HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/10/2015 - RegularFebruary 10, 2015 63
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 February 2015. 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
Reverend Kathryn F. Budzik of the Gogginsville United Methodist Church. The Pledge
of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Peters called the meeting to order at 3-02 p.m. The roll call was
taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman P. Jason Peters, Supervisors Al Bedrosian,
Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Joseph P. McNamara and
Charlotte A. Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Thomas C.
Gates,
County Administrator; Daniel R.
O'Donnell,
Assistant
County
Administrator; Richard
Caywood,
Assistant
County
Administrator- Paul M.
'7
Mahoney,
County
Attorney;
Amy Whittaker, Public
Information
Officer and
Deborah
C. Jacks, Deputy Clerk to
the Board
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Chairman Peters added under Briefings D.1 an update of legislative day.
There were no objections.
64 February 10, 2015
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Recognition of the Sheriff's Office for receiving their re-
accreditation status with Virginia Law Enforcement Professional
Standards Commission (VLEPSC) accreditation (Charles 1. Poff,
Jr., Sheriff)
Sheriff Poff outlined the re -accreditation process with VLEPSC.
Recognition was given. In attendance were- Charles Poff, Sheriff; Sgt. Orry, Holly
Jones, Reaccreditation Team. Gary Roach, Chief Pulaski County and Sheriff Eric
Adkins, City of Salem in attendance.
All Supervisors offered their congratulations.
2. Recognition of the Roanoke County Police Department for traffic safety
awards (Howard B. Hall, Chief of Police)
Chief Hall explained the safety challenge awards both National and State.
In attendance were- Sgt. Tim Wyatt; Officer Hoops.
All Supervisors offered their congratulations.
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Briefing to provide the Board an update of legislative day (Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined for the Board VACo Legislative Day held on
February 6, 2015. Supervisors Moore, McNamara and Mr. Mahoney attended. He
noted there were six or seven things in the Governor's budget; he is not sure how it will
play out. Items were per them for the Jail, Local Aid to the Commonwealth, $28 million
for reimbursement to replace voting machines; there are 136 machines in Roanoke
County. The software is eleven (11) year old software. It will cost approximately $370-
$380,000 to replace. Final issue is some of the ethics legislation, concern they
expressed was the privacy issue. They are concerned it could impact private
information; want to keep in the local office of the Clerk as in the past. The last item
mentioned was a transparent Community Service Act (CSA) — out of Senate and before
the House this afternoon.
Supervisor Moore commented that she serves on the VACo Board and
each locality has the same issue with regard to the ethics legislation, not everyone has
internet capabilities.
Supervisor Church remarked he was ahead of the group by two (2) weeks
to visit with the Governor and legislature and thanked the Board members for attending.
February 10, 2015 65
Supervisor McNamara commented the legislatures were most gracious.
Making a lot of decisions and various things that they were not aware of. He added we
do have a consultant there, but feel we need to do every year. On the ethics, putting
online is severe overkill. He stated it has a lot of momentum, but there is a difference
between ethical and broadcasting information. Minor nuances will impact some
people's desire to serve.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
Resolution authorizing the execution of certain documents in
connection with certain General Obligation School Bonds
previously purchased by the Virginia Public School
Authority(Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance)
Ms. Owens outlined the request for resolution. Chairman Peters remarked
this is like refinancing your home at a lower rate.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked if we will be reimbursed annually over the
remaining life of the bond with Ms. Owens confirming with $100,000 to $250,000.
RESOLUTION 021015-1 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION
WITH CERTAIN GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS
PREVIOUSLY PURCHASED BY THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC
SCHOOL AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the "County") previously issued its
General Obligation School Bond, Series 2007 (the "2007 Local Bond") to finance certain
capital projects for public school purposes, which was purchased by the Virginia Public
School Authority ("VPSA") with a portion of the proceeds of VPSA's School Financing
Bonds (1997 Resolution), Series 2007B (the "2007 VPSA Bonds"); and
WHEREAS, the County previously issued its General Obligation School Bond,
Series 2009 (the "2009 Local Bond" and, together with the 2007 Local Bond, the "Local
Bonds") to finance certain capital projects for public school purposes, which was
purchased by VPSA with a portion of the proceeds of VPSA's School Financing Bonds
(1997 Resolution), Series 2009B (the "2009 VPSA Bonds"); and
WHEREAS, VPSA has notified the County that (i) VPSA is issuing its School
Financing Refunding Bonds (1997 Resolution), Series 2015A to refund a portion of the
2007 VPSA Bonds and the 2009 VPSA Bonds (the "Refunded VPSA Bonds") for debt
service savings and (ii) VPSA will allocate the debt service savings achieved as a result
of such refunding to the local school bonds purchased with the Refunded VPSA Bonds,
including a portion of the Local Bonds (the "County's Refunded Local Bonds"); and
66 February 10, 2015
WHEREAS, VPSA has notified the County that the County will receive its
allocable share of the savings achieved over the remaining amortization period of the
County's Refunded Local Bonds through an annual credit (the "Refunding Credit"),
which will be paid to the County on or after August 1 of each applicable year, provided
the County's debt service payments on the Local Bonds have been received; and
WHEREAS, in order to receive the Refunding Credit, VPSA requires that the
County and the School Board of the County execute a Certificate of Refunding of Local
School Bond (the "Refunding Certificate") in a form substantially similar to the
Certificate of Refunding of Local School Bond on file with the County's Director of
Finance- and
��HEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County (the "Board") desires to
authorize the execution and delivery of the Refunding Certificate and the performance
of such other actions required by VPSA in order to receive the Refunding Credit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA -
1 . The Board authorizes and directs the County Administrator and the
Director of Finance, or either of them, and such officers and agents of the County as
either of them may designate to execute and deliver the Refunding Certificate and to
take such other actions and to sign such other documents as required by VPSA in order
to receive the Refund Credit and all such actions previously taken are ratified and
confirmed.
2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
2. Resolution approving a Sublease/License at NTELOS
Communication Facility at the Hollins Fire Station (Anne Marie
Green, Director of General Services)
Ms. Green outlined the request for the resolution and advised is a
housekeeping item. No longer the same company and doing a formal sublease. They
are required to obtain approval from Roanoke County. There are no financial
considerations. There was no discussion.
