HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/13/2014 - RegularMay 13, 2014 359
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 May 2014. Audio and video recordings of
this meeting will be held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office of the Clerk
to the Board of Supervisors.
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
Before the meeting was called to order an invocation was given by
Maharaj Sharma. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman McNamara called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call
was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph P. McNamara, Supervisors Al Bedrosian,
Joseph B. "Butch" Church and P. Jason Peters
MEMBERS ABSENT: Supervisor Charlotte A. Moore
STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton
Goodman III,
County
Administrator; Daniel R.
O'Donnell,
Assistant
County
Administrator; Richard
Caywood,
Assistant
County
Administrator; Paul M.
Mahoney,
County Attorney;
Amy Whittaker, Public
Information
Officer and
Deborah
C. Jacks, Deputy Clerk to
the Board
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Proclamation declaring the week of May 18 through 24, 2014, as
Emergency Medical Services Week in the County of Roanoke
(Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief of Fire and Rescue)
The Deputy Clerk read the proclamation. Chief Burch gave the Board an
overview of Emergency Medical Services Week. Also in attendance were the following:
Dustin Campbell, Division Chief; Billy Duff, EMS Battalion Chief; and David Sizemore,
Captain. All Supervisors offered their thanks for their heroic services.
360 May 13, 2014
2. Representatives from the American National University in Salem will
present the Fire and Rescue Department with their Distinguished
Community Employer award (Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief of Fire
and Rescue)
Ms. Lisa R. Harbert, Clinical Director and Mr. Ron Bradbury, Campus
Director of the American National University (ANU) in Salem presented Chief Burch on
behalf of the Fire and Rescue Department with the ANU Distinguished Community
Employer award.
3. Proclamation declaring the month of May as National Cooperative
Extension Centennial Celebration Month (B. Clayton Goodman III,
County Administrator)
Mr. Goodman outlined the proclamation and the proclamation was read by
the Deputy Clerk. Deb Chappel was in attendance to accept the proclamation.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to adopt the Roanoke County School Budget for the
fiscal year 2014 -2015 (Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance; C.
Drew Barrineau, Chairman, Roanoke County School Board; Dr.
Lorraine Lange, Superintendent of Schools
A- 051314 -1
Mr. Barrineau thanked the Board for working together with the School
Board and thanked them for their support. Dr. Lange outlined the School's request.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he just had a couple of questions regarding
the revenue sharing, he is probably the only member not in favor because he thought
we were giving more revenue, but there were less students. When you look at the
future of public education, he sees the trend started in the 2007 -2008 year, with a peak
of 14,800 and this year 13,000 so there are a thousand students less, which is seven to
eight percent (7 to 8 %) over that period of time, but yet we are spending more money.
We are actually giving more money to the schools than they had last year and as a
whole their budget is increasing. Where are we going with this as we look to the future
and seeing the decline. During our meeting, we were told we would have a decline in
the average daily membership. Mr. Barrineau stated what they had devised prior to this
year was a revenue sharing agreement that we determined over time was probably
difficult for the County to meet. We met this year and we looked into a new revenue
sharing agreement where we would look at a number of population growth on the
May 13, 2014 361
County side, a decrease in growth on the School side and use a three -year rolling
average, so that one particular spike or a couple of spikes would not necessarily have a
negative impact one way or the other. Gradually, over time the dollars (the fifty percent
(50 %) that comes from the County could change over time as population increases or
decreases. When we discussed, he thought all the Board members were on board with
this and in answer to Mr. Bedrosian's questions he would guess that if they had a
continued decline in population ultimately, there would be less money as a percentage
of the County budget coming to the schools. Whether it is whole dollars or not, he does
not know because we are all hoping for revenue growth throughout the County. All of
us need some type of growth to maintain the status of our employees, etc. He stated
they have cut 240 full -time equivalents and we made a number of operating changes
and if you go back and look, we have done this the right way and relayed this to the
County. Ultimately if you look at what has been adopted with regard to the revenue
sharing agreement, as revenues rise as a percentage of what is given the schools
would decline over time, but he could not tell exactly when that would be without looking
at the formula. Supervisor Bedrosian stated he constantly hears over and over again,
and there was an article in the newspaper talking about since the recession in 2008,
less people are having children so it does seem like in the future enrollments are
declining. Mr. Barrineau stated Dr. Lange has also mentioned when comparing to the
jurisdictions around Roanoke County, we have the lowest per pupil cost. Supervisor
Bedrosian asked what is this number, do we know? Dr. Lange advised for the fiscal
year 2013 was $9,627, Roanoke City is $11,824, City of Salem is $10,640, Franklin
County is $10,341, Botetourt is $9,996 and Montgomery County is $9,928. Supervisor
Bedrosian asked to calculate this number you would take all the local, state and retail
tax and federal money they get divide by the number of students. Dr. Lange stated
Roanoke County gets very little federal money. Mr. Barrineau advised half of their
budget comes from Roanoke County and half comes from the State. Supervisor
Bedrosian stated what would happen if the revenue would increase but a decline in the
students, the schools will still get more money because the revenue is going up even
though student enrollment is declining and that is what we saw this year. This kind of
bothers him. Mr. Barrineau stated what they look at is trying to treat all County
employees the same; we have approximately twice as many employees as what you
have on the County side of the aisle. So, when they do a raise, we like to give all
County workers a raise regardless of whether they work for the School system or the
Board of Supervisors. What goes into that factor is an acknowledgement that our
payroll is twice as large as your payroll and there are some other costs as well. Ms.
Owens could probably explain it better than he can as he has not looked at in a couple
of months. He stated he thinks it takes in all the factors that we have looked at in the
past. Both Boards have decided that neither side would give a raise unless both sides
gave a raise. He noted that Mr. Bedrosian should recall that the money they received
from the State this year, virtually one hundred percent (one hundred percent) went to
increases in VRS. It was kind of a net zero. He stated he may be off a little bit but
362 May 13, 2014
basically all new money from the State went to mandatory VRS. So, he thinks the
formula that we worked provides peace of mind that all County employees, it looks at
growth, it looks at enrollment or population increases over time and it will factor all of
that in over a rolling three -year period. Supervisor Bedrosian then asked out of the
2,000 employees, you mentioned reduced employee count by a couple of hundred. Dr.
Lange stated 238. Supervisor Bedrosian then asked what the percentage of employees
that work for the school that are actual teachers and support or ratio. There are 2,000
employees for the school. Dr. Lange advised there are about 1,100 to 1,200 teachers
and approximately $1,000 support. Of the 238, there were 117 teachers that were
reduced.
Supervisor Church commented that we have come a long way and
recognizes the State of Virginia has been a challenge. It appears there are good things
on the horizon.
Chairman McNamara commented schools are number one in the
economic development area. He added that they do a great job and has the support of
the Board.
Supervisor Bedrosian commented the reason he asked questions is
because he is accountable for people's money in Roanoke County as we all are. So, it
is important to him to be able to listen and understand what we are doing. Eighty -three
percent (83 %) of the expenditures are for personnel and you have said you have a very
high cost for personnel because that is what teaching is, education. When we look at
the salary increases, it is two percent (2 %) that you put in the budget. What is the
payroll that we are taking the two percent (2 %) of? What is that going to be? Ms.
