HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/13/2018 - Regular
February 13, 2018
59
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday and the first
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of February 2018. Audio and video
recordings of this meeting will be held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office
of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
Before the meeting was called to order an invocation was given by
Captain Monica Seiler of the Salvation Army. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by
all present.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Hooker called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. The roll call
was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Martha B. Hooker, Supervisors George G. Assaid,
Phil C. North, Joseph P. McNamara and P. Jason Peters
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Thomas C. Gates, County Administrator; Daniel R.
O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Richard
Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Ruth Ellen
Kuhnel, County Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public Information
Officer and Deborah C. Jacks, Chief Deputy Clerk to the
Board
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Supervisor Joseph B. McNamara ask to add an additional New Business
Item - Resolution recommending the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority reevaluate
transportation options for the delivery of municipal solid waste to the Smith Gap landfill.
There were no objections.
County Attorney Ruth Ellen Kuhnel added an additional Closed Session
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711.A.7 Consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff
February 13, 2018
60
member or consultants pertaining to actual or probable litigation, where such
consultation or briefing in an open meeting would adversely affect the negotiating or
litigating posture of the public body.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Recognition of three Stormwater Clean Awards (Tarek Moneir,
Deputy Director of Development Services)
Mr. Moneir outlined the recognitions. Awards were presented.
2. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County to Robert L. Jones,
Paramedic/Firefighter, upon his retirement after more than ten
(10) years of service (Stephen G. Simon, Chief of Fire and Rescue)
RESOLUTION 021318-1 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO
ROBERT L. JONES PARAMEDIC / FIREFIGHTER, UPON HIS
RETIREMENT AFTER 10 YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Robert L. Jones was hired on September 4, 2007 and has worked
as a Firefighter/EMT and Firefighter/Paramedic during his tenure with Roanoke County;
and
WHEREAS, Firefighter/ Paramedic Jones retired on December 31, 2017, after
ten (10) years and three (3) months of devoted, faithful, and expert service with the
County; and
WHEREAS, during his time serving Roanoke County, Mr. Jones provided quality
care to the sick and injured with the utmost compassion; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Jones started his services to the Roanoke County community as
a volunteer firefighter in 1980 at the Cave Spring Volunteer Fire Company; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Jones also served as an Auxiliary Sheriff’s Deputy with the
Roanoke County Sheriff’s Office from 1980 to 1988; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Jones served as a charter member and Volunteer Fire Chief at
the Back Creek Station from 1996 to 2007, where he worked to maintain a volunteer
base to serve the community; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Jones has held numerous certifications from the Department of
Fire Programs, Virginia Department of Forestry, National Fire Academy and Virginia
Office of Emergency Medical Service during his years of service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of
the citizens of Roanoke County to Robert L. Jones, for ten (10) years of capable, loyal
February 13, 2018
61
and dedicated of career service and twenty seven (27) years of volunteer service to
Roanoke County; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy
and productive retirement.
On motion of Supervisor Hooker to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, North, McNamara, Peters, Hooker
NAYS: None
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Briefing by the Roanoke Regional Partnership (Beth Doughty,
Executive Director of the Roanoke Regional Partnership)
Ms. Doughty provided the briefing with a PowerPoint presentation, a copy
of which is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
Supervisor North commented on the plans regarding jobs.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to transfer funds in the amount of $6,500 from Board of
Supervisors contingency funding to the Department of Library
Services to enable the Sunday opening of the Hollins Library from
1-5 p.m. (Phil C. North, Supervisor)
A-021318-2
Mr. North outlined the request.
Supervisor Assaid commented that he agreed with staff’s
recommendation, which is to consider this as part of the fiscal year 2019 budget
process and not agree with Mr. North’s request. He has no problem with the library
being open on Sundays, he just thinks it needs to be part of our budget process. There
was no further discussion.
The motion of Supervisor North to transfer funds to the Department of
Library Services to enable the Sunday opening of the Hollins Library was second by
Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors North, McNamara, Peters, Hooker
NAYS: Supervisor Assaid
February 13, 2018
62
2. Resolution recommending the Roanoke Valley Resource
Authority reevaluate transportation options for the delivery of
municipal solid waste to the Smith Gap landfill (Joseph
McNamara, Supervisor)
Mr. McNamara outlined the request for resolution.
Supervisor North commented he supported Supervisor McNamara’s
comment stating we need to step back and take a “Timeout” and revisit this because in
his background in transportation, there are no “free lunches.” When you transition to
another mode, which is what RVRA is trying to attempt to do, it is going to be very costly
to truck the waste stream every day while they are implementing their truck plan.
Trucking to other landfills in the area will not only incur trucking consequences as well
as cost to the Resource Authority, but also the tipping fees to pay the other landfills that
the waste will go to. This is not going to be cheap and he would like to see a better use
of taxpayer money because those funds in the Resource Authority come from the
taxpayers of this area; especially Roanoke County and the other participant in the
RVRA.
The following citizens spoke:
Deedie Kagey lives at 4496 Bonsack Road in an 1836 house and wants to
speak to the trash issue being addressed regarding truck versus rail. Some things to
consider regarding truck disposal are the following: burns more fuel, which produces
product carbon emissions, creates truck congestion on 81, 581 and 460, which is
already a problem as she backs up to 460, increases road maintenance incrementally
for VDOT and the taxpayers, reduces capacity on the roads and unsafe conditions for
drivers increase due to the addition of over 80 truck trips per day, first loaded going
down and empty coming back. On the other hand, consider the following using rail:
moves one ton of freight 450 miles on one gallon of fuel, moves all waste at one time
daily, Monday through Friday, rail infrastructure is already there, a more environmentally
friendly avenue than truck transport and handled for the last 25 years. She believes it is
obvious, which of the two avenues are best. By the way, she has done some research
on this and in her book that she has given to Phil North to look at, there was some
analysis of some of these things. So, let’s support continued rail traffic, which increases
and maintains safety for all its citizens.
Joseph Osborn, Jr. lives at 1550 Strawberry Mountain Drive in Roanoke
County. He stated he is here to speak in favor of the resolution. He has a fair amount
of familiarity with the issue at hand. He is a retired executive of Norfolk Southern for
about ten years and in charge of the group that dealt with many municipalities on the
Eastern half of the Untied Sales that involved shipment of municipal solid waste.
February 13, 2018
63
Right off the bat, rail, as mentioned by Supervisor McNamara is generally cheaper. You
will find that to be the case. The other part that we found at Norfolk Southern when we
were selling this business was the relatively much lower risk that is involved with
shipping municipal solid waste. The accident rate, incident rate, when you are involved
in with that many trucks over time you are likely to have some unpleasant and
expensive environmental issues that get associated with that. When you compare that
with the safety record of rail, it is clearly a much cheaper, lower risk option.
