HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/24/2015 - Regular
March 24, 2015
145
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of March 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 a moment of silence was
observed. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Peters called the meeting to order at 3:00 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.
Mahoney, County Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public
Information Officer and Deborah C. Jacks, Deputy Clerk to
the Board
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution setting the allocation percentage for personal property
tax relief in Roanoke County for the 2015 year (Laurie Gearheart,
Assistant Director of Finance)
Ms. Gearheart outlined the resolution, as required by the State on an
annual basis.
Supervisor Church commented that eventually the tax relief will be
March 24, 2015
146
eliminated with Ms. Gearheart responding in the affirmative.
RESOLUTION 032415-1 SETTING THE ALLOCATION
PERCENTAGE FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX RELIEF IN
ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE 2015 TAX YEAR
WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 58.1-3524
(C) (2) and Section 58.1-3912 (E) of the Code of Virginia, as amended by Chapter 1 of
the Acts of Assembly and as set forth in item 503.E (Personal Property Tax Relief
Program or “PPTRA”) of Chapter 951 of the 2005 Acts of Assembly and qualifying
vehicle with a taxable situs within the County commencing January 1, 2015, shall
receive personal property tax relief; and
WHEREAS, this resolution is adopted pursuant to Ordinance 122005-10 adopted
by the Board of Supervisors on December 20, 2005.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows:
1. That tax relief shall be allocated so as to eliminate personal property taxation
for qualifying personal use vehicles valued at $1,000 or less.
2. That qualifying personal use vehicles valued at $1,001-$20,000 will be eligible
for 58.40% tax relief.
3. That qualifying personal use vehicles valued at $20,001 or more shall only
receive 58.40% tax relief on the first $20,000 of value; and
4. That all other vehicles, which do not meet the definition of qualifying (for
example, including but not limited to, business use vehicles, farm use vehicles, motor
homes, etc.) will not be eligible for any form of tax relief under this program.
5. That the percentages applied to the categories of qualifying personal use
vehicles are estimated fully to use all available PPTRA funds allocated to Roanoke
County by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
6. That this resolution shall be effective from and after the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Moore 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 authorizing the acquisition of proposed right-of-way,
proposed drainage easements, proposed utility easements,
proposed water line easements and proposed temporary
construction easements from the owners of nineteen (19)
properties along Route 115, Plantation Road - Plantation Road
March 24, 2015
147
Bicycle, Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvement Project, Hollins
Magisterial District(David Holladay, Planning Administrator)
Mr. Holladay explained the request for the ordinance.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated for those who are watching; this is an
ongoing thing for several years. He asked if there have been portions of this project
that have already been voted on. Mr. Holladay responded there has been various
presentations to the Board at various stages of the project. The project has been
whittled down to project funds that can be managed. Supervisor Bedrosian then asked
if there was a master plan that was brought before the Board last fall. Mr. Holladay
stated this has been a project that has been going on for at least five (5) years; been
through several changes and always approved by the Board to move forward.
Supervisor Bedrosian then asked if staff was still looking for money; aren’t there parts of
this project that are not funded, with Mr. Holladay responding in the affirmative.
Supervisor Bedrosian then stated if we do not get the property donated there will be a
cost with Mr. Holladay responding staff would look at engineering ways around it. There
are no plans to purchase right-of-ways with the funds already appropriated.
Supervisor Bedrosian’s motion to approve the first reading and to
establish the second reading for April 14, 2015, was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance approving the purchase of 1.0491 acres identified as
“Lila Drive,” (Tax Map No. 27.06-05-13.00-0000) a part of the
Plantation Road, Bicycle, Pedestrian and Streetscape
Improvement Project, Hollins Magisterial District (Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney; Richard L. Caywood, Assistant
County Administrator)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the request for the ordinance. Mr. Caywood was in
attendance to answer any questions.
Supervisor Bedrosian commented ever since he has been on this Board
and this project has come up, it gets bigger and bigger. He understands what is trying to
be accomplished with Lila Drive, but is uncomfortable with such a large project. He then
asked how much does Roanoke County have in this project with Mr. Holladay
responding that he did not have the numbers with him, however, it would half of the
revenue sharing funds. Staff started out small with the revenue sharing request for
preliminary engineering and then funds were transferred from other projects that had
balances or were not going to be constructed for various reasons. The revenue sharing
balance started out at $1,500,000 and the other million is now in alternative programs
and those are in-kind donations. To the question of the landscaping plans and
March 24, 2015
148
streetlight maintenance, there will be some cost associated with the beautification.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked if we had the funds or would staff have to come to the
Board to increase the budget. Mr. Holladay responded it is not in the budget at the
current time.
Supervisor Church inquired if this was the same property that was
discussed in a prior closed session with Mr. Mahoney responding in the affirmative.
Supervisor Bedrosian’s motion to approve the first reading and to
establish the second reading for April 14, 2015, was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance appropriating $1,000,000 from the Minor Capital
Account for the purchase of four (4) automated solid waste
vehicles (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services)
Ms. Green advised there were no changes from first reading. She added it
will take a year to receive the trucks.
Chairman Peters inquired what was the industry-wide, average life of
these vehicles with Ms. Green responding seven (7) years industry wide and ten (10)
years for the County. Currently, there are three (3) that are eleven (11) years old and
two (2) that are fourteen (14) years old. Chairman Peters then asked what were the
maintenance costs with Ms. Green advising she did not bring with her, but she knows
that maintenance is $300,000 more than what is in her budget. There is no capital
maintenance plan; these trucks have logged over two (2) million hours of operating
time.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked how many trucks are needed on a daily
basis, with Ms. Green responding nine (9) and have a total of thirteen (13). Supervisor
Bedrosian then asked what the cost is to keep the fleet of just these trucks running
annually with Ms. Green responding if her memory serves her correctly she believes the
cost is $500,000 for the solid waste fleet, which includes the automated truck, the rear
loaders and the trucks that pick up brush. Supervisor Bedrosian then asked how many
trucks is it all together? Ms. Green advised she thinks it is twenty-two or twenty-three
(22 or 23). Supervisor Bedrosian then asked what the largest expense has been. Ms.
Green responded she did not have the numbers with her, but she thought it was
$50,000.
Supervisor Bedrosian commented when the Board makes decisions, there
never seem to be any consequences. This is being done off a budget. It was not in last
year’s budget nor in the upcoming budget. It is being taken out of the minor capital
account. In a perfect world we would have four (4) great vehicles; we have six vehicles
March 24, 2015
149
that are from 2011 and 2014. Basically, you would have a new fleet with four more, if
you add four more it is ten, there is one extra. The problem is Roanoke County and he
blames the Board of Supervisors because we are really the ones who approve
everything; we have made some bad decisions. It gets to a point whereby we are all
scrunching for money and there is never money for the things we are supposed to do
and it never seems like anybody is ever accountable to it. We just spend another
million there because we made bad decisions in the past. Supervisor Bedrosian
compared the situation to his own vehicle. He makes do with what he has. We have
made some bad decisions in the past and now to just spend a million dollars for four (4)
new vehicles, thinks we should just do two (2) vehicles. If we do two (2) vehicles and
you compromise and you save $500,000, which could either be used for a nice part of
tax reduction rate for the citizens of Roanoke County or to look at other items. You
would then have eight (8) vehicles, four (4) from 2011, two (2) from 2014 and these two
(2) new ones. You would have eight (8) vehicles that were relatively new and you
would have several other vehicles that you would use and fix. If we are spending
$500,000 for twenty plus vehicles and the most expensive thing we can think of is a
$10,000 item to fix and these vehicles cost $250,000, it is worth it if you don’t have the
money to keep fixing them for a while until we get ourselves on a regimented budget
and maybe next year we look at another one or two more and we start a cycle. He is
not going to be able to approve four (4) of these vehicles. After hearing all the needs
that Roanoke County has in the two (2) sessions we have had upstairs over the last
couple of meetings, every department has all of these needs and it is multimillions. He
stated he thinks we need to realize and stop denying the fact that we have issues and
start cutting and make do. It is not the department’s fault and he looks at the
department heads and does not think it is their fault. It is what the Supervisors have
done; how they have spent money.
Thomas Gates, County Administrator, added the following comments.
First to the point that we are asking for $1 million for four (4) trucks. As he said the last
time this was brought forward, this is not the ideal way to go about this. The ideal way
would be for us to have a replacement schedule and we are regularly and routinely
replacing those pieces of equipment that we need for service delivery. The fact of the
matter is as Mr. Bedrosian pointed out has not been in evidence in the past and here we
are. The second point that he would make is that we have the need for nine (9) trucks
to operate our routes every day. If we do not have the sufficient equipment to run those
routes and if one of those trucks goes down, we cannot provide the service delivery.
There is a risk in us not having that equipment if it is not in good working order. The
way that we minimize that risk to is replace the equipment when we need to replace it.
He is not sure that you can make do with two (2) trucks that are constantly at risk of
breaking down. We can repair them and we do repair them and that probably costs us
more than it would be long-term to replace them. The fact of the matter is they have to
be operational so we can run the route. It is the risking of the service delivery that
concerns him the most.
