HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/12/2012 - RegularJune 12, 2012 319
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 June 2012. 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
taken.
Chairman Flora called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard C. Flora; Supervisors Michael W. Altizer,
Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Eddie "Ed" Elswick and Charlotte
A. Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Diane D.
Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator; Daniel R. O'Donnell,
Assistant County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County
Attorney; Teresa H. Hall, Director of Public Information and
Deborah C. Jacks, Clerk to the Board
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Pastor Greg Fleshman of Mount Union
Church of the Brethren. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Proclamation commemorating the fiftieth (50 anniversary of
Brookside Par 3 golf course in the Roanoke Valley (Jill Loope,
Acting Director of Economic Development)
In attendance to receive the proclamation was Milt and Diana Crandall,
managers of Brookside. All Supervisors offered their congratulations.
320 June 12, 2012
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to adopt a Resolution to Virginia Retirement System
(VRS) approving the employer contribution rate option for the
defined benefit plan for the biennium beginning July 1, 2012
(Diane D. Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator)
Ms. Hyatt outlined the request. There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 061212 -1 TO VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEM
(VRS) APPROVING THE AMOUNT OF MEMBER
CONTRIBUTIONS THAT EMPLOYEES WILL PAY BEGINNING
JULY 1, 2012
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County 55180 employees who are Virginia Retirement
System members who commence or recommence employment on or after July 1, 2012,
( "FY2013 Employees" for purposes of this resolution), shall be required to contribute
five percent of their creditable compensation by salary reduction pursuant to Internal
Revenue Code § 414(h) on a pre -tax basis upon commencing or recommencing
employment; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County 55180 employees who are Virginia Retirement
System members and in service on June 30, 2012, shall be required to contribute five
percent of their creditable compensation by salary reduction pursuant to Internal
Revenue Code § 414(h) on a pre -tax basis no later than July 1, 2016; and
WHEREAS, such employees in service on June 30, 2012, shall contribute a
minimum of an additional one percent of their creditable compensation beginning on
each July 1 of 2012, 2013 2014 2015 and 2016, or until the employees' contributions
equal five percent of creditable compensation; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County 55180 may elect to require such employees in
service on June 30, 2012, to contribute more than an additional one percent each year,
in whole percentages, until the employees' contributions equal five percent of creditable
compensation; and
WHEREAS, the second enactment clause of Chapter 822 of the 2012 Acts of
Assembly (SB497) requires an increase in total creditable compensation, effective July
1 2012, to each such employee in service on June 30, 2012, to offset the cost of the
member contributions, such increase in total creditable compensation to be equal to the
difference between five percent of the employee's total creditable compensation and the
percentage of the member contribution paid by such employee on January 1, 2012.
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that Roanoke County 55180 does hereby
certify to the Virginia Retirement System Board of Trustees that it shall effect the
implementation of the member contribution requirements of Chapter 822 of the 2012
June 12, 2012 32
Acts of Assembly (SB497) according to the following schedule for the fiscal year
beginning July 1, 2012 (i.e., FY2013):
Type of
Employee
Employer Paid
Member Contribution
Employee Paid
Member
Contribution
Plan 1
0%
5%
Plan
0%
5%
FY2013 Employees
0%
5%
(Note: Each row must add up to 5 percent.); and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that such contributions, although designated as
member contributions, are to be made by the Roanoke County in lieu of member
contributions; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pick up member contributions shall be paid
from the same source of funds as used in paying the wages to affected employees; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that member contributions made by the Roanoke
County under the pick up arrangement shall be treated for all purposes other than
income taxation, including but not limited to VRS benefits, in the same manner and to
the same extent as member contributions made prior to the pick up arrangement; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that nothing herein shall be construed so as to
permit or extend an option to VRS members to receive the pick up contributions made
by the Roanoke County directly instead of having them paid to VRS; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that notwithstanding any contractual or other
provisions, the wages of each member of VRS who is an employee of the Roanoke
County shall be reduced by the amount of member contributions picked up by the
Roanoke County on behalf of such employee pursuant to the foregoing resolutions.
NOW, THEREFORE, the officers of Roanoke County 55180 are hereby
authorized and directed in the name of the Roanoke County to carry out the provisions
of this resolution, and said officers of the Roanoke County are authorized and directed
to pay over to the Treasurer of Virginia from time to time such sums as are due to be
paid by the Roanoke County for this purpose.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
2. Request to adopt a Resolution to Virginia Retirement System
(VRS) approving the amount of member contributions that
employees will pay beginning July 1, 2012 (Diane D. Hyatt,
Assistant County Administrator)
322 June 12, 2012
Ms. Hyatt outlined the request. There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 061212 -2 TO VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEM
(VRS) APPROVING THE EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION RATE
OPTION FOR THE DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN FOR THE
BIENNIUM BEGINNING JULY 1, 2012
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County 55180 does hereby acknowledge
that its contribution rates effective July 1, 2012, shall be based on the higher of a) the
contribution rate in effect for fiscal year (FY) 2012, or b) seventy percent (70 %) of the
results of the June 30, 2011, actuarial valuation of assets and liabilities as approved by
the Virginia Retirement System Board of Trustees for the 2012 -2014 biennium (the
"Alternate Rate ") provided that, at its option, the contribution rate may be based on the
employer contribution rates certified by the Virginia Retirement System Board of
Trustees pursuant to Virginia Code § 51.1 - 145(1) resulting from the June 30, 2011,
actuarial value of assets and liabilities (the "Certified Rate "); and
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County 55180 does hereby certify to
the Virginia Retirement System Board of Trustees that it elects to pay the following
contribution rate effective July 1, 2012:
(Check only one box)
❑ The Certified Rate of % X The Alternate Rate of 10.05 % ; and
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County 55180 does hereby certify to
the Virginia Retirement System Board of Trustees that it has reviewed and understands
the information provided by the Virginia Retirement System outlining the potential future
fiscal implications of any election made under the provisions of this resolution; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the officers of Roanoke County 55180 are hereby
authorized and directed in the name of the Roanoke County to carry out the provisions
of this resolution, and said officers of the Roanoke County are authorized and directed
to pay over to the Treasurer of Virginia from time to time such sums as are due to be
paid by the Roanoke County for this purpose.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
3. 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, 2012 through
June 30, 2013 (Laurie L. Gearheart, Assistant Director of Finance)
June 12, 2012 323
A- 061212 -3
Mr. B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator outlined the request
and the contract. There was no discussion.
Supervisor Church commended Laurie Gearheart, Assistant Director of
Finance and Terrie Cochran, Executive Assistant for their hard work on the CORTRAN
program.
Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the staff recommendation. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance approving a Telecommunications and Facilities
Licensing Agreement with Cox Communications at the Social
Services Building, 220 East Main Street, Salem, VA (Due to time
constraints, it is requested that, upon a four - fifths vote of the
Board, the second reading be waived and the ordinance adopted
as an emergency measure.) (Anne Marie Green, Director of
General Services)
Ms. Green explained the ordinance and the need to waive the second
reading due to staffing issues. The agreement will be for $14.00 per square foot or
$75.00 per month.
ORDINANCE 061212 -4 APPROVING A TELECOMMUNICA-
TIONS AND FACILITIES LICENSING AGREEMENT WITH COX
COMMUNICATIONS AT THE SOCIAL SERVICES BUILDING,
220 EAST MAIN STREET, SALEM, VA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, is the owner
of several parcels of land, containing .68 acre, located at 220 East Main Street in the
City of Salem, Virginia, and designated on the Salem Land Records as Tax Map #106-
13 -6, #106 -13 -2, and #106 -13 -1, now known as the Social Services Building in Salem
(formerly referred to as the Salem Bank and Trust Building); and,
WHEREAS, said property was purchased on May 15, 2001, subject to leases
with the County of Roanoke to provide office space for the Department of Social
Services (DSS) and Blue Ridge Behavioral Health Care on the third, fourth, and fifth
floors of the building, and subject to a number of commercial leases for the first and
324 June 12, 2012
second floors of the building and a rooftop for antenna space with Ohio State Cellular
Phone Company, Inc. (US Cellular) (dated November 20, 1998); and
WHEREAS, Cox Communications (Cox) has been requested to provide backup
data communications to US Cellular requiring the installation by Cox of communications
equipment and fiber in the basement and walls of the Social Services Building; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition or conveyance of an interest in real estate, including leases, shall be
accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 12,
2012; and the second reading of this ordinance has been dispensed with since an
emergency exists, upon a 4 /5ths vote of the members of the Board.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That lease of approximately four (4) square feet of wall space in the
basement of the Social Services Building located at 220 East Main Street, Salem,
Virginia, to Cox Communications for an initial lease term of five (5) years from the date
of execution by both parties, at an initial annual rental of seventy five dollars ($75.00)
per month is hereby authorized and approved. Cox Communications will be responsible
for and will pay for any necessary electric service directly to the City of Salem.
2. That the County Administrator or an Assistant County Administrator is
hereby authorized to execute a lease agreement on behalf of the Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County and to execute such other documents and take such further actions
as are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon form and
subject to the conditions approved by the County Attorney.