Max Beyer stated he is from the Bonsack area asked why are we really
doing this. It came up that the Authority, which is always involved in trying to improve
business and they should be, management should always be trying to come up with
new ideas and of course cost is one of the factors, but has enough study been done
about this considering the impact. Maybe the aspects of the impact we are talking
about are not that important, but he thinks they are. We are already facing the valley
with increased traffic and congestion, especially the routes that are involved: Electric
Road, Rt. 460 through South County, Southwest County, Peters Creek, Salem Road, 81
and 581. As you know are going to be impacted. So, all this is going to do is increase
the congestion, accidents, the use of those facilities when we should be trying to find
ways to reduce it or improve those routes. The environmental impact, he can
remember two or three years ago standing here and talking about emission control and
air quality in the valley. Two of the biggest factors that he can remember that the Board
brought up were coal plants SW Virginia and Interstate 81 and the truck traffic. There
was wringing of hands and “what can we do about it.” Here is our opportunity to do
something to avoid adding to that problem in emission control, although it is not the
headline of today, it was back then. He thinks this is something we should really
consider, the impact on the emissions of the increased truck traffic being proposed.
The last factor is the railroad service and utilization of railroads. Again, everyone here
knows our history that the railroads have been a major component of the economy of
this valley and with the introduction of passenger traffic a lot of steps are being made to
enhance the utilization of railroads and to improve our use and to keep the railroad
asset there. He thinks we should do everything we can to enhance that vital method of
transportation source. We have the building in ability with Supervisor North, who has
been a member of the NS in his career. So, we have a person that speaks for that and
we should do all we can to keep NS in our community and utilize that resource,
especially if the cost payoff is not different. So, for those reasons, he supports the
resolution and requires a hard look by this Board.
Supervisor Peters commented he values Max and what he brought forth,
but at the same time also we have enjoyed the railroad for the last 25 years and has
worked very well, but have to look at the budget, the taxing issues and possible fee
increase and what that will look like and more importantly we also need to see how that
works with other jurisdictions.
February 13, 2018
64
He sits in a very unique position because one of the municipalities that we deal with in
this Authority is the Town of Vinton, who he represents. We need to be mindful of the
conversations that we have with them and make sure all of the other associations in this
Authority are involved and understand what is going on and that all the information that
we are receiving is fluid and that they receive copies so that we can all collectively make
the best decision for all of our citizens.
Supervisor North stated he just wanted to add to that we need to be
mindful of the cost going forward. We don’t want to look in the rearview mirror in three
or four years and realize that we really had not made that choice. Tipping fees that are
associated with the proposal that are paid for by the Counties and the participants are
going to go up if we don’t do due diligence on the cost. He just wants to say we don’t
want to see excessive increases in tipping fees going forward versus keeping in check
with the best, lowest cost upfront option and that is why this resolution seeks to balance
it out and account for the cost structure of both options, not only the costs but the
benefits of both options.
Supervisor McNamara stated Supervisor Peters brings up an excellent
point. It is not Roanoke County’s decision, it is truly not Roanoke City, Vinton or
Salem’s decision. It is the Resource Authority’s decision. We certainly have input from
the standpoint of conveying our interests. We certainly have input from the standpoint
of making sure that our fellow jurisdictions are available and have access to have what
we believe is accurate data. He personally has been in contact with Mayor Sherman
Lee on several occasions over the last several weeks relative to this to make sure that
our fellow jurisdictions are up to speed. He knows our County Administrator has been
in touch with his counterparts in all those jurisdictions and believes everyone on this
Board has had some conversations with our fellow leaders in the Roanoke Valley. He
thinks at the end of the day, can we really believe that you can drive 55 to 80 trucks a
day for lower costs that pulling a train once. Can we really believe that? He cannot
believe that. If we look at just the short-term use of funds, while we tear up a rail bed to
put a road over it and if we just look at the short-term use of funds to divert our waste
stream to different landfills and according to the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, he
believes it would be $1 million a month running for nine months. This is $9 million and a
significant hit to their reserves and not figured in to the total cost structure of the two
alternatives. This is a bid decision that we are going to be living with for the foreseeable
future and to make that decision without every one of our jurisdictions understanding
what the numbers are, what is behind those numbers and how those numbers are put
together gives a disservice to the citizens of the Roanoke Valley. He does not believe
the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Board of Directors wants to do a disservice to
the Roanoke Valley, not by one single stretch of the imagination, but he does not think
there has been a fair representation of the numbers and costs associated with the
alternative.
February 13, 2018
65
Supervisor Hooker stated being the Supervisor from the Catawba district
where the landfill rests it is very important to her to be sensitive to the citizens of that
community and to make sure they are getting the best option possible and she has
spoken with several and have gotten some mixed reviews on what their opinions are.
The way the resolution is written at this point is really just looking for another look at the
numbers; that is the way she understands this resolution so it is not announcing our
undying support for one way or the other. It is “just look at the numbers, again” and let’s
make sure that we are making the most fiscal responsible decision in front of us and
she is in support of this motion.
RESOLUTION 021318-3 RECOMMENDING THE ROANOKE
VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY REEVALUATE
TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS FOR THE DELIVERY OF
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TO THE SMITH GAP LANDFILL
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA) was created 25
years ago to meet the municipal solid waste needs of Roanoke County, Roanoke City
and the Town of Vinton; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority was designed with a state-
of-the-art transfer system; and
WHEREAS, the rail delivery of municipal solid waste to the Smith Gap Landfill
has been an efficient and cost effective operation, which minimizes the impact of waste
transfer on the region and its communities; and
WHEREAS, The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority incurred expense to design,
construct and operate an environmentally friendly and citizen friendly transport system;
and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority has been engaged in
evaluating options for the transfer of waste to the Smith Gap Landfill; and
Whereas, this evaluation has resulted in two viable alternatives including the
transport of waste via truck and the transport of waste via a combination of truck and
rail; and
WHEREAS, the projected cost of the two alternatives can be debated although
data presented by the RVRA suggests long terms costs to be reasonably comparable.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors recommends RVRA reevaluate options for the transport of solid waste to
the Smith Gap Landfill; and
FURTHER, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors recommends the
expenses and benefits of each transport option considered, including all truck transition
waste flow expenses, be publicly disseminated; and
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution be
communicated to the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Board and Executive Director,
February 13, 2018
66
Roanoke City Council, Town of Vinton Council, City of Salem Council and regional
elected officials.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, North, McNamara, Peters, Hooker
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
1. Public Hearing and Resolution approving the abandonment of
0.03 miles of Secondary Route 1590, Kenworth Road, Catawba
Magisterial District (David Holladay)
Mr. Holladay outlined the request for resolution.
