
Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer,
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Proclamations signed by the Chairman
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Flora stated at the last Board meeting he brought up the issue
regarding the Resource Authority charging for one ton pickup trucks and small trailers
over eight feet. He stated he has been told and he does not know if it true or not that
came about as a result of the Board of Supervisors adopting an ordinance. Supervisor
Flora requested that staff research and determine if that is really true so the Board can
take action to undue if at all possible. Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services,
responded by advising the Board of Supervisors had nothing to do with this issue. She
explained it was a policy adopted by the Resource Authority to make a level playing
field. She clarified by stating a pickup truck load is allowed free of charge under the
residential disposal program and was being abused by contractors with larger trailers
saying they did not have a pickup truck, just a trailer. Accordingly, she added the
Resource Authority limited it to an eight foot trailer believing it to be similar to what was
in the back of a pickup truck. Ms. Green stated Mr. Goodman emailed her the Board's
concerns and they will be discussed on the agenda at the next RVRA Board. She stated
she expects Mr. Mills will come up with several suggestions and suggested to him that
we allow the longer trailers, but charge as two trips, which would maybe take care of the
problem. She also advised they will still have to watch for inappropriate commercial
use. She further added this action had nothing to do with an ordinance adopted by the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. Mr. Flora responded that he was glad to know
that the Board did not make that kind of mistake and hopes the Resource Authority
takes this very seriously because he thinks it is an arbitrary decision on their part that
they will allow a three quarter ton pickup truck, but not a one ton pickup truck, which is
essentially the same size bed. He further clarified that he understands dual wheel
trailers because that is what commercial carriers use, but a single axle trailer, he thinks
is wrong. Ms. Green stated another reason was to bring this policy in line with the City
April 12, 2011 191
and the Town of Vinton. She further advised that she expects the Resource Authority
Board will take an action that will probably take care of the problem.
Supervisor Elswick advised he has a bit of a concern and wanted to know
how the County is handling and what the potential exposure is for the mercury bulbs
that the County and so many other organizations are beginning to use. He stated
although he has heard the mercury is of small content inside the bulb, thirty to forty
years from now when the landfills have millions of those bulbs in them it would seem
that it should be looked at for what it would be like in the future in our landfills and are
we potentially heading for a hazardous situation by using these. Supervisor Elswick
inquired if staff has any calculations on this. Anne Marie Green, Director of General
Services, responded by advising staff has not done any calculations. The State
currently allows individuals to dispose of all florescent bulbs in the landfill, which have
mercury in them as well. Large users, such as Roanoke County and other businesses
are required to recycle them and her guess is it is going to be a requirement in the long
run for the compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL's) referenced by Mr. Elswick. She indicated
in the recycling industry, there is not a large market for it right now; part of it is those
bulbs last a very long time, so most of them are just getting to their end of use. Ms.
Green stated she agreed even though individually they do not have much mercury, on
aggregate it is going to be a lot. She stated she thinks the answer is going to be
recycling those and treating them as a hazardous waste, like we currently do with oil
paint. She stated she thinks Supervisor Elswick is correct and CFL's will be thought of
differently in the future. Mr. Elswick commented individuals realize some things are
hazardous waste; however they still end up in a garbage bag. Ms. Green responded
she is sure there is a lot of oil paint in our landfill along with other things that should not
be there, but at least an effort is made to provide a place for citizens to dispose of
those. She stated she predicts that will be extended to CFL's in the near future.
Mr. Elswick then reported on April 11, 2011, he, several Roanoke County
staff and the members of the Planning Commission went to Beech Ridge Windmill Farm
in West Virginia. He explained it is a very isolated community and this windmill farm is in
a location that is on thousands of acres owned by Mead Westvaco and a very rural and
isolated community, not very many people living near them. He commented it was a
very interesting trip and everyone was well entertained by Invenergy, the wind
company. He encouraged anyone who gets a chance to go to that part of the country
and look at that site to do so.
Supervisor Church advised he would make one comment; at the last
meeting he had a similar concern with Supervisor Flora with regard to the Resource
Authority. One of his citizens was turned away with a trailer and he had to go back and
dump it in front of his house resulting in Roanoke County picking it up. He asked Ms.
Green to "go to bat" for us and make good common sense.
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
192 April 12, 2011
At 4:23 p.m., Chairman Church moved to go into closed meeting following
the work sessions pursuant to the following:
Code of Virginia Section 2.2 -3711 A Section 2.2.3711.A.3. To discuss or
consider the acquisition of real property for public purposes, namely for library
purposes, where the discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the
bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County.
Code of Virginia Section 2.2- 3711.A.5. Discussion concerning a
prospective business or industry or the expansion of an existing business or industry
where no previous announcement has been made of the business' or industry's interest
in locating or expanding its facilities in the County.
Code of Virginia Section 2.2- 3711.A.7. Consultation with legal counsel and
briefings by staff members pertaining to probable litigation, namely, enforcement of
contractual provisions for the construction of a public building, where the consultation or
briefing in open session would adversely affect the litigating posture of the County.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
The closed meeting was held from 7:46 p.m. until 9:10 p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
At 4:25 p.m., Chairman Church recessed to the fourth floor for work
session.
1. Work session on the County's Legislative Program and
preparation for the 2012 Session of the Virginia General Assembly
(Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
The work session was held from 4:44 p.m. until 5:29 p.m. In attendance
were Paul Mahoney, County Attorney; Eldon James, Roanoke County Legislative
Liaison; Patience O'Brien, Assistant Director of Social Services; Daniel O'Donnell,
Assistant County Administrator; Diane Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator and B.
Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator
Mr. Mahoney explained he would like to do two things, recap and rehash
the current General Assembly (2011) and more importantly begin planning for the 2012
General Assembly by trying to get some ideas and perhaps do some brainstorming with
the Board as to what kind of initiatives they would like staff to pursue next year. Mr.
Mahoney stated with respect to last year, staff was concerned with the Governor's
amendments to do some significant cost shifting to local governments, under the
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) specifically with respect to Therapeutic Foster
April 12, 2011 193
Care. Fortunately, every local government gathered together and did a last minute blitz,
which resulted in the General Assembly overwhelmingly rejecting the Governor's
amendment. However, it is the general consensus this issue will be back again in 2012.
Mr. Mahoney advised that Patience O'Brien from Social Services was here to answer
any questions. Additionally, Mr. Mahoney stated staff held a very good and productive
phone conference this morning, with Eldon and his staff; Patience O'Brien, Daniel
O'Donnell, Diane Hyatt, Clay Goodman and himself to get a better sense of how we can
convey to the members of the General Assembly how important this program is and
what a significant impact this can have on local government finances.