March 24, 2015
150
Supervisor Bedrosian responded that he hears him on that, all of us have
to have a vehicle for work. The fact is if it needs repair, he gets it repaired. We have
four (4) extra vehicles. What we are saying here is there is a chance that all four (4) of
those vehicles will be down and we cannot fix it. The reality is that is what most
Americans do; they fix their cars. They don’t keep getting new ones. In a perfect world,
and he keeps coming back to this and he needs to stress this because he is on the
Board for the second year now and we never seem to do anything different. We just
keep doing it the same way and he thinks we have to start realizing that we don’t have
this money that we want. It is not a perfect world where we can have all the new stuff
all the time. It is not. Maybe it is the discipline of the Board and prior Boards that have
gotten us into this situation, This is a good lesson that says to everybody when we
make decisions in the future. A vehicle cost $250,000 and from what he has seen an
extreme case may be that we have to put $10,000 or $20,000 into a vehicle to get it
fixed. Ms. Green commented not annually; it could be $10,000 to $40,000 annually per
vehicle. Mr. Bedrosian stated but that is still six or seven years before you get to the
cost of the vehicle and it is not every year that you have a $30,000 or $40,000 on that
same vehicle. He related to his own personal vehicle and stated sometimes you have
to do what you can to get by. We cannot have everything that we need and that is his
only point.
Chairman Peters stated when you do simple math on that and if you put
$30,000 for these four vehicles that is $120,000 and in two (2) years he would have
bought a new truck.
Supervisor McNamara asked if there was a motion on the floor with
Chairman Peters responding in the negative. Supervisor McNamara then moved to
approve the staff recommendation. If you have equipment that is ten, twelve or thirteen
years old and it is meant to last six or seven years; you are not saving any money. If
you use the exact same logic on school buses, fire trucks, police cars, board rooms.
We don’t need to have a Board room with comfortable chairs for people to sit in. We
could meet up on the fourth floor. We don’t need to have televisions so that our citizens
can see what we need to do. He thinks there needs to be a logical, replacement
process in place for trash trucks along with fire trucks, police cars and school buses and
everything else that we have that rolls on four (4) wheels or more than four (4) wheels.
Once upon a time, we did have $165,000 a year to basically fund a trash truck every
year. Now, we may save up that $165,000 and buy two or three in one year and not
buy one for the next year or two because of benefits by buying three (3) instead of
buying one (1) three (3) years in a row because of customization or things that need to
be done on that truck and he thinks that is appropriate. He is not going to fault a prior
Board that went through a declining revenue environment trying to maintain service
levels for pulling that out of the budget, but that is where we are now and thinks when
we finish our budget for this year we will have some of these reoccurring streams back
in our budgets to fund rolling stock. To say we cannot afford it, what is our minor capital
account for if it not for things like this? We have $2.5 million in our minor county capital
March 24, 2015
151
fund; our minor county capital is for things that is not in the CIP. This is not in the CIP; it
is not a capital project, but it is a significant non-capital item. You could argue it is a
CIP, but it is not a building and is not in the CIP and is not A&E, but it is a one-time
expenditure and that is what minor county capital is for. We replenish minor county
capital on an annual basis based on our policies. So, to say we cannot afford these
trucks and to keep band aiding these things that are past their usual life, he does not
want us driving around in things that are twice past their usual life. He does not think it
is efficient; does not look good and is not the image that he wants to portray for
Roanoke County. He thinks we can afford it; thinks it is appropriate and thinks your
point is well made; it is something that should be in a reoccurring revenue stream and
thinks that will happen. We have the Board and we have the capability to make that
happen.
Supervisor Church stated he has a history on this Board when Ms. Green
has come before and we have rejected her request; it has happened. Mr. McNamara
may have been on the Board at a different time. When we did not, we either did not
have it or felt like there was something else that needed to take its place. He also
recognizes we are doing things a little bit backward here because we should have a
funding stream for the major items, not for the small items. His number one call or
complaint is from citizens concerning debris and trash pickup, next to neighbors fighting
amongst each other. He does not know which one is first, but the bottom line is if you
want to find out how important it is just miss a neighborhood or street. It is not
something that everyone takes for granted, but it is a valuable service. So, if he had
been on this Board each year and approved Ms. Green’s request each and every year,
he would have to say something is wrong; maybe we are not getting the proper
equipment; maybe we are spending too much in repairs but we have rejected more than
a few years. So, this has obviously caught up with us. We are now at the point where
we have to rob Peter to pay Paul and that is never a good way to operate. We have
some serious deficiencies in our budget. We need to start taking a look at a lot of items,
but to try to go back now on something that that touches our citizens more than any
other service. A million dollars is a lot of money, but really feels like we have rejected
and denied requests in the past and think we need to take care of this, but make this the
last time we do it in this manner.
Supervisor Moore stated it is hard to be efficient in your job when you do
not have dependable equipment. She knows that when you have equipment and
vehicles that seem to stay in the shop more than they do on the road it is time for
replacement. We need to service our citizens as the other two (2) supervisors have
mentioned; it is a very important service. She concurs.
Chairman Peters recognized Max Beyer to speak on this issue.
Max Beyer of Coachman Drive stated much of what he is going to say has
been covered quite a bit, but he would like to bring up a few things. He would like to
recommend a change to reduce the number of vehicles from four (4) to three (3) or
even two (2). The principal reason is that the County has competing needs, which need
March 24, 2015
152
to be financed. Of interest to him is why this particular proposal has surfaced at this
time. The requirement has existing for a long time, as has been said. The minor capital
balances have been available since the beginning of this fiscal year. Why is this being
introduced now instead of later with the other competing CIP items and other budget
needs, which will be addressed within the next couple of months? You cannot see what
the competing CIP requirements are. In addition, the bulk replacement of four (4)
automated refuse trucks in one (1) years seems excessive. The current fleet has an
average life of seven point four (7.4) years versus the eight (8) year limit. He is using
an eight (8) year limit because that is what was given at the work session on two (2)
pages, refuse trucks, eight (8) years, 150,000 miles a year, 750,000 miles. So, his
numbers are based upon eight (8) years. Execution of this proposal would replace four
(4) vehicles to reduce the average life to three point eight (3.8), which is less than half of
the eight (8) years. It would also reduce the bump in the replacement in eight (8) years.
If the 2015 replacement was reduced to three (3) vehicles, that would be a savings of
$250,000 and the resulting average would be four point six (4.6) and replacing only two
(2) would result in an average fleet life of five point five (5.5), which is a little better than
half. Considering the financial status of the County, the reduction in the proposed
replacement would occur to be a prudent decision to him. Finally, there is no stated
offset in the maintenance costs in the statement of financial impact. It seems to him in
things that he has dealt with in his career is that when you want to replace something,
you also put in the offset in how much you would save in maintenance costs by
replacing them. The proposed deduction would enable the County to divert these
savings for other purposes significantly, such as a significant contribution to the
reduction in the property tax rate. A half a million dollars would provide over half the
funds required for a one cent reduction in that rate. These would have to be adjusted
for the increased maintenance costs for a year. So, that is his recommendation.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he would like to reply to what folks are saying
on the Board. It always seems if you are against us spending money and trying to be
prudent about how we spend the people’s money; like in this case you must be against
picking up people’s trash; it is the only obvious thing. Supervisor Bedrosian must not
want good, solid pickup of people’s trash and he has to say that because on lots of
issues, this comes around. If he does not think we should spend as much on this, you
must be against that. Let’s clear the table for a second. When the Board takes an
action and spends money, there are consequences and no one on this Board and prior
Boards want to come to grips with it. This is a great case. There are consequences to
our actions and we have to deal with it and say we cannot have a perfect world that we
want; we just cannot. We do that in our homes. If we overspend, then maybe we need
to stay with a car a little bit longer than we should. Maybe we would like to replace our
car at 100,000 miles, but you cannot, you have to keep it a little bit longer and yet the
maintenance costs may get a little bit higher, but it is still going to save you money over
the long haul. We also go back and we say, “What is minor capital for, this is where we
should spend it because we are going to replenish it again.” Okay, how do we
March 24, 2015
153
magically replenish the minor capital, it is money coming from somewhere. It is money
coming from somewhere that we could not spend on something else because we need
to replenish the minor capital, so we get caught in this vicious cycle of having to
replenish it for something next time we are going to want to do, but we cannot, or we
replenish it with less because there is not enough money. There is only a certain
amount of money that comes in for us to spend. They made the comment too that this
is the place where we should spend the money. Then we go back and say this is not
the best way to spend money, it should be in a budget. What is it? Is it good to take it
out of minor capital or is it not. He would say that everybody agrees on this Board that it
is not good. We should not be doing this; we should not be buying four (4) trucks out of
this. We should every year, get one (1) or two (2), but it should be like that versus
taking money out of minor capital. Supervisor Bedrosian then made a substitute motion
to amend the number to two (2). We cannot have the best that we want. Sure, that is
the consequences of prior actions. We can. There are a lot of other departments in
here that need money; need things, would love to have and we are not giving. So, why
not do two (2)? Take that $500,000 and do something else. Someone mentioned that
is almost a penny back to the tax payers, why not? If another need comes up it could
be allocated there instead of putting it all here. Two (2) vehicles would give you eight
(8) vehicles that are almost band new; from 2011 and up and you would have four (4)
other vehicles that could be fixed. We mention in here that one of our big things is the
citizens and getting their garbage picked up. He agrees that is true; as long as he has
lived in the County though he cannot think of a time that he has been upset on the
Board or not on the Board when his garbage has not been picked up, except this last
snow. We always seem to do it and that says something to the General Services
Department. You fix it. It is not like if we don’t get these four (4) vehicles, people are
not going to get their garbage picked up. You will. If we get two (2) vehicles, we will still
pick up your garbage and he thinks we do a very good job of it. He has never had one
citizen complain to him about garbage pickup. When was the last time we have a
broken down vehicle that we could not actually pick up someone’s garbage. Don’t we
go and do it, fix it and get it done and make it happen?