3. That the funds generated by this lease shall be placed in the Social
Services Building (Salem Bank and Trust Building) revenue account.
4. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance authorizing the granting of a non - exclusive ten (10)
foot wide easement to Cox Communications on property owned
by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors (Tax Map No.
027.13 -04- 01.00) for the purpose of an underground
communications system (Anne Marie Green, Director of General
Services)
Ms. Green outlined the ordinance and the need for the easement.
Chairman Flora moved to approve the first reading and establish the second reading
June 12, 2012 325
and public hearing for June 26, 2012. The motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
3. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code by the adoption
of a new Section 2 -11 authorizing the assessment and recovery of
costs against responsible parties for actions taken to protect the
public health, safety and welfare (Paul M. Mahoney, County
Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney explained the need for the ordinance and noted the
corrective actions are due to current economic conditions and wants to make sure the
tax payers are not on the hook for these correction actions.
Supervisor Elswick inquired about the section regarding the costs will not
exceed $1,000. Mr. Mahoney outlined there are only a narrow range of activities in
Section 17.16.1 and is mandated by the General Assembly. Supervisor Elswick then
inquired who determined whether the property is a public nuisance or a public safety
issue with Mr. Mahoney responding the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Elswick
stated he would like to see some follow -up, there is a piece of property in Clearbrook
that was supposed to have been demolished, but is still standing. He indicated staff
should come back to the Board and have the responsibility to make sure the ordinances
are enforced. There was no further discussion.
Chairman Flora moved to approve the first reading and establish the
second reading and public hearing for June 26, 2012. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
4. Ordinance to accept the donation from Doris Moran of four (4)
parcels of land identified as Tax Map Parcels 064.02- 01 -17, 18, 19
and 20 on Poor Mountain Road (Diane D. Hyatt, Assistant County
Administrator)
Ms. Hyatt advised the County was contacted by Ms. Moran to donate this
property along the Roanoke River. She advised the property is assessed at $1,600 and
Roanoke County owns the property on either side. There are no environmental
concerns. There was no discussion.
Supervisor Elswick moved to approve the first reading and establish the
second reading for June 26, 2012. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
326 June 12, 2012
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
1. Resolution approving and adopting the recommendation of the
Roanoke County Bonding Committee declaring the developer Al
M. Cooper Construction, Inc. to be in default under the Cardinal
Meadows (Catawba Magisterial District) "Developer's Site
Development Agreement" and "Erosion and Sediment Control
Agreement" (Tarek Moneir, Deputy Director of Development)
Mr. Moneir outlined the reason for the request for default. Mr. Moneir then
asked that the item be dismissed as the developer has fulfilled all his obligations.
Chairman Flora asked Mr. Moneir if he understood that the agreements
referred to in the ordinance have now been complied with. Mr. Moneir responded in the
affirmative.
Supervisor Church thanked Mr. Moneir and Mr. Covey's office for their
continued work on Cardinal Meadows. He stated he recognized Larry Gardner and Joe
Siederick who were in the audience. He advised he has visited the property and all
improvements have been completed. He then proceeded to ask Mr. Moneir to discuss
the Homeowners Association (HOA). Mr. Moneir advised the agreements would be
between the home owners and the developer and staff does not get involved in these
agreements. Supervisor Church asked if the developer would be Mr. Fralin since
another developer has taken over with Mr. Moneir responding it would be Mr. Cooper.
Mr. Cooper has sold some of the properties to Mr. Fralin, who would be considered
either an investor in the development or homeowner. Supervisor Church then asked Mr.
Moneir to check into the pieces of cement behind the main sign and to coordinate with
Mr. Gardner. Supervisor Church then inquired what is next with Mr. Moneir advising
staff is currently reviewing the as -built plans to make sure they match the plans
submitted earlier, the germination of the grass surrounding the stormwater management
pond and thereafter release the bond and consider the development as complete.
Chairman Flora asked Mr. Mahoney what action the Board needed to take
to make this go away. Mr. Mahoney responded that he would request the Board adopt
a motion to dismiss the resolution and close the public hearing.
Supervisor Altizer asked if the fence has been completed with Mr. Moneir
responding in the affirmative.
Supervisor Elswick stated instead of dismissing the resolution could the
Board postpone ruling on the resolution. Mr. Moneir responded all the items have been
completed. The confusion is the report was prepared before the completion and all the
deficiencies have been completed.
June 12, 2012 327
Chairman Flora opened the public hearing and the following citizen spoke:
Larry Gardner advised he has been in Cardinal Meadows almost four (4)
years and in that four (4) years Al Cooper has come right down to the line every time.
He has to be forced to get something done. Yes, there has been improvement but there
are still improvements that need to be done. The concrete, cement blocks, behind the
Cardinal Meadows sign could be a well and it needs to be addressed. There are still
homes that are being constructed by Mr. Cooper that have been under construction for
a year and a half. The taxpayers that live out there should be able to live in a
development a lot more completed than this one is. He is still not happy, he still thinks
there are improvements that need to be done and he does not think this item should be
closed until he has complied with everything.
Supervisor Church moved to dismiss the bond revocation. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance to increase the salaries of the members of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County pursuant to Section 3.07 of the
Roanoke County Charter and Section 15.2- 1414.3 of the Code of
Virginia (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney advised there were no changes from the first reading on
May 22, 2012.
Chairman Flora opened and closed the public hearing. There were no
citizens to speak on this issue.
Supervisor Moore commented if there were thousands of dollars' worth of
increases for each Board member, she would certainly say no. She added that is not
the case and Board members do spend time traveling to and from meetings and would
help with a few tanks of gas over the years.
ORDINANCE 061212 -5 TO INCREASE THE SALARIES OF THE
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.07 OF THE ROANOKE
COUNTY CHARTER AND SECTION 15.2- 1414.3 OF THE CODE
OF VIRGINIA
328 June 12, 2012
WHEREAS, Section 3.07 of the Charter of the County of Roanoke provides for
the compensation of members of the Board of Supervisors and the procedure for
increasing their salaries; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.2- 1414.3 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended,
establishes the annual salaries of members of boards of supervisors within certain
population brackets; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has
heretofore established the annual salaries of Board members at $16,585.86 by
Ordinance 052708 -20 and further has established the additional annual compensation
for the Chairman for the Board to be $1,800 and for the Vice - Chairman of the Board to
be $1,200; and
WHEREAS, this section provides that the maximum annual salaries therein
provided may be adjusted in any year by an inflation factor not to exceed five percent
(5 %); and
WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on May 22, 2012; the
second reading and public hearing will be held on June 12, 2012.
NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, that the annual salaries of members of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, are hereby increased by an inflation factor of
three percent (3 %) pursuant to the provision of Section 3.07 of the Roanoke County
Charter and Section 15.2- 1414 -3 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The new
annual salaries shall be $17,083.44 for members of the Board. In addition, the
Chairman of the Board will receive an additional annual sum of $1,800 and the Vice -
Chairman of the Board will receive an additional sum of $1,200.00
This ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 2012.
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: Supervisor Altizer
ABSENT: None
Supervisor Altizer remarked that since the ordinance has passed he would
like to donate his increase to the Prevention Council of Roanoke earmarked for
education about synthetic drugs and marijuana.
IN RE: ADOPTION OF PROPOSED BUDGET AND SECOND READING OF
ORDINANCE
1. Resolution adopting the fiscal year 2012 -2013 budget, including
the fiscal years 2013 -2017 Capital Improvement Plan, for Roanoke
County, Virginia (W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management
and Budget)
June 12, 2012 329
Mr. Robertson outlined the resolution to adopt the fiscal year 2012 -2013
budget, including the fiscal years 2013 -2017 Capital Improvement Plan. He notes there
were two changes from the first reading to include the School Board revised budget of a
$350,000 increase approved by the Board on May 22, 2012 and $175,000 was added to
the internal Services Fund for Risk Management for workers compensation. He
indicated there was one technical change in the Classification Plan to reflect the
changes in the pay ranges 37 -40; director level and above. There was no discussion.
Supervisor Church commended Supervisor Altizer for donating his raise to
a particular fund and asked Mr. Mahoney if this can be done for future years. He stated
it would be an ideal thing and could it be done. Mr. Mahoney responded if an individual
Board member makes a decision to donate a portion of their salary to a charitable
organization that is a personal item that each member must determine.
RESOLUTION 061212 -6 ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2012-
2013 BUDGET, INCLUDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 -2017
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA
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 hearing as required
thereon was held on May 22, 2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia:
1. That there is hereby approved the annual budget for fiscal year 2012 -2013
for Roanoke County, Virginia, as shown on the attached schedules.