Mr. Mahoney stated with respect to the 2011 session, there were some
successes, i.e. spice, internet gambling, however, Roanoke County was not successful
with respect to alcoholic energy drinks. Mr. Mahoney added the Virginia Retirement
System (VRS) is still a problem and feels it will reemerge again in the future, particularly
as the Governor may want to transition to a defined contribution plan. In conclusion, Mr.
Mahoney stated he felt Roanoke County came out okay as a result of the 2011 session.
Chairman Church inquired if social services wanted to address the CSA
issue. Ms. O'Brien responded by stating this year she feels the localities really dodged
some bullets that could potentially have a significant impact on the localities financially
and with the structure of CSA overall. She stated she, along with others, belief this
program to be very successful in a way that is community based and is cost effective.
She explained it leaves a lot of responsibility with the localities and is a partnership with
the State. She pointed out there have been initiatives brought forward, which have
been frightening from a cost standpoint. Ms. O'Brien stated she feels Roanoke County
has a great system and why "fix something that is not broken." Ms. O'brien stated
educating our legislators about how localities are operating and how we are being
successful is very important.
Mr. Mahoney continued by stating as in prior years, Mr. Goodman, Mr.
James and I will make appointments with local legislatures in June to begin working with
them laying the foundation for the 2012 initiatives. One priority for Roanoke County is
to really educate these legislatures on the CSA as to what it does, the importance of the
program and not to shift a lot of costs from the State side of the budget to the local
budget. Mr. Mahoney stated part of staff's problem will be the redistricting. He
indicated that Onslee Ware, who has been very helpful for Roanoke County over the
years may no longer have any precincts in Roanoke County, but he stated staff will still
want to meet with Delegate Ware as he has been a great friend to Roanoke County.
Additionally, a meeting would be set up with Mr. Cleveland and possibly Mr. Poindexter.
Mr. Mahoney stated these gentlemen do not have any precincts in Roanoke County, but
are right next door and feels it important to build regional coalitions and try to use that
opportunity to lay the foundation and educate the members of the General Assembly to
the CSA and what impact it has on Roanoke County.
Mr. James stated Delegate Ware has a good working understanding
because he sits on the right subcommittee of the appropriations committee, so he gets
194 April 12, 2011
a lot of briefings on CSA, and it is clear when speaking with him that he has an
understanding; what the partnership means. Delegate Poindexter also sits on
appropriations, so we feel it is important for the County to have that kind of dialog with
him as well. Last year, quality time was spent with Delegate Cleveland about CSA and
the issues. Mr. James advised that he feels this discussion paid benefits, because he
went into the beginning of his tenure recognizing he had to learn something about it,
even though he does not sit on the money committee, he did educate himself and so
when the Governor put his amendment back in after it had already been rejected once,
he was able to have a very productive conversation with him.
Mr. Mahoney then asked the Board if local taxing authority is an issue they
would want staff to pursue. Specifically, would the Board want to try once again to
amend the County charter to authorize the County to tax tobacco products, like the
Cities of Roanoke and Salem? Does the Board want to try and increase the meals tax,
transient occupancy tax and are these the kind of local taxing authority issues or items
that the Board would want staff to address. Mr. Mahoney explained if so, there would
need to be a Charter amendment to amend the charter under State Code; either have a
referendum of the citizens or a public hearing and an ordinance adopted by the Board.
Mr. Mahoney explained one of the problems with charter amendments is that they are
special legislation so they require super majority votes; it is not simple majority.
Supervisor Elswick responded that he thinks if the Board did want to
discuss local taxing authority, it would require a separate work session to talk about why
the Board would want to increase the tax and whether or not the taxes are not already
high enough, He added discussion should be held about the fact that taxes are already
too high and especially discuss why tobacco is taxed so frequently by municipalities,
when it is like one segment of society is being penalized because they have a nasty
habit. He stated he agrees that tobacco smoking is bad, but on the other hand so are
soft drinks, drugs and sugar. There are an awful lot of things that go into people's
bodies that are bad and concentrating on taxing tobacco products should be forgotten
unless we are going to start taxing a lot of other products at the same time.
Supervisor Flora stated the issue with the tobacco tax is not the fact the
Board wants to tax tobacco, but should have the same rights as any city or town in
Virginia. It is a matter of equity and then you can choose whether or not to implement
that tax. Additionally, Supervisor Flora stated he felt there might be some wisdom to
coordinate with the Virginia Municipal League (VML) and the Virginia Association of
Counties (VACo) with their legislative priorities so there are no conflicts as they are the
major players in Richmond. He stated he thinks Roanoke County needs to continue
with equal taxing authority and could go to with special legislation that states any
County with two or more cities within its boundaries.
Supervisor Altizer stated he thinks Supervisor Flora has a good point,
because VML and VACo either in this session or the last session tried to give Counties
a level playing field with cities and towns. The argument that can be made whether it
wins any people or not, Roanoke County and many other Counties in the State of
April 12, 2011 195
Virginia are nothing but cities in county clothing, which is all it is, the same services are
provided as Cities and sometimes more. He stated it is his opinion the only way we
effectively have a chance is to bring in other localities to level the playing field.
Additionally, Supervisor Altizer added that just because you have the same taxing
authority does not mean you are going to run out and just start taxing everything.
However, when that catastrophe hits or when the County is faced with another General
Assembly cost shifting it could be the only viable way for some Counties to deal without
raising the real estate taxes. He stated he also realizes that some legislators believe
controlling counties and their taxation rights, keeps the cities in line with their abundant
power to do whatever they want to increase taxes.
Chairman Church stated in response to Mr. Mahoney's request for
initiatives, I think the Board quite clearly needs to understand which battle to choose
and to determine what is the most advantageous and successful for Roanoke County.
Mr. Mahoney advised another issue that Roanoke County would probably
want to address is the issue to impose a tipping fee on each ton of waste that is
dumped at a municipal landfill. He explained the State justification is that tipping fees
would then be used to offset the cost and expenses of running the Department of
Environmental Quality. Mr. Mahoney advised he has spoken with Anne Marie Green,
Director of General Services, and Dan Miles, CEO of the Roanoke Valley Resource
Authority, and is looking at approximately $38,000 tons a year coming from Roanoke
County going into the Smith Gap Landfill. Accordingly, he stated if you look at the
General Assembly imposing a tipping fee on that, whether it is a $1.00 a ton or $10.00 a
ton, it has a direct affect on the budget. He reiterated this issue has come up several
times in the past and staff has been successful in forestalling, but again it is the same
pattern from the State. Mr. James stated with regard to the tipping fees and given the
restructuring of how the system worked this year, he does not think there will be a bill
next year, because it normally takes a couple of years for that restructuring to be fully
active because the Department of Environmental Quality has to put it all in place, but it
will return.