Supervisor McNamara stated he wanted to clarify that we keep talking
about $500,000 savings and that is going to save money on the real estate tax rate. We
are going to have the discussion tonight on the tax rates. They are the same dollars,
but one is a one-time dollar and the other is a reoccurring dollar so to use the same as a
substitute for another is not sound financial principles. If we want to talk about being
sound and making good decisions, we don’t use one-time money to fund ongoing tax
rate reductions. You find reoccurring revenue streams to fund tax deductions. His only
comment is that we want to be responsible, we want to make good decisions, but that
would be a very, very bad decision.
Supervisor Church stated he can see the point of not doing this in the
manner in which we are doing it in, but is going to have to depend on the accuracy of
the General Services Director and her assistants that we do have some problems. Ms.
March 24, 2015
154
Green spoke about over $300,000 in the maintenance budget and is that correct with
Ms. Green responding in the affirmative. Where is the money coming from? Obviously,
it was worked out. Ms. Green responded in the affirmative saying at the end of the
year, they did a budget transfer to make her budget whole because they know that is a
legitimate expense so it just comes from the general fund. He stated he had two older
vehicles and was spending more for upkeep than he was for another vehicle.
Eventually, it catches you. It is not like an automobile in his opinion. It is a major piece
of equipment with hydraulic systems. There is money in Roanoke County; you just
need to look in the right place for the right reason. He still thinks this is a valid request.
Chairman Peters stated if anyone is looking at our screens; if you are
paying attention, even if we replaced these four (4) and they will be a year from now
getting here. We are going to have a truck that is fifteen (15) years old and three that
will be twelve (12) years old. Right on the heels of that, there are three (3) more truck
that are going to be twelve and ten years old; which is going to come back and bite us.
Hollins must be a wonderful place because between snow removal and trash pickup, he
would not have any phone calls. Ms. Green does a great job with her department. As
you have already shared with us, it is effecting the service to go back and pick up trash
when it has been overlooked. This Board has already been advised that it is effecting
the services of Roanoke County citizens. To put ourselves in this position that we are
going to be right back in the same predicament in a short while if we don’t replace these
trucks. We have three (3) more just like it. Mr. Gates and he have talked and this
Board has discussed having an ongoing replacement plan. Yes, buying four (4) is a lot
of money; capital funds is where it will come from. We do not make a habit of this, but
as the Supervisor from Catawba rightly said, there were times that we could not do it.
The money is there and will make our fleet whole, with three (3) that are way past their
time, but it will not affect the services we are providing our citizens.
Supervisor Bedrosian’s substitute motion to reduce the number from four
(4) to two (2) was denied by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bedrosian,
NAYS: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Peters
Supervisor Bedrosian commented that it always seems like when
referenced back he hears the comment back, “to not do this.” This is not what he
suggested, he suggested to do it at a lower level. He just wanted to make that clear
because you seem to get categorized if you do not want to do it all, you are against it
and he thinks that is unfair. He thinks this Board and the County need to start
recognizing some things. To him, if we had done two (2), it would force us next year to
get in line and make sure that we are not spending money in areas that we do not have
to and start budgeting that one (1) or two (2) a year. It is gone, we don’t have to worry
about that anymore. He stated he thinks that is what becomes very dangerous. We
should do what we are able to do, which may not be all out, maybe a compromise but
March 24, 2015
155
starts getting us whole. We would be better off than we are now.
Chairman Peters commented they could have asked for seven (7), but
they only asked for four (4) and we need to make our fleet whole. He stated that is the
bottom line for him. This will give us ten (10) trucks that are within a reasonable time
frame. We need to be proactive in our replacement policy because this Board or any
other should be placed in this position again.
ORDINANCE 032415-2 APPROPRIATING $1,000,000 FROM THE
MINOR COUNTY CAPITAL ACCOUNT TO GENERAL SERVICES
FOR THE PURCHASE OF FOUR (4) AUTOMATED SOLID
WASTE VEHICLES
WHEREAS, Roanoke County implemented automated solid waste collection in
the late 1980’s; and
WHEREAS, automated collection has saved the County money through reduced
personnel costs and increased efficiency; and
WHEREAS, the useful life of a solid waste collection vehicle is approximately
seven (7) years; and
WHEREAS, the County has been able to keep these vehicles running for ten (10)
or more years through careful daily cleaning and maintenance; and
WHEREAS, the cost of repairing the vehicles increases every year with costs
exceeding the budget for repairs; and
WHEREAS, the need for solid waste vehicles is becoming critical and may begin
to affect service to citizens; and
WHEREAS, funds in the amount of $1,000,000 are available in the minor capital
account to be used for the purchase of four solid waste vehicles; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on March 10, 2015, and the
second reading was held on March 24, 2015.
BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the sum of $1,000,000 is appropriated to General Services from the
Minor Capital Account for the purchase of four new automated solid waste
vehicles.
2. That this ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian
March 24, 2015
156
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
1. Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission (appointed
by District)
Supervisor Bedrosian recommended the appointment of Randy Grubb to
replace Troy Kincer. Confirmation has been placed on the Consent Agenda.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 032415-3 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM I- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for March 24,
2015, designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 6 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes – February 24, 2015
2. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
(This item
Roanoke County to Judge Philip Trompeter upon his retirement
was removed from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.
)
3. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Donna Waldron, Programmer/Analyst, upon her
retirement after more than eighteen (18) years of service
4. Confirmation of the appointment of Gregory Hamilton (At-Large) to the Blue
Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors
5. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief of Fire and Rescue, upon his
retirement after more than eighteen (18) years of service
6. Confirmation of appointment to the Parks, Recreation and Tourism
Commission (appointed by District); Roanoke Valley Greenway (At-Large)
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, with the exception of
Item I-2, which was removed for separate consideration and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
March 24, 2015
157
1. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County to Judge Philip Trompeter upon
his retirement
All Supervisors thanked Judge Trompeter for his service.
RESOLUTION 032415-4 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO
JUDGE PHILIP TROMPETER UPON HIS RETIREMENT
WHEREAS, the Honorable Philip Trompeter, Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic
rd)
Relations District Court for the twenty-third (23 Judicial District of Virginia will retire on
April 15, 2015; and
WHEREAS, Judge Trompeter has helped families and particularly children over
the past thirty (30) years both on the bench, and through service on boards of a variety
of advocacy and educational non-profit organizations; and
WHEREAS, Judge Trompeter has also been involved in improving the legal
profession, participating through mentoring and teaching attorneys and judges, and has
been appointed to various State-wide committees and commissions by the Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court of Virginia, including the Board of the Domestic Relations Section
of the Virginia Bar Association, the Committee on District Courts, and as an Advisory
member to Virginia’s Court-Improvement Project for Abused and Neglected Children;
and
WHEREAS, Judge Trompeter founded the “Families in Touch” support group for
families of persons suffering from mental illness, as well as the Roanoke Valley Court
Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program, the first in the Commonwealth; and
WHEREAS, Judge Trompeter has received numerous awards and recognitions
throughout his distinguished career, including the National Mental Health Association’s
“Remember the Children Award”, the Brotherhood Award from the Roanoke Chapter of
the National Conference of Christians and Jews, the Distinguished Service Award from
the Mental Health Association of the Roanoke Valley, the Guardian Angel Award from
the Children’s Trust of the Roanoke Valley, and the “Courage to Care” award from the
Roanoke Valley Prevention Council; and
st
WHEREAS, in 2013, Judge Trompeter became the first (1) and only district
court judge in Virginia to receive the Harry L. Carrico Career Service Award for
demonstrating exceptional leadership in the administration of the courts while exhibiting
the traits of integrity, courtesy, impartiality, wisdom and humility; and
WHEREAS, Judge Trompeter has shown a generous heart, an outgoing spirit
and a fair and just soul in helping the men, women and children who appeared before
his bench, all of which will be truly missed.
March 24, 2015
158
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors that it does hereby express its highest appreciation to the Honorable Philip
Trompeter for his thirty (30) years of service to the people of the Roanoke Valley; and
further
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does hereby express its wish to
Judge Trompeter for a healthy, happy and productive retirement.
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
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Moore 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
5. Treasurer’s Statement of Accountability per Investment and
Portfolio Policy as February 28, 2015
6. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of
February 28, 2015
7. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of February 28, 2015
8. Accounts Paid – February 28, 2016
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 3:58 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.3 To discuss or
consider the disposition of real property, namely the sale of the old William Byrd High
School property where the discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the
bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the authority. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
March 24, 2015
159
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
The closed meeting was held from 6:14 p.m. until 6:35 p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss budget development for fiscal year
2015/2016 to review the topic of Compensation and Benefits
(Thomas C. Gates, County Administrator; W. Brent Robertson,
Director of Management and Budget; Rebecca Owens, Director of
Finance)
The work session was held from 4:15 p.m. until 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Gates gave a brief introduction to start the discussion and went
through the PowerPoint presentation provided in the Board agenda package and is on
file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked how our compensation package compares to
the rest of the Roanoke Valley. Is there any way to look at the average salary in
Roanoke County? Mr. Gates responded that is a difficult thing to show and provided an
additional spreadsheet that provided some additional information and said most people
fall within the $30,000 to $60,000 range. He feels that is an accurate representation of
what our salary distribution is. Jimmy Lyons, Budget Manager, advised he had gone to
Census.gov and got the current national median household income of $53,046 and then
looked at Roanoke County’s median household income, which is quite a bit higher at
$67,795. There is a fourteen point six (14.6%) difference between Roanoke County and
the nation looking at average statistics. Then the only place you can find an average
salary nationwide is through the Social Security average wage index and they pegged
that in 20143 at $44,888 so he applied the fourteen point six percent differential to the
$44,888 and come up with an average salary of Roanoke County residents at $51,442.