2. That the preparation and approval of this budget is for informative and
fiscal planning purposes only.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
330
June 12, 2012
County of Roanoke
Adopted FY 2012 -2013 Budget
June 12, 2012
Revenue Estimates
Amount
General Fund
General Government
General Property Taxes
$ 118,500,000
Local Sales Tax
9,925,000
Telecommunications Tax
3,713,000
Business License Tax
6,075,000
Bank Franchise Tax
525,000
Utility Consumer Tax
3,665,000
Motor Vehicle License Tax
2,175,000
Recordation/Conveyance Tax
1,200,000
Meals Tax
3,965,000
Hotel/Motel Tax
700,000
Other Local Taxes
666,000
Permits, Fees & Licenses
476,560
Fines and Forfeitures
760,400
Interest Income
189,100
Charges for Services
3,397,433
Commonwealth
8,566,271
Federal
3,275,000
Other
1,968,913
Total General Government
$ 169,742,677
Communications & Information Technology
7,654,599
Comprehensive Services
6,127,799
Law Library
27,175
Public Works Projects
183,215
S B & T Building
444,580
Recreation Fee Class
5,223,131
Police Special Programs
1,000
Criminal Justice Academy
149,410
Fleet Service Center
2,744,160
Total General Fund
$ 192,297,746
Debt Service Fund - County
8,014,064
Capital Projects Fund
3,474,987
Internal Service Fund
1,553,859
School Operating Fund
132,912,485
School Nutrition Fund
5,791,000
June 12, 2012
331
School Debt Service Fund
14,158,141
School Grants Fund
5,234,216
School Capital Fund
824,000
School Textbook Fund
947,592
School Bus Fund
325,000
School Laptop Insurance Reserve
358,600
Total Revenues All Funds
$ 365,891,690
Less: Transfers
(107,692,864)
Total Net of Transfers
$ 258,198,826
Proposed Expenditures Amount
General Fund
General Government
General Administration
$ 2,950,126
Constitutional Officers
13,403,274
Judicial Administration
860,732
Management Services
3,233,436
Public Safety
24,600,401
Community Services
11,188,569
Human Services
18,303,901
Non - Departmental
11,312,434
Transfers to School Operating Fund
64,006,726
Transfers to School Insurance - Dental
477,299
Transfers to (from) Capital Fund
(1,631,181)
Transfers to Debt Service Fund
17,434,414
Transfer to Public Works Projects
183,215
Transfer to Comprehensive Services
2,253,000
Other
1,166,331
Total General Government
$ 169,742,677
Communications and Information Technology
7,654,599
Comprehensive Services
6,127,799
Law Library
27,175
Public Works Projects
183,215
S B & T Building
444,580
Recreation Fee Class
5,223,131
Criminal Justice Academy
1,000
Police Special Programs
149,410
Fleet Service Center
2,744,160
Total General Fund
$ 192,297,746
Debt Service Fund - County
8,014,064
Capital Projects Fund
3,474,987
Internal Service Fund
1,553,859
332 June 12, 2012
School Operating Fund
School Nutrition Fund
School Debt Fund
School Grants Fund
School Capital Fund
School Textbook Fund
School Bus Fund
School Laptop Insurance Reserve
Total Expenditures All Funds
Less: Transfers
Total Net of Transfers
132,912,485
5,791,000
14,158,141
5,234,216
824,000
947,592
325,000
358,600
365.891.690
$ (107,692,864)
$ 258,198,826
The fiscal year 2013 -2017 Capital Improvement Plan is on file in the office
of the Clerk to the board of Supervisors
2. Ordinance appropriating funds for the 2012 -2013 fiscal year
budget and approval of the Classification Plan for fiscal year
2012 -2013 for Roanoke County (W. Brent Robertson, Director of
Management and Budget)
Mr. Robertson outlined the ordinance to appropriate funds for the 2012-
2013 fiscal year budget and for the approval of the Classification Plan. He noted there
were two changes from the first reading held on May 22, 2012, the School Board
revised budget now includes a $350,000 increase that was approved by the Board on
May 22, 2012, the Internal Services Fund was increased $175,000. This amount
represents the transfer from the General Fund to Risk Management to bolster the fund
balance for workers compensation program that was reviewed with the Board during the
budget process. Additionally, there was one technical change from the first reading in
the Classification Plan, the pay ranges for 27 -40 were not adjusted and the new
Classification Plan reflects these changes.
Supervisor Church inquired about the Classification Pay Plan and asked
Mr. Mahoney concerning Mr. Altizer's request for his increase to go to a particular fund.
He commended Mr. Altizer for his action. He asked if the Board could do that for all
future years, but this is ideal thing for the Board to designate. Mr. Mahoney responded
if an individual Board member makes a decision to donate a portion of their salary to a
charitable organization that is a personal item that each member must determine.
ORDINANCE 061212 -7 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR
THE 2012 -13 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET AND APPROVAL
June 12, 2012 333
OF THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR
2012 -2013 FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, a public hearing was
held on May 22, 2012, concerning the adoption of the annual budget for Roanoke
County for fiscal year 2012 -2013; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, approved
said budget on June 12, 2012, 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 May 22,
2012, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on June 12, 2012, 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, 2012, and ending June 30, 2013, for the functions and
purposes indicated:
County of Roanoke
Adopted FY 2012 -2013 Budget
June 12, 2012
Revenues:
General Fund:
General Government
$ 169,742,677
Communications & Information Technology
7,654,599
Comprehensive Services
6,127,799
Law Library
27,175
Public Works Projects
183,215
SB &T- Social Services Building
444,580
Recreation Fee Class
5,223,131
Police Special Programs
1,000
Criminal Justice Academy
149,410
Fleet Service Center
2,744,160
Total General Fund $ 192,297,746
Debt Service Fund - County $ 8,014,064
334
June 12, 2012
Expenditures:
Capital Projects Fund
$
3,474,987
Internal Service Fund - Risk Management
$
1,553,859
School Funds:
Operating
$
132,912,485
Nutrition
5,791,000
Debt
14,158,141
Grants
5,234,216
Capital
824,000
Textbook
947,592
Bus
325,000
Laptop Insurance Reserve
358,600
Total School Fund
$
160,551,034
Total All Funds
$
365,891,690
General Government:
General Administration
Board of Supervisors $ 296,517
County Administrator 294,289
Public Information 181,386
Asst. Co. Administrators 369,283
Human Resources 732,117
County Attorney 551,349
Economic Development 525,185
Total General Administration $ 2,950,126
Constitutional Officers
Treasurer $ 770,503
Commonwealth Attorney 1,067,454
Commissioner of the Revenue 798,390
Clerk of the Circuit Court 1,065,731
Sheriff s Office 9,701,196
June 12, 2012
335
Total Constitutional Officers $ 13,403,274
Judicial Administration
Circuit Court
$
237,972
General District Court
69,940
Magistrate
1,590
J & DR Court
21,086
Court Service Unit
530,144
Total Judicial Administration
$
860,732
Management Services
Real Estate Assessments
$
843,277
Finance
1,214,616
Public Transportation
500,000
Management and Budget
286,556
Procurement Services
388,987
Total Management Services
$
3,233,436
Public Safety
Police
$
11,122,085
Fire and Rescue
13,478,316
Total Public Safety
$
24,600,401
Community Services
General Services $ 5,740,070
Community Development 4,263,183
Building Maintenance 1,185,316
Total Community Services $ 11,188,569
Human Services
Grounds Maintenance $ 2,265,605
Parks and Recreation 2,137,262
Public Health 413,010
Social Services 8,454,696
336
June 12, 2012
Contributions -Human Service, Cultural, Tourism,
Dues
1,340,888
Library
3,297,355
VA Cooperative Extension
81,382
Elections
313,703
Total Human Services
$ 18,303,901
Non - Departmental
Employee Benefits
$
2,620,367
Miscellaneous
1,984,432
Internal Service Charges
6,707,635
Total Non - Departmental
$
11,312,434
Transfers to Other Funds
Transfer to Debt - General & Schools
$
17,434,414
Transfer to (from) Capital
(1,631,181)
Transfer to Schools
64,006,726
Transfer to Schools - Dental Insurance
477,299
Transfer to Public Works Projects
183,215
Transfer to Internal Services
1,066,331
Transfer to Comprehensive Services
2,253,000
Total Transfers to Other Funds
$
83,789,804
Unappropriated Balance
Board Contingency
$
100,000
Total General Government
$
169,742,677
Communications & Information Technology
$
7,654,599
Comprehensive Services
$
6,127,799
Law Library
$
27,175
Public Works Projects
$
183,215
June 12, 2012
337
SB &T- Social Services Building
Recreation Fee Class
Police Special Programs
Criminal Justice Academy
$ 444,580
$ 5,223,131
$ 1,000
$ 149,410
Fleet Service Center $ 2,744,160
Total General Fund $ 192,297,746
Debt Service Fund - County $ 8,014,064
Capital Projects Fund $ 3,474,987
Internal Services Fund - Risk Management $ 1,553,859
School Funds:
Operating $ 132,912,485
Nutrition 5,791,000
Debt 14,158,141
Grants 5,234,216
Capital 824,000
Textbook 947,592
Bus 325,000
Laptop Insurance Reserve 358,600
Total School Funds $ 160,551,034
Total All Funds $ 365,891,690
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 encumbrances, both operating and capital, at
June 30, 2012, are re- appropriated to the 2012 -2013 fiscal year to the same department
and account for which they are encumbered in the previous year.
338 June 12, 2012
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, 2012, and appropriations in the 2012-
2013 budget.