Mr. Mahoney advised another cost shifting that may require some
clarifying legislation in the 2012 General Assembly is the line of duty act.
Mr. Mahoney then advised Supervisor Moore wanted him to raise an issue
to see if there is support from the Board to require the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) to change all of their cameras they have on existing traffic
signals to high resolution cameras that would be utilized to capture detailed
photographs of people who are illegally littering out of their vehicles. He explained that
currently, the cameras on the traffic signals are low resolution cameras and are
designed solely to change the light from red to green, but they are not the kind of high
resolution cameras that can work at day or night to take a picture of your license plate
or the driver. Ms. Moore would like the Board to support her to direct VDOT to change
that technology so that a picture can be taken of anyone throwing Coke cans and
cigarette butts out of the window.
196 April 12, 2011
Supervisor Elswick responded by stating there are enough cameras in this
world, there is enough big brothers watching every move and there are roads and
bridges that need to be fixed and he does not think VDOT ought to be spending their
money monitoring our activities.
Chairman Church enquired if Coke cans and cigarette butts are both
considered trash by definition with Mr. Mahoney advising yes. Mr. Mahoney further
advised it was attempted in the General Assembly, but did not go anywhere.
Supervisor Elswick responded the worse trash is what people take out into
the countryside and throw over the side of the road. He advised if the County is going
to do cameras, he would like to see those trash dumps monitored.
Mr. James advised it is his opinion that this issue would be a tough sell to
the General Assembly for a couple of reasons. First, there would need to be an
appropriation, which is capital. Second, someone would have to do the work to review
those cameras, administer the processing, which would require another appropriation.
Additionally, he noted he does not know who would have the authority to use these
types of cameras. Additionally, VDOT is not a law enforcement agency, but they own
the equipment.
Supervisor Altizer and Supervisor Flora both stated they felt the Board
needs to establish its priorities first.
Mr. Mahoney stated the final item on his list of possible legislative issues
involves the Verizon Wireless E911 mess, which he only became aware of
approximately two and one half weeks ago. He explained the Telecommunications Act
whereby the General Assembly took all of the various telecommunication taxes away
from local governments and pooled them in Richmond. He indicated they would be
managed for the localities in exchange for a fee and then sends the remaining dollars
back to the locality. Additionally, the localities would be kept whole and even make
some money. Subsequently, Supervisor Altizer has asked our finance department to
come up with reports with respect to how much money is being made from this
"wonderful deal." The State entered into a contract with Verizon to provide E911
wireless services to all localities and then the contract ran out. It took approximately
one year to renegotiate the contract. In that period of time, the tax dollars from our
citizens continued to flow to Richmond, but the State did not pay Verizon for the
services. He stated from the time the contract was renegotiated, there was
approximately a year in which Verizon was not paid. Apparently, the State has used
these funds elsewhere. Mr. James added when the budget crisis hit, this was one of
the areas used. Mr. Mahoney stated Verizon wants to be paid and have sent us a bill
for approximately $48,000 and another bill to the Town of Vinton. He stated he knows
$48,000 in the scope of the Roanoke County budget may not be that much of heartburn,
but according to Mr. Goodman it is, and equates to about $3.7 million for the entire
State. Additionally, the State has told Verizon to go back and bill all the localities. He
then added that his only fear is if it is included in Roanoke County's legislative initiative,
we will probably get paid only if they take the funds from another account, i.e. CSA, Line
April 12, 2011 197
of Duty. Mr. Mahoney stated that he is currently working with other attorneys in the
Commonwealth to get their focus and interest in this. He stated that he would wait until
Verizon sues Roanoke County and bring up in closed session.
Mr. Mahoney then asked the Board for any other initiatives that they would
want Mr. Goodman, Mr. James and himself to discuss with the local delegations starting
in June. Mr. Goodman asked if the Board wanted to revisit the alcoholic energy drinks.
Supervisor Flora responded that he would like for staff to keep an eye on the CSA, with
Chairman Church advising that should be the top priority. Additionally, Chairman
Church asked Mr. James to help the Board identify what is going to have the best
chance. Mr. James responded that CSA needs to be focused on. He indicated there is
going to be some efforts by others, the League of Social Service Executives, for
example to try and work on having this move in a more constructive direction and to
counter the constant dollar conversation with a "wait a minute, we are seeing outcomes
and outcomes that will save us money over time" so everyone must do a good job of
educating the members of the delegation so that they are armed and when they are hit
with administration saying we need to shift more costs, they can respond, "but we are
actually seeing positive outcomes for children so let's keep our eye on the entire picture,
not just funding it." Additionally, the Governor said today in his reform commission
meeting, that he will be working on plans for pension plan reform at the State level,
including deferred compensation, he was very direct, his Chief of Staff said it and then
he said it as well. Also, his chief of staff said this afternoon, that the reform commission
is going to have one work group that is working very diligently on identifying local
mandates where they can try to provide some relief. He stated this is heard from every
Governor, and two mandates were eliminated in this session of the General Assembly
which most probably no one even knew were mandated. However if that effort is going
to go on, everyone needs to be engaged and try to take advantage of it. Mr. James
stated one of the things the Board talked about earlier was equal taxing authority. He
stated they have been fighting that battle as long as he has been around local
government, but when something like Line of Duty and that kind of shift of cost and you
have other shifting of costs being talked about, he is of the opinion that the argument
needs to be linked. For example, when discussing shifting costs, give us some
authority to deal with, i.e. after shifting line of duty in 2011, provide the locality more
tools to choose from rather than just the real estate taxes. Chairman Church remarked
that would be a good plan of attack.