Supervisor Church stated he felt like that is more accurate; a few years
ago the Board was told around $47,000 to $48,000.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated just to make sure that number means that
average means that you take everybody that has an income and we think the average
salary is $51,000. Mr. Gates responded in the affirmative but advised a better way to
understand that is somewhere in that range is probably accurate $44,000 to $51,000. If
you accept that range as what the average salary would be in Roanoke County then our
mean and our median are within that range. We are not very far out of range of what
would seem to be the average income for the area.
March 24, 2015
160
Supervisor McNamara stated so if we did the whole valley, we would be in
the ballpark. Mr. Gates responded in the affirmative and from an employer standpoint
this is where you want to be.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated when he looks at Roanoke County pay it is
kind of like looking at it in a vacuum in our world and he wants to make sure that he
does not make the mistake of woe is us because he wants to make sure that we have a
foot in reality of the community that we represent.
Supervisor McNamara asked if Roanoke City has VRS with Mr. O’Donnell
explaining just for new employees.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked if we had any stats on retention on public
safety before and after last year’s adjustments. Chief Hall responded he has seen
some improvement based on recruiting and the number of people leaving and returning
since July 1, 2014. He has had career changes and has two retirements pending. He
indicated there were two that had left for other Police Departments. It is important to
note that the officer that went to Roanoke City has now returned as did one of the
officers who left earlier last year.
Next, Rebecca Owens went through the health insurance changes.
Supervisor McNamara inquired about the school wellness program with Penny Hodge,
Assistant Superintendent-Finance, advising they are one to two (1 to 2) years behind
what the County has accomplished. They require employees to get an annual physical
and the employee does not smoke or has been advised of a recommendation of a
smoking cessation program and the employee is enrolling in it. They will be charging a
higher rate next year for non-wellness participants.
Chairman Peters advised that the “no layoffs” has been taken off the table.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 7:00 p.m., Supervisor Peters moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 032415-5 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:
March 24, 2015
161
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Resolution recognizing Vinton Volunteer First Aid Crew, Inc. for
over seventy-five (75) years of service (Acting Chief Joey Stump)
The resolution was read by the Deputy Clerk. All Supervisors offered their
congratulations.
RESOLUTION 032415-6 RECOGNIZING VINTON VOLUNTEER
FIRST AID CREW, INC. FOR OVER SEVENTY-FIVE (75) YEARS
OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, on October 5, 1939, eighteen (18) men with a strong desire to help
their friends and neighbors in need met in the basement of Vinton Baptist Church,
officially establishing the Vinton First Aid Crew, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, their beginnings were humble as they relied on personal vehicles
and later a 1934 Ford panel truck, a donated first aid kit and a few pieces of used home-
made equipment; and
WHEREAS, the crew received its first “real” piece of equipment on December 2,
1939, a H & H inhalator donated by Sam Oakey of Oakey’s Funeral Services and
Crematory; and
WHEREAS, under the leadership of O. P. Shilling, seventeen (17) of these
original men completed and passed an American Red Cross Advanced First Aid Course
to earn Advanced Certificates with Guy L. Gearheart volunteering to serve as chief; and
WHEREAS, throughout its seventy-five (75) year history, the Vinton First Aid
Crew has experienced many changes. Membership has grown to approximately fifty
(50) volunteers who help respond to more than 1,500 emergency calls per year and
protect 20,000 citizens in the Town of Vinton, Eastern Roanoke County and neighboring
Roanoke City, Bedford and Botetourt Counties as needed; and
March 24, 2015
162
WHEREAS, Volunteers served the Town of Vinton and Roanoke County with
more than 22,000 hours of in-station duty last year; and
WHEREAS, to this day, the Vinton First Aid Crew lives by a Bible quote from
John 15:13, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his
friends.”; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of
THE VINTON FIRST AID CREW, INC.
the citizens of Roanoke County to for over
seventy-five (75) years of dedicated service to Roanoke County.
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: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF TAX RATES
1. Public hearings for citizen comment on the following item: (W.
Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget)
(a) Real estate, personal property and machinery and tools tax
rates
Chairman Peters opened and closed the public hearing. The following
citizens spoke:
Linda LaPrade stated once again she asked the Board to lower the tax
rate by at least one penny. When assessments go up, residents are paying more
money. You can phrase it anyway you want to, but it is still a tax increase. To lower the
real estate tax one penny would take $800,000. The very first time this was discussed
in a Board meeting, we were asked, “What services do you want to give up.” This in her
opinion is a ploy. It is shifting responsibility for cuts from staff and administration where
it belongs to residents. In the past year, you have found $200,000 to build the type
water tower you wanted. You found the one-time money to open libraries on Sunday
and if records were checked carefully, she thinks we would find other instances when
departments or the Board wanted something and the money was found. She stated she
has no doubt that you could “find” $800,000 to lower the tax rate this year in the
upcoming budget. One Board member mentioned this afternoon that lowering the tax
rate should be accomplished only by reoccurring funds. We have recurring funds and
you know how much they are. What thus far in the process is lacking is simply the will
to set aside a specific amount for lowering the tax rate or for paying down the debt.
Would this give the taxpayer a great deal of savings? No it wouldn’t; in almost every
case less than $100. What it would give though is invaluable. It would say to
March 24, 2015
163
businesses that when others increase the tax rate, Roanoke County is set on making
things better for property owners. It would say to residents that this Board and this
Administration are serious about striving for a lean government with every penny spent
being a penny for a real need in this County. If this is not the direction you are planning
to take, at lease put down a line item for reducing the County debt; and she has no
doubt that you can find $800,000 to lower the tax rate this year. Use the money that
you find to give back to the taxpayers in some concrete way. After all, never forget it is
their money.
May Beyer stated he is asking the Board to pay it forward to the citizens of
Roanoke County by giving a tax break. The taxes are going up in Roanoke County.
The budget has not been finalized, but he has attended budget hearings and can see
the handwriting on the wall and some of the items considered is pay raises for
employees and financing maintenance and many other things some of which are very
crucial and very critical. At the end of the day, in his judgment, is that the taxes are
going to increase for citizens in order to pay for pay raises. There are other things too,
but he would ask the Board based on this that you hold taxpayers harmless and the
only way you can do that for the tax increase we have already is to reduce the tax rate
by a penny. There are other things. For example, another thing that is being
considered is the continuation of Sunday’s hours at the library. He likes libraries and
certainly supports that, but they were extended this year by using carry over funds,
which are by definition not recurring funds and if they go into the budget next year, they
will be reoccurring and was told earlier that that Board does not do that. They do not
create and pay for recurring services with nonrecurring funds; they will be doing it
because of the continuation with nonrecurring funds. This example can happen again
and again until something is financed temporarily and becomes a part of the base and
that is how taxes go up and that is how expenses go up. A reduction in the tax rate
would be a signal to the citizens that they matter and they are being considered by the
Board and everybody else. It has been six (6) years or seven (7) years since we have
had any kind of consideration for the tax rate. It is more a token; it is paying it forward.
He asked the Board which kind of local government would you like to be, one that is
raising taxes or lowering taxes and getting the job done. We have two (2) in this valley
and you can set the example. Which one has the better management team? He knows
which one has it, all you have to do is have the political will.
RoxAnne Christley stated the word “government” is synonymous with the
word “waste.” The question this Board really needs to ask themselves is, “What are you
going to do for our County to reduce government waste and quit squandering our
money?” She has heard members of this Board say we can reduce taxes, or reduce
debt, but we cannot do both at the same time. We can do both and this Board knows it.
It might not be in your comfort zone and some of it might not be popular with the
citizens, but it can be done. Let’s refer back to the word “waste.” There is a
“boogeyman in the corner” of reducing services in the County and that is the scare tactic
used most often by this and previous Boards to gain our acceptance of this continued
March 24, 2015
164
“waste.” Those services are a creation of the County and need to be examined on a
regular basis. As she suggested the last time she spoke to this Board, why not
approach the budget in a different way and just create a smaller budget total for each
department. Tell those departments that is how much they have to spend and let the
departments figure out where the “waste” is. Eliminating the waste will lead to a more
efficient County government, allow for debt reduction and lessen the tax burden on the
citizens. What she is advocating for a reduction is one cent in the real estate tax rate
this year. Consider that is your fixed budget and make it work; that is what she has
done in her own home and citizens in theirs. If she has to do it, then by golly the County
should do it as well. The County cannot continue on the fiscal path that we have been
on. It will not work. She leaves the Board with the questions of the day. Will you either
be partially to blame or will you be the solution. She hopes the Board will be the latter.
(1) Request to adopt the following tax rates for calendar year 2015:
(W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget)
(a) Real estate tax rate of $1.09 per $100 assessed valuation
Supervisor Church stated he does agree that we do have and can find the
money for at least at one cent tax reduction. He added he has been a member of this
Board a long time and as recently as September of 2014, he has asked during work
session to begin our budget process by setting aside a tax rate reduction and asked Mr.