February 10, 2015 67
RESOLUTION 021015-2 APPROVING A SUBLEASE/LICENSE AT
NTELOS COMMUNICATION FACILITY AT THE HOLLINS FIRE
STATION
WHEREAS, by Ordinance #102604-7 the Board approved a lease agreement
with Virginia PCS Alliance, LC d/b/a NTELOS for a 3,400 square foot tower site at the
Hollins Fire Station on Barrens Road; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance authorized subleases of tower and equipment space
to third -party entities by NTELOS, subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors
through resolution; and
WHEREAS, Lumos Networks, formerly a part of NTELOS, owns equipment at
this tower site; and
WHEREAS, NTELOS is sub -leasing a portion of the leased property to Lumos for
its equipment; and
WHEREAS, NTELOS is requesting approval from the County for this sub -lease.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows -
1 . That the sub -lease by NTELOS to Lumos Networks at the Hollins Fire
Station tower site is hereby approved.
2. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of
Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this
real estate, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Bedrosian to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance accepting and appropriating $37,500 from the Virginia
Department of Education to Roanoke County Public Schools for
the 2014-2015 National Board Certification Bonus Award
(Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance)
Ms. Owens outlined the request. There was no discussion.
Supervisor Peters' motion to approve the first reading and to establish the
second reading for February 24, 2015, was approved by the following vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
rob
.T!*l
a"o
discussion.
February 10, 2015
2. Ordinance accepting and appropriating a Stormwater
Management (SWM) Program fee in the amount of $95,386 from
the Department of Environmental Quality to the Department of
Community Development's minor capital National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) account for stormwater
permit fees collected from local projects prior to July 1, 2014
(Tarek Moneir, Deputy Director of Development Services)
Mr. Moneir outlined the request for the ordinance. There was no
Supervisor Moore's motion to approve the first reading and to establish
the second reading for February 24, 2015, was approved by the following vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
3. Ordinance approving the sale of the 419 Library property to
Kissito Pace of Roanoke, Inc. and authorizing the execution of a
contract of sale (Jill Loope, Director of Economic Development;
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney and Ms. Loope outlined the ordinance and advised
representatives from Kissito were in attendance to answer any questions.
Supervisor Moore's motion to approve the first reading and to establish
the second reading and public hearing for February 24, 2015, was approved by the
following vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING
1. Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding proposed
amendments to the fiscal year 2014-2015 budget in accordance
with Section 15.2-2507, Code of Virginia (W. Brent Robertson,
Director of Management and Budget)
Mr. Robertson outlined the reason for the public hearing. Chairman
Peters opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens to speak.
February 10, 2015 69
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance accepting and appropriating grant funds in the amount
of $2,990,760 from the Federal Regional Surface Transportation
Program to the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism for
fiscal years 2014 and 2015 for the West Roanoke River Greenway
(Doug Blount, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism; Lindsay
Blankenship, Greenway Planner)
Mr. Blount outlined the request for the ordinance. Lindsay Blankenship
was also in attendance to answer any questions. Supervisors Church, McNamara and
Peters thanked all that were involved for a job well done.
ORDINANCE 021015-3 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,990,760 FROM THE
FEDERAL REGIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAM TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, RECREATION
AND TOURISM FOR FISCAL YEARS 2014 AND 2015 FOR THE
WEST ROANOKE RIVER GREENWAY
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2013, Roanoke County in collaboration with the
Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission, City of Roanoke, City of Salem, and Town of
Vinton submitted a request to the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization for Regional Surface Transportation Program funds for the Western
Section of the Roanoke River Greenway Project proposed between Green Hill Park in
the County of Roanoke and Riverside Park in the City of Salem; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2013, the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization endorsed the Regional Surface Transportation Program project priorities
and six (6) -year financial plan, which included $2,990,760 in funds to Roanoke County
for the West Roanoke River Greenway Project; and
WHEREAS, on June 19, 2013, the Commonwealth Transportation Board
adopted the fiscal year 2014-2019 Six-year Improvement Program, which allocated the
Regional Surface Transportation Program funds; and
WHEREAS, these funds are scheduled to be allocated over fiscal years 2014
and 2015; and
WHEREAS, the grant award does not require matching funds from Roanoke
County -
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 27, 2015, and
the second reading was held on February 10, 2015.
70 February 10, 2015
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as
follows -
1. That the sum of $2,990,760 is hereby appropriated from the Regional Surface
Transportation Program to the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism
for fiscal years 2014 and 2015; and
2. The funds are to be allocated to the West Roanoke River Greenway Project
proposed between Green Hill Park in Roanoke County and Riverside Park in
the City of Salem; and
3. That appropriations designated for the West Roanoke River Greenway
Project will not lapse at the end of the fiscal year, but shall remain
appropriated until the completion of the project. RSTP funds are subject to
deallocation if not expended within four (4) years of allocation; and
4. That if Roanoke County subsequently elects to cancel this project the County
agrees to reimburse the Virginia Department of Transportation for the total
amount of costs expended by the Department through the date the
Department is notified of such cancellation; and
5. That Roanoke County will be responsible for maintenance, upkeep and
operating costs of any facility constructed with Regional Surface
Transportation Program funds; and
6. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
2. Ordinance accepting and appropriating grant funds in the amount
of $5,857,840 from the Federal Regional Surface Transportation
Program for fiscal years 2014, 2016, and 2017 to the Department
of Parks, Recreation and Tourism (Doug Blount, Director of Parks,
Recreation and Tourism; Lindsay Blankenship, Greenway
Planner)
Mr. Blount outlined the request for the ordinance. Lindsay Blankenship was also
in attendance to answer any questions. There was no discussion.