5. That all school fund appropriations remaining at the end of the 2011 -2012
fiscal year not lapse but shall be appropriated to the School Capital Fund in fiscal year
2012 -2013 as follows:
a.) Two - thirds of the year -end balance in the school operating fund will be
allocated to the Major School Capital Reserve;
b.) One -third of the year -end balance in the school operating fund will be
allocated to the Minor School Capital Reserve;
6. That all General Fund unexpended appropriations at the end of the 2011-
2012 fiscal year not lapse but shall be re- appropriated, as provided by Resolution
122104 -4, as follows:
a) Forty percent (40 %) of these unexpended appropriations shall be
transferred to the un- appropriated Minor County Capital Fund Reserve;
b.) Sixty percent (60 %) of these unexpended appropriations shall be re-
appropriated to the same department for expenditure in fiscal year
2012 -2013.
7. That all General Fund revenues collected in excess of appropriated revenues
shall be re- appropriated, as provided by Resolution 122104 -5, as follows:
a.) Revenues in excess of budget will first be allocated to the General
Fund Un- appropriated Balance, until the maximum amount for the
current year is met, as specified in the General Fund Un- appropriated
Balance Policy, as adopted by Resolution 122104 -2;
b.) The remainder of revenues in excess of budget will then be allocated
to the Major County Capital Fund Reserve
8. Rescue fees collected by the Fire and Rescue Department in excess of
budgeted amounts will be re- appropriated and allocated to the Fire and Rescue Capital
Reserve.
9. Account balances remaining in the Fee Class collected by the Parks and
Recreation Department will be allocated to accounts as defined by the Fee Class
Accounts Procedure.
10. That all VRS Plan 2 employees that were hired by Roanoke County prior to
May 10, 2011, will receive up to four (4) payments of a supplement to minimize the
financial impact on these employees of paying their member contribution for the Virginia
Retirement System. Each payment is based on 2.775% of their base salary. These
payments will be made in July 2011, January 2012, July 2012 and January 2013. The
June 12, 2012 339
employee must still be employed by Roanoke County at the time of the payment to
receive the supplement.
The intent of this supplement is to minimize the financial impact on these
employees of paying their member contribution for the Virginia Retirement System for a
two year period. These employees must now pay the five percent (5 %) employee
portion of the VRS contribution, but were hired by Roanoke County before this change
went into effect. Funds needed to pay the supplement for the two year period will be
set aside from the VRS savings resulting from the change to the Plan 2 funding
recognized in the 2011 -12 fiscal year.
11. This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2012.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
The Classification Plan for 2012 -2014 is on file in the office of the Clerk to
the Board of Supervisors.
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
1. Economic Development Authority (EDA) (appointed by District)
Supervisor Michael W. Altizer has recommended the appointment of
Tommy Wood to represent the Vinton Magisterial District for a four -year term to expire
September 30, 2016. Confirmation of this appointment has been placed on the Consent
Agenda. There were no objections.
5. Roanoke County Planning Commission (appointed by District)
Supervisor Joseph B. "Butch" Church has recommended the
reappointment of Martha Hooker who represents the Catawba District to an additional
four -year term to expire on June 30, 2016. There were no objections.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 061212 -8 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM K- CONSENT AGENDA
340 June 12, 2012
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 June 12,
2012, designated as Item K - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 7 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes — May 8, 2012
2. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Cindy Windel, Payroll Technician, upon her retirement
after more than twelve (12) years of service
3. Confirmation of appointments to the Court Community Correction Alcohol
Safety Action Program (ASAP) Policy Board; Economic Development
Authority (appointed by District); Roanoke Valley - Alleghany Regional
Commission; Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau Board of
Directors; Virginia's First Regional Industrial Facility Authority and the
Western Virginia Water Authority
4. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Thomas W. Kincaid, Police Officer /Criminal Investigator,
upon his retirement after more than twenty -five (25) years of service
5. Resolution requesting acceptance of Mendham Way into the Virginia
Department of Transportation Secondary System
6. Request to accept and appropriate $11,180.53 of additional Virginia
Recreational Trail Fund Program grant funds from the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation for Walrond Park Trail Project, Hollins
Magisterial District
7. Request to accept and appropriate $1,234,744 from the Virginia Department
of Transportation (VDOT) for preliminary engineering for pedestrian and
bicycle improvements to Plantation Road and re- appropriate $500 from the
Road Improvements account for the local contribution
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 061212 -8.a EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO CINDY WINDEL, PAYROLL TECHNICIAN, UPON HER
RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN TWELVE (12) YEARS OF
SERVICE
June 12, 2012 341
WHEREAS, Cindy Windel was hired on February 7, 2000, and has worked as a
part time Accounts Clerk, Customer Service Representative, Payroll Clerk and Payroll
Technician during her tenure with Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Windel retired on June 1, 2012, after twelve (12) years and four
(4) months of devoted, faithful and expert service with the County; and
WHEREAS, during her time serving Roanoke County, Ms. Windel was
responsible for providing excellent customer payroll services to the Roanoke County
Departments, Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority, and the Roanoke County School
system; and
WHEREAS, during recent years Ms. Windel was focused primarily on payroll
processing for Western Virginia Regional Jail employees; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Windel was instrumental in setting up appropriate deductions,
applying correct Virginia and Federal tax withholding rates, and applying proper work
and vacation schedules to ensure all Western Virginia Regional Jail employees were
paid accurately and on time every two weeks; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Windel was supportive of and worked closely with other payroll
staff to help process and ensure the accuracy of the bimonthly payroll for all Roanoke
County School System employees; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Windel has proved herself to be an exemplary employee with
excellent attendance record;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of
the citizens of Roanoke County to CINDY WINDEL for twelve (12) years and four (4)
months 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 roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
A- 061212 -8.b
RESOLUTION 061212 -8.c EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO THOMAS W. KINCAID, POLICE OFFICER/CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATOR, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN
TWENTY -FIVE (25) YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Thomas W. Kincaid was employed by Roanoke County on July 26,
1986 as a Deputy Sheriff in the Sheriff's Office; and
342 June 12, 2012
WHEREAS, Detective Kincaid continued his law enforcement service by
transferring to the newly established Police Department in 1990 where he served as
Police Officer, Crime Prevention Officer, Police Officer II, Police Officer - Sergeant in the
Uniform Patrol Division, Criminal Investigation Unit, and the Vice Unit; and
WHEREAS, Detective Kincaid retired on May 31, 2012, from the Police
Department after twenty -five years and nine months of dutiful, faithful, and expert
service with the County; and
WHEREAS, during his time serving Roanoke County, Detective Kincaid
performed a crucial role in protecting the life and property of citizens by honorably
serving as a Police Officer; and
WHEREAS, Detective Kincaid, through his employment with Roanoke County,
has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of
the citizens of Roanoke County to THOMAS W. KINCAID for more than 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 roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 061212 -8.d REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
MENDHAM WAY INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Addition Form AM -4.3, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, the representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia
Department of Transportation's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have
entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999, for comprehensive stormwater detention
which applies to this request for addition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached Additions
Form AM -4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1 -229, Code
of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, after receiving a
June 12, 2012 343
copy of this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of the
developer, whichever occurs last in time.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right -of -way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
A- 061212 -8.e
A- 061212 -8.f
IN RE: REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS
Supervisor Church requested a joint work session with the Board of
Equalization to be held on June 26, 2012, to be held in the Board of Supervisors
meeting room due to seating purposes.
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following citizen spoke.
Linda LaPrade of 5909 Will Carter Lane of the Clearbrook District stated in the
past 18 months 138 counties and cities have seen the truth and dropped out of ICLEI.
That number will grow to over 150 as laws in Alabama and Tennessee take effect. I
guess if we wait long enough, you won't have to make a decision to withdraw because
at this rate it will not exist in America. That, however, is not good enough. Alabama just
passed the strongest bill yet protecting property rights against advancement of any
Agenda 21 related influence. Senate Bill 477 specifically prevents all state agencies and
local governments in Alabama from participating in the global scheme in any way.
Legislative analysts said the bill was extremely well crafted: protecting citizens and
individual rights from UN decrees in a simple, straightforward manner that Agenda 21
advocates would have a hard time criticizing. I have a copy of the law for you. The
people of Alabama acting through their elected representatives -not UN bureaucrats -
have the authority to develop the state's environmental and development policies, the
official synopsis of the law explains. Support for the bill was overwhelming and
bipartisan. Of course the proponents pushed back by telling the state it will lose some
344 June 12, 2012
possible grants and federal money. "Every time you take a dollar of federal money,
there's strings attached," explained Ken Freeman. They realized that the money they
might gain could only be used to further the UN goals. On June 21, governments from
all over the world will be meeting in Rio for the so- called "Conference on Sustainable
Development" -known as Rio +20 for short. According to official documents released by
the global body, the summit, headed by Chinese Communist Sha Zukang, will be
seeking to dramatically transform human civilization under the guise of
environmentalism and since we are members of ICLEI, you will have agreed to it. You,
as our leaders, need to re- examine this issue, look at how much Agenda 21 has already
infiltrated our government and how much you are allowing NGOs to set policy. This
needs to stop for all our sakes. Getting rid of ICLEI is the first step. Please do it now.