Robertson to verify. Mr. Robertson advised he does recall this. He has two or three
times in the past several years. He is holding in his hand and we can do it on a
reoccurring basis because history has told Roanoke County that our citizens’ real estate
revenues will increase. We just have to take a stand somewhere along the line and do
something. He is holding in his hand what Board members have for many years
starting in 2007 toward 2014 and at the end of the year, surplus revenues were $3.4
million, in 2008, $1.134 million, in 2009, $189,000, we were short in 2010 by $2.1
million, plus $1,056 million in 2011 and$26,000 in 2012 and $693,000 in 2013 and 2014
$1.17 million. In the past years and has complained about this to previous
administrators, we would go through the year and tough times and were told things had
to be taken care of and at the end of the year there was a surplus. In his mind, and he
made his opinion known to previous administrators, we missed an opportunity to do
some good for people during the year. We just got through several work sessions
upstairs, we talked about compensation and some of the things that were talked about
were benefit adjustments, performance pay, taking care of our employees, which is
good and trying to make sure our employees do not have a take home net loss. What
about the same program for our citizens? Everything we talk about in budget
processes, we have had one line that mentioned what the cost would be for a one cent
reduction, $800,000. It is the only line item discussion. He stated he believes in order
to have a team that is benefitting together, teamwork and belief, you cannot have half
March 24, 2015
165
the team pulling in one direction and the other half in another direction. If they are
made to feel like part of the team, and there is some effort to include them on the team,
you can do wonders as captain of the team, or elected officials. One penny may not
amount to $25 to $40 a year, but it is better than continually having programs to pay for
certain benefits, programs issues, we have done it. We seem to forget whose money it
is that we are using. He stated he thinks a one cent reduction is appropriate. He thinks
we should sent a message. He thinks we are sending the wrong signal tonight if we
don’t do something. We do have money that we can find. He is hoping that we can
come together tonight and have a reduction because we owe it to the folks.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he thinks this is probably one of the most
important discussions we will have as a Board because as the Supervisor from
Catawba said the reality is that the money that comes in to Roanoke County to spend is
taxpayer dollars. We always say that we are doing this for the citizens, but the reality is
something happens so when you get into government; when you become a Board
member everyone starts looking at where they can spend money. It is not anything
unusual because they do it in State government and the Federal government.
Everybody talks these great talks about reducing government and limiting it and making
it very efficient; they are all great sounding words, but it is almost like 99.9% of people
when they actually get involved forget all about it. All they do is find ways to spend
money. Being on this Board for a year and one half, there are plenty of places to spend
money and all the places you can spend money is not about wasting money, something
really ridiculous, it about doing stuff, just like in his home. He has plenty of places he
could spend money right now in his home that is not a waste of money, but you get to a
point where you can do things and there are things you cannot do and you need to be
smart about it; mature about it. He stated he thinks we get this disease that we see all
these things we want to spend money on and no way can we give money back to the
citizens. He stated he thinks that is very dangerous and the wrong kind of attitude to
have. So, he wants to make it clear because he thinks people will start talking about all
these things we have to do and all the things we can do. There is no dispute about that.
There are plenty of things we can do; this is not the issue. The issue is are we thinking
about the citizens that we get the money from. The ironic thing about this is that Board
members may be more willing to give a tax cut when more revenues come in. The
more revenues come in means we just take in more money from the citizens so that the
citizens never really make out. So, the time to do it is now. As stated before, the
assessments have gone up, we are removing an additional $1.5 million out of the
Roanoke County economy and putting it into the government economy. Some may
think that is okay, government knows how to spend that money better than a citizen
would if they had it. That is one ideology, thought process that he does not agree with.
He would rather see, whatever the number is, the individuals’ households using that $40
to $50 versus government saying this is how we are going to spend this amount of
money. He has heard and has had these discussions; thinks they are good
discussions, costs are going up. Everybody says that. If all costs are going up how can
March 24, 2015
166
you expect not to take in more money or spend more money; that is a logical question.
How can we not spend more than we did last year? So, he started thinking about the
fact that costs do go up and asked himself what has he done differently. We may not
take a vacation and have done that for many years; we just don’t go. Buying clothing
and food items; we start looking at different things we can buy. Even though costs are
going up, we can still contain our costs even in those tough times. So, for government
to say they are the only ones dealing with it is kind of silly. The average citizen deals
with it all the time and makes do with it. The other thing that he has heard from
Departments, we are always being asked to do more with less. He does not have that
experience because he is not in government on the administrative side. He works for
the Xerox Corporation. Thirty years ago, when he started there was an office in
Roanoke, there were two or three sales teams, 15-20 people, administrative aides,
support people all over. Today, we have three (3) employees in Roanoke; four (4)
service technicians; things are different. So even if he does not understand what the
departments in government go through, he has a similar or parallel type of thing; he has
been asked to do with less and make more and bring back more. So, he understands
the issue that we are all being tasked with, but it comes down to the point of what is the
response of people in government for the citizens of Roanoke County. The fact is we
are pulling $1.5 million out of the economy and we are making life worse than it was last
year for Roanoke County citizens. The rates are not going up, but with the assessment
going up, out-of-pocket pay for people with real estate is increasing; that is the bottom
line. A Roanoke County citizen is worse off in this cycle if we keep the rates the same
than they were last year. He just heard it from the Supervisor from Catawba. We
should not make it worse off for the employees of Roanoke County than they had it last
year. Why are we making if worse off for the citizens of Roanoke County? There are
90,000 plus citizens of Roanoke County, there are 951 employees. So we can be
upstairs talking about pay increases for everybody, but we cannot do anything for the
90,000 citizens of Roanoke County. We will have discussion, but if no one proposes
anything, he is willing to compromise on this. He is looking for a two cent reduction, but
if someone were to bring up a penny, he is willing and is not going to be selfish about it.
If no one says anything, he will propose a substitute motion and make it more.
Supervisor Moore stated we have asked our staff over the years to do
more with less because they have reduced their budgets at least by ten percent (10%)
over the years and we also have just focused on public safety and services for our
citizens. We put a lot of things on the back burner like maintaining our equipment, our
vehicles and also we need to focus on technology because if we are not technology
minded and do not replace our technical support, then we are going to be left behind all
over the world. We need to focus on these things and move forward. Our County
Administrator, along with staff, has worked on a strategic plan so she thinks in the future
we will have a process that we will be able to maintain our vehicles and equipment and
instead of figuring out where we have the money, we will have a plan for that. She does
not think we should penalize our citizens and take away the needs of the services that
March 24, 2015
167
they are accustomed to.
Supervisor McNamara stated how can he not agree with what has been
said. We want to do the very, very best for our citizens, we want government to run
efficiently. We want to move Roanoke County forward. He agrees with everything that
has been said beyond any shadow of a doubt. He has a slightly different view on how
we best move Roanoke County forward. Does he want to reduce taxes, absolutely. He
sat on this Board and reduced taxes from $1.13 to $1.12 to $1.11 to $1.09. He sat on
this Board when we put the capital improvement program together, to fund schools, fire
stations, infrastructure that was not in place. He sat on this Board last year when we
worked very, very hard last year and again this year because we said we did not want a
stormwater management fee in Roanoke County. Why don’t we want a stormwater
management fee? It impacts economic development and we want to be as competitive
as we possibly can from an economic development standpoint. He sat on this work for
an entire year hearing about our debt level almost on a regular basis. Is our debt level
manageable, yes. Is it irresponsible, no. Can it be lower, yes, and that is what he
would like to do. If you look at stormwater management and look at our job to ensure
the viability of Roanoke County going forward it boils down to economic development.
Tied very closely with economic development are our schools, our tax rates, our quality
of life, our greenways, our fire and rescue and everything that makes Roanoke County
and the Roanoke Valley a great place to live. So, he cannot support anything but $1.09
on the real estate tax rate, he can support three things that are even better. He can
support us putting a budget together that somehow, someway will incorporate
stormwater management fees into our budget without separate fees to our end user.
This impacts positively economic development, business, and schools. He can support
foregoing with our capital improvement program we have $10 million a year going
toward capital improvements. He can forgo two (2) years of capital improvements. This
is $20 million. You want to lower debt, here is $20 million. $20 million forever will save
you a $1 million in interest. There is your tax rate. So you have cut your tax rate and
cut your debt by $20 million besides the current course. He can support a reduction in
tax rates as it relates to promoting and developing economic development, but not in
the real estate tax rate.
Supervisor Church stated he too was here when we went from $1.13 to
$1.09. This Board has not entertained stormwater management fees to be charged.
We have not had a discussion to come up with a dollar amount that would be charged
to the citizens and asked Mr. Robertson to confirm. Mr. Robertson did confirm. We
have an opportunity to reach out with $800,000, one penny that is not going to wreck by
any stretch of the imagination Roanoke County’s economic development or anything
else. He is looking at our budget and we have a general fund unappropriated balance
of $21.8 million. Minor capital reserve $2.6 million. Major capital reserve is $2.59
million. The point is we are not at debt’s door. We are not up against the wall and this
Board never has been. He has been on this Board fifteen (15) years and we have
never even come close. We do know that the economy is not tanking right now. Things
March 24, 2015
168
are showing signs of coming back. We need to stop and take a look at the picture. We
talked about our employees and they are very important, please do not misunderstand
what he said a while ago. We are talking about leaving them harmless. We have a
good Board here. Collectively, we could come together and easily, in his opinion, give a
one cent rate reduction and not skip a beat on economic development or anything else.
If there are three Board members who say put a one cent reduction in the budget, it will
be there. Just ask Mr. Gates. It is not magic, it is just counting to three. It is not
theatrical games, no politicizing going on; he has been asking for this for the last four
years and so has other Board members. This is the time to do it. In work sessions we
had for illustrative purposes $80 million to $90 million for expenditures to 2025. We are
talking about a lot of money. If we cannot afford $800,000 for our citizens, then
something is wrong in his opinion.
Supervisor Peters stated he would now have his ten (10) minutes of fame.