February 10, 2015 71
ORDINANCE 021015-4 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,857,840 FROM THE
FEDERAL REGIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAM TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS, RECREATION
AND TOURISM FOR FISCAL YEARS 2014,2016, AND 2017 FOR
THE EAST ROANOKE RIVER GREENWAY
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2013, Roanoke County, the City of Roanoke, the City of
Salem, and the Town of Vinton in coordination with the Roanoke Valley Greenway
Commission, submitted a request to the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization for Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds for the
Eastern Section of the Roanoke River Greenway Project proposed between the City of
Roanoke and the Blue Ridge Parkway; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2013, the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization endorsed the Regional Surface Transportation Program project priorities
and six-year financial plan, which included $5,857,840 in funds to Roanoke County for
the East Roanoke River Greenway Project; and
WHEREAS, on June 19, 2013, the Commonwealth Transportation Board
adopted the fiscal year 2014-2019 Six-year Improvement Program, which allocated the
funds for the Regional Surface Transportation Program and the Transportation
Alternatives Program; and
WHEREAS, these funds are scheduled to be allocated over Fiscal Years 2014,
2016, and 2017; and
WHEREAS, the grant award does not require matching funds from Roanoke
County- and
�;HEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 27, 2015, and
the second reading was held on February 10, 2015.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as
follows -
1 . That the sum of $5,857,840 is hereby appropriated from the Regional Surface
Transportation Program to the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism
for fiscal years 2014, 2016, and 2017; and
2. The funds are to be allocated to the East Roanoke River Greenway Project
for final engineering, environmental permitting, right-of-way acquisition, and
construction; and
3. That appropriations designated for the East Roanoke River Greenway Project
will not lapse at the end of the fiscal year, but shall remain appropriated until
the completion of the project. RSTP funds are subject to deallocation if not
expended within four years of allocation; and
72
February 10, 2015
4. That if Roanoke County subsequently elects to cancel this project the County
agrees to reimburse the Virginia Department of Transportation for the total
amount of costs expended by the Department through the date the
Department is notified of such cancellation; and
5. That Roanoke County will be responsible for maintenance, upkeep and
operating costs of any facility constructed with Regional Surface
Transportation Program funds; and
6. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
3. Ordinance accepting and appropriating grant funds in the amount
of $200,000 from the Virginia Department of Transportation for
fiscal year 2013-2014 MAP -21 Transportation Alternatives
Program for fiscal year 2014 and $50,000 of local matching funds
to the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism for the East
Roanoke River Greenway (Doug Blount, Director of Parks,
Recreation and Tourism; Lindsay Blankenship, Greenway
Planner)
Mr. Blount outlined the request for the ordinance. Lindsay Blankenship
was also in attendance to answer any questions.
Supervisor Bedrosian commented this was the only Greenway item that
required a match and that it has been budgeted for. He then asked about the upkeep
on these project and has a plan been developed. Mr. Blount responded that staff will
have to develop a long-term maintenance plan and funds will need to be set aside in a
future budget for Greenway maintenance. Supervisor Bedrosian commented that he is
supporting this because the money is allocated and know that in the future, we will need
to reduce money being spent elsewhere to take care of these things right. He further
commented there is not an open checkbook for years going forward.
Supervisor Moore thanked staff and regional partners.
February 10, 2015 73
ORDINANCE 021015-5 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000 FROM THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 2013-2014, MAP -21 TRANSPORTATION
ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014, AND
$50,000 OF LOCAL MATCHING FUNDS TO THE DEPARTMENT
OF PARKS, RECREATION AND TOURISM FOR THE EAST
ROANOKE RIVER GREENWAY
WHEREAS, the federal Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP -
21) provides for a statewide Transportation Alternatives Program, using federal
transportation funds and state or local matching funds; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board shall approve the
selection of projects on an annual basis and in accordance with §33.1-12(5) of the Code
of Virginia and MAP -21 from funds appropriated to the Transportation Alternatives
Program- and
��HEREAS, on January 22, 2013, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
endorsed a resolution supporting the Transportation Alternatives Program application
for the Eastern Section of the Roanoke River Greenway Project in order that the Virginia
Department of Transportation establish a Transportation Alternatives project in Roanoke
County- and
�;HEREAS, on January 31, 2013, the County of Roanoke in coordination with
the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission submitted an application to the Virginia
Department of Transportation for fiscal year 2013-2014 Transportation Alternative
Program funds for the Eastern Section of the Roanoke River Greenway; and
WHEREAS, on June 19, 2013, the Commonwealth Transportation Board
adopted the fiscal year 2014-2019 Six (6) -year Improvement Program, which allocated
the funds for the Transportation Alternatives Program; and
WHEREAS, these funds were scheduled to be allocated in fiscal year 2014; and
WHEREAS, a grant in the amount of $250,000 was awarded from the Virginia
Department of Transportation to the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism for
the East Roanoke River Greenway; and
WHEREAS, the grant requires twenty percent (20%) matching funds from
Roanoke County in the amount of $50,000;
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 27, 2015, and
the second reading was held on February 10, 2015.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as
follows -
1. That the sum of $200,000 of federal funds from the Transportation
74 February 10, 2015
Alternatives Program are appropriated to the Department of Parks,
Recreation and Tourism for fiscal year 2014; and
2. That the sum of $50,000 for matching funds will be in the form of cash from
Greenways Reserve Funds, Account 589130-8929; and the funds are to be
allocated to the East Roanoke River Greenway Project proposed between the
City of Roanoke and the Blue Ridge Parkway; and
3. That Roanoke County will be responsible for maintenance, upkeep and
operating costs of any facility constructed with Transportation Alternatives
Program funds; and
4. That appropriations designated for the East Roanoke River Greenway Project
will not lapse at the end of the fiscal year but shall remain appropriated until
the completion of the project; and
5. That if Roanoke County subsequently elects to cancel this project the County
agrees to reimburse the Virginia Department of Transportation for the total
amount of costs expended by the Department through the date the
Department is notified of such cancellation- and
6. That this ordinance shall take effect from a�d after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
1. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee (appointed
by District)
Supervisor Moore has recommended the appointment of Pete Tyree to
represent the Cave Spring Magisterial District. This appointment will expire on August
31, 2016. Confirmation has been added to the Consent Agenda.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 021015-6 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM J- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows-
February 10, 2015 75
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for February
10, 2015, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 5 inclusive, as follows -
1 . Approval of minutes — December 9, 2014
2. Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of $1,150 to the Roanoke
County Police Department for the Project Lifesaver Program
3. Request te aGGept and alIGGate grant funds On the arneunt of $6,753.50 frern
the Virginia OffiGe of ErnergenGy MediGal SeWiGes to the Fore and ReSGue
Department and autherize $6,753.50 Of IGGal rnatGhing funds fer the pUrGhase
of a Physie LUGas 2 MeGhaniGal CPR DeviGe fer use on GardiaG arrest
patients (This item was removed from the Consent Agenda for separate
consideration.
4. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Patrick C. Buchanan, J r., Senior Assistant
Commonwealth's Attorney, upon his retirement after more than eighteen (18)
years of service
5. Confirmation of appointments to the Capital Improvement Program
(CIP)(appointed by District) Community Policy and Management Team,
Roanoke Broadband Authority, Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional
Commission, Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau Board of
Directors, South Peak Community Development Authority and the Western
Virginia Regional Industrial Facility Authority
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, with the exception of
Item J-3, which was removed for separate consideration and carried by the following
recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
A -021015-6.a
RESOLUTION 021015-6.b EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO PATRICK C. BUCHANAN, JR., SENIOR ASSISTANT
COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY, UPON HIS RETIREMENT
AFTER MORE THAN EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Patrick C. Buchanan, Jr. was employed by Roanoke County on
October 15, 1996; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Buchanan retired on February 1, 2015, after eighteen (18) years
and three (3) months of devoted, faithful and expert service to Roanoke County; and
76 February 10, 2015
WHEREAS, Mr. Buchanan, through his employment with Roanoke County, has
been instrumental in improving the quality of life and providing services to the citizens of
Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, throughout Mr. Buchanan's tenure with Roanoke County, his
enthusiasm, dedication and professionalism to his work, has earned the admiration and
respect of his colleagues throughout the Commonwealth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens
of Roanoke County to PATRICK C. BUCHANAN, JR. for more than eighteen (18) years
of capable, loyal, and dedicated service to Roanoke County- and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express it� best wishes for a happy
and productive retirement.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
EE014111RE1151
IN RE: Request to accept and allocate grant funds in the amount of
$6,753.50 from the Virginia Office of Emergency Medical Services to
the Fire and Rescue Department and authorize $6,753.50 of local
matching funds for the purchase of a Physio Lucas 2 Mechanical
CPR Device for use on cardiac arrest patients
EE01A 111 &-IFA
Steve Simon, Deputy Chief of Fire and Rescue outlined the request and
noted it was awarded twice a year. Supervisor Bedrosian commented he wanted to
make sure that everyone was aware the matching funds were coming out of the existing
budget and not adding to the budget.
Supervisor Church asked if this equipment was the same that was
currently in the building. Deputy Chief Simon explained no, those are automatic AEDs,
which detect the heart when it is not beating correctly and provides electrical shock to it.
You still need to do the chest compressions, but these new devices strap around the
body and provide the chest compressions and must be used by trained professionals.
Chairman Peters commented that he had used in the past.
On motion of Supervisor Bedrosian to accept and allocate grant funds in
the amount of $6,753.50 to the Fire and Rescue Department and carried by the
following recorded vote-
February 10, 2015 77
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following citizens spoke.
Linda LaPrade of 5509 Will Carter Lane stated as you begin your budget
deliberations and look at revenue projections and discuss requests with department
heads, please don't overlook the most important thing, the taxpayers in Roanoke
County. Families are stressed financially; any projected revenue increases should be
examined in terms of benefits to the taxpayers. She stated she is sure many in Roanoke
County government are looking at projected revenue increases as, "wow we have more
money to spend." You need to look at those increases as what could we do to help the
people? Each year there seems to be pride in, "we didn't increase taxes," but if real
estate assessments go up for individuals you did increase their taxes. It's time to look
at a real estate tax decrease and it's time to look at assessments every 2 or 3 years
instead of annually. This would help struggling families and it would be attractive to
businesses who are looking to locate in this area. When departments request funds as
we know they are doing, please look at what's needed versus what is wanted. You and
the County administrator need to look in detail at each department budget, question
each request and fund what is needed not just give blanket approvals to wish lists. This
is what families have to do every day. Why not follow a simple plan in this process.
Begin your budget with a real estate tax decrease, then allocate funds with the
remaining amount. With projected revenue projections, this is possible. It would show
residents and businesses that you have a plan, which takes into account their needs
and have no desire to grow government at their expense. Roanoke County taxpayers
are interested in this process. we are interested in what you do and expect
accountability, transparency and frugality and your job and the job of the County
administrator is to make sure that occurs for all of us.
RoxAnne Christley stated she would first like to welcome the new County
administrator with the hope that he is at least fiscally conservative. With the newest
budget process underway, she would like to suggest something novel to the board and
County staff. Why don't we come in with a budget smaller than last year's budget and
plan on doing the same things next year and the next year and so on and so forth. Tax
and spend liberals will always frown at the idea of stinking government influence, but
the truth on the local level is that this tax and spend is our money. Roanoke County is a
great place to live. She has been here for twenty-five (25) years but the question that
she continues to ask is how much better can the County really be? It's a proven fact
that less government interference is an attraction to business and it's a fact that lower
taxes for economic growth and if you think that isn't true just take a look at Stafford
County, Virginia. This is a place where they are lowering taxes. Where they have
78 February 10, 2015
already eliminated the BPOL tax on businesses, they are cutting their County budget,
their school budget and guess what? They are actually having an economic boom in
the middle of our slow and depressed economy. Roanoke County is able to do this as
well. Several members of this board have touted economic growth as their priority and
yet we all know that Roanoke County has limited land suitable for manufacturing and
industrial facilities. Why don't we make Roanoke County the most attractive business
environment in Virginia? Let's utilize what we have in land that is suitable for
manufacturing with this attractive business environment and work on the technology
sector of that very same attractive business environment. She stated she is asking that
this Board and our administrator commit to getting rid of the waste that always occurs in
government by streamlining our County departments, get out of the way of businesses
and cut taxes for the citizens of our County. These things can be accomplished if you
have the vision, the courage and the commitment to do so.
Ron Keith Adkins of 3057 Timberlane Avenue in Cave Spring stated he
has been a citizen here in Roanoke County for 39 years, last month and is here to ask
you, members of the board of supervisors flat to consider dropping the property tax,
which we have at 1.09 down to start with to 1.05 cents because you are going to make it
up eventually in assessments. Everything that I look at, all of my utilities have taxes
everything that we do has a tax on it, my car tax, my gasoline tax and all of the things
that we spend money on is a tax. There's a tax attached to it. The other thing he is
concerned about is the other day we heard are going to lose five hundred (500) jobs in
Roanoke Valley here by Norfolk Southern closing up the office and moving it and he
also noticed that we're might lose the night goggle glass operation over on Plantation
Road. He stated he thinks that's 368 other high paying jobs roughly, which brings up the
point of the velocity of the payroll money will have a strong effect on the Roanoke valley
here and you need to look at that concerning dropping property taxes. Eventually the
County will get it back by raising assessments as property values go up, which he truly
hopes they will. He stated he owns property in Roanoke City, Roanoke County and
Salem and eventually every year he looks at the assessments and granted they have
dropped here in the last year or two, but they will be going up. They always did and
they always have, but if we lower the property tax here in Roanoke County, that will also
be attractive to businesses looking at Roanoke County to come in here and be here and
have more employment in Roanoke County. Roanoke County is probably, he thinks,
the greatest secret place to live, and I love it here and my family loves it and I know all
of you people and appreciate what you do and he has faith you will do the right thing,
but I'm truly asking you to flat lower the property tax at least $0.04.