Supervisor Flora stated there is another thing, something very subtle and
does not amount to a huge amount of money and that is when the general district courts
computer program that the State is now reporting local fines and they are taking a part
of the locality's fines, although it not a great deal of money, it is very subtle and very
sneaky and the localities will not even realize until two to three years later when the
fines are going down, but your offenses are still going up. Mr. James advised this was
an excellent point. He stated one of the issues that he saw buried in the Reform
Commission Work last year was the identification that local governments are adopting
198 April 12, 2011
the same speeding ordinances as the State is and they are writing the tickets on the
local level and they are getting the money and the State is not. He explained somebody
thought they found some new bright idea so what Supervisor Flora is saying is related
to that, and we need to keep an eye on. Mr. James further remarked this was not
mentioned in the kick off meeting of the Reform Commission today and he suspects this
will stay as far under the radar as somebody can keep it as long as they can.
Mr. James also stated the other thing they talked about in their Reform
Commission Meeting is looking harder at more opportunities for public private
partnerships including where current functions of State government can be pushed
outside. He also indicated vigilance should be attached to machinery, tools and
Business, Professional and Occupation License (BPOL) taxes.
2. Work session on the 2011 -2012 budget development:
(a) Presentation of proposed fiscal year 2011 -2012 budget (B.
Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; W. Brent
Robertson, Director of Management and Budget)
This work session was held from 5:30 p.m. until 5:50 p.m. In attendance
was B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; W. Brent Robertson, Director of
Management and Budget; Diane D. Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator; Rebecca
Owens, Director of Finance.
Mr. Goodman gave a PowerPoint presentation on the proposed fiscal year
2011 -2012 budget. A copy of this presentation is on file in the office of the Clerk to the
Board of Supervisors. He stated a copy of the proposed budget was included in the
Board package. He advised the Board had provided four criteria to use when building
the budget: no tax increases, minimize direct services impacts, maintain commitment to
education and public safety, which includes the Department of Social Services (DSS)
and avoid layoffs. This budget meets those criteria. He advised the economic
environment is still uncertain and staff feels comfortable with presenting the budget
based on what the General Assembly has done. Before budget highlights were
reviewed, Mr. Goodman advised that the public hearing on this budget would be held on
April 26, 2011, and the proposed first reading of the appropriation ordinance will be May
10 2011. The proposed second reading of the appropriation ordinance will be May 24,
2011 with adoption on the same day. Mr. Goodman provided the following budget
highlights: (1) the budget went up approximately one point six percent (1.6 %,); (2)
revenue outlooks are cautiously optimistic; (3) expenditure increases are primarily in
public safety and human services; (4) expenditure reductions were made in general
administration, community services and management services, most of those through
attrition; (5) real estate had a slight decline, mostly due to assessments, but there is a
slight increase in real estate. Real estate continues to be some area of concern long-
term (three to five years). Mr. Driver is working with his department to closely monitor
April 12, 2011 199
and update. It appears that the local real estate market continues to be somewhat
sluggish; (6) personal property — strong vehicle values point to growth of one percent
(1 %); (7)Fuel prices — continue to rise and remain a concern; (8) sales tax — exhibiting
better than expected growth; Walmart has been very helpful with this growth; (9) meals
tax — exhibiting three percent (3 %) growth; (10) Commonwealth — the six percent (6 %)
is somewhat misleading because it is basically two areas, $1.0 million for DSS and
$300,000 for the Sheriff's appropriation. As discussed earlier, we continue to think that
aid to localities in the future will continue to decrease. In conclusion, Mr. Goodman
advised with regard to the revenues, staff did look at the revenue and saw some
increases occurring in the last two months. Staff does not feel that these increases are
a sustainable trend at this time. There are no service level impacts to citizens, no tax
increases. There were no salary increases, five (5) positions have been eliminated
through attrition. The four point eight percent (4.8 %) health and medical increase was
covered by the health insurance reserve and Virginia Retirement System (VRS) rates
for 2012 remain level with 2011, with the caveat discussed with the Board previously.
Staff's projection for the following year is projected at this point to be five percent (5 %).
This would equate to approximately $2.5 million and will need to be addressed in the
2013 budget. Ms. Hyatt has been instructed to work with the Virginia Association of
Counties (VACo) and the Virginia Municipal Lease (VML) because there were questions
regarding some of the assumptions made in the actuarial study. If Roanoke County
receives that kind of increase, it will have a major impact in the development of the 2013
budget. The school transfer was $940,000 per the revenue sharing agreement. The
CIP program has been funded $300,000 for both schools and County. There were
some increases in the overtime and part -time for Fire and Rescue. Mr. Goodman noted
with regard to Fire and Rescue and the Police Department, both departments requested
additional personnel. The Fire Department requested sixteen (16) firefighters and
seven (7) administrative positions and the Police Department requested six (6) patrol
officers for the establishment of a new patrol district. Due to the budget, none of those
positions were recommended. No new positions have been recommended for the
2011 -2012 budget. Mr. Goodman stated he had met with the two chiefs and discussed
the need for these positions and they were advised that Administration is aware of their
concerns and would pass the information to the Board as indicated in the budget
message, however, due to budgetary issues these positions could not be recommended
as requested. Social Services has seen an increase in funding from the Federal and
State, however, those funds are going out the door to people who need help. Libraries
have been funded over $300,000 for the opening of the new South County Library.
Commit has been increased to cover software licenses fees and maintenance
contracts. Mr. Goodman stated that several Board members had asked Staff to
consider establishing a fuel reserve because of the continuing escalation in fuel costs.
This $200,000 has been included in the budget, under the control of the County
Administrator. At the appropriate time, he advised he would establish some policies
and guidelines and will be working with departments if the fuel costs continue to
200 April 12, 2011
increase and if they do not have the means to pay for it within their budget, allocations
will be considered. Additionally, utility costs have been increased throughout the budget
for each department because AEP has already requested an increase. Further, it also
includes increases in water and sewer and gas and other items of that nature. Mr.
Goodman stated in conclusion a slight revenue growth of one point six percent (1.6 %)
coupled with increasing operational costs; service levels have been maintained with
public safety and human services a priority, no tax rate increase; avoided layoffs and as
soon as the Board approves this budget, the budget for 2012 -2013 will be started. This
budget is characterized as a maintenance budget.
Supervisor Elswick inquired why more people are needed at the new
library than at the old one and why are three new people needed at Green Ridge? Mr.
Goodman explained with regard to the new library, there is an additional square footage
which expands the service area. At Green Ridge, positions have been added and
eliminated based on the need for the programming. Chairman Church stated some of
these positions are revenue producers at Green Ridge, the three positions are to be
paid for out of the fees.
Supervisor Elswick commented he has had a number of citizens look at
our website and it says the County is hiring five (5) full time positions and there are a lot
of other positions and they say to me, "we are either laid off or we have taken a
reduction in salary and we thought the County was not adding people, yet their website
has a lot of positions that are open ". So, now I can say to them, we are adding two
people at the library because we have more square footage and two stories. Mr.