Bill Gregory of 3312 Pamlico Drive stated he has just received word on
June 18 and 19 three members of the Board will be attending the Partnership for a
Livable Roanoke Valley at the Claude Moore Educational Complex. There you will be
attending a scenario and storyline development workshop. If you recall, two weeks ago
I revealed the Partnership for a Livable Roanoke Valley has been on our radar screens
for a while now. He stated he also mentioned it appears that the land use, energy and
environment portions of the partnerships objectives seem to match fairly well with the
goals of UN Agenda 21. To refresh everyone's memory, the Partnership for a Livable
Roanoke Valley is an arm of the Roanoke Valley Allegheny Regional Commission,
which covers several counties and cities in the Roanoke Valley including our County.
Our County is represented on that commission by a few of the Board members present.
The Partnership is currently working up a new plan for our region and needs our input.
The Plan's name is the Plan for a Livable Roanoke Valley. This plan actually needs a
storyline? Why? He stated he has a feeling it is going to be a helpful plan for someone,
maybe not helpful for property rights of citizens. All the right power players are just
going to eat it up. I bet most County residents will not have a clue of what will end up in
that plan until well after it is already being implemented, unless someone regularly
reports on its development before it is implemented. Then, he might see a friend from
the Sierra Club and RVCCC and some of you there when he comes to observe the
meeting. It seems to make a little more sense that three of the Board members voted to
retain membership with ICLEI on January 24 knowing that three Board members were
going to attend the meeting to develop a storyline for this wonderful regional plan.
County residents are going to be kept fully abreast of this storyline and how this livability
plan develops because we are watching. Please consider all of the implications your
involvement with this plan will have on citizen's property rights unlike what was done
when the Board voted to become members of ICLEI in 2007.
June 12, 2012 345
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Altizer moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Church stated during this past week he was honored to attend
two school graduations, Glenvar High School, which was outdoors at the stadium,
beautiful weather where 140 seniors graduated. Also the same day, Northside had their
graduation at the Salem Civic Center with approximately 240 graduates. It was a fun
day; it is always nice to be around the young people in the valley. He offered his
congratulations to all of them; many will be furthering their education at colleges or the
United States military. Secondly, with all the budget items the Board speaks about on a
daily and weekly basis here in Roanoke County, it never ceases to amaze him what the
citizens allow to occur in Washington, DC. There is a big item all the time about green
jobs and he wants to speak about this. Green jobs, you can call them what you want to,
the current administration has been working on training 125,000 people in green,
energy jobs and has fallen short by about 80,000 so far. He stated he read with
astonishment the definition of green jobs according to our federal government. Bus
drivers of hybrid buses are green job holders, people who pump gas into these buses
are green jobs, bicycle shop employees (no matter what they do) are counted as green
employees, a clerk that works in any green location, even sweeping the floor are green
jobs. It is simply impossible to determine the true definition of a green job by
government standards. Tongue in cheek, he stated he has to wonder if he drank
purified water this morning did he hold a green job. The stimulus plan in 2009 has been
nothing short of a complete failure to the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to all of
us. Most of the companies are bankrupt. He does not believe anyone is against truly
green jobs, but it is just how do we implement them. Why cannot we find some
sensible, logical and fiscally responsible way to do this? Lastly, Mr. Chairman, the
Board has had citizens speak to the Board for almost a year about ICLEI and he
continues to question the County membership. He stated he does not see any
meaningful benefit for Roanoke County to remain in an organization that has so many
potential negative associations connected with it. He stated he openly admits that he
personally did not understand the organization in 2007. He was not sure of what we
346 June 12, 2012
were getting into, he just voted yes. He stated he is being openly honest; he did not
really realize. He would like for someone to explain to him in detail, why it is so critically
important for Roanoke County to associate with this organization. So far, no one has
convinced him that we ultimately need to remain as a member. I wonder what the real
reason is. This is a question he continues to ask himself; a glaring point that needs to
be repeated is the $1,200 membership is just "coins in the fountain" in his opinion.
More importantly to him, it was the fact that we paid our membership several months
before it was due.
Supervisor Elswick stated he would like to let citizens know we are having
a work session later on today about the policy for towing vehicles from accident sites
and he in particular has questions about one of those incidents. If there are other
citizens out there who have been involved in accidents or know someone who has that
question the accuracy of what they were charged for the towing, he would like to know
about it. On the Partnership for the Livable Roanoke Valley, when it first became known
that we were receiving a grant of about $700,000 for that program, he asked to be a
part of it. He wanted to see what happens and how we end up with NGOs spending a
lot of tax payer money and not always getting results from it. So, he asked the ARC
what they were going to do with the money, or are we going to do something with it,
build something, improve something in the valley, allocate it to trails at Explore Park or
build bike trails or build hiking trails and the answer was no. When the request for
funding was made, the ARC simply asked that they be given money by the federal
government to make a plan. We have already planned this County to death. There are
all kinds of plans, some of them involve converting Route 419 around Tanglewood to six
lane highways and bike paths and all kinds of things that will never really happen. So,
requesting money from "Uncle Sam" to make another plan is not going to change a
thing, unless someone in power decides they are going to implement the plan. Most of
those high fluting plans simply go to pay the salaries of some people in the valley. So,
he attends the meetings of the Steering Committee for a Livable Roanoke Valley and he
will do his best to make sure that whatever plans are made are common sense kinds of
things, practical, the kinds of actions we can take to actually improve the valley and he
asked in the first meeting that we look at what we already have, because this is one of
the nicest places in the country to live. Improve on what we already have and not make
it a plan that cannot be attained. He will be glad to entertain any phone calls from any
citizen who has a question as to what is going on with that committee or receive any
suggestions from citizens as to things that are potentially part of the plan and they think
should be revised, but it is not something that is dictated by the United Nations. It is
something our people have initiated, the Allegheny Regional Commission and have
received funding from the federal government for it. He stated he will do his best to
make sure the word "sustainable" is not in any of the plans and as far as the UN and
ICLEI, sometime before the next invoice is due to be paid he will ask that the Board
bring up the ICLEI issue again and part of the reason for that is a recent news item that
said the UN now thinks and asked for permission to investigate a school system, in
June 12, 2012 347
Massachusetts and when the UN thinks they can come into one of our states and try to
investigate one of our school systems then it is time to tell the UN to go "fly a kite."
ICLEI is a locale thing, it is not a lot of money and it probably does not have a major
impact on what we do, but is simply that it does not stand the test of honesty, especially
from the reports we made to ICLEI headquarters, which as far as he knows still have
not been corrected, but they were fictitious reports and so that kind of activity he does
not see any reason for it.
Supervisor Moore stated that Livable Communities and everything we are
doing on the Steering Committee and with Allegheny Regional is a regional partnership.
We as the Roanoke Valley: Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Salem all have
representatives in that committee and we are trying to build on the Roanoke Valley to
make it a better place to live and to grow, not only environmentally but economically.
Supervisor Altizer stated it is fast approaching July 1 St and he hopes Mr.
Goodman that our law enforcement department will be going around and looking and
seeing how many people are willing to take the chance on selling bath salts, synthetic
marijuana and hopes staff goes out and test them to see how much confidence in our
new State law.
At 4:25 p.m. Chairman Flora recessed to the fourth floor for work session
and closed meeting.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss Stormwater Regulations and approach
to long -term Stormwater Management (Arnold Covey, Director of
Community Development; Tarek Moneir, Deputy Director of
Development Services; George Simpson, County Engineer)
In attendance for this work session: Arnold Covey, Director of Community
Development; George Simpson, County Engineer; Megan Daily, Civil Engineer I; Tarek
Moneir, Deputy Director of Development Services and Carolyn Howard, Draper Aden
Associates in Blacksburg and expert on Stormwater Regulations. The work session
was held from 4:42 p.m. until 5:36 p.m. Mr. Simpson went through a PowerPoint
presentation providing a brief history, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk
to the Board of Supervisors. He advised most of stormwater regulations are driven by
the 1972 regulations. In 2013, the EPA is going to mandate certain requirements, but
they are not sure what they are going to be. In 2014, the County is going to be required
to handle DCR Stormwater Regulations and permits that they now issue so it will be a
whole new program that is coming to Roanoke County. It could be new people, we will
need to review plans, issue permits and take money, a whole new process. There are
new, more stringent stormwater regulations coming in 2014, 2018 and 2023.
Ms. Howard advised the national stormwater is currently in limbo; looking
348 June 12, 2012
at the budget analysis of the impacts of what they will be imposing, but is it going to
provide more strict regulations for stormwater quality for all communities throughout the
United States. It will take a while for that to trickle down to the Commonwealth of
Virginia and the County of Roanoke. It is a high priority of this administration.
Mr. Simpson advised they would like to hire a consultant to do a feasibility
study to look at the County program. The purpose of the feasibility study would be to
look at what we do now, look at our program and the level of service we provide, see
how much money we are spending (approximately $2 million on what we do now), look
at policy considerations and look at sources of revenue and funding and bring back to
the Board some recommendations on how to comply, what needs to be done in terms of
resources, people, staff, etc.