Max Beyer of 2402 Coachman Drive in Labellvue stated the board is now
reviewing the current and upcoming County budgets. Revenue estimates are up for the
budget year and they are projected to increase about $2 million. The question is what's
going to be done with the extra money? There's a lot of pressure by the liberal
progressive members of our community to increase spending and use the revenue
growth to finance government growth. Many of these projects have been laid dormant
February 10, 2015 79
during the last years of austerity and now that the economy has improved they cannot
wait to pounce on any new revenue to finance these pet projects. There's some
legitimate needs for County maintenance and equipment replacement that have lagged
during the past 5 years of economic downturn. He sits on the parks, recreation and
tourism commission, so he knows the problems that parks and rec has. These must be
addressed. There is also a lot of pressure exerted by local press and other groups to
provide funds for broadband, for example, for expansion of other public infrastructure
instead of relying on private enterprise and to provide handouts to non -profits who
should be relying on fund raising efforts and private donations. It is much easier to dip
into the public pockets than hit the streets to seek voluntary contributions. School
supporters are asking for more despite a declining school enrollment and rising
spending per pupil. Instead of making prudent operational adjustments to the deduction
in their mission, many are spending their time seeking to maintain appropriations and
actually increase spending levels. However, a strong case can be made for a reduction
in real estate tax below the current $1.09 per hundred and as the real estate market has
improved, property assessments have gone up this year and citizens are currently
facing a growth in their taxes unless the Board takes action to decrease the tax rate.
For those citizens on fixed incomes, how are they going to finance these increases
unless they dip into savings or make a change in their existing consumption spending
patterns? Where's the money coming from? Where is our money coming from? Also,
many citizens have had no pay increases and may face unemployment due to the
domino effect of businesses relocating and closing that was addressed by the previous
speaker. The Board must also remember the taxpayers have suffered too during the
past five (5) years and need to have an opportunity to recover and make major
expenditures they have left dormant, i.e. Kids going off to college, how about the car
that needs to be replaced, how about fixing up the roof of the house. Where's that
money coming from? Is it fair to them not to share in the benefits of economic
recovery? They want their taste. Taxpayers want their part of the action and they want
their cut. A penny or two cents decrease in the real estate rate could be absorbed in
the $2 million additional revenue and still leave a surplus to finance much needed
maintenance and equipment replacement costs. The board should recognize and
provide for the needs of taxpayers in their budget decisions.
Rita Evans stated she has lived most of her life in Roanoke County,
attended the majority of her public school years in Roanoke County division and
18 years of service in the Roanoke County schools. I learned of the school board's
plans to demolish wood end, the home and studio of famous Roanoke artist, Allen
Ingles Palmer, who she has learned will be featured in a retrospective in 2016 at the
Taubman museum. She has continued to communicate her disagreement with this
action through two letters directly to the school board, a very brief conversation with Dr.
Lange, expressing her disagreement, three minutes that she spent speaking to the
school board at the last meeting and an editorial, to date, she has received no response
although others have and others have received this correspondence and shared it with
80 February 10, 2015
me. This home is in good condition, as reported by a graciously allowed recent visit by
Roanoke valley preservation foundation and the state architectural historian who
documented the condition of the home. She has that documentation on cd. The
school board and division reported it would require $250,000 to repair the property.
While we're attempting to determine the difference in views, which may relate to their
determination that handicapped access would be required, many citizens that have
learned about this issue feel the replacement of this home with pavement is a poor
choice. She, along with others, believe the home should be maintained and she would
like to see it used as a center for citizens and students, but she is certainly open to any
use that maintains the historical treasure it represents. At least two (2) individuals have
contacted the board and or division about purchasing the property in just the last two
(2) weeks since Dan Casey's article brought this situation to some public awareness.
The Roanoke Valley Preservation Foundation met with school board leadership and
asked to be allowed to find suitable use and it is her understanding they would ask the
same of the school board. However, a letter from Fuzzy Minnix to a concerned citizen
pointed out that the County had been offered the property and turned it down. She
urged the Board to ask the school board to stop their plan to immediately act on a
contract they say they have issued for demolition following our pleas. She urged the
board to express the reality that citizens may be uninformed rather than unconcerned as
the school board believes to be the case. This is our property and she was not asked
what she wanted as were others and she urge the board to stop the destruction of an
asset worth no less than $300,000 to $400,000 compared to other property around it.
The senseless expenditure of a proposed $50,000 for the demolition and the removal
forever of a treasurer ideally located on school grounds that can never be replaced after
this action. The life of a school averages no more than one hundred (100) years, the
same is not true of a historical property that is cared for and used properly. The school
division acted properly in attempting to make it available to the County. It is my opinion,
the County did not act properly in not accepting it for its citizens or at least asking them.
Please act now before it is too late to ask for time to review and determine if there is
another option. Had sufficient action taken place to find a suitable use, preservation
organization at the national, state and local level would not have learned of this home
from her. The property would have been advertised on these sites seeking a suitable
use and answers. The school board, its leadership and Fuzzy Minnix site liability as
their concern. So, please asked them to explain how that is different now than has
been the case since 2002. The liability did not suddenly increase. The desire for
pavement did. She cannot get the Joni Mitchell song, "take paradise and put up a
parking lot" out of her head but she is from that generation. At the same time, she can
share that her sons also County residents, ages 24 and 22, would state the same view
regarding the property as former hidden valley students. It is a matter of value, where
do we place our value? It is in the actions the school board plans to take and if those
actions are as they state, how can we have measured it in response to their own
comprehensive plan stated on the division site. How does it measure up? You can
February 10, 2015 81
both blame and the other failed to act and if that is the case you all will have failed to
serve your citizens and ensure their agreement with this action. If you truly believe
citizens don't care, then we might as well just give up because no service being
accomplished is of value in the hands of a few. Each public servant's primary task is to
act on behalf of the citizens and as citizens we should question action that holds no
logic.
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Bedrosian asked for an explanation of each report, which
Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance, provided.