Owens responded for the school, one percent (1 %) is approximately $900,000 so at the
most would be $1.8 million. He then asked salary ranges were. In Roanoke County it is
$25,000 and up. Mr. Barrineau stated the lower end would be in transportation, and full
time with aides. Bus aides that just ride the bus with the children in the morning or
afternoon are the lowest paid and they are only on the bus when the children go to
school and is for special needs children only. Supervisor Bedrosian asked if they would
receive a raise with Mr. Barrineau stating all employees would get a raise. Dr. Lange
stated that would go from $5,735 to $12,473. Supervisor Bedrosian asked what the
average full time work salary would be. Dr. Lange stated teachers star at about
$36,000 and some that have been in the system for forty (40) years and with
endorsements of a Master's degree and some have a Doctorate it could probably get to
the mid to upper $50,000. The custodian function has been outsourced. There are
some grandfathered. Supervisor Bedrosian commented on the wide range at Roanoke
County and he is trying to get an idea. Dr. Lange stated the same would apply.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated so you have figured this is the best way to give raises. Dr.
Lange stated some years it has been done differently because there are different
responsibilities at a higher level, i.e. work more hours and if they are under contract like
principals they are expected to be a night activities as well as early morning activities.
Mr. Barrineau stated they have also made a slight adjustment for a few and passed
May 13, 2014 363
along the health care and for those that the increase did not cover their healthcare, they
came them a bump to keep them whole. This was probably less than twenty employees.
Supervisor Peters moved to approve the staff recommendation to adopt
the School Budget for fiscal year 2014 -2015. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
2. Resolution adopting the Virginia Stormwater Permit Application
Schedule (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development)
Mr. Covey outlined the request for the resolution. One correction that
needed to be made was on page 3 within the resolution on the fee table, item one
should be table one instead of table two.
Supervisor Bedrosian commented there would be no increase this year for
residents and may be postponing the inevitable. He then asked if fees will increase
after July 1, 2014, to develop property with Mr. Covey responding in the affirmative.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated it is not a whole lot, but he is concerned about the
economy, but obviously they pass on those costs to the consumer with Mr. Covey
responding in the affirmative. What is the net? Mr. Covey stated as an example at a
commercial site, an additional State fee would be $81 and the Roanoke County fee
would be $209. The increase would be approximately $290 after July 1, 2014. Mr.
Covey responded the State has exempt residential construction.
Supervisor Peters asked for clarification on what was discussed during the
work session that this is not just a fee that Roanoke County is going to take because we
can. There will be more responsibility coming to the County and we will be issuing the
permit originally that came of Richmond. Mr. Covey responded in the affirmative. Mr.
Covey stated that would also include the documentation, which takes a lot of time and
effort and tracking. Annual reports will need to be submitted to DEQ. The fee is going
to be paying for the staff to do all of this. Mr. Covey responded in the affirmative and
noted it would not cover.
Chairman McNamara clarified this is not a stormwater management fee that
we have seen a lot of the other localities including Roanoke City just adopted last week.
It is still our hope that we will be able to avoid those going forward. This is simply an
application schedule that has been developed by the State that had certain
requirements on the County and certain fees and where those fees would be remitted
either the County or the State.
364 May 13, 2014
RESOLUTION 051314 -2 ADOPTING A VIRGINIA STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (VSMP) SCHEDULE OF FEES
WHEREAS, Section 62.1- 44.15:28 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, provides
that the State Water Control Board shall establish by regulation a statewide permit fee
schedule to cover costs associated with the implementation of a Virginia Stormwater
Management Program; and
WHEREAS, the following regulations (9VAC25- 870 -820, 9VAC25- 870 -825
9VAC25- 870 -830) adopted by the State Water Control Board establish the fees set out
in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 of the attached fee schedule; and
WHEREAS, Section 23 -3.9. of the Stormwater Management Ordinance
(Ordinance 042214 -12) provides that a fee schedule for implementation of the VSMP
land disturbing activities and the issuance of general permits for discharges of
stormwater from construction activities shall be established and imposed from time to
time by the Board of Supervisors by resolution.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows
1 . That the "Roanoke County Department of Community Development
Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Schedule of Fees ", as set out
below, is hereby adopted in order to implement the requirements of Chapter 23.
"Stormwater Management Ordinance ", as provided in Section 23 -3.9.
2. That this resolution shall be effective from and after July 1, 2014.
Roanoke County Department of Community Development
Virainia Stormwater Manaaement Proaram (VSMP) Schedule of Fees
Fee Table 1 — Coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater
from Construction Activities
1. 50% of total fee is due with original submittal. Remaining fee is due prior to issuance
of coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from
Construction Activities.
2. When a site or sites are purchased for development within a previously permitted
common plan of development or sale, the applicant shall be subject to fees ( "total
fee to be paid by applicant" column) in accordance with the disturbed acreage of
their site or sites.
3. Applicant pays total fee to County. County will transfer the State portion of fee to
State.
4. A single - family detached residential structure, within or outside of a common plan of
development or sale, is not required to pay the state portion of the total fee.
May 13, 2014 365
Total
County
State
fee
portion
portion
of Fee"
of Fee"
(72 %)
(28 %)
A.
General / Stormwater Management - Small
$209
$209
$0
Construction Activity /Land Clearing (Single - family
detached residential structure, sites or areas within
common plans of development or sale with land -
disturbance acreage less than one acre)
B.
General / Stormwater Management - Small
$290
$209
$81
Construction Activity /Land Clearing (Areas within
common plans of development or sale with land -
disturbance acreage less than one acre)
C.
General /Stormwater Management — Small
$209
$209
$0
Construction Activity /Land Clearing (Single - family
detached residential structure, sites or areas within or
outside a common plan of development or sale that is
equal to or greater than 1 acre but less than 5 acres)
D.
General / Stormwater Management - Small
$2,700
$1,944
$756
Construction Activity /Land Clearing (Sites, or areas
within common plans of development or sale, with
land- disturbance acreage equal to or greater than one
acre and less than five acres)
E.
General / Stormwater Management - Large
$3,400
$2,448
$952
Construction Activity /Land Clearing (Sites, or areas
within common plans of development or sale, with
land- disturbance acreage equal to or greater than five
acres and less than 10 acres)
F.
General / Stormwater Management - Large
$4,500
$3,240
$1,260
Construction Activity /Land Clearing (Sites, or areas
within common plans of development or sale, with
land- disturbance acreage equal to or greater than 10
acres and less than 50 acres)
%_01
May 13, 2014
G.
General / Stormwater Management - Large
$6,100
$4,392
$1,708
Construction Activity /Land Clearing (Sites, or areas
disturbance acreage less than one acre)
B.
General / Stormwater Management — Small Construction Activity /Land
within common plans of development or sale, with land -
Clearing (Sites, or areas within common plans of development or sale, with
disturbance acreage equal to or greater than 50 acres
acres)
and less than 100 acres)
General / Stormwater Management — Large Construction Activity /Land
$250
H.
General / Stormwater Management - Large
$9,600
$6,912
$2,688
Construction Activity /Land Clearing (Sites, or areas
D.
General / Stormwater Management — Large Construction Activity /Land
$300
within common plans of development or sale, with
Clearing (Sites, or areas within common plans of development or sale, with
land- disturbance acreage equal to or greater than 10 acres and less than
land- disturbance acreage equal to or greater than 100
50 acres)
acres)
Fee Table 2 — Modification or Transfer of Registration Statements for the General
Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities (VSMP)
1. Applies to modification or transfer of registration statements.
2. If changes result in changes to stormwater management plans that require additional
review by the County, reviews shall be subject to the fees set out in this section.