Goodman added when you open a new library there is normally a twenty to forty
percent (20 -40 %) increase and this particular library has approximately 500,000 visits a
year. Supervisor Altizer remarked that these are the same positions discussed for the
last two to three years. Ms. Hyatt advised in both of these situations, the positions were
known at the time the project was approved. Supervisor Elswick then stated he did not
remember this from last year and Supervisor Flora responded in the affirmative with
regard to the Library and remarked the positions at Green Ridge were not discussed
because they relate to programming. Supervisor Elswick commented he can
understand services, but not square footage. Ms. Hyatt responded there are safety
issues involved and a lot of area to cover and control. Mr. Goodman stated Supervisor
Elswick has a point, new positions have not been added because of the limited growth
in revenues and stated we know we cannot expand and control our fixed cost. He
advised there is still a job bank even though it can be quite frustrating, but we do allow
police officers and firefighters; i.e. "boots on the ground" to be filled. Additionally,
Department of Social Services (DSS) can hire because of the need associated with the
economy. Those three organizations are aligned with the priorities of the Board.
Supervisor Flora stated an alternative to hiring people at Green Ridge would be to
contract with them to come in and do the instruction and collect fees. Mr. Goodman: It
is my understanding if the money is not there to pay for the position, the position is
gone.
April 12, 2011 20
Chairman Church then called for a ten minute break.
(b) Work session to discuss the impact of passing along the
employee portion of the Plan 2 Virginia Retirement System
(VRS) contribution rate to employees (Diane D. Hyatt,
Assistant County Administrator)
The work session was held from 6:05 p.m. until 6:25 p.m. In attendance
were Diane Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator; B. Clayton Goodman III, County
Administrator; Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance; Anita Hassell, Assistant Director of
Human Resources and Joe Sgroi, Director of Human Resources. Ms. Hyatt explained
that all employees that are hired after July 1, 2010 by VRS participating entities are
members of VRS Plan 2, unless they have previously been employed in a VRS covered
position. Plan 2 participants have a different benefit structure than Plan 1 VRS
participants. She stated on June 22, 2010, the County of Roanoke Board of
Supervisors adopted a resolution authorizing the County to pick up the Plan 2
employees portion of the VRS rate. The Board has the option effective any July 1 on
how they want to treat the employee contribution for Plan 2, but when changed it
effected everyone in Plan 2. She explained if the Board makes the change effective
July 1, 2011, to pass along the five percent (5 %), it will also impact the people hired
since last July, which has now increased to forty (40) employees and increases the
turnover savings assumption. Ms. Hyatt advised discussions have been held with the
other localities and Roanoke City has their own plan, and are not doing anything at this
time, but are not ruling out that something may be looked at in the future. The City of
Salem is not considering passing along anything to Plan 2, now but they did not rule it
out for the future. Ms. Hyatt stated that when reviewing the spreadsheet included in the
board package attachment, if you were to pass along the employee share, there is a
breakdown at the bottom of the page of what it would cost to give them a five percent
(5 %) supplement to help hold them harmless for a year's period of time. From that, you
can take off the impact of federal and state taxes because they will not have to pay
either of those taxes when the money is going into a retirement plan. They will still have
to pay the FICA, but they are paying that now. With that group, it would cost about
$31,000 to hold them harmless for a year, but at the top of the page with a four percent
(4 %) turnover reserve in 2011 -2012, we are projecting between an $84,000 savings and
$129,000 savings. There will still be a net savings in the first year even taking into
account passing along a supplement to those employees. There has been some
discussion on the staff level about if it was better to pay the one -time incentive in a lump
sum at the first of the year, i.e. July or to space it out over the whole year and add it as
a supplement to each check so that you do not run the risk of paying everything out day
1 and then someone leaves in the middle of the year and they have already gotten the
whole supplement before they left. Those were the two options being considered. The
brochures that were handed out, it does mention under the VRS section for Plan 2 that
202 April 12, 2011
the Board could choose at any point in the future to pass the employee contribution
along to the employee.
Supervisor Altizer asked if the twelve additional people were due to
turnover. Ms. Hyatt advised affirmatively and explained they are public safety
employees, fire and rescue, three social workers and a dispatcher. Supervisor Altizer
asked when the twelve (12) new people were hired. Ms. Hyatt explained the initial
numbers were run in February. Supervisor Altizer then inquired if there were any more
potential new hires with Mr. Sgroi advising not at the present time, however there are
jobs posted. Supervisor Altizer then asked Mr. Sgroi to verify that these are
replacements with Mr. Sgroi responding in the affirmative. Supervisor Altizer then
asked if the trend was still at four percent (4 %) or eight percent (8 %). Ms. Hyatt advised
with the numbers for this year, the trend is five percent (5 %). Supervisor Altizer then
stated based on the experience thus far and with an additional five percent (5 %) next
year, the total would probably be approximately one hundred (100). Based on this
information, Supervisor Altizer commented he feels that it is the right decision,
especially after listening to Mr. James, our legislative liaison explain earlier about VRS
being next on the schedule and different things are coming. Supervisor Altizer stated for
him, is it something we can afford to do or is it something we can afford not to do; is the
timing right. He advised he is aware there is one other locality looking to do the same
thing. Supervisor Altizer stated he feels this is something we will eventually have to do
and cannot afford to wait.
Chairman Church stated he feels this is a situation that could turn bad if
something is not done. He indicated it is not something the Board likes to do, but it is
being forced to do. He then asked Mr. Goodman if he concurs with the numbers
provided by the financial department. Mr. Goodman advised in the affirmative and
stated last year we had the same opportunity and he did not recommend it because he
was hoping to keep the system whereby everyone is on the same level playing field, but
as Mr. Altizer pointed out and from concerns mentioned by our lobbyist and others in
the General Assembly, VRS is going to change. The VRS that we know today is not the
VRS that will be here tomorrow. He stated there are significant savings here and VRS
will become nearly twenty percent (20 %) of the total cost if there is a five percent (5 %)
increase. Mr. Goodman stressed this will not affect the Plan 1 participants, but impacts
the new employee who comes on under Plan 2. As Mr. Altizer stated, over a period of
time that cost will be shifted to all employees and they will be paying the five percent
and if you start now, it will happen sooner and there are significant savings to the
County and to the citizens and is something we cannot ignore.
Chairman Church then asked if the affected employees have been given
advanced information. Mr. Goodman responded by advising the brochure that the
Board has been given a copy of is handed out to all new employees, and listed in the
middle under Virginia Retirement System, "if hired after July 1, 2010, VRS Plan 2
applies. Plan 2 allows County contribution to change, current contribution 15.5% annual
salary. He also explained that the Board had been provided with a copy of an email
April 12, 2011 203
that Anita Hassell, had sent to him explaining when each new hires goes through
employee orientation, this is verbally reviewed so the employee can understand there is
a Plan 1 and a Plan 2. Under Plan 2, the Board can make a change to the five percent
(5 %) at any time and is retroactive to July 1, 2010. 1 think that is clearly marked. He
explained that Ms. Hassell and Mr. Sgroi are here to answer any questions the Board
may have. Ms. Owens confirmed that she had personally sat down with one of her
employees hired in July 2010 just to review with her that we were having this work
session and she too confirmed that she was aware that benefit could change, it had
been explained to her and was clearly communicated to her during orientation. Ms.
Hyatt explained that Ms. Green, Director of General Services, had confirmed this had
been done with her employees as well.
Supervisor Flora stated the State offered a five percent (5 %) increase to
offset, and the County was only offering a one -time supplement to be made for one year
and after that they lose five percent (5 %). Ms. Hyatt responded the issue with the
salary increase was that since the County had not had raises in three years, then these
people hired within the last year if given a raise will be making more than the people
who had been there two or three years longer than they were. Supervisor Flora stated
on the other side, they would end up making less money than when they were hired.
Ms. Hassell pointed out the employees would not lose the money as it goes into an
account that is always there. Supervisor Flora responded they would not have it to pay
the bills with; they cannot put food on the table. He stated he just has a problem with it
and our employees are the greatest people and he just hates to treat them that way;
even though it is only forty (40) people. He further added what is right is right and he
just does not feel right with it.
Ms. Hyatt indicated that this in not included in the current budget.
Supervisor Elswick stated he thinks the Board should decide what they
are going to do and do it, and not change its mind six months later.
Supervisor Flora advised he feels if the State is going to do it legislatively,
then he has no problem with it because that is the way they operate.
Chairman Church advised it was the consensus of the Board to bring this
agenda item back for discussion at the May 10, 2011 meeting.
Chairman Church then moved the work session on the Secondary Roads
System Six -year Improvement Plan before the Line of Duty Act.
Work session on the County's Secondary Roads System Six -Year
Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2012 -2017 and the Revenue
Sharing Program for fiscal year 2011 -2012 (Philip Thompson, Deputy
Director of Planning)
This work session was held from 6:26 until 6:51 p.m. In attendance was
Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning and Arnold Covey, Director of
Community Development. Also in attendance from the Virginia Department of
204 April 12, 2011
Transportation were Brian Blevins, Anthony Ford, Pat Wood, and Scott Woodrum. Mr.
Thompson gave a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the office of the
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors and explained this year's funding is slightly more than
the previous year. He provided the Board with an updated Secondary System Program
spreadsheet. Mr. Thompson then advised no rural addition funds will be added in this
six -year program. Mr. Covey explained that if any rural addition project are added, they
would reduce the overall allocation. Mr. Thompson outlined there are six projects in the
plan: Colonial Avenue; Cotton Hill Road; Catawba Creek Road; Rocky Road; McVitty
Road; Old Cave Spring Lane. Colonial Avenue is almost complete and any funds
remaining will be transferred to McVitty Road /Old Cave Spring Lane because it is
another federally eligible project. Mr. Woodrum explained one thing to keep in mind on
the Cotton Hill Road project is it tends to stop at the Parkway and added with regard to
the McVitty /Old Cave Spring Lane project that the right of way will remain funded, but
any excess funds have been rolled into the Cotton Hill Road project.
Supervisor Elswick inquired if under the McVitty Road /Old Cave Spring
Lane project there is a possibility of the County owning the Old Cave Spring with Mr.
Covey responding that the work would be done on the other side where the townhouses
are located. He outlined Old Cave Spring Lane will come down and tee into a new
curve; instead of McVitty coming and stopping at Old Cave Spring Lane, Old Cave
Spring Lane will come down and tee into a new curve so you will not have to stop.
Next, Mr. Thompson went through a PowerPoint presentation on the fiscal
year 2012 revenue sharing program. A copy of this presentation is on file in the office to
the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Thompson reviewed Revenue Sharing
Program Legislative Changes projects for fiscal year 2012, the Revenue Sharing
process, and updated Current Revenue Sharing Projects and future project evaluation
and prioritization.
(c) Work session to review the Line of Duty Act and financial
impact to the County as a result of the State passing along this
unfunded mandate to local governments (Rebecca Owens,
Director of Finance)
The work session was held from 6:51 p.m. until 7:24 p.m. In attendance
for this work session was Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance; Diane Hyatt, Assistant
County Administrator; Daniel R. O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; B. Clayton
Goodman, County Administrator and Chris Carey, Administrator VACo Risk
Management Programs. Ms. Owens advised staff has been working with Mr. Carey
with VACo as a possible alternative to VRS. Ms. Owens reviewed a PowerPoint
presentation, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors. In this presentation, Ms. Owens gave a program overview, covered
employees, Roanoke County statistics, funding overview, projected cost of alternatives
for 2011 -2012, projected fiscal impact of alternatives for fiscal years 2011 -2015 and
April 12, 2011 205
next steps. Ms. Owens pointed out that a decision must be made by June 30, 2012,
and if the decision is to go with VRS, it is irrevocable. If the County goes with VACo to
be fully insured with the thought that maybe five years down the road we would like to
self- insure, that is an option. Mr. Carey pointed out that ninety five percent (95 %) of the
cost currently exists with continued insurance coverage. Mr. Carey remarked that the
decision is not to go with the VRS Trust Fund, as the County is already in it. VRS has
taken out a loan and have come up with a rate that you have paid. The county is in
VRS until June 30, 2012, unless action is taken to get out of VRS. If no action is taken
by June 30, 2012, then the County would be in forever. Mr. Carey indicated VACo had
spoken with auditors and attorneys and were advised this benefit could be classified as
a post - employee benefit and accordingly, these liabilities must be funded upfront. Mr.
Carey advised that VACo had confirmed the VRS rates are based off an expected
enrollment of 75,000 eligible employees. He advised it is already known that fifteen
percent (15 %) of that expected volume has opted out and fifteen percent (15 %) of that
expected volume that has opted out is better than the average. So, when VRS does
data collection, the $234 rate that has been advertised is not what it is going to be. The
cost is driven from; thirty percent (30 %) of the total dollars are coming from four (4)
entities. If the State is included, sixty percent (60 %) of the cost is coming out from five
(5) entities. Fairfax, Virginia Beach, Arlington and Alexandria and the State
representing sixty percent (60 %) of the cost is opting out. Forty percent is every other
County, City, Town, Volunteer Company, Regional Jail, etc. Of all of the 83 county
members and 15 regional jails that VACo current represent, our total expected past
liability is only $647,000 of the $9.5 million, but our membership represents forty percent
(40 %) of the expected enrollment so our members are going to pay forty percent (40 %)
of the premium to VRS, but only get eight point nine percent (8.9 %) back as a benefit.
Mr. Goodman asked if the program is self- insured, would finance want a
$1 million in reserve with Ms. Owens explaining the County would need to build up to
that amount or whatever the actuary advised. Mr. Goodman asked if we could control
or would it have to be sent to an actuary with Ms. Owens responding that an actuary
analysis would be required every two (2) years as is done for the workers
compensation. Mr. Carey advised that the County would not need to get an outside
actuary as VACo was acting as an actuary and could piggy -back off of their numbers.
Supervisor Flora inquired if there was any way to project what the VRS
premium might be if the jurisdictions that had no claims, approximately fifty (50)
counties and a number of cities and town that have no claims all bailed out and went
with VACo or VML, what would VRS's premium be? Mr. Carey responded they actually
consider right now we know what fifteen percent (15 %) of the Iocalitaies that are opting
out to go self funded. Roanoke City appears likely to be one of them. He stated he did
not know that for certain, but they appear to be heading in that direction along with a
couple of other counties and one other city.
Mr. Carey explained VACo's pool membership with the fifty (50) counties
that have never had a claim and the regional jail that have never had a claim would
206 April 12, 2011
amount to approximately another twenty five percent (25 %) exodus, so we are
anticipating somewhere between a forty and sixty percent (40 and 60 %) exodus from
VRS from the line of duty trust fund and we think that those rates could escalate, maybe
not July 1, 2011, but July 1, 2012, well above the $300 level that they are projecting for
next fiscal year, would probably be basically a push there to a three year funding level
to occur in two years instead of three, which would result in a substantial increase but
they would actually go with straight funding, if you look at those numbers where they are
collecting $234 for next year, they are still having to take another loan to do that. They
are not collecting enough money with the $234 to even put one dollar towards funding
the liabilities.
Supervisor Elswick asked if the VRS numbers reflect the answer to
Supervisor Flora's question with Mr. Carey responding the VRS numbers do not even
collect enough money to fund the liability. Supervisor Flora commented the VRS
numbers assume that everyone is going to stay in the pool. Mr. Carey responded even
if everyone stayed in the pool, the VRS rate for next fiscal year does not collect a dollar
to fund the liabilities. Supervisor Elswick reiterated the VRS numbers are way
understated with Mr. Carey responding that Supervisor Elswick is correct. Supervisor
Elswick then commented that leaves one of the four other options. Supervisor Flora
stated Supervisor Elswick was correct and feels VRS is low balling the first year with the
hope that everyone will stay and forget until past the irrevocable period; then they can
set those rates at pretty much anything.
Mr. Carey stated to provide the Board with an idea, his rates actually
project for their membership to actually incur forty -six (46) claims, and accordingly
collect enough money to fund forty -six (46) claims off of our actuarial report, but that has
never even come close to happening. Since the information is so brief, we are actually
being highly conservative. He stated he feels his rates are going to decline, but went
with a conservative approach and included some escalators.
Mr. O'Donnell then inquired of Mr. Carey what are his assumptions on
calculated his rates. VRS is saying everybody is in the pool, what are VACo's
assumptions? Mr. Carey responded by stating their rates were based off of the line of
duty claims, but also used workers compensation claims because they tend to arise
from the course of duties. He stated they projected what the liabilities would be and then
we came up with a per person rate to fully fund the liability and thinks they are
estimating receiving forty percent (40 %) of our enrollment.
Supervisor Altizer asked if VACo's rates were totally based on Roanoke
County's experience with Mr. Carey responding Roanoke County's past liabilities
include seven (7) active claims and the funding for future liability. Supervisor Altizer
then asked what if Roanoke County had no claims. Mr. Carey responded by stating if
Roanoke County did not have any claims, the cost would be less than half of the
proposal. He added Roanoke County's actual claims are $226.00 per person (seven
claims). The County would have to collect $226 per eligible person to fund your actual
liabilities, but VRS is only going to charge you $183.00; they are not going to even
April 12, 2011 207
collect enough to pay your claims, they are going to take another loan. He reiterated if
Roanoke County does not out before July 1, 2012, then another year's worth of loan
repayment obligations will incur. Supervisor Flora commented you can stay in for
another year, but you have to hope that nothing happens because if it does you are in
trouble. Supervisor Altizer asked if Roanoke County waits a year would they be
obligated for the insurance repayment. Mr. Carey responded the way the budget
amendment is written now, the answer is no. However, he stated he thinks there is a
possibility that if there is mass exodus, it could be revisited next year. He added VACo
has actually contemplated that potential in their figures. Additionally, he noted another
thing they took into account was the five -year statute of limitation, meaning that there
could be claim in 2006 that you could find out about today, however, VACo put a
coverage tail in it so any claims incurred could be picked up. Supervisor Altizer asked if
Mr. Carey thought the likelihood if you waited that extra year before you opted out, you
are going to pay whatever the proportionate is of the payment on that loan with Mr.
Carey responding in the affirmative.
Ms. Hyatt stated another item Mr. Carey has pointed out is that VRS pays
all claims without scrutiny or trying to make any kind of early payoff and he was
suggesting you may want to look into this because there were ways to offer upfront
payments to go ahead at a certain amount upfront or even deny some claims that may
not even come under this act. Mr. Carey explained the whole concept behind what we
are talking about is, we are already doing your workers compensation investigations, so
if someone is injured in the line of duty, we have already done an investigation and the
State makes an award on a line of duty claim and we have data that would suggest that
might not be an appropriate award. We have all the necessary information to begin the
process of disputing that award and control costs. Rebecca Owens found even after we
started this, there were eight (8) claims on the State roster as of December, but one of
the people had passed away in June 2010, but was still getting paid. This resulted in a
savings of 18,000 a year. Additionally, you can check dependent status. There are a
lot of things that can be done to manage your health care costs. There may be issues
with how you deal with volunteers because the term member is involved and what is the
definition of member.