Supervisor Peters moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Outstanding Debt
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Church stated he did not plan to speak about this, but the lady
that came in. He wished she was still here, Ms. Evans. We all got an e-mail and he
took a little action on this. As far as the woods end, he spoke with a longtime friend of
mine and this entire Board, Fuzzy Minnix, School Board member from Cave Spring and
to my knowledge and Mr. Gates this is well before you, but at least take a look into see
where we started and where we are now. Would you do that for me? Mr. Gates
responded in the affirmative. He stated he thinks back in 1999 before he came to the
board and he think there was a tour of that facility and remembers being there at least
one time to visit and some sort of informal occasion. He advised to his recollection! he
does not know of anything, but he could be corrected, that has come before our Board
to handle this, to take it, etc. Mr. Gates please check with Mr. Mahoney and others to
try and find out where we are because if it came to our Board, he does not recall it.
With that being said, he wanted to at least reply to Ms. Evans email. He understands
the concern and thinks a reply would be in order; at least let her know what is going
on. A couple of other things that he wanted to talk about and for the fifth consecutive
year, he will again ask for a real estate tax reduction. For the last five (5) years, either
in work session or regular session, he has asked for this reduction. He does think we
82 February 10, 2015
owe it to do our best efforts to our taxpayers. Now, with that being said, he needs to
go back and tell a little bit of history. He does not know if it dictates the future or not;
he is not trying to presuppose this year's budget. Last year's followed a pattern. The
previous administration, our Board, were told over and over again that things were
tight, money is tight, we don't have this or that and low and behold at the end of the
fiscal year, we ended up with anywhere from $500,000 surplus all the way up to $2.3
or $2.4 million in surplus. This bothered him obviously at the time and told the
Administrator that in his opinion, we lost some golden opportunities to do things during
that particular year. Whether it was projects, help for the citizens, or whatever. He
does not think that practice has continued in the last couple of years. We need to be
sure, as best we can, financially what our projections are and where they end up.
Because, citizens are watching and I don't blame them. So it really bothered him as a
Board member to be told we have to cut back and watch this and watch that and the
facts will show over a couple of million in one particular year, I think $2.4 or $2.5 million
or more surplus, so we've got to be sure we've got a handle on revenues and
expenditures, so let's don't let that happen and make sure we do project it best we can
and if there's a discrepancy or surplus, we know why- not just that it fell from something
we weren't expecting. He stated he said during our last work session, probably the end
of year 2014, in the insurance industry, there is an old saying, "pay yourself first", and
that was a premise he said upstairs. Put this on the docket, right to start with and work
from there, and that's his premise. He stated that he felt if we did that, we could work
on a budget situation without trying to squeeze situations that notoriously end up hurting
the citizens. The last item of concern, he received at least four or five (4 or 5) phone
calls in the past couple of weeks about the Green Ridge Rec. Center and they said what
he already knows. For the past several years, we're in the fifth year of operation and
there's talk around the County of the citizens about this or that and the cost and the
mortgage. He stated he knows for a fact that from year one (1), because he was
Chairman at that time, that the Center covered operating expenses in October of the
first year, our Board expected four and a half to three (4 1/2 to 3) years before it would
cover operating expenses. Is that good? You dang on right its good. It's a big deal to
him, so he is getting questions like, the question is with all this discussion going on,
what is the end result? I'm being asked by citizens. What's the end run here? People
are talking about it. Are we're going to tear it down? Are we going to hope it collapses?
he responded, "No." But there's a couple of citizens that really got his attention. They
said, "Mr. Church, please don't let the County do something to the facility. We have
health problems in our family and it has been a god sent to them." With that being said,
somewhere between what's going on, for the life of me, he does not understand a
facility going on five years old. Mr. Gates if you have known about something, please
make this board available. He is making a request because citizens are getting worried
that the County is planning on selling it, getting rid of it or doing something. Would you
please reply either yes or no, or whatever you know to people particularly in my area.
February 10, 2015 83
It's right across the street from my district, it touches Hollins and my area. He does
know and looking, there's probably 7500 citizens plus that are using this facility. He
knows when you go out there or by there, the parking lot is full. So, something good is
going on. He thinks there are a lot of people who are glad that it is there. The bottom
line is we cannot unmortar the bricks. We cannot go backwards.
Supervisor McNamara stated it is good to hear people at our Board
meeting tonight. We are starting our budget deliberations today. It is the most fun part
for him, the budget deliberations, for strange reasons. We will as a Board be evaluating
tax decreases, taxes staying the same, maybe we will evaluate tax increases, which he
kind of doubts. But, it all boils down to what level of service you want. Green Ridge
was brought up, Green Ridge does cover its operating costs. It doesn't cover the debt
service. So we have made decisions in the past that we have to fund and make sure we
continue to fund those things and we need to take any kind of discussion from a tax
increase, decrease, plateau level with a service level, and at the end of the day, it is the
job of the board is to evaluate service levels assuming there's not efficiencies and
duplications and evaluate service levels and match it with the corresponding tax rate.
He think this Board will be cognizant of the citizens and the impact our taxes have on
citizens. He, like everybody else, pays his taxes and pay a lot of different taxes being a
business owner as well. He did want to touch, especially just one little brief little tidbit.
We have been, you know, there's sometimes is shallow victories and not increasing in
taxes when you're in a declining revenue and you're mandated to do different things,
and we see around us many of the localities are pondering and looking at tax increases.
When we think of our citizens, in particular, especially those mentioned on a fixed
income, fiscal year 2011, he went back three or four (3 or 4) years while he was sitting
here. Our real-estate tax revenue was $87.6 million. Fiscal year 2015, which we're in
right now, our real-estate revenue forecast is $86.2 million. Our real-estate, what we're
getting as a County is a percent and a half lower than it was four (4) years ago. In that
number, is new construction. It hasn't been a lot. He recognizes, but the actual
average, the average homeowner is paying less than real estate tax bill than they were
four (4) years ago. They're paying less than they were five years ago and they're
paying less than they were six years ago. So that does certainly put some pressure-,
were they paying too much then? Are they still paying too much? That is discussion
that the board needs to make. Your fixed income, certainly he knows within the past
few years, certainly within the past six years, maybe it has been longer than that, but
we've increased the amount that people can be at a real-estate tax freeze depends on
the income level and assets to protect our older and disabled citizens in our valley.
Over the past four years, all pension plans are different, but probably the largest is
social security. In the last four years, social security payments have increased by an
average of eight point five percent (8.5%). From a percentage of their budget going to
real-estate tax, even irrespective of any kind of tax freeze, he thinks would demonstrate
that we are certainly trying to be cognizant of our fixed income folks that we are trying to
maintain service levels for.