Dave McNutt, General Manager of Truck Enterprises thanked the Board
for considering this resolution.
There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 021318-4 APPROVING THE ABANDONMENT OF
0.03 MILES OF SECONDARY ROUTE 1590, KENWORTH ROAD,
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Sections 33.2-909 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended)
provides procedures for local governing bodies to cause any section of the secondary
system of state highways to be abandoned; and
WHEREAS, a public notice was posted as prescribed under Section 33.2-909 of
the Code of Virginia, announcing a public hearing to receive comments concerning
abandoning the section of road described below from the secondary system of State
highways; and
WHEREAS, the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation was
provided the prescribed notice of the Board of Supervisors intent to abandon the subject
section of road; and
WHEREAS, after considering all evidence available, the Board of Supervisors is
satisfied that no public necessity exists for the continuance of the section of Secondary
Route 1590 from 0.00 Miles at Dead End to 0.03 Miles from Dead End, a distance of
0.03 Miles, and hereby deems that section of road is no longer necessary as part of the
Secondary System of State Highways.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors does
hereby abandon the above described section of road and removes it from the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to Section 33.2-909 of the Code of
Virginia;
February 13, 2018
67
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution duly attested to be
forthwith forwarded to the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, North, McNamara, Peters, Hooker
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance repealing Roanoke County Law Library Fee - County
Code Section 2.4 (Ruth Ellen Kuhnel, County Attorney)
Ms. Kuhnel advised no changes since the first hearing.
Chairman Hooker opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens to
speak on this issue.
There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 021318-5 REPEALING ROANOKE COUNTY LAW
LIBRARY FEE-COUNTY CODE SECTION 2.4
WHEREAS, on March 12, 1985, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County
imposed an assessment for law libraries as part of the costs incident to each civil action
filed in the courts within its boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the funds from this fee were to be expended for the purposes as
provided in the statute, for the use and maintenance of the law library to be open to the
public; and
WHEREAS, in March 2015, the part-time librarian retired and the Board of
Supervisors ceased subsidizing the operation of the law library through the fiscal year
2015-2016 budget process; and
WHEREAS, in December 2017, the Law Library Committee concluded that there
are fiduciary concerns with continuing to collect a fee for a non-viable library and sought
guidance from the judges; and
WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on January 23, 2018, and the
second reading and public hearing was held on February 13, 2018.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That this ordinance repeals Roanoke County Ordinance 2.4 Law Library
Fee.
2. That the provisions of this ordinance shall take effect on February 13,
2018.
February 13, 2018
68
3. That a certified copy of this ordinance be forwarded to the judges and
Clerks of the Courts serving Roanoke County, and the Treasurer of Roanoke County,
and the Roanoke County/Salem Bar Association.
Sec. 2-4. - Law library fee.
(a) The donation of the assets of the Roanoke County/Salem Law Library
Association, that is, law books, treatises and periodicals, is hereby accepted jointly
with the City of Salem.
(b) Pursuant to the authority found in section 42.1-70 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended, there is hereby assessed as a part of the costs incident to each civil
action filed in the courts serving Roanoke County, the sum of four dollars ($4.00).
(c) This assessment and these funds shall be expended for the purposes as provided
in said statute, specifically, for the acquisition of law books, law periodicals, and
computer legal research services and equipment for the establishment, use and
maintenance of the law library which shall be open for the use of the public. In
addition, disbursements may include compensation to be paid to librarians and
other necessary staff for the maintenance of such library.
(d) This assessment shall be in addition to other costs prescribed by law, but shall not
apply to any action in which the commonwealth, any political subdivision or the
federal government is a party and in which costs are assessed against the county,
any political subdivision or the federal government.
(e) The treasurer of Roanoke County is authorized to receive the funds for the
maintenance, upkeep and improvements of the law library from the clerks of the
various courts, and from the treasurer of the City of Salem, and disburse said funds
for the maintenance, upkeep and improvement of said law library on a regular basis
to those persons designated by the chief judge of the circuit court responsible for
the administration of said law library.
(f) The law library shall be dedicated to and memorialized as the F. L. Hoback, Sr.
Memorial Law Library.
On motion of Supervisor Hooker to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, North, McNamara, Peters, Hooker
NAYS: None
February 13, 2018
69
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 021318-6 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 February
13, 2018, 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 5 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes – December 19, 2017; January 9, 2018
2. Confirmation of appointment to the Economic Development Authority
(EDA)(District); Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority (At-Large)
3. Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of $2,000 for the Public
Safety Answering Points (PSAP) Educational Grant Program
4. Request to accept and allocate grant funds in the amount of $2,000 from
Lewis Gale Hospital for their Emergency Medical Services Grant
5. Request to accept universal microchip scanner donated to the Roanoke
County Board of Supervisors from PetSmart Charities
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, North, McNamara, Peters, Hooker
NAYS: None
A-021318-6.a
A-021318-6.b
A-021318-6.c
A-021318-6.d
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Hooker moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion was seconded by Supervisor McNamara and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, North, McNamara, Peters, Hooker
NAYS: None
February 13, 2018
70
1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report
2. Outstanding Debt Report
3. Proclamation signed by the Chairman
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor McNamara stated he wanted to circle back and touch base
briefly relative to the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority again. He wanted to publicly
thank the Supervisor from Hollins for fleshing out a lot of the details that we would
probably never come across; our fellow boards and councils might not have come
across. He is in Windsor Hills and the people he represents are in Windsor Hills, but it is
a valley wide issue. The impact is certainly far greater for Roanoke City with the amount
of trucks and the Hollins District if they go down 581 or 81 or in Vinton, the folks that
travel Rt. 460 on a regular basis. He does in the summer, but does not nine months out
of the year and it is big. He wanted to thank him for his work on that and it might end up
being the right way to go, but further review is well warranted.
Supervisor Peters stated he too agrees with Supervisor McNamara. As we
look through this process as we look back in December in the newspaper to where we
are today, we do want to make sure we do what is best for all citizens. It is a big issue
and something that we would do a contract at least for another decade, so we want to
make sure we are getting the best information that we can. Secondly, as always, he
appreciate our employees and everything they do in keeping us safe and the County
running.
Supervisor North thanked the citizens who spoke today; it is always good
to hear what they have to say on any subject or issue. Also, wanted to thank staff who
have been planning for a Hollins Center community meeting in March. They took him on
a tour about a week ago and is looking forward to those meetings in March and again in
May. In conclusion, it is a pleasure to work with our County Staff and all departments to
meet the needs of our County and to make this a great place to live, work and play. He
looks forward to continuing to work with County staff and all department with that same
goal in mind: Continue to make Roanoke County a great place to live, work and play.
Supervisor Hooker stated she appreciated the conversation regarding the
RVRA and once again, because it is her district, she is especially sensitive to it.
Although she does feel like looking at the numbers again is warranted and she does
support.
th
At 3:59 p.m. Chairman Hooker recessed to the 4 floor for work session and
closed meeting.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
February 13, 2018
71
1. Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors fiscal year
2018-2019 General Government Fund operating budget revenues
(Rebecca E. Owens, Director of Finance; Christopher R. Bever,
Director, Management and Budget)
Ms. Owens and Mr. Bever reviewed a PowerPoint presentation with the
Board.
Supervisor McNamara stated with regard to Business Licenses from a full
disclosure perspective, the Budget Memo either #2 or #3, broke down business license
by categories and reflects the sales of the various businesses and will be updated to
include revenue generated because we want to talk from an Economic Development
standpoint and we have done some things with machinery and tools in the past and if
we put together a plan that gradually tries to exempt the first $250,00 from business
license tax depending on how expensive that is and what the impact is on the budget. It
is something that we could look at. Potentially, we could change that number. It is also
possible that we may not be able to change it. So, all of that is being evaluated. The
whole question that you have probably heard before. Why is Dell in Round Rock,
Texas, well that is where he started. Why is Apple in Cupertino, California, because
that is where Apple started? If the young entrepreneurs, small business does not have
a business license tax it may not be significant, but it makes us more friendly for
business.
Supervisor Hooker inquired if the decline in meals and sales tax was
weather related with Mr. Bever responding the decline started in June.
Supervisor Peters inquired when was the last time we opened a restaurant
in Roanoke County with Mr. Gates responding the Texas RoadHouse. There have
been a number of small restaurants that have opened. Supervisor Peters just
wondered since there were others that had opened in Roanoke City that may be pulling
the business away from Roanoke County.
Supervisor North stated we need some population growth.
Supervisor Peters questioned the ambulance fees; changed to match
Medicare.
Supervisor McNamara inquired about CSA on an ongoing basis, we put
$600,000 last year. Ms. Bever responded the $660,000 carries over and we will do
another $750,000. Supervisor McNamara restated so the $660 is continuing dollars,
which makes $1.4 million. What is that total continuing revenue stream and how does
that match up with our data for the last 5 years. Mr. Bever responded we will still be
drawing down fund balances. Supervisor McNamara asked how close are we with Mr.
Bever advising we would probably have to put another $750,000 next year that will
potentially get us where we need to be. Supervisor McNamara then asked what the
fund balance will be at the end of this fiscal year with Mr. Bever responding they are
projecting it to be about $450,000. At the end of this fiscal year we could potentially use
February 13, 2018
72
year-end surplus or revenue savings to augment that fund balance. Mr. Bever stated
that would be a choice the Board would need to make. Supervisor McNamara stated so
we are potentially $350,000 short. Mr. Bever responded staff is looking at a multi-year
projection of $750,000 this year and at least $750,000 in 2020 because even though we
are putting this in and maybe do something with fund balance, it is still not going to
balance in 2019, but we get closer to where we need to be in fiscal 2020. Supervisor
McNamara asked if we put $1.5 million next year, staff would think there is enough
money. Mr. Bever responded we would be a lot closer. Supervisor McNamara stated
we are $350,000 short from making it work until next year.
Mr. Gates advised staff would provide a budget memo so you can see the
multi-year expense and revenue.
Supervisor McNamara asked if I am Pulaski County and run out of CSA
money, what happens. Mr. Bever stated if you are Roanoke County we would draw
from our general fund, unappropriated 11% balance and if that situation occurs that is
probably the worst thing that could happen from a rating agency perspective because it
is unplanned use of funding. We are trying to take care of recurring revenues with
expenditures and also address the fund balance issue so we don’t have unplanned use
of fund balance. The resources are there if you had to do it.
Supervisor Peters with regard to VRS, has any improvement been made
with the economy. Ms. Owens replied returns have improved, however it was a phase
in and this is the final year.
Supervisor North inquired if there would be a public presentation of the
budget with Mr. Gates advised he may, but it is not well attended.
Supervisor McNamara stated the bid issue is we have one more year of
VRS and we have to get CSA under control. Mr. Bever advised fiscal year 2019 will be
where we need to be on VRS, CSA, yes. Supervisor McNamara stated you do not have
a solution. Mr. Gates responded that we don’t have a solution that we could point to
and state this would reduce CSA without question. The Board has heard the complexity
of the issue. He added that both the County and School staff continue to work at finding
ways to do it, but we do not have something. Supervisor McNamara referred to a lady
that was at the work session who said if they did not have to get the citizen-parent input
into something, they could do X and it would be better for the kids and would cut costs
and we said, “Tell us what these things are and let’s see if our legislatures will do
something about it.” Mr. Daniel O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator stated there
has been an attempt to have a study, which is proposed as part of their budget, to
review the whole thing. There is also a proposal, a budget amendment, for funds to
analyze the rate setting of the private day schools, which was recommended to get
removed as they are going up against the providers who have a very strong lobby. It is
politically very difficult to say we want less input on parents, even though we go above
federal standards, there is no ear for it at the State level. Supervisor McNamara so next
year will be a lot better, the State will have more money.
February 13, 2018
73
Mr. Gates advised the good news is there is revenue growth it is getting
better and is optimistic about 2020, assuming the revenue growth holds up. We need
some new commercial investments and we need to grow our community to contribute to
the long-term success of our revenue stream. Trend is now up.
The work session was held from 4:19 p.m. until 5:02 p.m.
2. Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors Capital
Improvement Program funding (Thomas C. Gates, County
Administrator; Rebecca E. Owens, Director of Finance;
Christopher R. Bever, Director, Management and Budget)
Mr. Gates advised this discussion is a bring-back discussion from the
discussion we had at the January 27, 2018, Board Meeting relating to Capital
Improvement funding. A couple of things about this; first we are going to talk about
what is commonly referred to as the “10-10-10” model, both on the debt issuance side,
and on the funding side. It is not overly complex, but can be detailed. Ms. Owens will
walk through how the model works and try to highlight the key points of that and then
we will talk about our CIP and how, if applied to that recommended program, it would
affect our CIP and the changes that would need to be made. At the end, there are a
couple of recommendations for the Board to consider and would appreciate the
directions being provided to him of how to proceed.
Ms. Owens outlined the PowerPoint presentation.
Mr. Gates advised there is no great clarity as to what was actually
intended. The question that staff has had was did the model intend to cease the annual
incremental increase in contribution at some point or did it intend to continue that annual
incremental increase to amass a very large cash balance that therefore at some point in
the future negate the need for borrowing and he does not know the answer to that
question. What staff has is a document that was part of an award submission in 2006,
which runs the scenarios out to 2023 and shows a $60 million accumulated balance,
which suggests that the incremental additions of annual revenue to the fund was
assumed in that model and then we also have a previous developed spreadsheet by the
former CFO of the County, which ran it through 2038, which is what is reflected here
and shows the accumulated balance of $179 million and would only get there if the
presumption is that we continue to commit each year additional money to the reserve
debt fund. The model itself, if you continue to put $300,000 of new revenue into the
fund to support the debt borrowing, will accumulate cash at this level.
Supervisor McNamara stated that initially staff was not looking 30-40
years out. They were looking at how to address the capital needs. There was a pretty
strong feeling on his side and thinks the majority of the Board and the School Board, felt
it would be nice if we could pay cash for everything, which would require us to go out to
about 2028 to 2030. We put an extra $400,000 in one year because they wanted to do
February 13, 2018
74
extra things and that is the flexibility of the model. Then in 2008, the Green ridge
Recreational Center was done. The thought process was let’s get this fully funded,
which was 2014-2015 and run it at 6% for twenty years. Once it is fully funded, then we
can evaluate and see where we want to go. Around that time, we had a change in
leadership, so the first year changes were made to fund, which he did not think was that
big of a deal because we had been running 4% interest rate and the fund was built on
6% interest rates, but where we right now is potentially changing the integrity of that
fund going forward if we get away from a 10-10-10. What he was suggesting in the
Board meeting before was staying with the 10-10-10 borrowing, do a complete
evaluation of Schools and County facilities and update the fund because we have
different interest rate assumptions and by the way 6% might not be wrong and if we
want to change 10-10-10 to 11-11-11, fine, but let’s have an intelligent discussion and
make sure we have a fully funded fund. When we took $1 million out for the Schools
and County, and may have been well needed in other areas, we no longer have a
funded capital improvement plan and that is where the mistake lies. Next year is going
to be a much easier budget year. Take the million out this year from both the County
and Schools, but going together as a Board, we need to decide what that borrowing
level needs to be. Again, the borrowing level goes not mean the building value that is
the borrowing value and if whatever the borrowing level we determine needs to be, we
need over a fairly short period of time, figure out that we are both putting in the right
amount of money. If future Boards want to mess it up, so be it. His preference is that
we don’t “kill the golden goose.”
Mr. Gates responded to make sure that he understands what he is saying.
The revised intention is to achieve the cash balance that is the equivalent to 2015, as it
was fully funded at 2015. Supervisor McNamara replied in the affirmative with $6.4,
plus the $2 million original, with the economic drop-off with a 6% going forward. Mr.
Gates stated so right now we put in $4.4, plus $2, which is the other drop-off.
Supervisor McNamara advised staff’s recommendation is not what he
suggested; so that everyone is clear on the Board. It is significantly increasing the
contribution into that fund. He has not suggested before or any time in the last few
years. Mr. Gates responded he understands. Supervisor McNamara continued by
saying that it is very confusing when you pull all these things together; it took him a
while to figure it out. The only reason the net projected cash balance has a $10,000
difference is because you are only paying a partial year interest rate on the $12 million.
Mr. Bever stated the ten-year as presented assumes about $4.7 million more than the
10-10-10 thing, so it would pay more debt service. Supervisor McNamara inquired if he
was talking the ten year overall. Mr. Gates stated our recommended ten-year plan has
about $4 million more in it than the 10-10-10 plan would allow. Supervisor McNamara
stated because we are front-loaded and that is where the lack of discipline is. Chairman
Hooker stated so what she is hearing him say is the debt is up front. Mr. Bever sated
we have the debt in 2019 instead of 2020 and 2022 instead of 2023 and we do not
issue the 2026 debt until 2028. Supervisor McNamara stated he is not suggesting we
February 13, 2018
75
are being irresponsible, don’t anybody on the Board think he is suggesting we are being
irresponsible. He is just saying we would not be doing what most governments do if we
don’t have some structured plan and the fact that we have a structured plan, he would
like to keep. Mr. Gates stated as staff they have never argued against a plan and the
fiscal accountability that goes along with that plan. The challenge that we have is
making sure we all understand exactly when we say this will be a policy, what that
policy implies both on the bond issuance side, which is very clear, because it is very
simple and the corresponding funding side, perhaps is less simple and has direct
implications for our operating budget, but we can get more into the details.
Supervisor North asked for clarification that they want to maintain $2.2
million for County and Schools, which is $4.4; you are going to maintain funding of $2
million for Economic Development needs and you are going to add $300,000 each
annually for Schools and for the County and go back to that and get $35 million in 2029.
Ms. Owens stated the last piece would be a Board decision with Supervisor North
stating that is what the model is. Ms. Owens stated scenarios 1 and 2 actually show
what the funding is today and the last one is to show you if we did restore the
incremental contribution each and every year through the ten-year period, what that
contribution would accumulate to if the Board decided to restore that and it would be
$600,000 each and every year.
Mr. Bever reviewed the options of the debt fund on projects.
Supervisor Assaid commented that you could reduce the scope with Mr.
Bever responding staff feels the scope is right for these projects.
Supervisor Peters inquired if the school was allowed to bank and we are
not with Mr. Bever responding that is an approach that could be done. Staff wants to
figure out when the projects need to be done and plan to borrow in a reasonable time
frame to meet our service levels.
Supervisor North inquired about the assessments. He noted the Schools
did an assessment in 2016 and what about the County. Mr. Gates advised we would
get to that.
Mr. Gates went through the recommendations. First of all he noted staff
was hearing the Board with respect to their desire to demonstrate fiscal responsibility
and fiscal accountability and making sure that we are not incurring debt and bonded
indebtedness that we cannot manage going forward into the future. It is part of a sound
fiscal management strategy and practice that staff has employed and the Board has
employed for many, many year, so that is not at issue. What is at issue currently is a
timing question and in order for us to get past that for the near term (only challenge for
the first year of CIP), he would suggest that we proceed as staff as proposed in the CIP,
which is essentially to allow the public service center (appropriated and in the CIP) to
move forward at its funded level. This would be the only variance from the 10-10-10
model, about $1.5 million and you have seen the implications of that. The other issues
that we have, the $4.75 million over the ten years all occur in the outer years and we
can reconcile that going forward with some effort. As Mr. North pointed out and as
February 13, 2018
76
discussed at the Board Meeting, the County has not done a comprehensive facilities
assessment. We have not looked at our facilities in a long-range manner and think that
is important to do and we are prepared to do that because that is what the board wants
to do. The Board received last week the school board’s net equivalent that details their
facilities and thinks it would be ideal if we had something comparable. What staff would
propose is to undertake that effort and marry those two pieces of work.
Supervisor Assaid inquired what would be the benefit of marrying the two. Mr.
Gates responded when we talk about how we afford debt issuances and what is
responsible for us, there is only one pot of money. We divide it up amongst ourselves
and allocate it in different ways, there is still only one source of funds to pay to all of the
community capital needs that we have for service delivery and that includes Public
Service Centers and Libraries, but it also includes the Schools. So, understanding in a
comprehensive manner makes a lot of sense. So, all of the needs can been understood
comprehensively and thinks it is important for us to do that. Once that is done, then
suggest to get together with the Schools and work at coming up with a funding strategy
that meets three things. First would be to address fiscal affordability, don’t always
agree exactly with what that means and so we could come up with some benchmarks
and agree on definitions on what fiscal affordability really is and we should really do that
staff to staff with the Schools and then come back and share that with our respective
boards. Second, it is very clear from the history of our debt modeling that this Board
and previous Boards have a very strong interest in contributing a significant amount of
cash to address capital needs. Wherever we can, we are going to pay cash to address
a capital need; we are not borrowing or bonded indebtedness all the things we need;
that is how we get to the 55/45 ration that we have in the use of cash and why the 10-
10-10 model presented accumulates cash because philosophically a desire to use cash
instead of debt whenever conceivably possible. Sometimes, that is not really possible
because the need is so great. There is a strong predilection on the part of the Board to
use cash when we can, but that needs to be defined. What is affordable for us from a
financial planning standpoint to be able to “pay as you go”? How much “pay as you go”
do you really want to commit. The funding formula as it currently exists, the 10-10-10
model made some presumptions about how much “pay as you go” you could contribute.
It is the $6.4 million and the $300,000 and that worked in that model as it was applied,,
but thinks it is time for us to look at that again, understanding that the very least, the
revenue picture that we all have (County and Schools, both) have changed dramatically
from the time when we were looking at this model before. We have gone through, what
at the time was a very robust economic time to a very deep recession and now we are
just barely crawling out of it. Our revenue stream is different. It seems to him that it is
appropriate for us to financially look at what we can afford from a “pay as you go”
standard and come back around the table and have that discussion. The final piece
that he feels is very concerning to staff going forward and to the Schools is that all of
this has direct impact on our operating budgets, our ability to pay for just the daily, day
in day out services; pay our people and make sure they are there when we need them
February 13, 2018
77
to be there to make sure they are compensated properly. All of that stuff connects very
easily and readily back to our operating budgets. So, whatever decision we make on
the capital side of the program and any decision that you want to make with respect to
borrowing and contribution of cash to the program is immediately connected to your
capacity on the operating budget side. It seems to him that we should think about that
holistically and plan for that kind of consideration as well. This could be done by staff,
working with the Schools, assuming they work with and trust that they will, to shape this
idea of what we collectively believe is affordable, what we should be doing with the cash
contribution and how we will observe the impacts of these decisions on our operating
budgets and if you can agree to that, then we would be able to produce that
recommendation back to you and to the School Boards to look at no later than October
31, 2018. This would position us to have the discussion, heard what you have to say
about that and be able to apply that to the next capital plan for 2020. We will start that
capital planning in the fall of 2018 and you will see the capital recommendations in
January of 2019. Whatever comes out of that or whatever you have agreed to, we
would put that into place for the next fiscal cycle. It gives staff time to reset and rethink
a little bit about this and see if it makes sense and thinks it allows us to update under
current conditions questions about cash and what we can really afford.
Chairman Hooker advised the Board it was time to provide direction to
staff.
Supervisor McNamara wants to explore debt impacts on operating
budgets. Since we are borrowing more in the proposed plan as opposed to 10-10-10,
how does higher debt not impact operating budgets more than a conservative plan as
far as debt issuance. Mr. Bever responded there are two parts of this. One is the
current funding strategy, the $4.4, plus $2, we can keep doing that and all that money
goes into the debt fund and then that helps pay for the total debt service. So, the slide
that had the balances ($2.1 and $2.4) Either scenario with the debt service factored in,
you end up with a positive cash balance in that debt fund so that means, at the current
level of contribution, you could afford the debt through 2029 and have that balance at
the end. While changes have been made to the plan and while the amount of money
each year was not strictly followed, one of the original intents was not to make this debt
service go up, up, up each year and consumes more of the operating budget and then
we would have to figure out how to pay it. You could continue in either plan to make the
debt service payments at the current funding levels. Supervisor McNamara says there
are really two parts to it; one is the 10-10-10 and the other is funding the 10-10-10. Mr.
Gates confirmed. Supervisor McNamara stated if you are telling him the $4.4 funds this
forever he is fine with it. Ms. Owens responded that it does not. Supervisor McNamara
stated we need to get the plan back where it is fully funded. It might not take the full $2
million to get back to being fully funded because we have different scenarios and things
have changed. You are saying come back and let the School and County come back
with a recommendation. He is saying we already have a capital funding strategy, let’s
go back to using it. At the end of the day, we had a lot more money going in there and
February 13, 2018
78
we pulled money out for the operating budgets. So, we outspent our increases to
revenue and he just thinks he is perfectly fine with saying $6.4 is not the right number
and that maybe it should be $5.7 or $5.8 or whatever that number is, we need to get
back to that; that is the bigger issue. The smaller issue is whether you borrow $10
million or $12 million. It is a small issue, but it forces discipline and over time, even if
our budgets go 2% a year, $10 million a year is a small amount of debt percentage wise
so it becomes more and more affordable as time goes on. If we lose that discipline, we
spend now and two years we spend this and then if we start getting into trying all the
projects together, the needs just went sky high. It is not good government. Mr. Bever
responded that part of the guidance, especially in multiple years, is what is the end
result. Do you want to say where we are with debt service right now, we don’t want to
exceed that so don’t come back with a plan and put more money and resources to debt
service, flatten that out and that is our goal or is the goal, which he is still not sure was
the original goal, to get to the point where we don’t have to borrow money anymore.
We accumulate cash so we don’t have to borrow. The first thing with debt service is
that you could start and work now as this is showing in 2029, you have positive cash
balances. So, it might be that we need to incrementally put $25,000 a year more and
that will solve it for the next ten years. He does not know. Supervisor McNamara
stated he wanted it solved forever, which is where it was three years ago; forget about
whether it was supposed to pay cash because that conversation is done, it is over. We
have had that conversation going back over two or three years and that has never been
his intention, as least for the past ten years. Mr. Gates stated he hears what Supervisor
McNamara is saying about the right number, we agree with that, but thinks that we have
to come to that number based on something that we can all agree can support that
number. Right now, over on the expenditure side in 10-10-10, it invokes a measure of
discipline, but it is not rooted in anything other than the idea of fiscal affordability or
responsibility. What he is suggesting is let’s quantify that and really look at what we
think we can afford and let’s talk about how much you want to afford from a bonded
indebtedness perspective and an operating budget impact and let the number we can
contribute to the debt fund to pay for that debt going forward be dictated by that decision
making. He does not think that is fundamentally different than what you want to say.
He would argue that $6.4 million a year in annual contribution that is not likely to be
affordable to us going forward just based on the impact that would be incurred on the
operating budget side. Our revenue streams do not look like they did ten years ago,
they have changed and we need to think about that. To the point about fiscal discipline,
nobody disagrees with that. The restrictive idea of $10 million a year, as the history of
this very program would suggest to you, has not purported well with that $10 million
idea. Whenever we needed to actually do something different, we did it and that gives
him a little pause when we talk about fiscal policy that we would hold up to the rating
agencies and the outside world and say this is the policy of the government is we put
into place something that we really cannot absorb because we cannot support it from a
cash standpoint or because the need as reported by the Board exceeds that number
February 13, 2018
79
then he thinks we run a risk in our own policy structure. He would not recommend that
for you. The more prudent action is take a deeper look at these things and see if we
cannot underpin them with some really strong, rational thought about what constitutes
affordability and the right amount of cash to put into and what constitutes how much
money can we afford on an annual basis from operating needs over to capital needs
and come back in six months and say here is the plan. Maybe the plan is the thing we
are doing is the quintessential way. There is no better way than to do this thing. Maybe
it is a variant on that plan, but at least we will have the comfort of knowing that it has
been scrutinized as all of these things should be scrutinized.
Chairman Hooker asked to have summary conversations and would like to
have healthy discussion on direction. Appreciates what Mr. Gates and staff has done to
give the Board other options and looks, but now the Board needs to give direction and
would like to hear from the Board on what that direction is.
Supervisor North inquired as to the timeline on the County assessment
with Mr. Gates advising he does not have a timeline yet, we can do an RFP and go out
within 30 to 45 days. Mr. Bever advised we would need to appropriate funds.
Supervisor Assaid remarked that the Schools study cost approximately $180,000. Mr.
Gates advised we would not need to have the study before looking at other things.
Chairman Hooker commented if we wait for this direction and go with what
our facility needs are there seems to be a feeling that we will expand our debt
exponentially, just looking at the needs because we all know there is a great number of
needs. So, where do we go from here? Mr. Gates stated he did not understand what
“expand our debt” means. The debt choices that the Board makes understanding what
the needs are would seem to be pretty important in making those choices about debt.
Ms. Hooker clarified by stating all she was saying is that there could be a good
argument for more debt and earlier with the assessment. Mr. Gates advised he agreed
that is possible, but that is why the companion piece of work looks at what is affordable
is critical to that discussion. They have to be done together, because you would want to
say even though we have identified these things, the affordability of them is perhaps out
of line and you want to be able to say that with some definition. Supervisor North stated
he thinks of the assessment study as a tool and not something you have to follow.
Chairman Hooker stated she is not saying not to do it, we need the facility study, but
she is saying that we need to have some thoughts in mind and go forward.
Supervisor Assaid stated he is with Supervisor McNamara with the 10-10-
10. We are talking about needs and we see a lot of wants on the CIP and he thinks that
if we started looking at needs and married the two studies together, it would be his
concern that Roanoke County would never get another project; the Schools would get
them all. They have a lot more projects. Right now, we are guaranteeing at least $10
million every third year to do some sort of major capital improvement for Roanoke
County at a minimum of $10 million in borrowing. As Supervisor McNamara stated, it is
not a project total, but a borrowing total. The other piece to that with year-end surplus,
other than what the Schools put in (1/3 minor capital and 2/3 major capital) maybe we
February 13, 2018
80
should look at identifying a certain amount of money going into capital reserves and
then into another capital fund. Mr. Bever explained right now, it goes into capital
reserve and there maybe recommendations to put to other needs, i.e. CSA. Supervisor
McNamara stated this year we should use our left-over money towards CSA because
we are short. Mr. Gates responded that he did not mean to imply that if we understand
the universe of capital needs, then it requires us to put everything together and prioritize
them top to bottom, Schools and County together. You can still divert funding from one
side to the other and prioritize in each stream of funding. He just happens to think it is
useful to everybody to understand what the capital needs are for the County as a whole
to deliver services and that is what he means when he says marry them together.
Supervisor North stated he thinks we need to do the study, but does not
think we need to hold up until October to do figure out what we are going to do moving
forward and does not think we need to hold up the General Service building if there is a
$200,000 difference to go 10-10-10 and funding it. Mr. Bever advised it was a $1.5
million bond issue difference. Supervisor Assaid stated we talked about this last year
and he thought it was going to be April of 2019 before you are ready to go with the
borrowing. Mr. Bever confirmed that is what they talked about. Supervisor Assaid
stated we are only really talking about a delay of four months. Ms. Owens stated with
VRA you do spring, summer or fall, so we might be able to get in the summer, but most
likely be the fall.
Chairman Hooker polled each Supervisor with Supervisors Assaid, North,
Hooker and McNamara supporting 10-10-10 and the facility study.
Supervisor Peters stated he thinks we should move forward with the public
service center because if nothing else, we do have leftover money that we have not
used, it is now going to be that we are borrowing above and beyond what we are
supposed to be. His greatest concern with the 10-10-10 is that future Boards will be put
in the position to have to borrow a large sum of money because the 10-10-10 policy
does not keep up with inflation. If you compare a CPI number to the $10 million in
2004, today’s money is around $13 million. You cannot build a building on that. It is not
keeping us so as we are stretching further and further to get one school done, there is
more and more that is going to be pushed out and eventually that is going to come to an
emergency bond issue that they are going to borrow another $40 million just to get
caught up. He is not opposed to having a structure, but he thinks to hold something that
has not inflationary protection at all, he has a hard time with that and commercially they
can tell us what we need to have in the budget. When you are taking basically four
years to get one school and Schools have a whole lot of needs, how are we going to
push these building that are already 50 and 60 years old until it becomes an emergency
issue and we are scrambling around? It is not going to work. This is greatest concern.
Supervisor Assaid replied that is part of the problem, the needs are not always being
addressed, you get a lot of the wants thrown in and that is why projects get created.
Supervisor Peters commented that has nothing to do with this, we are talking about
February 13, 2018
81
borrowing what he considers a need – a school. Supervisor Assaid stated you can look
at the proposed CIP, the only thing that is on there is the Public Service Center that we
could consider a need. The Library as a community center is on there, but he thinks
everything after the Public Service Center is fair game. There are some facilities he
thinks we need to look at. Supervisor Peters stated the study will show that there are
firehouses that need to be addressed, too. He thinks the study is one thing we need
and secondly, while he is not opposed to a structure, a structure needs to keep up with
inflation over time. Another Board could come in here in five years and borrow $500
million. Supervisor McNamara commented the next Board will be better off if we follow
it than if we don’t. Remember, it is not this Board, but just three years ago, we were
putting money into it and we have also stopped year-end surplus. So, if any Boards
reduce the amount of money going to capital projects, it is the existing Board that is
sitting here. Supervisor Peters stated he would like to see something come to us in
October, but he does not think we should hold up the Public Service Center.
Supervisor North asked if you had $10 million to building something, what
would that number have to be. Supervisor McNamara added $11 million last month and
$11 million three-weeks ago. Mr. Bever responded that we would have to run the
numbers through a spreadsheet and figure out what the number is. Supervisor North
stated the projects that you show being delayed because of the 10-10-10. Supervisor
Assaid stated nobody seems to prioritize, they just want.
Chairman Hooker advised Mr. Gates that the Board wanted to stick with
the 10-10-10 policy, but open. There are some Board members that are not open Mr.
Gates asked for clarification stating when the Board says 10-10-10, he believes the
Board is saying they do not want to approve a capital budget that requires more than
$10 million in bonded indebtedness at any given year. Is that correct?
Supervisor McNamara stated what he is saying and has not stopped
saying it. Fiscal year 2018 does not have $10 million to the County. Fiscal year 2019
has $10 million to the County, we had this discussion last year even though it was an
out year on the CIP, because he did not want to surprise anybody. At that time, three
people on the Board said they could live with a late fiscal year 2018 bond issue. There
is now, he believes, currently on this Board a feeling that we cannot live with a late fiscal
year 2018 bond issue and stay disciplined with a 2019 and do the studies that we have
been referring to (capital studies). Did he get the year wrong, yes we are currently in
2018. We should still do the study to evaluate what we need and what we should be
allocating to capital, but once that is done it should be married with exactly with what
you are saying but a long-term solution of how much operating money needs to go in so
that we have this going forward for the next Board and the Boards after that, etc. Right
now, on this path, we are going to run out eventually, even if we follow the 10-10-10
spending model because there are two parts to it. The 10-10-10 spending model is
easy to fix, move the borrowing until the fall. He added to Supervisor Peters that he
does not think the Board has a problem with carrying over, but the bigger problem is the
fiscal year. We gave the opportunity to the Schools so it would not delay a project
February 13, 2018
82
because they had most of their money and were not sure of the timing. Really, you
have to have all the money before you can enter the contract. So, we followed the
intent of the proposal. Mr. Gates stated if the direction of the Board is don’t spend more
than $10 million in any given year. Mr. Bever reiterated fiscal year 2019 was the
Schools and we have already borrowed that, so in years 2023-2026 in the ten year plan,
the Board does not want to see more than $10 million in borrowing in 2023 or 2026 for
the County. Is that correct? Supervisor McNamara stated as of right now yes,
generally speaking. Supervisor McNamara stated but that does not mean we cannot
give you your money back from 2017. Mr. Gates stated so he can roll forward that was
not spent in the prior fiscal year and apply it to 2020. Again, he does not mean to be
challenging, but he is not sure he is understanding what you want him to do with the
capital plan. Supervisor McNamara stated how did the School system get the extra,
because we are still going to go through the process of getting this fully funded, but
there was year when they had $43 million because they increased the amount of
funding into that on current dollars that did not jeopardize the integrity of the plan. We
have to stay to the basic constructs of the plan, we have not done it. Supervisor Peters
explained the reason is because it does not keep up the expense of the project. Mr.
Gates stated the last time we had $10 million of issuance, we only issued $6.8 and the
time before that $7, so can he then bank that $3.5 and apply it to 2020? Supervisor
Assaid responded in the negative stating the CIP does not support. Supervisor Assaid
stated at the last meeting we head that the Public Safety Center will be ready in April of
2019 and if we are pushing to 2020, it is only a four month delay. Supervisor Peters
stated he is talking about the discussion we had about holding it up completely until the
study is done. Supervisor McNamara stated the Board does not need to approve a
fiscal year 2020 capital project. Supervisor Assaid stated in his opinion, the only thing
that could be held up, but is not sure, is if something comes to light for a building for
Parks and Recreation. Mr. Gates responded that the source of funds for that would be
in the bond issuance and we do not know where that is yet. Additional discussion was
held concerning the VRS borrowing. Mr. Gates stating the CIP work session was
scheduled for the next Board meeting so staff will go back and show the Public Service
Center project with some of the timing associated and see if they have it right. The
other thing about the 10-10-10, is it the direction of the Board that staff should reserve
more cash for fiscal year 2019 to contribute to the debt reserve fund. The response
was no. Mr. Gates reiterated that staff should not make any changes. Supervisor
McNamara stated the recommendation is to wait until we have a facility study done.
The work session was held from 5:03 p.m. until 6:36 p.m.
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 3:58 p.m., Supervisor Hooker moved to go into closed meeting
following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711.A.1 ,
Personnel, namely discussion concerning appointments to the South Peak Community
February 13, 2018
83
Development Authority and Section 2.2-3711.A.7 Consultation with legal counsel and
briefings by staff member or consultants pertaining to actual or probable litigation,
where such consultation or briefing in an open meeting would adversely affect the
negotiating or litigating posture of the public body.
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, North, McNamara, Peters, Hooker
NAYS: None
The first closed session was held from 6:51 p.m. until 7:22 p.m. and the
second closed session was held from 7:22 p.m. until 7:29 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 7:29 p.m., Supervisor Hooker moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 021318-7 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS
HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member’s
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Hooker to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, North, McNamara, Peters, Hooker
NAYS: None
84 February 13, 2018
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Hooker adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
ubmitted by: Approved by:
0
0
4 0 , , ,, ,4.‘„,
/ - i _ili,11.,7 -Y14 Lu /// __4f1-15/ieLik_
Deborah C. J s Martha B. Hooker
Chief Deputy ' lerk to the Board Chairman