The fee shall be based on the total disturbed acreage of the site. In addition to the
modification fee, modifications resulting in an increase in total disturbed acreage
shall pay the difference in the initial state permit fee paid and the permit fee that
would have applied for the total disturbed acreage, on Fee Table 1.
A.
General / Stormwater Management — Small Construction Activity /Land
$20
Clearing (Areas within common plans of development or sale with land
disturbance acreage less than one acre)
B.
General / Stormwater Management — Small Construction Activity /Land
$200
Clearing (Sites, or areas within common plans of development or sale, with
land- disturbance acreage equal to or greater than one and less than five
acres)
C.
General / Stormwater Management — Large Construction Activity /Land
$250
Clearing (Sites, or areas within common plans of development or sale, with
land- disturbance acreage equal to or greater than five acres and less than
10 acres)
D.
General / Stormwater Management — Large Construction Activity /Land
$300
Clearing (Sites, or areas within common plans of development or sale, with
land- disturbance acreage equal to or greater than 10 acres and less than
50 acres)
May 13, 2014 367
E.
General / Stormwater Management — Large Construction Activity /Land
$450
Clearing (Sites, or areas within common plans of development or sale, with
land- disturbance acreage equal to or greater than 50 acres and less than
B.
100 acres)
$400
F.
General / Stormwater Management — Large Construction Activity /Land
$700
Clearing (Sites, or areas within common plans of development or sale, with
land- disturbance acreage equal to or greater than 100 acres)
Fee Table 3 — Annual Maintenance Fees for Coverage under the General Permit
for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities (VSMP)
1. The following annual permit maintenance fees apply to each permit identified below.
These fees shall apply until the permit coverage is terminated.
2. Annual maintenance fees are due to the County by April 1St of each calendar year,
for permits issued in a previous calendar year, to maintain coverage under the
General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities.
3. Permit coverage will lapse if the annual maintenance fee is not paid by the time
stated in note 2.
A.
General / Stormwater Management — Small Construction Activity /Land
$50
Clearing (Areas within common plans of development or sale with land -
disturbance acreage less than one acre)
B.
General / Stormwater Management — Small Construction Activity /Land
$400
Clearing (Sites, or areas within common plans of development or sale,
with land- disturbance equal to or greater than one acre and less than five
acres)
C.
General / Stormwater Management — Large Construction Activity /Land
$500
Clearing (Sites, or areas within common plans of development or sale,
with land- disturbance acreage equal to or greater than five acres and less
than 10 acres)
D.
General / Stormwater Management — Large Construction Activity /Land
$650
Clearing (Sites, or areas within common plans of development or sale,
with land- disturbance acreage equal to or greater than 10 acres and less
than 50 acres)
E.
General / Stormwater Management — Large Construction Activity /Land
$900
Clearing (Sites, or areas within common plans of development or sale,
with land- disturbance acreage equal to or greater than 50 acres and less
than 100 acres)
368 May 13, 2014
F. General / Stormwater Management — Large Construction Activity /Land $1,400
Clearing (Sites, or areas within common plans of development or sale,
with land- disturbance acreage equal to or greater 100 acres)
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
NAYS: None
3. Resolution adopting a Stormwater Management Design Manual
for Roanoke County to be effective July 1, 2014 (Tarek Monier,
Deputy Director of Development)
Mr. Monier outlined the request for a resolution to adopt a Stormwater
Management Design Manual and advised it complies with the Stormwater Ordinance
and there is no fiscal impact on Roanoke County.
RESOLUTION 051314 -3 ADOPTING A STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROANOKE COUNTY
WHEREAS, Section 23 -1.8 of the Roanoke County Code provides for the
adoption of a Stormwater Management Design Manual; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County will utilize the policies, criteria and information
contained in this design manual for the proper implementation and requirements of the
Stormwater Management Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, this design manual shall be authorized and approved by the Board
of Supervisors by resolution.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows
1 . That the Stormwater Management Design Manual approved by the Board
of Supervisors pursuant to the 2007 Stormwater Management Ordinance is hereby
repealed.
2. That the "Stormwater Management Design Manual" is hereby adopted in
order to implement the requirements of Chapter 23. "Stormwater Management
Ordinance ", as provided in Section 23 -1.8.
3. That this resolution shall be effective from and after July 1, 2014.
May 13, 2014 369
On motion of Supervisor Bedrosian to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
4. Request to adopt a
(VRS) approving the
biennium beginning
Finance)
Resolution to Virginia
employer contribution
July 1, 2014 (Rebecca
Retirement System
rate option for the
Owens, Director of
Ms. Owens outlined the request to adopt the resolution. The alternate rate
of eleven point two percent (11.2 %) is proposed.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked Ms. Owens to explain in layman's term the
VRS setup. Ms. Owens explained VRS is the retirement plan offered to employees.
Every two years VRS does a calculation to determine how much the employer needs to
be contribute to fund. The employee pays five percent (5 %) of their total salary. There
are now three retirement plans based on when the employee entered into the local
government and years of service. A number of variables are considered into the
calculation. So the rate can go up or down. A report is provided every two (2) years by
an independent actuary. The calculation is based on the highest three years of
earnings and the formula is very complicated. Supervisor Bedrosian then asked Ms.
Owens to simplify and use $100,000 and worked all those years, would they get half or
$50,000 after they retire. He advised he is trying to relate it to what the private sector
does. Ms. Owens advised it would depend upon when they entered the system, what
age they are when they retire and what the expected length of time they will draw the
benefit out. It also depends whether they would take a survivor benefit option, a plop.
She stated she would hesitate to just throw out a number, but it is a very good benefit
plan for the government employees. Supervisor Bedrosian stated we go through these
discussions all the time about salaries, etc. and with this kind of funding of a program he
would think the retirement plans would be very good. It is a good hefty funding of the
plan. He would like a work session on this. He is always answering questions and
people may be scared by what is going on in the government. Can we actually continue
to fund these kinds of retirement programs? He would be curious, just give one or two
examples. Ms. Owens advised she would be happy to also include some of the reform
initiatives that VRS has with regard to two additional retirement plans.
Chairman McNamara commented the good thing is that it is not going up next
year. It will not be part of our budget next year because it will be 11.12 %. VRS is part
of the benefits of working in the public service industry. It is not an option of Roanoke
County to participate or not participate in the Virginia Retirement System, which is
something people factor in when deciding whether or not to work for Roanoke County,
370 May 13, 2014
City of Blacksburg, etc. Rule of thumb for someone making $100,000 and working thirty
(30) years would be in the one point seven percent (1.7 %) range or fifty percent (50 %).
It is roughly comparable to what the larger private industry used to have as retirement
programs in the past. Now they have made changes and there will probably be
changes in the public sector and more to come. It is not a decision for us, but for the
legislature to deal with.