84 February 10, 2015
Supervisor Moore stated she would like to take a moment and thank Doug
Blount, Wendy Shultz and everyone with Parks and Rec. for the Tons of Fun event at
Tanglewood this weekend. It was great. We attended. Thank you for all your hard
work.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he would like to start off with something the
County attorney started off with when he went to Richmond and there was a bill about
reducing property taxes that serve in the armed forces and first responders. It is
interesting when you voted on that, it was a referendum voted on this past November
that the state of Virginia voted on and won overwhelmingly because it sounded like
something that was good. It sounds good. Chairman Peters commented he does not
think that is what we voted on. Mr. Mahoney advised that was for the veterans this is
another one for firefighters, police officers, EMTs that is piggybacking on. It is the same
kind of mind set and the point is pretty much the same. It sounded really good. When
he looked at that, he thought wow, how can you say you would not want to do that. The
bottom line is, we would probably be removing those taxpayers from the roll and
something else would have to subsidize or maybe we would have to raise the tax
somewhere else to make up those taxes. So it was interesting that the County attorney
was talking about being generous with someone else's money. The State is trying to
push something through that the County now has to make up for in some other way. So
they're being generous by saying to us, let's pass this law, and then we're going to have
to make up those taxes. The interesting thing is when he thinks about that, you know,
that is so true about what we do in government. We're always generous with somebody
else's money- and in our case, it's about the state passing a law that would make us
scramble an� do stuff. Everything we do here in the County when we spend money,
we're spending the people's money doing it. So we're very generous. We're spending
everybody's money, and you know, our job up here is to spend money because we
have things to do. He thinks we really need to get serious about spending other
people's money and it becomes very evident when the economy is tough and people
can hardly do things they want to do, the government is saying, I need to do this, we
need to do this," and a lot of people get resentful of government and he does not think
anybody on this board would say we look at the federal government and we say they're
doing a terrible job, they're over taxing us and we're in such debt. We all complain
about the federal government. When we look locally, we don't make those complaints
on this board. We always say we're doing the right thing and spending money the right
way. Now that is really based on the fact we all have different world views, granted,
okay. Basically, our world view is from our educational experiences and life
experiences, just the way we think, and he does not think this is going to be a surprise
to anybody in this room, but he loves a limited government, okay. One that only does
the things that it absolutely has to do, and he loves to see a very prosperous free
enterprise system. He loves seeing people in the private sector being very prosperous-,
having all the money they need to do the things they need to do and I like government.
He stated he likes to have good employees in government that do well, but it needs to
February 10, 2015 85
be limited, okay, and that's the way he thinks, and in fact, one of the planks of the
Virginia republican party is the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of
the needs of citizens and economic justice. He totally believes that and as much money
we can push back to the citizens in Roanoke County, it is the best way to have the
citizens in Roanoke to enjoy their life and be prosperous and have a good quality of life.
So I think quality of life is really defined by the people doing what they want with their
own money; not government building buildings and things like that. That's the way he
looks at things. We came to this conversation about lowering real estate tax rates. He
just thinks lowering real estate tax rates is good for the economy. It's good for the
economy. People get more money. They get to keep more money. They buy things.
They do things. They do what comes natural to them, okay. He has five children- a
family of seven. If he can keep more money, he can do things with it. Even if he put� it
in the bank, the bank can then do things with it. The private sector does a good job no
matter whether it saves the money or whether it spends it. He is always going to push
that we should give back to the private sector. Somehow in government, we think if we
give it back to private sector, it is lost. The private sector does things with it and if you
give people their money back, they create jobs and go out and build businesses and do
things and people around say, "Oh, Roanoke, they're a low tax area. That's the kind of
area I want to move into and start my business." So he thinks it's good. In the end, it's
going to make all of us prosperous by lowering taxes. We talked about two items today,
just today. We talked about the sale for Kissito, the one that bought the 419 site, $2.7
million. The County is going to get $2.7 million for the sale. We talked about
assessments going up. The County now is going to get $1.5 million more in real estate
taxes assessment. Do the simple math. $4.2 million more in just two items. Those two
(2) items alone are going to bring in $4.2 million more to Roanoke and it's not going to
cost Roanoke County anything to get that money. We don't have a cost of making $4.2
million- it comes in. We receive it and put it in the bank. We have $4.2 million. If we
lower ihe real estate taxes rates and today it has been talked about lowering it $0.057
from $1.09 to $1.04. He loves it. The more you do, the better. If you lowered it by
$0.05, each penny is $800,000. So five times $500,000. Let's use $0.04 times
$800,000 is $3.2 million. The County would be giving back the $3.2 million; but the
County will be getting $4.2 million from the sale of the 419 library and by the
assessments going up. So, by doing nothing and even if we gave $0.04, we would
have extra million dollars for doing nothing that we could spend on things that the
County does need. There are things that the County does need, okay. There are
things we need, trash trucks, we talked about what we need. Fire rescue, things we
need. The fact here, we're going to be getting a lot of money this year. It's like a
windfall. I think we should push back some to the citizens and to keep us level headed
that we are only spending what we need to spend. Even in a home, if you start getting
a lot of money, you start spending and living above your means and the County
government can do that too. It can live above its means and when times aren't so good,
we're caught because we then have to reduce things and people hate that. Let's live
86 February 10, 2015
within our means and give the money back to citizens, lower the tax rate. He thinks it's
a good idea. The Green Ridge Center, he thinks Supervisor Church brought up a good
point about the Green Ridge Center. He has heard this multiple times on multiple
projects. When we do something, and he has had issues with the exorbitant amount of
money we spend on libraries, the exorbitant amount of money we spend on renovations
of schools and the money for the Green Ridge Center. Well, if you say, "Al, it is done,
get over it, we have got to move on." That's fair to a point. But it's fair to a point that we
learn, and sometimes we're so hard headed to learn from things that we do that aren't
working out the way maybe we thought. If you look at the Green Ridge Center and he
had asked for information on this and he thought it was interesting. The Green Ridge
Center does have a surplus on operating, when you took the revenue, subtracted the
expenses you had $187,000 that they made in a year, $187,000. But it does not include
the debt service, so when you actually put the building, the cost of the building and
again, any business in Roanoke County that operates, they operate knowing they have
a mortgage. They have a million dollar building. They have to pay off that building. If a
family has a mortgage, they have to take into account the mortgage. The Green Ridge
has not had to take into account any of that. They have a building and they can
operate. I know gold's gym would love that. He works out at gold's gym. They have to
pay for the building. That is unfair. So if you put the building cost in, the debt service is
$1.8 million a year. So if you take $187,000 that you think you made and you put that
debt service that you should have paid $1.8 million, we lose money on the Green Ridge.
We actually lose $1.6 million a year on Green Ridge. We lose $1.6 million. Now, people
say we do not lose, it's a service to the community. Let's be honest about it. That thing
is not operating even. It's losing money every year. The fact is, we're not counting that
mortgage or that cost of debt service, and if you take that $1.6 million and you divide it
by the amount of citizens that live in Roanoke County, which is 94,000, you'll find out
that every citizen, not every family, every citizen is giving $20 bucks towards that place
every year. So my family of seven is subsidizing $140 of somebody's membership to
that gym. Now, this is where we're going to have an interesting conversation I think
upstairs about fees and those things, fees and taxes. Basically, the citizens of Roanoke
are subsidizing those to go to the rec center and this is where a lot of people have a
problem. They're undercutting the cost of recreation services in the private sector
because we have subsidies and he thinks we need to get away from those kinds of
things. The Green Ridge Center is built and it's a beautiful center. My son plays indoor
soccer and he has games in there, and he thinks wow, it's a beautiful building. The
interesting thing is, he knew that it couldn't make money because if it could, the private
sector would have done it a long time ago. The private sector is always ahead. They
know if you can make money or not make money. The County has found a way to build
this, but we can only build it and lose money on it. He would love one day for the
private sector to buy it. They should operate it. We should not be operating things; the
private sector should be doing most of the things, because he thinks that is the best. He
closed with this. As we all talk about reducing taxes, he always hears everybody say it's
February 10, 2015 87
going to be tough because we've got to provide those core services to everybody and
he does not know if we can do it if we reduce taxes. Last year, and he will bring it up
again, last year, we gave $1.5 million to nonprofit organizations that came here, sixty
(60) of them he thinks. One at a time they came to the podium asking for money. He
would like to ask this Board that we stop that in the future. We just stop that program.
It's not that they don't do good. They do good. It's just not the role of the government.
If people in this room want to help a nonprofit, do it with your own money. He does it
with his own money. He helps organizations that he thinks we should help. He think it's
unfair to be giving money to nonprofit organizations. We need to give money to our own
departments, if we're going to give to the ones that need it. We should not, and he
would really ask the Board to stop that from now on and like he said, last year we gave
$1.5 million. We were screaming that it was a tough year. We got core services and
we gave that money. He would like to close with that. He thinks we need to get back to
what is the role of government '- not what it is we would like to do. We all love to do a lot
of things. What is it, our role, and how can we, each and every day, get as much
money back to the citizens of Roanoke County to have their quality of life improved and
the way they define it, not the way we define it.
Supervisor Peters stated he would like to close our meeting with just a
couple of comments. There's a lot of talk about the budget, tax reductions. He has said
it before and he is going to continue to say it. He will evaluate the process and Max, he
appreciates his comments because that has been his comment all along. For six (6)
years we have put a lot of maintenance off. We have a lot of vehicles to replace. Ms.
Green is in desperate need of trash trucks. If you don't believe trash trucks are
important, sit in this chair and the first month he was on the board, that was the biggest
issue that he had- snow issues as well, but trash not being picked up was a huge issue
to people. We'v� let a lot of other things go for the last six (6) years because we had
to. He is probably no different than anyone else in this room. He would love to cut
taxes; $0.02 in his world means $31. He has already done the math; it not going to
save me a great deal, but he also knows that he has citizens and everybody knows he
represents them. We're in the process of having a 24 hour fire truck in Vinton because
the volunteer group is having some struggles getting trucks out, and the citizens are
demanding it. They have it in Hollins, and they have it in Clearbrook, why do we not
have that truck here? With that comes a lot of expense; a lot of employees. He knows
there's going to be talk of the Cave Spring Rescue Squad maybe getting help during the
next budget cycle; that is going to take people. He does not believe sitting here that we
waste money, but we're responding to our citizens and their needs. He does speak as a
volunteer of the rescue squad here in the County. People don't want to wait. He can't
say he blames them. They pay taxes. They demand their services. They don't want to
wait twenty (20) minutes for an ambulance or fire trucks. They expect services and with
those services, there's a cost. We need to evaluate what that cost is and we need to do
it as effectively and efficiently as we can. He thanked all of his Board members for
another good evening; good debate.
88 February 10, 2015
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4-47 p.m., Supervisor Peters moved to go into closed meeting following
the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711.A.1 namely
discussion, consideration or interviews of prospective candidates for appointment to the
Roanoke Regional Airport Commission and Section 2.2.371 1.A.5 namely discussion
concerning a prospective business or industry or the expansion of an existing business
or industry where no previous announcement has been made of the business's or
industry's interest in locating or expanding its facilities in the County.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
The first closed session was held from 5-10 p.m. until 7-00 p.m. The
second closed session was held from 8-12 p.m. until 8-28 p.m.
At 4-48 p.m. Chairman Peters recessed to the 4 th floor for work session
and closed meeting.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss budget development for fiscal year
2015/2016 to review year-to-date revenue projections and discuss
fees and fee structure (W. Brent Robertson, Director of
Management and Budget)
The work session was held from 7-07 p.m. until 8-05 p.m.
Thomas C. Gates, County Administrator a brief overview and added he
will be calling for dates in case we need additional work sessions.
Brent Robertson went through a PowerPoint presentation. A copy of
which is on file in the office of the Clerk.
Supervisor McNamara asked about the impact of the Norfolk Southern
homes. Billy Driver, Director of Real Estate stated they expect an impact, but it is too
soon to know. Supervisor McNamara added the schools are trying to figure of the
students as was discussed in the Chair and Vice Chair meeting with the Schools.
Chairman Peters noted it should not have an impact until 2016 and asked
when the next revenue projections would be released. Mr. Robertson advised the next
revenue meeting would be held in March.
Next, a discussion ensued about the Green Ridge Recreation Center.
Supervisor McNamara commented they have done a great job and that they were never
intended to cover the debt.
February 10, 2015 89
The next item was community development, whose fees have not
changed in twenty-five (25) years. Mr. Gates remarked that he feels it is an area that
needs to be looked at. It was the consensus of the Board for staff to take a look at
those fees and come back to the Board with recommendations.
It was the consensus of the Board to hold a budget work session on
March 17, 2015.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 8-29 p.m., Supervisor Church moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 021015-8 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 b�siness matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
Eerl
LW-A"w
February 10, 2015
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Peters adjourned the meeting at 8-30 p.m.
Sq)pmitted by- Approved by:
ON
P
P. Jasor�Peters
0
MIT, the Board Chairman