Ms. Howard advised part of putting together the stormwater program is a
direct result of looking at the regulations. There are some low- hanging fruit that you
can be doing and are doing now that can impact the water quality. So, the program is
an umbrella, which will involve operations, maintenance, potential capital improvement
projects, i.e. stormwater improvements. There will be new inspection requirements
required as part of the new regulations and the MS 4 permit as well as the monitoring of
the water quality. A whole set of policies and procedures will need to be put together.
This is a program that encompasses policies, operations maintenance projects and
implementation.
Mr. Simpson advised that Roanoke County is already doing a lot of this.
There is staff dedicated to complying with the MS 4 permit. We have staff review plans
for stormwater. We have inspectors that go out and make sure these are put in the
ground properly. We have a drainage crew that the County spends $1 million in
maintenance. We have had grants to do other things, so what this does is pull all the
pieces together and show the Board how it is working, where the holes are and what
needs to be done to keep it going, especially in terms of the new regulations. This
would be Phase 1. Phase 2 would be after the feasibility study is obtained, staff will
come back to the Board to see if they want it to be implemented. What would be done
from Task 1 would be to look at our current program, what we do, what levels of service
is provided (basic, higher, where do we need to be), what is it costing us now, the extent
of the service, the priorities, a GAP analysis and put together a program plan that
addresses all the pieces and pulls everything together to make sure that everything is
being done properly. A major part of the process is establishing an internal working
group, the County Attorney is a key player, finance, County Administrator and a big
piece of all the programs that they have seen is to establish a citizens advisory
committee to get input from the citizens and make sure they are an integral part of what
is being done. In fact, in Lynchburg they actually drove the whole process. They took
the initial meeting and came up with all the ideas and staff just facilitated what they
came up with.
Mr. Goodman advised he had an opportunity to meet with the City
Manager of Lynchburg and some of the staff members. They are ahead of Roanoke
June 12, 2012 349
County about a year and one half or two years. They actually adopted portions of the
ordinance, not all last November or December as they worked through their budget
process. As of today, they have adopted fees of $4.00. The situation is that Roanoke
County has to deal with this by July 1, 2014, and staff did not want to wait until the last
minute to dump this on the Board. Staff wants to work with the Board and hope that the
Board allows staff to move forward into some semblance of doing a request for proposal
to start the process and develop it. The key thing that he thinks is very critical is citizen
involvement. This is going to cost money; there is no other way around it. Staff has not
predetermined how it is going to be paid for, but it is going to cost money. He thinks the
citizens need to be involved from step one on that process. He would hope all
stakeholders would participate in this process because it is very important they be
involved as well as other groups that might want to be involved. The key thing was that
it was a fairly large committee established but the key thing was that not everyone came
to every meeting, but they were on the committee and may have done some
subcommittee work and were involved at the level they wished to be involved and could
reach out and engage the citizens. So, there is already public involvement before the
recommendations and public hearings are brought forward. Hopefully, this committee
will result in several public meetings as they would have to notify all the citizens as the
process is developed. He stated he feels staff can deal with the July 1, 2013, testing
requirements as we are already working with the City of Roanoke, City of Salem and the
Planning Commission. He advised staff feels testing should be done on a regional
basis instead of the City going to the City limits and then the County picks it up to
Montgomery County. We need to work together to keep costs down. We are working
with the Water Authority; they have a very good certified local lab that will hopefully
keep costs down. The bottom line and what caught his attention was it was going to
cost money; there is no way around it.
Supervisor Church inquired if Mr. Goodman had any idea how much this
would cost with Mr. Goodman explaining there is a rule of thumb to determine it. Mr.
Simpson advised $40.00 per capita which is $3.7 million. The key thing is the Board
needs to be informed of this pending requirement July 1, 2014 and staff needs to start
now. If public input is necessary, staff will need to start now. Staff will need to gear up,
figure out what needs to be done, hire a consultant with the permission of the Board,
appoint a committee and move forward. So that by late fall, extensive discussions can
be held as to what the County is going to do.
Supervisor Church inquired if Mr. Goodman had identified any revenue
sources with Mr. Goodman advising there are several ways. The first is to use existing
taxes and cut other areas. The second is real estate if you so choose. Some
communities have established a fee, which the City of Lynchburg has determined as
$4.00 per family unit. If you have an airport, they will pay a whole lot more than a single
family unit; as well as large parking lots. It will be based on some kind of calculation on
comparing single family to larger parking lots. The more density on your property, it is
going to cost you more.
350 June 12, 2012
Supervisor Moore inquired on new developments, big commercial
developments, if the developer goes in and puts impervious paving and underground
water system, will they receive credits. Mr. Goodman advised his understanding of the
current regulations and law, if the locality so chooses to put in their ordinance, credits
can be allowed. Mr. Simpson advised there must a credit system. One of the things
that also must be done is to determine your current base for your impervious material.
Ms. Howard advised typically a stormwater utility fee is based on what is
called either a single - family unit or residential unit that is the average impervious
surface in your particular community of a single - family home. So, it may be 2,500
square feet of impervious surface; the roof, pavement, sidewalks, etc.
Supervisor Moore stated she was asking about on new developments if
they put pervious pavement and put an extensive drainage system would the fee be
recalculated.
Mr. Goodman responded in the affirmative for both new and old, as
existing areas could be retrofitted.
Supervisor Altizer stated when he goes to regional stormwater meetings,
DCR, EPA it is quite evident they could care less about quantity, it does not matter to
them how much is shifting down, and they want it clean. Flooding is okay as long as it
is clean.
Mr. Simpson stated the new regulations now do address quantity more
than they have in the past. They are trying to get to where there is a zero increase. If
you develop your property that you do not have any increase in what you discharge to
the storm sewer. That is the goal.
Ms. Howard stated that is the big push from the EPA Stormwater.
Supervisor Altizer stated in the case of stormwater management if we
wanted to backup Back Creek on the other side of Rt. 220 and taken and filter and let all
of sediment and build a detention pond. We can do it, but DCR and EPA is going to
charge $400 a foot to put it in there. On the one hand they want you to manage it and
the other hand they want to slap because they do not want you backing up the river. He
stated he gets a mixed message. Based on what he sees, he hopes there is a lot more
information to come because he does not know if the average person in this room
knows how to correct all this. We talk about testing, we never talk about what you are
testing for and we never talk about if you find something there, what are some of the
means to mitigate. We talk in terms of generalities and then when we get to the money
part and say it is $3 to $4 million to do it, but we don't know how to accomplish that. He
stated he thinks he is well versed as anyone in stormwater being on the Regional
Committee, but he stated he does not understand everything as to why it is going to
take all this money. He knows we have to do something, but is still confused. How are
we going to separate what we are sending from Roanoke County from Roanoke City.
How are we doing to do this if Salem is not a partner and everything comes rolling out of
Salem and dumps in and how much is truly ours.
Mr. Simpson stated how can staff sit here in this office and decide what
June 12, 2012 351
company twenty -five (25) years ago had a process that involved PCBs. How do we go
back and mitigate that; those are the types of things Roanoke County is up against to
develop a strategy for.
Supervisor Altizer queried are detention ponds prior to 2008 not judged on
quality and are grandfathered with Mr. Simpson responding they are being treated as
bmps (best management practices) because of their sediment and are called this in the
County's permit. In some of the larger localities they had to go back and retrofit those to
meet TMVL requirements. All of the pieces kind of fit together in a crazy way.
Supervisor Altizer stated so when you talk about fees and costs and you
are going back and retrofitting 2008 prior, is that something the locality should pay for or
the HOA. Mr. Goodman responded that would be the determination of the Board. Mr.
Simpson advised that would come out of the study; some options given to the Board as
to what they want to do, how far, how much effort, how much money. A lot of those
types of questions will try to be answered in the proposed study, but there are a lot of
policy decisions that the Board will have to make and tell us how to proceed.
Supervisor Altizer asked how much is the study going to cost. Mr. Simpson responded
staff estimated approximately $115,000, which is currently in the 2012 -2013 budget so
no additional funds are being requested. In fact, they have drafted a request for
proposal so they are ready to proceed.
Phase 2 would depend on what is seen in the feasibility study, staff would
come back to the Board to decide whether to pursue implementation at that point in
time. Staff is hoping to do this in approximately nine (9) months.
Supervisor Altizer stated so we are going to spend $115,000 on whether
we go forward with anything else or not. Mr. Simpson advised more than that staff will
provide eight to ten (8 to 10) ways to look at funding, how does it work in Roanoke
County as a utility, does it work, can you (given the characteristics of Roanoke County)
how do you bill a citizen in Catawba, is there a better way. All the pieces have to be
identified by the consultant that are characteristic of Roanoke County; that is why we
are looking to an expert to give us those types of facts and figures.
Supervisor Altizer stated it is his personal opinion and is only going by
what he heard and what he has seen listening to business people and citizens in
Roanoke City. Citizens figure $3.00 or $4.00 is not going to kill them, but the big thing
is when you start imposing $25,000 a year on a certain business, $50,000 a year on a
certain business, it is almost like we have to use this formula and go in there and hit
them hard right out of the gate. He stated he is not in agreement from that standpoint
because he thinks there should be way to figure out somebody should pay. But if you
go in and take the church on Rt. 460 and using the formula talk about $100,000 a year
and he stated he does not think that will every fly not with their congregations.
Mr. Simpson remarked Liberty College, which has a tremendous amount
of impervious area, had a presence on the committee and thinks they finally reached
some kind of agreement to participate, but church's and State governments will have to
pay.
352 June 12, 2012
Supervisor Altizer stated if we elect to go forward with this it is not only
regular citizens on this advisory, it needs to be churches, businesses and everybody's
input needs to be taken into consideration.
Supervisor Elswick asked about responsibility; if there is a pollutant in one
of the waterways is Roanoke County responsible for finding out where it came from and
also responsible for asking the responsible party to pay for it and if we cannot find the
responsible party to pay for it is Roanoke County responsible for cleaning up that
pollutant? Mr. Simpson responded it would depend on if Roanoke County can
determine that it came from a certain source. Supervisor Elswick asked what if staff is
unable to determine where it came from. Mr. Simpson advised it would probably show
up in the sampling that concludes Roanoke County has exceeded the load for the creek
and since Roanoke County is responsible for the quality of the stream, we would have
to come back and devise a strategy to combat whatever that pollutant would be.
Supervisor Elswick inquired if the fine imposed for not correcting is less
than actually fixing the problem. Mr. Simpson advised it would depend on what it is.
Mr. Covey advised not only would you have to pay the fine, but you would need to
correct as well. Mr. Goodman advised the bottom line is that if staff starts working now
on this, the onerous items can be determined and we can try to mitigate them now. If
Roanoke County does nothing, then someone else down the road will dictate what is to
be done. He advised he feels it is more advantageous to the citizens of Roanoke
County and the Board and staff that we start working on it now to mitigate impacts. The
worse thing is to do nothing.
Supervisor Moore inquired if staff is asking for a consensus to move
forward with the study, which has been incorporated in the budget and staff will bring
back the proposals, options, future, etc. She advised she is in agreement it needs to be
done.
Chairman Flora inquired what other jurisdictions are doing. Mr. Simpson
responded Roanoke City has tabled their efforts to come up with a utility, but they have
done a study and have discussed rates. They are pretty close to bringing it off the back
burner and implementing. Salem has not looked at. Roanoke County has looked at it
with the Planning District Commission regionally to see if Botetourt County, Franklin
County and other localities at the very least would participate in sampling, planning and
not necessarily the funding part on a regional basis. He stated he feels Roanoke City
will probably participate on a regional basis. Supervisor Church inquired if Salem is
choosing not to participate. Mr. Simpson advised Salem has their own way of doing
things.
Supervisor Altizer stated he thinks they take it serious, but not very
seriously. He then asked if Botetourt would come under the same requirements with
Mr. Simpson responding portions would be.
Chairman Flora stated he was inquiring about Botetourt because of Tinker
Creek and what if the problem is above our boundary. This is not an island that
Roanoke County can stand on by itself. Mr. Goodman commented he is in agreement,
June 12, 2012 353
but feels there are still things to be worked out. The best model would be we all
collectively sample from the water shed to the confluence of the Roanoke River.
Chairman Flora stated that the start date is only a year away and staff needs to start
now to coordinate with the other jurisdictions.
Mr. Covey stated the thing he likes about Roanoke County doing the
request for proposal and a consultant on line and in looking at other localities, they term
it as a holistic approach to stormwater. We are currently spending $1 million on
stormwater now with the drainage crews. He stated he thinks staff really needs to take
a look at what they are doing and how we get to where we need to go to meet this
criteria. He advised he does not think they know all the information at this point. The
step of a regional basis comes when we determine all the things that need to be done
and then can we on a regional basis work together to answer the questions or do the
necessary testing and reporting. Each locality is sort of on their own. We as a county
need to take a look at what we have, what we are doing and what are the things that
would minimize or enhance our situation. We may not have to do everything that
Roanoke City has to do to meet the criteria, but there may be things that overlap that we
can work together.
Supervisor Altizer advised for $100,000 to find out what you have to do
and the consequences are is basic. He stated there are some things staff should be
doing at least showing an effort is being made. He notices when he goes in for an oil
change the spraying out the bays. There is something wrong with that. He stated he
would like to tell people you cannot do that anymore. We need to start doing some
education and not just dropping a bomb shell one day. Supervisor Altizer also noted the
sad thing is that we have to eat VDOT's runoff; good bad or indifferent.
Supervisor Moore asked if Community Development isn't already going
out and examining businesses with regard to stormwater issues. Mr. Covey advised
staff members have been going out and giving presentations to groups; there is
information on the website and a lot of publications. Supervisor Moore then asked if
people have been cited for violations with advising they will write a letter on a complaint
basis only. A friendly letter is sent regarding the violation and education is done as to
why it is not a good idea; why it is considered a pollutant. There is also some general
education: household hazardous day and general outreach.
Supervisor Altizer stated he did not get an answer to the question if they
have gone out to the other localities to see if they are going to start to do something, i.e.
Salem, Town of Vinton, Botetourt, and Roanoke City. Mr. Goodman advised he has
been in conversations with the City Manager of Vinton, Salem on various issues. He
advises he knows there is a keen interest in trying to work together since we all are
facing similar situations. He advised he has not spoken with anyone from Botetourt, but
will. Mr. Simpson advised they are going to meet regularly with all localities and are
attempting to get elected officials together and let them know what the localities are up
against, what we are doing and what we are up against.
Mr. Goodman stated the key thing is that there has been conversation
354 June 12, 2012
concerning the County participating in a regional stormwater management system and
he has advised the group that the Board makes that decision and it has not yet been
made.
Supervisor Altizer commented that Mr. Goodman can provide the Board
with feedback as to what the other localities will do. His preference is to do our study
and see how it comes back and then we will see where everybody is. This is a big step
and needs to be done correctly.
It was the consensus of the Board to move forward with the request for
proposal.
2. Work session to discuss towing information (B. Clayton
Goodman III, County Administrator)
In attendance for this work session were B. Clayton Goodman III, County
Administrator, Bill Hunter, Assistant Director of Communications; Terrell Holbrook,
Acting Chief of Police and Paul Mahoney, County Attorney. The work session was held
from 5:36 p.m. until 5:58 p.m.
Mr. Goodman advised this work session was at the request of Supervisor
Elswick and provided the Board with information about what our current procedures are.
Basically there are twenty -eight (28) active tow companies on the call -out list. In order
to get on the list, they have to complete a letter of understanding, business license,
insurance and the company drivers have to be licensed by the Virginia Board of Towing
and Recovery Operations as well as following their regulations. The response time
must be within twenty (20) minutes or they go to the next name on the list. This is used
when a citizen does not have a towing company preference. Basically, Roanoke
County follows the State code for their eligibility. Supervisor Elswick had asked what
can we do to address citizen complaints above overcharging or other issues and in
looking at this and working with Paul Mahoney, there is under the General Assembly
actions enabling legislation that would allow the County to form a Towing Authority, but
before that can be done a committee made up of representatives of the towing industry
must work with staff to draft an ordinance.
Supervisor Elswick stated he did not want to waste a lot of time on this.
He advised a friend of his was killed on Rt. 221, someone that was well know and not a
"speeder ". It was a three - wheeled trike that he wrecked. He had MS so bad he could
hardly walk. The problem with the towing bill is there are three different charges, $150
for towing, $150 for labor, $105 for storage and $150 for something else. Supervisor
Elswick stated he fooled with old cars and he has had a lot of towing charges and
typically rollbacks have a wench on it and they can pull a four -wheel drive pickup truck
on it with no problem, even when it does not have wheels on it and the typical charges
he has encountered have been from $60 to $90. This charge from Sunday until
Tuesday was $651 to a woman who had just been through a very traumatic experience
and somebody who did not have a lot of money. They also charged for a tarp, $40 to
June 12, 2012 355
put a tarp over the three -wheel vehicle and refused to give the tarp to the people. The
accident happened on Sunday; he called the towing service on Monday as he and a
bunch of friends wants to inspect the trike to see if they could figure out what happened.
The guy refused to meet him at the towing storage area. On Tuesday, he finally
released the vehicle, thereby incurring more storage charges. He advised to him it just
did not make sense, he indicated the list has the most exorbitant towing charge
specifics he has ever seen. In addition to $175 towing, $175 per hour and an
administrative fee of $185, all of that for one towing operation. He stated he
understands when there is an accident, it takes a lot of time because they might have to
be there when the Police are doing all of the investigation, etc. On this particular trike,
the police report said he was doing fifty (50) mph, he was not. The officer that wrote the
report was not at the site, none of us were. Friends of Ben know he did not drive that
fast on that mountain; it would take a sports car to take that curve at fifty (50) mph and
yet the trike only rolled about thirty (30) feet. If you are going fifty (50) mph on a three -
wheeled trike, it will roll farther. It was picked up by the tow truck in the middle of the
road, not in a ditch, not down a mountainside. He stated it is bothering him, but he is
going to wait and see if he gets more complaints from any other citizens and if so, bring
it back to the Board to institute a Towing Advisory. He thinks it is one of those things
that might just go away. He would like to know from Officer Wyatt how he came to the
conclusion on how this wreck occurred. He also asked for the officers to be reminded
that there is an explanation, it simply says, "We don't know "; the cause of the accident is
unknown. The reason he is adamant about this is this man was his friend and he knows
he was not going fifty (50) mph up the mountain, it is a personal thing, but he does not
see any reason to come up with an explanation why an accident occurred when we
really do not know.
Chairman Flora stated he would like to comment because he looked at
some of the numbers and there are some towing services that have almost no increase
for an accident and there are some that are over one hundred percent (100 %) increase
if it is an accident, to him that is outrageous. It may take a little more time, more
inconvenience, more paperwork but he cannot imagine having more than double your
regular rate just because it is an accident. If there is any way that Roanoke County can
do anything to keep that cost toward a reasonable level and not outrageous he is in
favor of doing it. He stated he would not object to an ordinance that puts it out to bid
and then you have to bid on it and then have contracts with the providers. Then, there
may be twenty (20) contracts and put on the list and go down the line. Some of these
fees are outrageous.
Supervisor Moore inquired if there was anyway somebody could contact
these towing companies and see if just by letter they could all charge the same thing.
Mr. Mahoney advised the county cannot do that, in that fashion, voluntarily all conspire
together to rig their prices. But, as Chairman Flora suggested there is a process we go
through, it is a long, involved process. Yes, you can appoint an Advisory Board, pass
an ordinance and then put a request for proposals out on the street and obtain a series
356 June 12, 2012
of contracts, which could be adjusted for example light, medium and heavy depending
on the type of accident. He stated there always seemed to be one bad apple that has
this outrageous charge that cannot be logically justified. There is always going to be a
citizen who believes they have been treated unfairly and what is the mechanism that
citizen has to appeal. He stated that is where he thinks the system falls down. Who do
you want to handle.
Mr. Hunter stated there are two sides to the coin, it is his understanding of
the situation that the accident occurred on Route 221, with limited access and the
longer it sits out there the more traffic that is backed up. This particular instance, this
vehicle was upside down and instead of dragging it onto a rollback, this company
brought a second truck out to pick it up and right it before they put it on the rollback to
prevent any further damage. The other side is if they just showed up and drug it on the
rollback would you have the same complaint? Supervisor Elswick responded that three
(3) people could have turned the trike over. Mr. Hunter then asked but what is the
liability of the three (3) people turning it over. He further added there is a Better
Business Bureau if someone is unhappy with a company in business, they can go that
route.
Acting Chief Holbrook stated one thing that was looked at some time ago,
if he understands the legislation correctly, what allows us to do the towing recovery fee
is limited to private property. So abandoning a disabled vehicle in the Tanglewood Mall
or Food Lion or Kroger parking lot is what the advisory panel can address, but when it is
on a public highway the Advisory Board could not reach out and deal with the situation.
When the Police Department tried to deal with some of the prices, we were unable to
influence that and the means by which we were trying to deal with that was to put
together a spreadsheet so that every driver that was out there and be shown what they
will charge so they will not be surprised. We cannot establish the rates for the
companies, but this was means for the officers to use. Unfortunately, if there is not a
person there we can ask, our default setting is the next on the list.
Supervisor Elswick stated he thinks our routine is fine, but it might not be a
bad idea to change things.
Mr. Goodman asked if it was the consensus of the Board for staff to
explore further what can be done to regulate fees; with all Board members in
agreement.
3. Work session to discuss authorization to proceed with sale of
certain properties identified by Roanoke County as surplus
properties (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development)
In attendance for this work session were Arnold Covey, Director of
Community Development and B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator. The work
session was held from 5:58 p.m. until 6:18 p.m. Mr. Goodman advised that the property
in Back Creek near the Public Safety Building that Supervisor Elswick has asked that
June 12, 2012 357
this property be removed from the list. This property will be taken down. Mr. Goodman
then stated the next item was ten (10) properties that the Board stated was marketable
and warranted further investigation. Mr. Goodman advised staff wants further direction
from the Board as to what the Board wants staff to do with these properties. There are
seven (7) residential lots in Westward Lake Estates; there are two (2) lots in Section 6,
Mount Vernon Heights and a 6.2 acre parcel off Grandin Road Extension. A description
of the items has been included and asks that the Board review and provide direction on
how they wish to proceed. The options are if the Board wants to do something they can
be listed for sale by a realtor, through procurement or hire an auctioneer to auction the
properties or the County can conduct a sale. Mr. Covey stated the only thing he would
add is that Nature's Emporium has heard about the sale of those two (2) lots behind
their facility on Brambleton, and they told him they would buy it and write a check today
for the assessed value.
Supervisor Church stated he had originally asked that this item be pulled
because he was absent on the day it was originally discussed. He noted that out of
fifty -five (55) properties, ten were identified and seven are in his area, which he strongly
objects to and has visited all the properties. There are seven lots in Westward Lakes
subdivision that about eight or nine years ago, Mr. Ed Kohinke, Sr., a former Board
member had written him a letter asking for the County to have a neighborhood area,
because there was no money to develop a park. Martha Hooker, Planning Commission,
who lives about fifty (50) yards from the back, her family and others walked all the sites
and agreed it would be pennies on a dollar. Why would any Board member want to sell
anything in today's market and if so, get rid of the Route 419 Library. He requested that
those seven be taken off. This does not belong to the Board of Supervisors; it is citizen,
taxpayer money. This property cannot be developed unless it is backfilled.
Supervisor Altizer stated so Supervisor Church is stating he wants this for
some kind of future park with Supervisor Church stating he was contacted by the
neighborhood about possibly taking over ownership, it ought to be given to them as it is
their money anyway.
Supervisor Elswick stated that in some situations there is land we ought to
hang on to, but in the case of the Back Creek property, if we had no planned use for it
and it was right next to this person's business, it would have been really beneficial for
them, plus there was no other access to it, that made sense, but the citizen has not
responded. If it is some business and they can use it and they are willing to pay a fair
price for it, and there are no plans for it at all, maybe we should sell.
Supervisor Altizer said it was his idea to see what properties were out
there to put back on the tax rolls, it has nothing to do with Supervisor Church's
insinuation that it only had to do with his district. Supervisor Church responded did
Supervisor Altizer not think it was a little glaring out of fifty -five (55) properties, ten (10)
were chosen and seven (7) of those are in his district. He reiterated it is the wrong time
to sell anything. Supervisor Altizer stated he did not think the premise of putting things
358 June 12, 2012
back on the tax rolls is incorrect. Secondly, he does not think we can give property to
anybody.
Chairman Flora stated it is $140,000 in value. Supervisor Church stated
there should be more of the fifty -five (55) originally chosen than this property to put back
on the tax rolls. Supervisor Altizer stated the County Administrator is the one that
selected the parcels. Supervisor Church then commented in that case the Board
needed to take another look at. Supervisor Altizer stated when he looks at
Westmoreland Drive, commercial property, he is sure anybody would give the assessed
value, but does not know what the market value would be.
Supervisor Moore stated there are three businesses that would probably
want to buy it, other than as a parking lot it is pretty much land- locked and how it is
zoned, you cannot get in. Mr. Covey stated there is also a business adjacent to it, the
burger place, and they would probably be interested too. He stated staff could go to a
realtor or some type of open public forum so that anyone interested has an opportunity.
He further advised just because they buy the land, does not mean they can do anything
with it because of the usage. It would have to have to be rezoned; it is now R -1.
Supervisor Church inquired where would the money go with Mr. Goodman
advising it would go to a capital account.
Supervisor Moore stated she had already been approached some time
last year about buying it.
Chairman Flora stated the Grandin Road Extension property was originally
purchased to be used as a Fire Station and a library. He noted he walked all over the
property because the schools were offered an opportunity to buy it and it did not fit into
their plan. It would be an excellent piece of property that could be turned into patio
homes. Mr. Goodman advised it is zoned R -1.
Supervisor Moore asked if someone buys the property subject to a
rezoning, would it be a conflict of interest for us to vote on. Mr. Mahoney explained he
thinks the Board would have a difficult time. So, the property would have to be sold as
is. Mr. Mahoney stated the Board could rezone it and sell it as commercial.
It was the consensus of the Board for Mr. Mahoney to discuss with the
Planners to see if the property fits the comprehensive plan.
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:24 p.m., Chairman Flora moved to go into closed meeting following
the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2 -3711 A.7 Consultation
with legal counsel and briefings by staff members pertaining to probable litigation,
namely, sectarian prayers and the Freedom From Religion Foundation correspondence.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
June 12, 2012 359
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
The closed session was held from 6:25 p.m. until 7:01 p.m. Supervisor
Elswick was unable to attend.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 7:01 p.m., Chairman Flora moved to return to open session and adopt
the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 061212 -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 Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Flora
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick
360
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
June 12, 2012
Chairman Flora adjourned the meeting at 7:02 p.m.
Submitted
Deborah &
Clerk to the :•. •
Approved by:
Richard C. Flora
Chairman