Mr. Bedrosian is right, he has posed the question to a number of folks right here in this
room a couple of weeks ago and he does not believe we can cut taxes and cut debt
without effecting something. He has been out and talked to a number of folks; was at
the Mountain Pleasant Lions Club last week and have spoken to a lot of people. Let’s
put things in order. Xerox Corporation removed those people from the Roanoke Valley
because demand is not there. When you look at the necessities of life and he posed
this question to Mr. Bedrosian last Wednesday night, can you name one thing in your
household, excluding gas, which he thinks is temporary that has went down in your
household within the last five years. He is not talking about clothing; groceries, AEP bill,
water bills, everything that is a necessity in his household has went up. So, I stepped
back and looked at government and says he cannot buy a police car for what I could
have paid for it five (5) years ago or a fire truck, or uniforms for my officers and hates to
bring up police cars because of recent incidents, but he looks at that and there is a built
in piece of inflation that we cannot get away from and we have to understand is there.
There is a lot of other conversation that has taken place. We had a conversation in our
last work session about the VDOT Revenue Sharing Agreement. We can put money in
there to expedite having roads repaired because and he is speaking for only himself,
come over to Vinton, East County, Mt. Pleasant, there are a lot of road issues. VDOT is
not keeping the roads up and people are wanting those services. Cave Spring is going
to need twenty-four hour ambulance protection in a very short while. Unfortunately,
their volunteer system is not picking up where it needs to be; that is a service that we
are going to have to add. He is not picking on the Xerox Corporation, but demands
were coming down, but ours are going up. Mt. Pleasant needs more fire and rescue
people over there. Where are we going to get that money? He believes the County
needs to step back and he has preached this for a year. We need to step back. We
need to stop looking at new construction. We need to maintain what we have because
he can sit here and tell you that we have done a terrible job and does not mean this
Board, but prior Boards. Things have just been put off. It is no fault of anyone when he
says that; please don’t take any disrespect. Come to this building, drive around the
March 24, 2015
169
parking lot and then get your front-end aligned. $136,000 it would cost to repave this
parking lot. $1 million to replace the heat and air-conditioning. Where is this money
coming from? There is a lot of maintenance in our buildings that need to be done. We
do need to put the brakes on new construction. We need to take care of what we have.
At the end of the day, we talk about the citizens’ money. What about their assets? The
citizens own this building and all the buildings throughout Roanoke County and he has
had people comment. He does get emails and he takes each and every one of them
seriously. One was talking about the Green Ridge Rec. Center and he has openly said
before and will say it again, he would not have supported building it because he does
not think government should be involved in private business, but it is here. So now he
has to change his focus and say he wants this place to be profitable. He wants it to do
what it was called to do until which time another decision is made. Are they taking care
of the debt service? No. At the end of the day he can guarantee this room would be
filled with people if this Board collectively said tonight, we are done and we are not
going to fund Green Ridge at all and let it sit there and will end up looking like the old
William Byrd High School meanwhile paying the debt service. The citizens in this
County would be in an uproar. He does support our employees; he made that clear
today both in work session and during the Employee Advisory Committee. He listens to
all his citizens. He listens to his emails. He has read he can cut the budget by getting
rid of our Police Department and going back to the Sheriff’s Department. This sounds
all well and good, but that is a referendum that has to go before our citizens before he
can act on it. There is not a whole lot he can do with that. Meanwhile, the service level
of this County is very important to him. Unfortunately not all areas have a strong
volunteer organization as we have in the Vinton First Aid Crew; he is very proud to be a
part of that operation. So, he knows that our service level is going to go up. We are
going to need additional employees to maintain the service levels citizens are expecting
because he seriously doubts we will pull paid staff from Catawba, Mason’s Cove or Ft.
Lewis or from Hollins. No matter where you are as a citizen of Roanoke County, you
have an expectation of a level of service whether it is for a fire truck, a police car, an
ambulance or whatever the case may be. He will close with this and he has been very
blunt with a number of folks that he is much more concerned with the debt of Roanoke
County than a one penny reduction because he polled the value of the five homes
presented on this board. His own house is worth the least, so a one cent tax reduction
would result in $15 back, Mr. McNamara would get $17, Mr. Church would get $21, Ms.
Moore would get $25 and Mr. Bedrosian would get $34. He brings this out to illustrate.
Right now, we are paying $16 million a year in debt service. We owe $190 million. If
we will not focus on our construction and bond issuances for the next two years, it will
save us $20 million and will bring out debt at the conclusion of those two years to $163
million, effectively reducing $27 million. Mr. Peters then moved to set the tax rate at
$1.09 and this Board will not take the next two installments, which we would normally do
for both the schools and this Board, the next two installments of $10 million in bonds so
that we can accelerate our debt retirement.
March 24, 2015
170
Supervisor McNamara stated that has been one thing that comes to mind
that has not gone up in the last five (5) years and that is real estate taxes. While an
individual may have had a real estate assessment go up, overall in Roanoke County
fiscal year 2011 we collected $87.6 million, and in fiscal year 2015 we are at $86.2
million. So, collectively as an entire County, our real estate tax collections have gone
down over the past five (5) years, roughly a percent and one half. As the Chairman has
mentioned, many of the service levels that we are trying to fund have gone up and has
resulted in significant cuts in operating budgets. He would support the Chairman’s
motion. He thinks Roanoke County is far better off by a disciplined, responsible
approach as outlined. The citizens of Roanoke County will get their cake and get to eat
it too. They are going to get $20 million less debt and just the interest on that $20
million is going to equal the $800,000 they might have gotten from a one cent reduction.
He thinks it is appropriate and called for the question.
Supervisor Church asked to be recognized. Chairman Peters stated a
motion had been made to call for the question and it is not debatable. Supervisor
Church then asked for Chairman Peters to explain the motion. Chairman Peters stated
that when you call for the question, it ends debate.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated when he gave his comments he stated he
wanted to bring up a substitute motion.
Chairman Peters stated there is no discussion as the motion to call for the
question has been made.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked what was being voted on.
Chairman Peters stated the motion was to end debate.
Supervisor McNamara’s motion to call for the question was carried by the
following roll called vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church
Supervisor Church commented debate is healthy.
Supervisor Church asked County Attorney Mahoney if the change that
Chairman Peters had recommended could be incorporated into the same order. Mr.
Mahoney responded in the affirmative. The way he understands is that the provision
with regard to the debt would be added to the order.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated the Board was here to discuss the tax rate, it
is not about the debt for next year or the year after that or the year after that. We are
here to discuss this tax rate and it seems like if we are going to have any kind of
substitute motion, it would be on this tax rate. Any substitute motion should be on the
tax rate not on a different item.
Chairman Peters stated it is on the tax rate and he has incorporated it into
the order; it is not debatable at this point.
March 24, 2015
171
Supervisor Bedrosian then asked what the Board was voting on with
Chairman Peters reiterating the tax rate at $1.09 and not to take the next two
installments of $10 million in bonds for the next two (2) years so that we may accelerate
our debt retirement. Supervisor Bedrosian asked what about the schools. Chairman
Peters stated the schools have to come before the Board and ask and ultimately the
power ends with this Board. He is requesting that we will not issue the $10 million
through the next two (2) cycles as an avenue of reducing our debt.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he thinks bringing up this issue, which has
nothing to do about debt and to get a full understanding and rush this through and vote
on something. He has a lot of questions. He thinks it is not a bad idea, but a totally
different topic. So, you are asking me right now to vote on something that he does not
know all the nuances of and at the last second.
Supervisor McNamara called a point of order stating the question has
been called.
ORDER 032415-7 SETTING THE TAX RATE ON REAL ESTATE
SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR
2015
BE IT ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that
the levy for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2015, and ending December
$1.09
31, 2015, be, and hereby is, set for a tax rate of per one hundred dollars of
assessed valuation on all taxable real estate and mobile homes classified by Sections
58.1-3200, 58.1-3201, 58.1-3506.A.8, and 58.1-3506.B of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended, situate in Roanoke County; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that the Board of Supervisors will forego the
issuance of $10 Million in debt over each of the next two budget cycles for capital
improvements. This delay will reduce the County’s debt.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the order, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church
Supervisor Bedrosian stated his answer is no because he finds this a bait
and switch. We are talking about a tax rate and now there is a promise of something in
the future and he is not even sure when we actually get this. Does everybody
understand the $10 million? Are we planning on spending $10 million? Chairman
Peters stated it is done every year, every October. We need a whole lot more
discussion on something very different than the tax rate.
March 24, 2015
172
Supervisor Church stated you see the question called when things are
touchy; this is a real problem. Discussion is healthy. When things get sticky, call for the
question should not be the exit door. He is sorry because he thinks everybody loses
when this happens.
(b) Personal property tax rate of $3.50 per $100 assessed valuation
ORDER 032415-8 SETTING THE TAX LEVY ON PERSONAL
PROPERTY SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE
CALENDAR YEAR 2015
BE IT ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the levy for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2015, and
$3.50
ending December 31, 2015, be, and hereby is, set for a tax rate of per one
hundred dollars of assessed valuation on all taxable, tangible personal property,
excluding that class of personal property generally designated as machinery and tools
as set forth in Section 58.1-3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and
excluding all those classes of household goods and personal effects as are defined in
Sections 58.1-3504 and 58.1-3505 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, but
including the property separately classified by Sections 58.1-3500, 58.1-3501, 58.1-
3502, 58.1-3506 in the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, of public service
corporations based upon the assessed value thereof fixed by the State Corporation
Commission and duly certified.
2. That there be, and hereby is, established as a separate class of personal
property in Roanoke County those items of personal property set forth in Section 58.1-
3506 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and adopted by Ordinance No.