RESOLUTION 051314 -4 TO VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEM
(VRS) APPROVING THE EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION RATE
OPTION FOR THE BIENNIUM BEGINNING JULY 1, 2014
BE IT RESOLVED, that the County of Roanoke -55180 does hereby
acknowledge that its contribution rates effective July 1, 2014, shall be based on the
higher of a) the contribution rate in effect for FY 2014, or b) eighty percent of the
results of the June 30, 2013, actuarial valuation of assets and liabilities as approved
by the Virginia Retirement System Board of Trustees for the 2014 -16 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, 2013,
actuarial value of assets and liabilities (the "Certified Rate "); and
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the County of Roanoke -55180 does hereby certify
to the Virginia Retirement System Board of Trustees that it elects to pay the following
contribution rate effective July 1, 2014:
(Check only one box)
The Certified Rate of % X The Alternate Rate of 11.12% and
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED, that the County of Roanoke -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 the County of Roanoke -55180 are hereby
authorized and directed in the name of the County of Roanoke to carry out the
provisions of this resolution, and said officers of the County of Roanoke 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 County of Roanoke for this purpose.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
May 13, 2014 371
5. Resolution supporting Congressional action to enact E- Fairness
Legislation in support of local brick and mortar businesses with
Roanoke County (B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator)
Mr. Goodman outlined the supporting resolution that relates to sales tax
and the internet.
Chairman McNamara commented he felt it patently unfair to have different
tax rates depending upon where somebody is located for a product coming to the same
household and supports this one hundred percent (100 %).
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he would have preferred having this
information in a work session. He stated he would love to have some of the business
folks from Roanoke County in. Everyone always brings this up and he does not have "a
horse in this race." However, he looks at it if you are on the internet you have shipping
costs and a local company does not have shipping costs. He looks at both sides with
some damage, local store is visible, internet you cannot see. He advised before he
would sign off on any kind of resolution, he reiterated we need a work session and hear
from actual businesses in Roanoke County and hear both sides of this before he jumps
into agreeing on a resolution.
Supervisor Peters stated well he has made his way out to stores and he
has spoken to a jewelry store and that is one of the complaints they have. They are a
small store and somebody will come in and find something after looking at all the rings
and then goes online and buys it. There is a competitive advantage; even though there
are shipping costs they are far less than the taxes they would pay at a local store. He
further added as he looks at Roanoke County and our revenues and our sales tax and
he is thinking we are just letting this money go right through our fingertips. He added he
agrees with Chairman McNamara in fully supporting this and would like to see it move
forward.
Supervisor Church stated Mr. Goodman has mentioned right away this is
very complex. He stated he would probably end up voting for this but is not sure he
would vote for it today because he does not have enough information. In his opinion, he
thinks there are a lot of pro's and con's. He would prefer to put on next agenda.
Chairman McNamara then removed his motion and asked that it be put on
the next Board meeting as an action item.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated are we trying to do the right thing, it this
about revenue and reiterated his request for a work session.
Chairman McNamara stated for him it was a very clear issue.
Supervisor Peters stated it is not about revenue, it is about keeping
business here. It is about supporting our local businesses. He stated he believed a
work session would be a waste of the Board's time. He suggested to go out and talk to
the small business owners. They are the ones being hurt by this, not the Staples of the
372 May 13, 2014
world. The small business owners are the ones being hurt by this.
Chairman McNamara advised staff to put the item on the evening session
for the May 27, 2014, meeting and add a work session and spend a few minutes talking
about it between the two sessions.
Supervisor Church inquired if this was so easy to ascertain, why has it
taken Congress two years, he is just not ready to jump in until he sees how deep the
water is.
Supervisor Peters reiterated that each Board member should spend some
time with our small business owners and get their input.
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance to appropriate funds for the fiscal year 2014 -2015
budget and approval of the Classification Plan for fiscal year
2014 -2015 (W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management and
Budget)
Mr. Robertson outlined the ordinance and advised of two changes: The
first is item number six that all general fund unexpended appropriations at the end of
2013/2014 not lapsed shall be appropriated as provided by Resolution 111213 -12.e that
updates a previous resolution of the Board. This is where we changed from forty
percent (40 %) of the unappropriated transferred to the minor capital fund and is now
thirty -five (35 %). Also, instead of sixty percent (60 %) of the unexpended appropriations
it shall be fifty -five percent (55 %) shall be appropriated to the same department.
Additionally, ten percent (10 %) of the unexpended appropriations shall be transferred to
the technology reserve. The second change is in Item 7, there is a slight typo, the
resolution number reading 061411 -6.f should read 122104 -5. The only other is in Item
10 where account balances remaining in funds 111 through 175, 310, 510, 655, 700,
810 814, 815, and 895 will carryover one hundred percent (100 %) and be
reappropriated to the individuals. Prior appropriation ordinances referred to 111 -175.
Ms. Owens advised this was a housekeeping item whereby there are some additional
funds through the year such as Length of Service Awards Program and other post
employment benefits and South Peak CDA. Others that had not been included in the
past and is not sure why, County Debt, the internal service funds where they capture
the information for our health, dental and risk management funds, special welfare, the
Regional Training Center, the Commonwealth Fund and the Regional Center for Animal
Control and Protection.
Mr. Mahoney reviewed a new paragraph eleven (11), which is attempting
to address the procedure for the Board for handling various miscellaneous items, grants
and things of that nature. Several questions have been raised with respect to the
Board's agenda, "why do you have so many items on first reading of ordinances and
second reading of ordinances that are non - controversial. For example, today's item F -4
May 13, 2014 373
through F -8. These are items that the Board routinely approves, someone is giving a
donation to the County or we get a grant through the State for teachers to do some
additional work for special needs children. The Board routinely approves those and
they are non - controversial. So, paragraph eleven (11) is attempting to say when these
grants, miscellaneous revenue items, donations, etc. during the course of the year and
Ms. Owens and Mr. Robertson has gone back and anticipated the appropriation so it
can be done upfront. The idea is to simplify or streamline the process. Second, still
having transparency for our citizens and openness of government that item would still
come back to the Board for your acknowledgement and allocation to the appropriate
fund and department under the Consent Agenda. Third, each individual Board member
still has appropriate oversight because any Board member can pull an item off consent
agenda, ask questions, and challenge it, whatever. Staff is recommending the
simplification of the agenda.
Supervisor Church stated he has a proposal, something a little different.
He will probably have to refer to Mr. Goodman. When we had the work session on the
salary adjustment upstairs, we have talked about the people on the low end of the
salary range. It is part of public record, but he did say two percent (2 %) for Mr.
Goodman is $3,200 and he responded to keep it. When he started looking at excel
spreadsheets and two percent (2 %) for the man or woman in the custodial department
is $400. It would take them how many years to get anywhere close to what the top end
is making. Is that justification for what he is going to propose? He does not know. If
you start doing the math and we took a different approach, for example, give every
employee $1,200. The figures show that eighty -eight percent (88 %) of our employees
would be better off. He knows it is an unusual twist, but how can the bookkeeping really
be that hard. It is reoccurring, it is a raise. He really feels that the lower end are not
being treated fairly. We have another two weeks. Why don't we think about this
proposal? It is a little bit unusual, but unusual in a positive way. There are probably
800 employees that hope this Board may consider this because it gives them $1,200.
For that man or woman that is fighting the same wars that all of us are trying to make
ends meet, why don't we consider taking a look at this. With all due respect to Mr.
Goodman, the thought he had with Mr. Goodman retiring the end of July we are going to
be looking for a new administrator. The point being why don't we at least set back this
market adjustment and wait on the new administrator. We were told in the work
session, it is entry so that we do not lose people that we train. In looking through the
printout, there are thousands upon thousands of dollars. We love our employees, but
he is trying to look at things in a larger circle or bubble that when you look at the
adjustments in some items, they are not entry level. They range from $4,000 to $6,000
each. It is not saying it is illegal or unearned, but his point is why not take a broader
look and let a brand new administration take a look at this very quickly.
Supervisor Church made a motion approve the budget with a modification
to the classification plan to give every employee a $1,200 increase, bottom to top, and
defer the salary adjustments until a new administrator takes office.
374 May 13, 2014
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he had asked for numbers and the reason for
doing that was to find where everybody stood in the County to see what the impact
really is. Supervisor Peters had stated in the last meeting and it stuck in his brain.
When you talk about percentages, you really don't look at salaries. He has also done a
lot of computation on this based on the information that Supervisor Church has
mentioned because he thought there might be a better way. He added he had never
been for this whole market adjustment. He finds that we are just picking and choosing.
He really thinks that if you are going to give employees in the County some more money
is fine because we are not against anybody making more money. It is the folks at the
bottom end that need it; two percent (2 %) of $25,000 is $500. After taxes, he might
have enough for a cup of coffee. It is not a whole lot of money. So it seems like and
another point is that since Mr. Goodman is leaving, this market adjustment is really
based on some subjective information and some reports we were given and really ought
to be made by the next County Administrator and just concentrate on salary increases.
Additionally, if you gave everybody around $1,000 you would have about three quarters
of the employees better off than with a two percent (2 %) raise. The reality is most
employees make less than $50,000. The other thing that would do is make a good faith
deposit as a deposit on our real estate reduction of taxes. He actually thinks it has
some credence and he has looked at the numbers and he thinks it would work to the
benefit of more County employees.
Supervisor Peters stated he does not know what reports they are looking
at. A firefighter with a market adjustment would be $2,100 so how are you getting
$1,200 better off and it puts it back in where they need to me. The homework is what it
is. If you want to pick up the local paper you will see what Roanoke City starts their
firemen at, Salem starts their firemen at; you can see it. It is not magic and as he looks
back over this $1,200 does not touch any of these; the sheriff, the police department,
the deputy sheriff is starting out with a market adjustment of $2,290. So, are we going
to keep kicking the can down the road instead of getting these people where they need
to be and show them we have respect for our employees and we are tired of them
leaving as we have discussed in our work session? Chief Hall has stated $1.5 million
has walked out the door because we are not paying where we need to be. As he looks
back through the numbers, this just does not make sense. He stated he had made
some other notes because he was sure this was going to come up. We have roughly
925 employees, 585 of those employees are below the range of their salary when you
compare it to neighboring municipalities. Out of the 585 employees, the ones who need
market adjustments, 357 employees are in our public safety area with 328 in non - public
safety. First we need to be aware that 357 are front -line dispatchers, our sheriff's
department, police, fire and EMS are behind in pay versus their counterparts in
neighboring areas. Now, he is sure there will be some controversy of the other 228 that
need to be bumped up, but, let's talk about who they are. They are our trash and refuse
collectors; they are not our front lines. It is fire and rescue administrative positions, our
May 13, 2014 375
mechanics, our library staff, social services and our folks at Parks and Recreation. The
public is being led to belief by Board members at times that we are giving money away
to top earners in the County. This is simply not true. He as one Board member realize
that one of our greatest assets, our employees, and the experience they bring to the
table. We, as a Board, need to respect that and maintain quality -based employees for
our citizens. To reiterate, a large portion of our employees are receiving the market
adjustment are the people you and I see on the street protecting us, fighting our fires,
saving our lives, who our children see at the library and those who are keeping our
facilities and our equipment maintained. Looking at the same report, $1,200 is not
touching where we need to be. We have lost too many people at this point to kick the
can down the road another year.
Supervisor Church stated with all due respect he was not looking at the
market adjustment, just the two percent (2 %) salary. He stated he does not mean
eliminate, just delay until the next administrator. We are talking about helping eight -
eight percent (88 %) of our employees with the market adjustment not being there. He
stated he is not turning his back on anybody in Roanoke County; he is trying to be
inclusive.
Chairman McNamara commented he thinks we have spent a lot of time
working with Human Resources trying to evaluate the proper allocation of funds in this
entire budget; not just payroll but all allocation of funds. We have established what we
thought was the most important and highest criteria actions. It appears and we
challenged the administration and human resources where there are problems where
people are not being paid appropriately, let's fix it. Tell us what it is going to take to fix it
and let's make it happen. To pass on that at this point, is a very, very big mistake. He
thinks the employees deserve it. He thinks we have laid it out for them. He thinks they
expect it. He thinks it is fair. He also thinks that it appears as though we are going to
need a full Board to pass this proposal, but we may not. With that in mind, he made a
substitute motion to approve the staff recommendation with the changes that have been
made with the corrections that were made by Mr. Robertson.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he hoped we were not rushing through
because he would like to spend some time on this, especially since it is people's money.
He always gets concerned when we couch it as somebody wants to support the
employees and hope we get past that. It is just silly. Everybody is here to do best job
possible and we appreciate the employees. He thinks we need to not go back to that. If
we just look at the numbers, the reality is that we do not have unlimited money, we
know that. We live within a budget at Roanoke County. We are going to be looking at
$20 million for schools, $8 million for a Library to be added to our debt and if he is not
mistaken, we will push the debt up to $200 million. Ms. Owens advised at June 30,
2015, our debt will be $188 million. We are at $180 million now. Supervisor Bedrosian
said there will probably be another project, etc. His only problem is that we had a
trajectory at one of our meetings that the debt over the next year would be going down.
It will not be going down, it will be going up that concerns him for the citizens, because
376 May 13, 2014
we have to pay interest on that debt and we pay a lot of interest. Having said that one
of the important initives we need to look at is how do we spend money the best possible
way so that next year that the pressure does not become so great that you have to raise
taxes. We have had that conversation before where we may get to the point that we
either need to cut services or raise taxes. He does not want to get anywhere near that.
So, we cannot get everything we want all the time just because we want to give all the
raises and everybody have more money. What is reasonable so that we also can put a
little bit aside for a down payment on real estate reduction next year? If we just look at
a pay raise for everybody, and you look at everybody in the County, it is correct that
about ninety percent (90 %) of the people would be better off with just getting $1,200
from the low guy on up, they would make more just looking at the two percent (2 %)
increase versus giving them $1,200. You want to add market adjustments in to and that
is a whole other conversation. Market adjustments in the beginning we talked about all
these people who were leaving Roanoke County and moving to the City and making
more money. He specifically asked in work sessions, how many is that? He stated he
thinks we had fourteen, but when we actually looked at where they going to the City,
there were two. Other left because they made other job decisions. Roanoke County is
a great place to be, crime rate as we heard in the elections is a lot higher in Roanoke
City. They are dead last, so Roanoke County has some advantages, not all pay. Once
we try to equal everything, then what is Roanoke City going to do next year? They are
going to make more and we never end this cycle of always having to raise everybody to
match the City. His thing is that everybody should be paid a good salary; let's base it on
that. All these studies, he sees people with market adjustments and Supervisor Church
is seeing $7,000 market adjustments; some high market adjustments and he personally
does not think that is appropriate. In the tough times we have now, he would rather see
a flat rate and give the person making $30,000 to $40,000 the $1,200 instead of picking
and choosing people that should make a certain amount more or less. He thinks it is
very reasonable and he does not think it goes against saying people are important.
Everybody is important. Everything they do is important. Why should somebody get
$400 when somebody else is getting $3,600?
Chairman McNamara stated just for a clarification standpoint and that
everybody is aware, if there is a 2 -2 vote on a motion and there is an absent Board
member, which is what we have in today's situation, the motion would carry over to the
following meeting. If there is a 3 -1 positive, the motion will carry. If there is a 3 -1
negative, the motion will fail.
Supervisor Peters stated he would clarify two statements. He said
Roanoke City, he used that as his analogy in saying if you look in the paper Roanoke
City is paying more. He did not say that everybody is going to Roanoke City. As Chief
Hall expressed to us, people went all over; Town of Bedford. Some left completely
because they were not getting paid enough. His other statement was a little misleading.
Even with our debt that we have, it has been shown by our Director of Finance that our
debt will continue to go down even with adding projects. So, he wanted to clarify that.
May 13, 2014 377
The other part of this, $7,000, he did not catch that one in there; that is a lot of money.
He guessed that he looked at it if that person leaves, we are going to have to go out and
seek someone, we are probably going to pay that $7,000 anyway and all that
experience walked out the door. Chief Burch can add to his comments that we have
seen a lot of fireman walk out the door and go somewhere else because they can get
paid somewhere else and they like that experience and that training that next person in
line for a promotion walks out the door because the prior boards did not find this
something we should be challenged on. If it means putting off a project to do the
market adjustments he thinks we ought to do that because we do not need to continue
to kick this can down the road. He does not want to see any more experience leave
Roanoke County.
Supervisor Church stated he is not sure what putting off a project means.
So, maybe before he does too much farther. He is not sure what that is looking at.
Supervisor Peters responded spending the money for that project.
Chairman McNamara asked that all comments be directed to the chair.
Supervisor Church stated all he was trying to do was to look at an open
and fair proposition, with all due respect Mr. Chairman, he knows why he wanted him to
make a substitute motion; whatever this Board will do is fine. He was just trying to
simply take a look outside the box. He has talked to a lot of rank and file employees
and if they thought this was a possibility, they would love it. Who wouldn't? You have
not heard this supervisor say we are not doing market adjustments with a new
administrator; to the contrary. But, he does not know what the other project and that
really bothers him because we need to be looking out for the entire County. He really
does not know what this other project means. Nobody on this Board for any reason
should be held hostage to any kind of situation. Simply, this is not a divisive motion, it
was one that he thought would be inclusive and if it is determined differently by the full
Board so be it, but he just wanted to at least bring out the possibility for a chance for the
first time since he has been here to give people at the low end and all the way in
between an opportunity to advance. They are important; all of our people are important.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked for clarification; he wants to be truthful about
this and we keep going back and forth about debt just plummeting in Roanoke County,
just keeps going down. Is it not his understanding at the end of this fiscal year, our debt
will be what. Ms. Owens responded at the end of June 30, 2013, which we reviewed in
the work session, our debt balance was $184 million. Ms. Owens further added we are
not in the 2013/2014 fiscal year and we issued two bonds for the Vinton Library, we
have also made the required payments, etc. so at June 30, 2014, the balance will be
$180,931 and we have an item coming up further on the agenda to discuss bonds of
$20 million for the Glenvar High School and once we do that, if approved, that bond
issue plus all the requirement payments at June 30, 2015, our balance will be $188
million. Supervisor Bedrosian stated so just for clarification, when you go from $184
million in one year, then to $180 million and then to $188 million, that is going up. It
goes down, but we are higher on the $188 number than the $184 number. Ms. Owens
378 May 13, 2014
responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Bedrosian stated he just wanted to check his
math because we keep saying we are going down in debt. That is what he does not
understand.
Chairman McNamara closed debate and stated he would like to say that it
is somewhat confusing to him that we are debating new issues and so forth when one
particular Supervisor has stated he will not support any budget that has any raise for
any employee. He is somewhat concerned and perplexed that the new concern of the
lower paid employees. It appears, in his opinion, to complicate the function of the
County when we have talked about a budget for the past three months and to try to put
a change in our budget. If our change in the budget is to in fact lower our expenses on
employees as the gentleman from Hollins stated, then he thinks it is appropriate that we
also look at our capital plan and capital expenditures as well.
The substitute motion, which was the staff recommendation with the
typographical errors corrected was passed based on the following roll call vote.
AYES: Supervisors Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian
Supervisor Church commented with his vote that everybody in this room
and everybody watching knows exactly where he is coming from and he is not going to
jeopardize Glenvar High School because of something going on up here; he is just not
going to do it. He represents his people and he knows how to count to three. It is very
disconcerting to this Board member and hopes to everyone in the Glenvar area. It
wasn't mentioned, but twice we have talked about capital projects. He is smart enough
to know if he votes no on this, there is going to be some changes at Glenvar and he is
not going to do that. He does not like playing chicken and he wants to put out his
heartfelt feelings as to what he said earlier. This is not about something divisive, he
was really trying to help 88 out of 100 employees. Now, he is realistic because this is
going to be voted on and he voted yes on the substitute motion but recognizing what he
said, it is like a pendulum held over him.
2. Ordinance accepting and appropriating grant funds in the amount
of $1,279,503 from the Federal Regional Surface Transportation
Program to the Department of Community Development for fiscal
years 2014 -2016 for the Plantation Road Bicycle, Pedestrian and
Streetscape Improvement Project (David Holladay, Planning
Administrator)
Mr. Holladay outlined the request for the ordinance. Supervisor Bedrosian
stated he has been involved with this and discussing the whole project and wants to be
consistent. He advised he has requested for the project to be broken down and
itemized. He further added the project started off for pedestrian crossing and now a $7
May 13, 2014 379
million project. This is always disconcerting to him. He has not received the itemization
and stressed he would not approve all of the items.
Supervisor Bedrosian moved to approve the first reading and set the
second reading for May 27, 2014. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
3. Ordinance accepting and appropriating grant funds in the amount
of $511,130 from the Federal Transportation Alternatives Program
to the Department of Community Development for fiscal years
2013 -2014 for the Plantation Road Bicycle, Pedestrian and
Streetscape Improvement Project (David Holladay, Planning
Administrator)
Mr. Holladay outlined the ordinance. Supervisor Bedrosian reiterated his
comments from the other Plantation Road Project. He is still awaiting the itemization
and will not be supporting the whole project.
Supervisor Bedrosian moved to approve the first reading and set the
second reading for May 27, 2014. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
4. Ordinance accepting and appropriating funds in the amount of
$17,860.48 from The Roanoke Valley Career Education
Consortium to Roanoke County Public Schools for dissolution of
the consortium (Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance)
Ms. Owens outlined the ordinance. There was no discussion.
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the first reading and set the
second reading for May 27, 2014. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
�C :1
May 13, 2014
5. Ordinance accepting and appropriating grant funds in the amount of
$10,222.63 from the Virginia Department of Education to Roanoke
County Public Schools for Mentor Teacher Programs (Rebecca
Owens, Director of Finance)
Ms. Owens outlined the ordinance. There was no discussion.
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the first reading and set the
second reading for May 27, 2014. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
6. Ordinance accepting and appropriating $2,000 from the Virginia
Department of Education to Roanoke County Public Schools for
the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)
Teacher Recruitment and Retention Incentive Continuing Awards
(Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance)
Ms. Owens outlined the ordinance. There was no discussion.
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the first reading and set the
second reading for May 27, 2014. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
7. Ordinance accepting and appropriating $3,120 to Roanoke County
Public Schools for Elementary Gifted and Talented for the 2013-
2014 school year (Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance)
Ms. Owens outlined the ordinance. There was no discussion.
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the first reading and set the
second reading for May 27, 2014. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
8. Ordinance accepting and appropriating donations in the amount
of $250 from citizens donating in the memory of Mr. Michael H.
May 13, 2014 381
Farris for medical supplies for Fire /Rescue Station 7 (Clearbrook)
(Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief of Fire and Rescue)
Chief Simon outlined the ordinance. Supervisor Peters recommended that
copies of checks not be added to the information. There was no further discussion.
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the first reading and set the
second reading for May 27, 2014. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
9. Ordinance authorizing the issuance of not to exceed $20,000,000
of General Obligation School Bonds to be sold to the Virginia
Public School Authority (VPSA) and appropriation of funds in the
amount of $22,255,000 for the renovation of Glenvar High School
(Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance)
Supervisor Church asked that additional members be recognized, i.e.
Drew Barrineau, Chairman of the Roanoke County School Board; David Wymer, School
Board member representing the Catawba District; Dr. Martin W. Misicko, Director of
Operations; Joe Halley, Principal of Glenvar High School.
Mr. Barrineu advised this was the same presentation made at the joint
School Board meeting and would forward to post on the website. Dr. Misicko outlined
the request for the ordinance.
Ms. Owens outlined the costs of the project. The bids received May 7,
2014 and Branch and Associates has won the bid. Schools have previously
appropriated $3.7 million toward this project from capital reserves and the remaining
budget will be funded with debt - service fund cash and a proposed VPSA bond sale.
Additionally, she noted for clarification purposes the money that she mentioned from the
debt -fund cash reserves is the direct result of the intentional delay when no bonds were
sold in 2013. These represent the principal payments that were not made.
Chairman McNamara commented he and Chairman Barrineau had a
conversation earlier stating they have $24 million, spent $2 million so they have $26
million and of that $26 million and the School Board is coming up with $6 million and the
remaining $20 million and the School Board is coming up with 1 /2 half of that based upon
our debt plan. So, at the end of the day the schools are funding $16 out of $26 million
or sixty -five percent (65 %) of the cost of the renovation of the schools and they are
funding fifty percent (50 %) of the cost of the library. There are other jurisdictions that
are just looking wondering how we do all these things; he thinks it demonstrated a
strong commitment to work together.
382 May 13, 2014
Supervisor Church recognized David Wymer and Joe Haffey who spoke
on behalf of this project. Supervisor Church stated he feels Glenvar is one hundred
percent (100 %) a go.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he knows that the Board will approve this
four to one (4 to 1). He is very old- fashioned and the debt issues concern him greatly.
So, it is not an issue about schools and children, etc. He added the projects that he has
seen, thinks we are getting to the point where things are getting way too expensive.
This is his feeling and he thinks what is nice about our community is that we can all
have a difference of opinion and still all get along.
Supervisor Peters thanked Mr. Wymer, Mr. Canada, and Mr. Barrineau for
welcoming him as a new Board member. He is going to step back and refer to a
conversation he had two weeks ago with Mike Stovall and last Tuesday with Mike
Stovall at the election in Vinton and back to a Saturday morning when Mr. Wymer and
himself were in Chick -fil -A at Valleyview and we talked about this project. He will be
honest and he has said before. When we had our joint meeting, he was a little
embarrassed with the condition of the school and that we as a County had let it go that
far. He is going to make a statement that maybe he shouldn't. He thinks that
Supervisor Church's statement earlier was way of line; he is not holding anything
hostage. Mr. Wymer if you would like to give his support to this project months ago, he
is welcome to give it, but he supported it then and he supports it now. There are no
conditions to that and never have been and did not appreciate the insinuation or the
obstacle that was supposedly placed in the way. He is glad to see that a local company
is going to be our contractor; which is very important to him to keep the jobs and the
money here in the valley. He stated they have his full support and always have; both of
his children are over at William Byrd High School. Mr. Wymer was his Assistant
Principal when he was in school and he would not dare mislead him. Thank you for
everything you do.
Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for May 27, 2014. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS:
Supervisor Bedrosian
ABSENT:
Supervisor Moore
IN RE:
APPOINTMENTS
1. Board of Zoning Appeals (appointed by District)
Charlotte Moore has recommended the reappointment of Barry Beckner to
serve an additional five -year term to expire on June 30, 2019. Mr. Beckner has agreed
to serve if reappointed. Confirmation of this appointment has been placed on the
Consent Agenda for the Board's consideration.
May 13, 2014 383
2. Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission (appointed
by District)
Joseph McNamara has recommended the reappointment of Murray Cook
to serve an additional three -year term to expire on June 30, 2017. Mr. Cook has agreed
to serve if reappointed. Confirmation of this appointment has been placed on the
Consent Agenda for the Board's consideration.
Charlotte Moore has recommended the reappointment of Beth Doughty to
serve an additional three -year term to expire on June 30, 2017. Ms. Doughty has
agreed to serve if reappointed. Confirmation of this appointment has been placed on
the Consent Agenda for the Board's consideration.
3. Planning Commission (appointed by District)
Joseph McNamara has recommended the reappointment of Jim Woltz to
serve a four -year term to expire June 30, 2018. Mr. Woltz has agreed to serve if
reappointed. Confirmation of this appointment has been placed on the Consent Agenda
for the Board's consideration.
Jason Peters has recommended the reappointment of Rick James to
serve a four -year term to expire June 30, 2018. Mr. James has agreed to serve if
reappointed. Confirmation of this appointment has been placed on the Consent Agenda
for the Board's consideration.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 051314 -5 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM H- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for May 13,
2014, designated as Item H - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 4 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes — March 18, 2014; March 25, 2014
2. Confirmation of appointments to the Board of Zoning Appeals (appointed by
District); Parks Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission (appointed by
District) and the Planning Commission (appointed by District)
3. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
384 May 13, 2014
Roanoke County to Billy McDaniel, Building Maintenance Technician, upon
his retirement after more than thirty -seven (37) years of service
4. Resolution requesting acceptance of Stonecreek Way into the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) Secondary System
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
A- 051314 -5.a
RESOLUTION 051314 -5.b EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO BILLY H. MCDANIEL, BUILDING MAINTENANCE
TECHNICIAN, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN
THIRTY -SEVEN (37) YEARS
WHEREAS, Billy H. McDaniel was hired on November 3, 1976, and has served
as a Laborer, Maintenance Man, Building Maintenance Person and Building
Maintenance Technician; and
WHEREAS, Mr. McDaniel retired on March 1, 2014, after more than thirty -seven
(37) years of devoted, faithful and expert service with the County; and
WHEREAS, during his time serving Roanoke County, Mr. McDaniel saw many
changes in County buildings and building technology, including a switch to
computerized components and building automation systems; and
WHEREAS, Mr. McDaniel adapted to these changes and provided back up to his
fellow employees, consistently volunteering to be on call and working overtime; and
WHEREAS, during his last ten (10) years of service, Mr. McDaniel was
responsible for maintenance at one of the most important and busy facilities, the County
Courthouse complex in Salem, where he cared for a building under constant use by the
public, judges and three constitutional officers and their administrative staff.
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 BILLY H. MCDANIEL for more than thirty -seven (37)
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 McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
May 13, 2014 385
AYES: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 051314 -5.c REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
STONECREEK WAY INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (VDOT) 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
copy of this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of the
developer, whichever occurs last in time; and
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 McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
NAYS: None
IN RE: REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS
Supervisor Peters stated that the Board needs to spend time with
RCCLEAR and requested a work session on reshaping RCCLEAR to be held no later
than the first meeting in June.
IN RE: REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
386 May 13, 2014
1. Public hearing on amending the fiscal year 2013 -2014 Budget
(Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney explained the reason for the public hearing. Supervisor
Bedrosian wanted to make sure what budget year this was and would it impact at
estimated $800,000 at year end. Mr. Mahoney explained this was for the 2013 -2014
fiscal year and it would not impact year end.
Chairman McNamara explained the process for Supervisor Bedrosian.
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor McNamara moved to receive and file the following reports.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Quarterly Report — Community Development Activities
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session on Roanoke County's Secondary Roads System
Six -Year Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2015 -2020 (David
Holladay, Planning Administrator)
In attendance for this work session were: Arnold Covey, Director of
Community Development; Richard Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; David
Holladay, Planning Administrator, Brian Blevins, Area Land Use Engineer for Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Mr. Holladay provided the Board with a PowerPoint presentation. A copy
of this presentation is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Staff
advised they need direction from the Board. Chairman McNamara stated we need to
strategize and suggested a work session in the near future that would explain who,
what, when and where to use our expertise and recommend the direction staff needs to
go in. The work session was held from 8:05 p.m. until 8:32 p.m.
May 13, 2014 387
2. Work session with the Stormwater Management Committee ( Tarek
Moneir, Deputy Director of Planning)
In attendance for this work session were three members of the
Stormwater Management Committee; Tarek Moneir, Deputy Director of Development;
Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; Richard Caywood, Assistant
County Administrator.
A PowerPoint presentation was given that outlined the information the
Stormwater Management Committee had reviewed and utilized to come to their
recommendations.
Supervisor Bedrosian commented there is a $3.5 million backlog in
maintenance projects, which was confirmed. He commented we seem to be in crisis
mode. Mr. Caywood explained that the list continues to grow as the infrastructure is not
new and things continued to grow. Supervisor Bedrosian then inquired what is the
average for a year with Mr. Caywood responding $350,000 a year; there is a ten -year
backlog and is increasing ten to fifteen percent (10 to 15 %) each year.
Mr. Moneir advised he would learn much more as staff went through the
first year. He added they cannot hire any new people unless authorized by
Administration or the Board of Supervisors. At the end of the day, they will probably
need to come back before the Board.
Chairman McNamara stated there is a little seed money of $2.2 million; is
a million below. He stated he thinks the Board needs to have more discussion and
come up with a plan. He further added the problem he sees with a fee is the issue that
will come up with churches, schools and malls that are already two - thirds (2 /3rds)
empty. Also, may create issues with school funding programs if you pull money out of
the general funds. He feels the next step as a Board is to gradually increase allocation.
He advised staff to identify the ponds and start prioritizing resources and come up with
recommendations. He advised his preference would be an outside agency. Further
discussion will need to ensure as a Board.
It was the consensus of the Board to disband the Stormwater Committee.
The work session was held from 6:50 p.m. until 8:02 p.m.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Peters stated he was very pleased to see the turnout at
Explore Park. We had a lot of people who are very excited about it and where we are
going to take it. He is very excited about it. For the people who do not know, we have
two schools that are available for sale in Vinton, so if you have any proposals please
talk to Jill Loope because we would like to see those moved.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he thinks we have done a good job today.
We have a lot of different views on issues and we can all work together and get along
while having different views. He appreciates that.
388 May 13, 2014
Supervisor Church asked for the Board to consider moving the work
sessions to the Board room. It does not take any rocket science to see no matter how
you configure the room upstairs, the last time we were overflowing with only four or five
citizens. He asked Mr. Goodman if he made the room larger. Mr. Goodman responded
no, so we are not accomplishing anything by moving the chairs around. We need to
accommodate our people; take a look. Maybe we would look out and see twenty -five or
thirty. They cannot see the presenter; they cannot hear who is talking. You did all kind
of misinformation back and forth. They can be comfortable down here; go to the rest
room, go get water, etc. We do not need to have it televised; that is not a point. Just
make it comfortable for our people. With all due respect to the gentleman to his left, he
made no accusation and has nothing to apologize for. He just wants to be clear about
this. When he is sitting here and the discussion of the budget; the video will say the
story. You do not have to have an interview; he will not talk to the media. The video
speaks for itself. He is taking the high road, but when he hears from his left and you
heard me question on the air; what capital project. The only capital project on the
horizon in the next fifty (50) miles is Glenvar High School. Everything else has been
taken care of and voted on. Then, from his right, his hears future capital expenditures.
What is a person supposed to think when sitting in the Glenvar area? You just draw
your own conclusion. He stated he has been on this Board a long time. If that is the
situation, it is just a sad day. He saw the look on the visitors from Glenvar, they had the
same look of dismay that he did; he does not think it was a misunderstanding. He
thinks that we can be bigger. Let me make a comment about the school board. It is
such a joy to go over and attend their meetings and work sessions; school construction.
There working hand and hand together; communicating together (because he has been
on the phone talking with them) and he does not mind saying this even though he is not
here. (He can confirm this.) David Wymer, just in the last two to three says, do you
know anything that could look negative on Glenvar and he responded, "no, not a word,
no sir." Are you sure, "yes, I am sure." The Supervisor to the left has been for it all the
time and the Chairman has been to the school construction meeting with me all the
time, never a thought. Evidently, somebody thought something, he does not think it was
his imagination. He has had more than a few people ask me, do you see a problem.
"No, no problem at all." He is really glad that he can walk out on the plank and say
Glenvar High School is going to be built, one hundred percent (100 %). If he is wrong,
do not look at him.
Chairman McNamara stated the only comment he would like to say to Mr.
Bedrosian when he was talking about his dollar and the pennies; it should have been a
hundred dollars and when the pennies get up over $1 should have been the proper
analogy.
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 5:53 p.m., Supervisor McNamara moved to go into closed meeting
May 13, 2014 389
following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2 -3711 A 1, To
discuss and consider the employment, appointment and resignation of specific public
officers, appointees, or employees and Section 2.2.3711.A.1 namely discussion
concerning an appointment to the Court Community Corrections Alcohol Safety Action
Policy Board, Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission, Roanoke Valley
Regional Juvenile Detention Commission, Roanoke Valley - Alleghany Regional
Commission, Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, Virginia
Western Community College Board, Virginia's First Regional Industrial Facility Authority,
Western Virginia Water Authority.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
The closed session was held from 6:12 p.m. until 6:39 p.m.
Chairman McNamara announced the retirement of B. Clayton Goodman III
to be effective July 31, 2014.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 6:40 p.m., Supervisor McNamara moved to return to open session and
to adopt the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 051314 -6 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
390
May 13, 2014
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 McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
NAYS: None
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman McNamara adjourned the meeting at 6 :41 p.m.
Submitted by:
Deborah C. Ja s
Deputy Clerk to the Board
Approved by:
A6 eph P. McNamara
airman