Ms. Hyatt advised of the choices presented, the top two are the most
workable.
4. Work session to discuss redistricting alternatives (Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney)
The work session was held from 7:24 p.m. until 7:37 p.m. In attendance
for this work session were Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Judy Stokes, General
Registrar; Gary Coleman, GIS Coordinator and Todd Booth, GIS Technical Supervisor.
Mr. Mahoney stated that this was the third work session on redistricting and he thinks
he heard at the last work session to look at two alternatives. One alternative is to look
208 April 12, 2011
at splitting the census block that is between Cave Spring and Vinton. Mr. Coleman and
Mr. Booth went out and counted houses and counted people and the conclusion was
there are forty seven (47) people that live in that area. It will take a little creative
drafting in the description, but we feels it can be done. We will come down Old Virginia
Springs Road in a southeasterly direction and then across the ridgeline until it intersects
with the Franklin County line. This is a total of forty seven (47) folks and there is a chart
in the agenda materials that shows what effect that has on the percentage deviation
between Cave Spring and Vinton and we are getting a little bit better. The second
choice, which he thought was still alive, but he is not sure after speaking with
Supervisor Flora, is the Ruritan Road area and that is 867 people. The advantage of
moving that area from Hollins to Vinton has some significant impacts. It brings Hollins
three people off the ideal population. Ideal population is 18,475, the percentage
deviation would be point zero two percent (.02 %). This would really help Vinton and
would put Vinton 163 people over so its percentage deviation is zero point eight eight
percent (0.88 %). So it really does some very good positive steps both for the Hollins
District and the Vinton District. Cave Spring, even with adding forty seven (47) people,
is still at a point where it is four point four one percent (4.41 %) out. If you look at
calculating total percentage deviation, Cave Spring — minus four point four one (4.41),
Catawba — plus five, we are nine point four out (9.4% ), which is better than nine point
six which is the no change option. Those were the two options he understood coming
out of the last work session. Mr. Mahoney then turned the floor over to Ms. Stokes to
talk briefly about, some changes that the Board would have to consider and adopt.
Number one, we have to move some polling places. Number two we have to split a
precinct.
Ms. Stokes explained based on the house redistricting plan, the Penn Forest
precinct, which votes at Cave Spring High School is left with 1,911 remaining in the 8th
legislative district and 417 that is going to the 17 legislative district. So we want to
move those 417 people and instead of having a split precinct with two sets of election
officials, machines and electronic poll books we would like to move those 417 people to
the Hunting Hills Precinct, they vote at Celebration Church of God on Buck Mountain
Road. This is also in the 17 district and I have spoken with Mr. Coleman and he has
confirmed that the boundary of split is contiguous with the Hunting Hills boundary.
Based on the Senate plan, the Northside precinct is split between two Senate districts,
but we do not think there is any way we can adjust that. She stated she thinks it will
need to remain a split precinct, but that is only every four years for the Senate. The
Castle Rock precinct needs to be changed because Cave Spring Middle School is
closing at the end of the school year. Ms. Stokes indicated talks have begun with Cave
Spring Baptist Church and they have been very receptive and are going through the
channels right now.
Supervisor Elswick stated in all three options, the current deviation is nine
point six eight percent (9.68 %); option two is nine point four one percent (9.41 %) option
three is nine point six eight percent (9.68 %). He commented he does not think any
April 12, 2011 209
progress is being made. Mr. Mahoney responded that the third one is incorrect and
should be nine point four percent (9.4 %) Supervisor Elswick then stated "Maybe I am
dumb, but if we were going to redistrict wouldn't we try to go to zero percent ?" Mr.
Mahoney responded that Supervisor Elwick was correct. Supervisor Elswick then
asked if anything was being accomplished and is this something that must be done.
Supervisor Flora stated when this process was started, the Board was trying to create
equity, balance the districts, but what we are ending up doing and the bottom line is we
are taking a chunk out of Hollins and putting it in Vinton and that is all. My position is
why are picking on Hollins and Vinton, when the two extremes are getting very little
attention. My position is fix Bandy Road and nothing else. He advised he does not
want to change anything else because it is not necessary as Hollins and Vinton do not
change the total deviation one way or the other. Chairman Church remarked if you take
into account the students in Hollins and the jail in Catawba, the numbers are not out at
all. Supervisor Flora stated he feels like he is the victim because he is losing 900
people and it is not really changing the total deviation one little bit.
Mr. Mahoney inquired if the Board wanted to look at the March 8, 2011
alternatives again.
Supervisor Elswick stated he does not have a problem with the changes; he
just does not want to confuse people by changing their polling places; just leave it like it
is. He stated his reasoning is no one knows what the County is going to look like ten
years from now. The nine point six percent (9.6 %) problem may go away and if we
change it now, we may make it worse ten years from now. So, it would be different if
we knew the areas where growth is going to occur, more voters, and the areas where
growth was not going to occur and took that into account as we did redistricting and say
this is the way we think it is going to look in ten years. He reiterated he just does not
understand why this is being done. Mr. Mahoney explained ten years ago the total
deviation was about five percent (5 %), so it has gone from five percent (5 %) to nine
point six percent (9.6 %). Supervisor Elswick then asked if the jail was a primary reason
with Chairman Church responding the regional jail was not even there the last
redistricting. Mr. Mahoney commented all he is saying is if you eliminate Catawba and
you look at Hollins at four point six percent (4.6 %) and Cave Spring is minus four point
six percent (4.6 %). Accordingly, even if the jail is discounted the deviation is still nine
point two percent (9.2 %). Supervisor Elswick then asked does it stay the same on
either one of these options with Mr. Mahoney responding Cave Spring does.
It was the consensus of the Board to only make the one change between
Vinton and Cave Spring and the precinct changes discussed by Ms. Stokes. Mr.
Mahoney then asked if the Board wanted to have a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on May
10 2011, which is not normally an evening session or would you rather have the first
reading on May 10, 2011, and the second reading and public hearing on May 24, 2011.
It was the consensus of the Board to hold the public hearing on May 10, 2011, at 7:00
p.m.
210 April 12, 2011
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 9:10 p.m., Chairman Church moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 041211 -9 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2 -3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Church adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
t me by: Approved by:
De orah C. Jac Josep B. "Butch" Church
Clerk to the Bo Chairman