121592-11, and generally designated as Motor Vehicles for Disabled Veterans.
3. That the levy for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2015, and
fifty (50%) percent
ending December 31, 2015, be, and hereby is, set at of the tax rate
established in paragraph 1 for the taxable, tangible personal property as herein
established as a separate classification for tax purposes and as more fully defined by
Section 58.1-3506 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and generally designated
as Motor Vehicles for Disabled Veterans.
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the order, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: Supervisors Bedrosian
March 24, 2015
173
Machinery and tools tax rate of $3.00 per $100 assessed valuation
(c)
Chairman Peters moved to adopt the order at $2.95.
Supervisor Church asked Mr. Robertson what the five (5) cent difference
would amount to. Mr. Robertson stated would amount of $30,000 annual reduction.
Supervisor McNamara stated he thinks it appropriate. It is somewhat
symbolic, but it does lend toward economic development. It is a direct impact on some
of our largest employers or potential employers.
Supervisor Church asked Mr. Robertson the number of businesses that
would benefit from this. Mr. Robertson stated this is proprietary information in the
Commissioner of Revenue’s office. He stated he does not have that information, but
the preliminary tax run indicated between $1.7 and $1.8 million.
Supervisor Peters stated in his research there are some other localities
doing this because of manufacturing prospects. He stated personally he wants to take it
down more, but did not know what the atmosphere of the Board would be. It is a good
thing to begin and would like to see us do it annually until we get the rate lower than it
is.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he would be willing to take it down even
more. He stated he finds it unbelievable almost that we have something for businesses
because we think it is economic development. It is highly symbolic and where we had a
chance to help average citizens reduce the taxes, but he is never going to vote against
a tax decrease, but if you would like to lower it some more he would be more than
willing. Supervisor Peters stated he wants to see if reduced over a period of time.
Five cents is a good start and to continue to reduce annually.
Supervisor Church stated make it more than symbolic and make it ten
cents.
Supervisor Moore stated that we need to take it down slowly and maybe
do it over time.
Supervisor Church made a substitute motion for $2.90. The motion was
denied by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church
NAYS: Supervisors Moore, McNamara, Peters
ORDER 032415-9 SETTING THE TAX LEVY ON A
CLASSIFICATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY - MACHINERY
AND TOOLS - SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE
CALENDAR YEAR 2015
BE IT ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
March 24, 2015
174
1. That there be, and hereby is, established as a separate class of personal
property in Roanoke County those items of personal property set forth in Section 58.1-
3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and generally designated as machinery
and tools.
2. That the levy for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2015, and
$2.95
ending December 31, 2015, be, and hereby is, set for a tax rate of per one
hundred dollars of assessed valuation on all taxable, tangible personal property as
herein established as a separate classification for tax purposes and as more fully
defined by Section 58.1-3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and generally
designated as machinery and tools.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the order, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. The petition of Fountain Head Land Company, LLC, to amend the
proffered conditions, the Planning and Design Document and the
Master Plan for the Planned Residential Development (PRD)
known as Ballyhack Golf Club (formerly Fountain Head Golf
Resort). The proposed amendments would: change the name of
Fountain Head Golf Resort to Ballyhack Golf Club; allow access
onto Pitzer Road; remove language regarding minimum house
sizes; increase the maximum height of lighting from sixteen (16)
feet to eighteen (18) feet; and allow the possibility of the
maintenance facility and additional parking to be constructed on
the south side of Pitzer Road. The Ballyhack Golf Club PRD
measures approximately 368 acres and is located on Pitzer Road
near Saul Lane, Vinton Magisterial Distric(Philip Thompson,
t
Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson explained the request for petition. Chairman Peters
inquired about the minimum house size with Mr. Thompson explaining would be
covered in the homeowners association documents.
Chairman Peters opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens to
speak on this item.
There was no discussion.
March 24, 2015
175
ORDINANCE 032415-10 APPROVING THE PETITION OF
FOUNTAIN HEAD LAND COMPANY, LLC, TO AMEND THE
PROFFERED CONDITIONS, THE PLANNING AND DESIGN
DOCUMENT AND THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) KNOWN AS BALLYHACK
GOLF CLUB (FORMERLY FOUNTAIN HEAD GOLF RESORT),
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on February 24, 2015,
and the second reading and public hearing were held March 24, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on March 3, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments would: change the name of Fountain
Head Golf Resort to Ballyhack Golf Club; allow access onto Pitzer Road; remove
language regarding minimum house sizes; increase the maximum height of lighting from
sixteen (16) feet to eighteen (18) feet; and allow the possibility of the maintenance
facility and additional parking to be constructed on the south side of Pitzer Road; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the proffered conditions imposed by the Board of Supervisors on a
Planned Residential Development (PRD) known as the Ballyhack Golf Club (formerly
the Fountain Head Golf Resort) containing approximately 368 +/- acres and located on
Pitzer Road (Tax Map Numbers 079.04-02-10.00-0000, 079.04-02-10.03-0000, 079.04-
05-01.00-0000, 079.04-05-02.00-0000, 079.04-05-03.00-0000, 079.04-05-04.00-0000,
079.04-05-05.00-0000, 079.04-05-06.00-0000, 079.04-05-07.00-0000, 079.04-05-
08.00-0000, 079.04-05-11.00-0000, 079.04-05-13.00-0000, 079.04-05-14.00-0000,
079.04-05-15.00-0000, 079.04-05-16.00-0000, 079.04-05-17.00-0000, 080.00-02-
68.00-0000, 080.03-02-02.00-0000, 080.03-02-03.00-0000, 080.03-02-04.00-0000,
080.03-02-05.00-0000, 080.03-02-06.00-0000, 080.03-02-07.00-0000, 080.03-02-
09.00-0000, 080.03-02-12.00-0000, 080.03-02-13.00-0000, 080.03-02-15.00-0000,
080.03-02-16.00-0000, 080.03-02-17.00-0000, 080.03-02-18.00-0000, 080.03-02-
19.00-0000, 080.03-02-20.00-0000, 080.03-02-21.00-0000, 080.03-02-22.00-0000,
080.03-02-23.00-0000, 080.03-02-25.00-0000, 080.03-02-26.00-0000, 080.03-02-
27.00-0000, 080.03-02-28.00-0000) in the Vinton Magisterial District, are hereby
amended as follows:
1.The developer hereby proffers substantial compliance with the PRD
rezoning document titled “Fountain Head Golf Resort, A Planned
,
Residential Community,” “Ballyhack Golf Club” prepared by Balzer and
Associates, Inc. dated 8-17-05 and last revised 11-29-10 1-21-2015.
March 24, 2015
176
2. The developer hereby proffers substantial compliance with the at grade
golf cart crossing sketch shown as Exhibit ‘A’ attached to this rezoning document,
prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc. dated 8-14-09 and last revised 1-31-11. All
golf cart crossing improvements shown on Exhibit ‘A’ shall be installed by the developer
by March 1, 2011.
3. The developer shall install a golf cart crossing tunnel under Pitzer Road,
subject to VDOT approval, within eighteen (18) months after one of the
following conditions have been met:
a. Seventy-five (75) residential lots have been sold; or
b. VDOT’s average annual daily trip counts have reached 3,250
vehicle trips per day as counted at the location of the at-grade golf
cart crossing.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Fountain Head Land
Company, LLC.
3. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
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
2. The petition of Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc., to rezone
approximately 5.59 acres from I-1, Low Intensity Industrial,
District to C-2, High Intensity Commercial, District for
communication services (television production and
broadcasting), located at 5305 and 5310 Valleypark Drive,
Catawba Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of
Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the petition. Chairman Peters opened and closed
the public hearing with no citizens to speak on this item.
Supervisor Church asked the petitioner if they were good with the proffers
with the petitioner responding in the affirmative. There was no discussion.
March 24, 2015
177
ORDINANCE 032415-11 REZONING APPROXIMATELY 5.59
ACRES FROM I-1, LOW INTENSITY INDUSTRIAL, DISTRICT TO
C-2, HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL, DISTRICT FOR
COMMUNICATION SERVICES (TELEVISION PRODUCTION
AND BROADCASTING) LOCATED AT 5305 AND 5310
VALLEYPARK DRIVE, CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on February 24, 2015,
and the second reading and public hearing were held March 24, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on March 3, 2015; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing
approximately 5.59 acres, as described herein, and located at 5305 and 5310
Valleypark Drive (Tax Map No. 037.07-01-16.00-0000) in the Catawba Magisterial
District, is hereby changed from classification of I-1, Low Intensity Industrial, to the
zoning classification of C-2, High Intensity Commercial.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc.
3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the
following condition which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby
accepts:
(1) The property will be used only for the following uses: Administrative
Services, Day Care Center, Post Office, Safety Services, Utility
Services (Minor), Financial Institutions, General Office, Medical Office,
Laboratories, Business Support Services, Business or Trade Schools,
Custom Manufacturing*, Industry Type 1 and /or Communications
Services.
4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Approximately 5.59 acres further described as Tax Map #037.07-01-
16.00-0000
5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
March 24, 2015
178
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Bedrosian stated it has been an interesting evening. He stated
he wanted to make a couple of comments. Going back to the tax rate issue, etc., he
found it very interesting we were lamenting the fact that reducing taxes coming into
Roanoke County by $800,000 like it would be the end of the world; we could not do that
because we would be cutting into core services. It was the end of the world if we did it.
It was interesting because upstairs we have increased compensation for County
employees that is going to cost us $1.7 million. So, for twice the amount that we were
going to give back to the citizens of Roanoke County, we have decided to give that to
the employees of Roanoke County. So, it is not really about core services; it is just
about where we want to give money back to people. The people we represent, we don’t
represent County Administration, we were voted by the people, the citizens of Roanoke
County. We actually represent the citizens of Roanoke County and we would not give
them back some money, but we are going to raise County employee salaries. Wait until
it comes to the vote to give the Board of Supervisors a raise. We can vote for our own
raise. This will be very interesting. He is sure this Board will give itself a raise; they did
last year. He did not. We had an opportunity tonight to give back the citizens some
money, their hard-earned money; it is true that they will be worse off this year than they
were last year in terms of taxes. So, he hopes they appreciate what this Board has
done. We then through about about $30,000. We could not even lower the machinery
and tools tax by ten cents. We had to go to five cents. It is embarrassing. He just
wanted the citizens of Roanoke County to know that as long as he is on this Board,
every year he will be bringing this back and make everybody go on the record that they
don’t want to vote for a tax decrease and he will continue to look at the budget and
make sure that we contain the budget and if we don’t, he will hold everybody
accountable for that. Reality is when budgets go up, you have to keep taxes up. There
is no way to fund it. We do not make money on our own. We basically get money from
taxes. So, as you get into this mode of spending more money, you have to have more
revenue. The word revenue is really money from the citizens because that is where we
get it. There is nothing wrong with that as it is the agreement we have. We are
selective now on who we are willing to give money to and who we are not going to give
money to. He has also had this conversation, which he thinks is an interesting one. As
Chairman Peters and I spoke about the cost of things going up, he has also had other
discussions. When we spend money in Roanoke County, we are spending money for
the future of Roanoke County. This is also a very good point when looking where we
spend money. We are not just spending money for our generation. We are spending
money for future generations. We build a school, we are building something for the next
twenty (20) years. He thought about that and decided it is not as good as it sounds
March 24, 2015
179
because we have gotten in the habit of doing things for the next generation, but giving
them the bill. It is kind of like if he was going to give his daughter a car and get her the
car and give her the payment book. Here is your gift; here is your payment book. You
have to pay for it too and that is not a gift. In the old days, when people did things for
other people, they actually did it for them. If we were going to do something for the next
generation we did not give them the tab for it. Everything we seem to do on this Board,
we just keep giving the next generation the tab. With regard to the comment that was
made about the debt, even though he totally does not understand all the nuances, he
knows that promising something out in two years that maybe people will forget; maybe
there is a nuance in there somehow that we can still spend $10 million a year. We will
see what happens; just keep a close eye on that. It was so rushed, it was hard to
understand it. He stated his final comment is that he has been on this Board for a year
and one half or so and a couple of times we have ended debate without any real
discussion. He hopes and hold him accountable that he never becomes that person on
this Board that ever ends debate. This is what it is about to be a supervisor; we discuss
things. We open them up. We peel back the onion and we really understand
something. Ending debate is a cheap way out. He tells his citizens hold him
accountable that he never does that. If he is going to lose, fine, if he is going to vote a
certain way make it be, but he does not like it and wishes we could get rid of it. We are
here to have a discussion. We are here to have the citizens look, see what we are
doing, understand what we are talking about and we did not do that tonight.
Supervisor Church stated it is not worth it to say much. People at home
and anyone interested in Roanoke County government knows exactly what happened
here tonight. He does not believe he has ever called for the question. We have had
some long, long drawn out debate. This was very short; very important. He stated he
thinks it is important that we can discuss items that may be comfortable or
uncomfortable. The bottom line is we each represent about 18,500 people. He hopes
his people are proud of him to voice their concerns, to take questions they have sent to
him and truly in his heart know that we have much more than $800,000 that could be
found for a penny. He knows it and he can prove it, it would not take him long. He feels
sorry for the people that left here and those that could not come and are watching from
home that are left out. It was bizarre what happened. There was nothing on the tax
rate, but yet suddenly there is a request to reduce something to help with machinery
and tools. He was glad to hear that and wanted to give ten cents. The people at home
need to ask themselves this question. What happened? He does not need to tell them.
Why was offered? He does not need to tell them. All he can say is we can keep trying
to do better to represent the people. He trust in his citizens to bring him back; hopes he
is here in 2017 and see if there is a tax reduction posed.
Supervisor McNamara stated a couple of real good things happened
tonight. First, we can talk about changing the machinery and tools rate. It was not a
huge dollar amount, but symbolically it is the first time it has been changed in at least
sixteen (16) years, which seems to him to be pretty positive. He stated he is somewhat
March 24, 2015
180
perplexed that Supervisor Church asked what happened here tonight. He is concerned
with what happened here tonight. He has been listening for a year and half about our
debt level and we have a motion on the floor to reduce the debt level by $20 million and
it is voted against by the very people who are talking about our debt every meeting. So,
why was the question called? The question was called because there was plenty of
debate and it was decided by the majority of the Board that debate has occurred. There
was debate, probably thirty (30) minutes. There has been debate for the last three or
four months. There has been debate about our debt level for the last fifteen (15)
months; we have lowered the debt level by $10 million for two years ($20 million) and
somehow or another we have shortchanged the citizens. He does not get it.
Supervisor Moore thanked the American Red Cross and all the heroes
that were honored this morning at the Heroes breakfast.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he had a constituent that came up to him and
give him the American Flag and stated he had driven by the Waldron field that had a
flag out there that was all tattered and he wanted to present a new one. The citizen was
Ed Lynch. He really appreciates it when the citizen takes initiative to do something on
their own.
Chairman Peters stated his concern that he had asked for a plan from
anyone whether this Board or the public for the reduction of taxes or debt reduction, etc.
He disagrees with the comments that have just been made regarding the tax rate and
then into debt. Just about every citizen who stood before us talked about debt reduction
and the debt of Roanoke County. He is looking to give something meaningful to the
citizens and to give them a one cent that he may have to come back and ask for if
revenues go down, he does not want to be put in that position. But, if he can reduce
debt and reduce $16 million worth of payments in a ten-year time, it is meaningful to
them long term. Do the math. If we can wipe out our debt, that is twenty (20) cents off
our tax rate. Do the simple math. He does believe in a citizens centered government.
Mr. Church is absolutely correct. We do represent our constituents and in the
conversations he has had over the last two weeks, with different people across his
district, debt seems to be an issue that they are concerned about more so than the tax
rate. He was in Mt. Pleasant and there is a need to add four or five fire and rescue
personnel. They recognize that and see the need. They want that need provided for.
Chairman Peters changed gears and stated this is something he has made very clear
over the last fifteen months that drives him pretty hard, economic development. In
2014, the Roanoke Times has published that the valley lost more than 2,000 jobs. Here
th
today on March the 24, we have already had 700 jobs announced to be leaving the
Roanoke Valley with Norfolk Southern and the postal service. We do not know the fate
of ITT. We know it has been sold, but we do not know what is going to happen out
there. He is very concerned. This is another thing that he is hearing from his citizens
after the debt and the tax issues. They want to know where are the jobs; where is my
son going to go work. What are we doing to stabilize that revenue base in the County.
So, there are a number of things and he was with the business group this morning and
March 24, 2015
181
first wants to say thank you to Magnets USA. We normally do a ribbon cutting, but this
was a ribbon slicing because they gave us knives to cut the ribbon so we did a ribbon
slicing last week on their new facility over in Vinton, which is part of the County. They
are adding twenty to twenty-five new jobs with that and what a great thing to have
coming to our area; seeing an existing business that was in the City that found a facility
to meets their needs and ultimately located in the Town of Vinton, County of Roanoke.
It is a great thing to be able to do that for our existing businesses and find that place for
them. He does believe at the end of the day, he does not care where you live, where
you work, this valley should be working together because we all benefit when jobs come
to Roanoke County, Roanoke City, we don’t sit in our little bubble. There are things he
would like to see the County and wants to say publically and he has already spoken to
the administrator about this. He does want to find a way to streamline our processes in
permitting. On the Planning Commission, we worked many long hours working on
ordinances and how to streamline a lot of the processes. He would like to see that
continue. He would like to see us do a forum or town hall meeting and bring our
existing businesses in to find out what we are doing right, what we are doing wrong,
what do we need to improve on. We need to let our existing businesses know we are
here for them and we want to do what we can to assist them in growing their
businesses. Does that mean an incentive program if you expand your business? He
does not know; he does not know what that looks like. He would like to encourage our
Economic Development Staff along with Administration to explore the avenue of
bringing people together even if it is the Green Ridge Rec Center just in a forum where
we can talk to our existing businesses. He thinks we also need to promote the
environment for entrepreneurship because if you look across the landscape and there
are some figures out there that we spend eight percent (80%) of our time following
twenty percent (20%) of the money and twenty percent (20%) of the jobs when eight
percent (80%) of your workforce is small business. Creating that environment for
entrepreneurship in Roanoke County is going to take us to the next level; that is what is
going to grow our revenues so that too when give meaningful money back to our
citizens. This is something we know will give it back to them and not have the fear of
three (3) years from now maybe if the economy goes down need that money back to
keep those core services that ultimately they are asking for. Again, he appreciates
every one of his Board members; appreciates the debate tonight and he is sorry that
people many feel they were slighted. He felt like it was all in the same realm that we did
talk about the tax rate but in listening to our citizens, at least his, that was where his
motion came from. Because reducing our debt from $190 to $163 million in a two-year
time frame he thinks is something that will benefit us all.
1 82 March 24, 2015
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Peters adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
/ i Ail* ri .fie. A►>
Deborah C. Jayz P. Jason 'eters
Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman