HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 05-03/04-00 SMgSPECIAL MEETING .............. ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
May 3, 2000
8:30 a.m.
The fiscal year 2000-01 budget study session was called to order on Thursday,
May 3, 2000, at 8:30 a.m., in the Emergency Operations Center Conference Room,
Room 159, Municipal Building South, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., with Mayor David A.
Bowers presiding.
PRESENT: C. Nelson Harris (arrived late), W. Alvin Hudson, Jr. (arrived late),
Carroll E. Swain, William White, Sr., Linda F. Wyatt and Mayor David A. Bowers ..... 6.
ABSENT: Council Member James O. Trout (deceased) .............................. 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, CitY Manager; James D. Ritchie,
Sr., Deputy City Manager; William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; James D. Grisso,
Director of Finance; Mary F. Parker, City Clerk; Robert H. Bird, Municipal Auditor;
and Willard N. Claytor, Director of Real Estate Valuation.
OTHERS PRESENT: Ralph K. Smith, Mayor-Elect; Kit B. Kiser, Assistant City
Manager for Operations; George C. Snead, Jr., Assistant City Manager for
Community Development; Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director of Human Services; Jesse A.
Hall, Deputy Director of Finance; Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator; and
Loretta S. Spencer, Budget Analyst.
The Mayor welcomed Mayor-Elect Ralph Smith to the meeting.
The City Manager reviewed the highlights of the proposed fiscal year 2000-01
budget, totaling $184,052,468.00, or a 4.33 per cent increase over fiscal year 1999-00.
She advised that the budget was built upon the following objectives:
Creation of a more efficient, accessible, municipal government;
Enhancement of our education system;
Improvement of services to neighborhoods;
Expanded communication with citizens; and
Maintenance of the City's financial stability and integrity.
The City Manager advised that Roanoke's recommended budget for fiscal year
2000-01 increased by $7,638,544.00, or 4.33 per cent over the current fiscal year, and
includes funding for the following major expenditures:
$1,813,012.00 in additional funding for Roanoke City Public Schools;
$2,365,031.00 for a pay increase of 4.0 per cent of the maximum of
average pay grade for City Employees
$563,809.00 in additional funding for the construction of a parking
garage to support Projects in the Greater Gainsboro area ($250,000.00);
Further economic development initiatives ($192,309.00);
Economic impact studies and promotional materials ($89,000.00);
Dues and stock for the Regional Industrial Authority ($32,500.00);
Funding for the Middle School Neighborhood Learning Center
($125,000.00); and
Enhancement of communication with citizens/neighborhoods via a new
publication mailed to citizens on a quarterly basis ($60,190.00).
Ms. Burcham advised that additional funding for neighborhoods includes:
Street paving, snow removal, and street lighting ($277,000.00);
Solid waste disposal ($171,000.00) - Increased to pay disposal costs for
residential town homes, condominiums, bulk and bagged leaves, and
increased tonnage associated with the Homeowner's Disposal
Program;
Satellite Police Office ($10,000.00);
Demolition of structures, litter abatement, weed control, and alley
maintenance ($111,400.00)
The City Manager explained that other budget highlights include funding for:
Renovation of Victory Stadium ($300,000.00);
2
Debt capacity for future bond referendums for capital projects
($470,000.00);
Community Development
($150,000.00);
Block Grant administrative costs
Social Service Program expenditures funded in this State-mandated
category have been increased to meet the growing demands of citizens
who qualify for economic support and various types of social services.
The expenditure increase is related primarily to the increased cost of
programs, such as Foster Care, Subsidized Adoption, Day Care
Services, and transportation related to welfare reform. The State share
of this funding ranges from 50 per cent to 100 per cent.
Comprehensive Services Act ($498,492.00) - Funding in this category
provides for administration of the Comprehensive Services Act
Program and was reallocated from the transfer to Grant Fund.
Dental Program for indigent children ($45,966.00);
Remaining supplemental Priority I items:
Deputy Sheriff position for the City Jail
Law Clerks for Circuit Court Judges
Public Safety Cadet Program
Senior Customer Service Representative position for VlSSTA
Program
Savings associated with departmental reorganization and re-
engineering of the delivery of services ($570,000.00).
The Director of Finance reviewed revenue estimates and advised that City
revenues are affected by national, State and local economic trends such as Iow
unemployment rates, inflation rate of less than three per cent, a strong real estate
market, rising interest rates and increased Internet business. He advised that the
real estate tax is the single largest revenue source for the City of Roanoke; Roanoke
has maintained a relatively strong real estate market; increased property values for
new construction support a projected increase of 3.93 per cent in the current year
real estate taxes; personal property and sales taxes revenues had little growth in
fiscal year 1998-99 and were conservatively estimated in fiscal year 1999-00, and
both of these major revenues have since rebounded and estimates for fiscal year
2000-01 effect this improvement; and growth in these three local taxes accounts for
67 per cent of new revenues anticipated in the fiscal year 2000-01 budget. He
3
referred to pages 23 - 26 of the budget document which provides information on
revenue sources that are divided into three major categories: (1) local taxes, (2)
intergovernmental revenue (State and Federal) and (3) charges for current services.
Ms. Wyatt moved that Council approve the following supplemental budget
requests:
Quarterly Citizen Publication in the amount of $60,190.00;
Deputy Sheriff for Inmate Work Crew in the amount of $35,662.00;
Law Clerks for Circuit Court Judges in the amount of $89,508.00;
Public Safety Cadet Program in the amount of $8,025.00;
Dental Program for Indigent Children in the amount of $56,996.00;
Virginia Institute for Social Services Training Activities Senior
Customer Service Representative in the amount of $30,034.00;
Comprehensive Services Act in the amount of $498,242.00;
Middle School Neighborhood Learning Centers in the amount of
$125,000.00;
ICMA-RC Deferred Compensation Employer Match in the amount of
$182,000.00.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Swain and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Swain, White, Wyatt and Mayor Bowers .............. 4.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Members Harris and Hudson had not arrived at the meeting.)
Council reviewed the following items that were referred to 2000-01 budget
study which are recommended for funding by the City Manager in the fiscal year
2000-01 budget:
Public Safety Cadets Program
Main Library Interior Improvements
4
Market Building Improvements
Council engaged in discussion with regard to other items referred to fiscal
year 2000-01 budget study, as follows:
Cost of living increase for retirees and excludin~l employees who
retired under the two for one pension plan currently earning $50,000.00
or more per year from any future pay increase-~:
A joint report of the City Manager and Director of Finance recommending,
effective July 1, 2000, and payable July 31, 2000, a 2.4 per cent permanent increase
to a member or surviving spouse's annual retirement allowance, which increase
does not apply to any incentive payments made under the Voluntary Retirement
Incentive Program established by Ordinance No. 30473-41591 adopted on April 15,
1991.
It was pointed out that Option A provides an increase to those retirees who
retired on or before July 1, 1999; and Option B also provides an increase to those
retirees who retired on or before July 1, 1999, except any retiree who received two
years of creditable service for each year employed and whose annual retirement
benefit exceeds $50,000.00 shall not be eligible to receive an increase.
Following discussion with regard to the legality of excluding certain
employees, citizen comments in regard to the two for one pension issue, whether
or not such an exclusion is provided for under VRS relating to those retirees earning
in excess of $50,000.00; and questions as to why the figure of $50,000.00 was
selected when other employees retired under two for one.
Mr. Swain moved that Council concur in Option B.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Following further discussion, it was the consensus of Council to defer action
on the matter until Friday, May 5, 2000, when all Members of Council are expected
to be in attendance at the budget study session.
Placing a cap on the amount of the contribution to ICMA-RC on behalf of non
temporary employees:
The City Manager and the Director of Finance submitted a joint written report
recommending that the employer match be increased to $20 per pay period with the
pay check of July 5, 2000, and that a cap of $25.00 employer match per pay period
be considered as a goal for fiscal year 2002.
5
(For full text, see report dated May 4, 2000, on file in .the City Clerk's Office.)
At this point, 9:35 a.m., Vice-Mayor Harris entered the meeting.
Following discussion, Mr. Swain moved that Council concur in the
recommendation of the City Manager and the Director of Finance. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Swain, White, Wyatt and Mayor Bowers .... 5.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Member Hudson had not arrived at the meeting.)
Medical and dental insurance supplement for retirees at the same level
regular employees:
The City Manager and the Director of Finance submitted a joint written report
in response to Council Member Wyatt's request to increase the health insurance
monthly supplement from $159.00 to $175.00 per month which is the present
supplement for current employees with Trigon comprehensive health care coverage;
and a request of Council Member Hudson to provide retired employees with the
same monthly supplement of $15.44 that current employees receive toward the
group Delta Dental coverage.
The following options were submitted by the City Manager and Director of
Finance for Council's consideration:
Option 1: No modification
Option 2: Increase allowance to $175.00 per month, effective July 1,
2000, for employees retiring after that date;
Option 3: Increase allocation to $190.00 ($175.00 plus $15.00) per
month, effective July 1, 2000, for employees retiring after that date.
Option 4: Establish benefit as retirement benefit in lieu of present
employer paid fringe benefit. Further funding would be provided from
the retirement trust fund.
The City Manager and Director of Finance recommended, regardless of which
option Council selects, that the supplement be considered a part of the pension
benefit and paid from the pension plan trust fund.
6
(For full text, see report on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
There was discussion with regard to the amount of funds the City would need
to subsidize the retirement of Deputy Sheriffs to make those employees equal with
the City's retirement benefits at age 65; the need for further clarification of the four
options; and the cost of providing additional benefits.
Following discussion, Mr. Harris moved that the matter be tabled until Friday,
May 5i 2000, when all Members of Council are expected to be in attendance at the
budget study session. The motion was seconded by Mr. Swain and adopted.
Equitable wages and benefits for employees based on the recent study of
benefiits, pay and classification:
The City Manager advised that she conducted an employee survey to receive
employee reactions to current benefits. She stated that after a review of the pay
benefi~ and classification study, she has attempted in the proposed budget to make
several revisions to place the City's pay and benefits structure in appropriate
competition with surrounding areas which involved lengthening some of the lower
pay re~nges and shortening the pay ranges at the higher end of the scale, with the
goal by the end of the next fiscal year of having the same length for all ranges. She
statedi that the minimums were raised and the maximums in each grade are
proposed to be at least two and one-half per cent and the bottom two ranges were
dropped to increase the starting salary for employees which will be helpful in the
present Iow unemployment market. She added that a recommendation is included
in the budget for a salary adjustment of four per cent on the maximum of the range
rather than dealing with the mid point and the benefit of giving the per cent increase
on thei top of the range is that employees will move more rapidly through the range
and beyond the mid point. Additionally, she pointed out that many employee
responses were in favor of a pay for performance system which she supports,
therefor an employee pay committee will be appointed to work with the
administration over the next year to develop a pay for performance system for
implementation with the year 2002 budget.
Ms. Wyatt moved that Council concur in the oral report of the City Manager.
The mOtion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Swain, White, Wyatt and Mayor Bowers ..... 5.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................. 0.
(CounCil Member Hudson had not arrived at the meeting.)
7
Impact of increasing income limits of elderly/disabled home owners in
connection with the real estate tax freeze:
Ms. Akers advised that approximately 2200 citizens participate in the
elderly/disabled tax freeze which results in a tax loss for the current year of
$415,000.00. She further advised that the current levels imposed by the City are
$27,000.00 net income and $80,000.00 net worth and the state maximum is
$30,000.00 net income and $100,000.00 net worth. She stated that Council approved
changes in 1989, 1994, 1996 and 1998 and a typical increase has minimal impact on
the City's revenue.
Ms. Wyatt moved that Council approve the state maximum of $30,000.00 net
income and $100,000.00 net worth.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Mr. Harris moved that the net worth be increased to $100,000.00 and that the
annual income level remain at $27,000.00.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Following further discussion, Mr. Swain moved that Council approve the state
maximum level of $30,000.00 net income and $100,000.00 net worth for
elderly/disabled homeowners. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wyatt and adopted
by the following vote:
At this point, 10:50 a.m., Council Member Hudson entered the meeting.
AYES: Council Members Harris, Hudson, Swain, White, Wyatt and
Mayor Bowers ............................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0.
Contribution to Camp Virginia Jaycee:
The City Manager advised that funding for Camp Virginia Jaycee will be
included in the CMERP budget.
Mr. Swain moved that Council concur in the oral report of the City Manager.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted.
Contribution to SPCA Adoption and Education Center:
The City Manager advised that the City and other constituencies met recently
to discuss a contract which will be presented to Council for approval in order to
establish a regional animal facility. She stated that the design and construction cost
is not known at this time, therefore, it would be premature to make a specific
recommendation on a contribution. She added that the facility could be paid for by
the per diem rate for animals housed at the facility which would be advantageous to
all of the jurisdictions participating in the facility.
Mr. Harris moved that Council concur in the oral report of the City Manager.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted.
Community Development Block Grant contribution to the Community
Business Development Initiative Program:
The City Manager advised that $55,340.00 is recommended in the current
CDBG budget for the Community Business Development Initiative Program and if the
Council so desires, an additional $50,000.00 can be reallocated from within this
budget, therefor, these two amounts, along with the estimated and agreed to carry
forward funds of $20,000.00, will provide the needed $125,000.00 that was requested
by CBDI at Council's public hearing on May 3. Additionally, she stated that should
the program become more active and expend its funds at a faster pace than has
been experienced in the last year and one-half, she would be prepared to
recommend additional funding at the mid year adjustment of CDBG funding.
Ms. Wyatt moved that Council concur in the oral report of the City Manager.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Swain and adopted by the following vote~
AYES: Council Members Harris, Hudson, Swain, White, Wyatt and
Mayor Bowers ................................................................................................ 6.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0.
Recycling Program:
Mr. Bentgson presented recycling statistics for fiscal year 1998-99, as follows:
Number of tons of residential recyclables collected
1,102
Number of curbside pickups
193,503
Tons of brush collected
1,854
Tons of bulk/assorted metals collected
1,822
9
Tons of CBD mixed paper collected 300
Mr. Bengtson advised that current issues include extending the recycling
program to all residents (Phase 4); consider changes to bulk and brush collection
methods based upon recommendations of a consultants' study; consider other
recycling changes such as commingling and separation of metals from non-metals
in bulk pick-up; and implementation of any changes in a logical, coordinated manner
that is shared with citizens over the next several months.
The City Manager called attention to the concern regarding the level of
participation and advised that the recycling program should be made available to all
citizens by creating the right incentives to encourage citizens to recycle; therefore,
City staff is reviewing options on how to improve the level of recycling. She
explained that the recommended budget includes plans to initiate recycling in the
Phase IV area of the City, the total recommended budget for the recycling program
for fiscal year 2000-01 is $730,000.00, of which approximately $360,000.00 is in direct
salary costs and other costs are related to operating expenditures. She added that
recycling can be encouraged by engaging in a city-wide program and addressing the
issue at the neighborhood level of involvement.
Ms. Wyatt inquired if an additional truck and crew will be necessary to cover
Phase IV of the City; whereupon; Mr. Bengtson requested that he be allowed to
address the question at a later date.
Ms. Wyatt also inquired about the cost of a public relations program to
encourage citizens to recycle. She advised that at one time the City received X
number of dollars for recyclable materials collected, and requested information on
the amount of funds received by the City.
Ms. Wyatt advised that before spending $115,000.00 for additional recycling
containers, another vehicle, additional staff and a public relations program, she
would like information on the cost of recycling versus a program of strategic drop
off sites, and requested more than one option to choose from.
Mr. Harris moved that Council concur in the oral report of the City Manager.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Swain and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Hudson, Swain, White and Mayor Bowers---5.
NAYS: Council MemberWyatt ................................................................. 1.
10
Outlook Roanoke Plan:
The City Manager advised that the City is in the process of contracting for an
update to the Outlook Roanoke Plan. She stated that many things have changed in
downtown Roanoke over the last several years and many things in the organizational
plan have been adopted and implemented, but there are certain outstanding items
that need to be revisited and other issues that will be considered as a part of the
plan, one of which is the location of key public and private facilities in Roanoke's
downtown, the issue of location of the main library, location of a future downtown
hotel as well as the location and need for additional parking facilities. She stated
that simultaneous with the Outlook Roanoke update, the City will be engaging the
services of a parking consultant to evaluate the existing parking situation, and the
City's current methods of operation, maintenance and what should be done in the
future relating to not only the maintenance and operation of existing facilities but
where to plan fora future parking facility. She explained that the City is approaching
the saturation point with parking in certain key areas of downtown, therefor, this
kind of planning is needed. Additionally, she stated that the Outlook Roanoke Plan
will specifically address the issue of additional downtown housing and ways to
integrate downtown housing with office space parking facilities. She advised that
the plan is intended to address the highest and best use of the City Market building
in the future and whether the building should continue to be a City-owned building
operated and managed by a private contractor or whether it should come under
municipal oversite in a direct way. She stated that there will be participation by
neighborhoods, city-wide, in the Outlook Roanoke Plan.
Mr. Harris moved that Council concur in the oral report of the City Manager.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Swain and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Hudson, Swain, White, Wyatt and
Mayor Bowers ............................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
HUD Consolidated Plan Budget:
The City Manager advised that the HUD budget totals $4,381,766.00, which
includes funding for services to the homeless, numerous community development
and human service activities, and funds for planning and administration. She further
advised that during Council's Financial Planning Session in March, she expressed
a desire to phase out the use of Community Development Block Grant funds for City
administrative expenses, which will free up as much money as possible for the
actual delivery of services in the neighborhoods. She stated thatthe proposed fiscal
year 2000-01 budget includes the administrative costs of certain employees in the
11
grants compliance area that have, in the past, been funded as a part of the
consolidated plan budget which is believed to be a judicious move not only related
to CDBG funds but to enable staff positions to be more available for broader use by
the City as opposed to being limited to a specific use.
Mr. Harris moved that Council concur in the proposed HUD Consolidated Plan
budget. The motion was seconded by Mr. Swain and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Hudson, Swain, White, Wyatt and
Mayor Bowers ............................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0.
It was the consensus of Council to continue the budget study session until
Friday, May 5, 2000, at 8:30 a.m., at which time Council will meet with the Roanoke
City School Board, followed by further discussion with regard to a cost of living
increase for retirees, the matter of excluding certain employees who retired under
the two for one pension plan currently earning $50,000.00 or more per year from any
future pay increases, and a health and dental insurance supplement for retirees at
the same level as regular City employees.
There being no further business, the Mayor declared the budget study session
in recess at 11:40 a.m., to be reconvened at 8:30 a.m., on Friday, May 5, 2000, in the
Emergency Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, Municipal South, for
a joint budget study session of City Council and the Roanoke City School Board.
12
SPECIAL MEETING .............. ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
May 5, 2000
8:30 a.m.
The Council held its annual 2000-01 budget study session with the Roanoke
City School Board on Friday, May 5, 2000, at 8:30 a.m., in the Emergency Operations
Center Conference Room, Room 159, Municipal Building South, with Mayor David
A. Bowers and School Board Chairperson Melinda J. Payne presiding.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: C. Nelson Harris, W. Alvin Hudson, Jr.,
Carroll E. Swain, William White, Sr., Linda F. Wyatt and Mayor David A. Bowers---6.
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Council Member James O. Trout, deceased.
SCHOOL TRUSTEES PRESENT: F. B. Webster Day, Marsha W. Ellison, Brian J.
Wishneff, Ruth C. Willson, Charles W. Day and Chairman Melinda J. Payne .......... 6.
SCHOOL TRUSTEES ABSENT: Sherman P. Lea ....................................... 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Representing Roanoke City Government: Darlene L.
Burcham, City Manager; William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; James D. Grisso,
Director of Finance; Mary F. Parker, City Clerk; Robert H. Bird, Municipal Auditor;
Drew Harman, Assistant Municipal Auditor; and representing the Roanoke City
Public Schools: Richard L. Kelley, Assistant Superintendent for Operations; and
Cindy Lee, Clerk to the Board.
OTHERS PRESENT: William D. Bestpitch, Council Member-Elect.
Chairperson Payne presented the proposed 2000-01 budget for the Roanoke
City Public Schools totaling $102 million, or a 5.1 per cent increase. She advised
that the school revenue estimate is as follows:
Total Revenue Increase -
State Revenue/Sales Tax -
City Funds -
Federal & Other -
$4.95 million (5.1%)
3.2 million (6.6%)
1.5 million (3.5%)
285,000.00 (4.7%)
School budget priorities are:
Maintenance of Services
Employee Salary Raises
$1.2 million
2.2 million
Educational Program
Enhancements
1.4 million
Maintenance of Services includes:
Total Increase -
New Debt Service and
Debt Service Reserve -
Health Insurance Premiums -
Remedial Programs -
Inflation and Enrollment
adjustments -
Regional Tuition -
State Retirement Savings -
$1.2 million (1.2%)
590,000.00
306,000.00
235,000.00
240,000.00
175,000.00
($410,000.00)
Includes $1.5 Million in Savings
With regard to teacher salaries, Ms. Payne advised that beginning teacher
salaries in Roanoke rank fifth in the state, teachers with a Masters Degree and 20
years service rank 13th, and teachers with more than 30 years of service rank 31st;
total cost of raises for teachers is $1.6 million; a senior teachers' raise with 28+
years experience is 6.0 % and the average raise in teacher salaries is 3.3%; total cost
for salaries of classified employees and administrators is $615,000.00; average raise
for a classified employee is 3.65% and 3.3% average raise for an administrator.
Ms. Payne reviewed program enhancements totaling $1.4 million:
150 teachers provided with extended contracts for professional
development;
Five teacher positions added to meet State Incentive Program;
Magnet Programs revitalized at three schools;
Three instructional technology positions added for training and repair;
Two high school resource officers added and security staff upgraded;
Library-Media Center hours extended.
The Chairperson explained that total cost of high school capital improvements
is $78 million, the feasibility study will be completed in May 2002, design plans will
be completed in October 2003, Patrick Henry High School improvements are
2
scheduled to start in May 2004 for completion in July 2006, and William Fleming High
School improvements are scheduled to start in May 2006 for completion in
July 2008.
As a part of the discussion in regard to addition of three instruction
technology positions for training and repair, Ms. Wyatt requested a break down on
the number of Macintosh LC2 and LC3 computers currently in use along with the
schools that are presently using the equipment.
There was discussion with regard to debt service in both the City budget and
the School budget and whether or not sufficient sums are being set aside by both
bodies; the addition of five teacher positions to meet the State Incentive Program,
specifically English as a Second Language, and a suggestion was offered that the
ESL Program could be addressed by the City's Legislative Program by encouraging
the State to assume funding; methods used by the school system to address the
issue of truancy and the Mayor requested that any existing reports prepared by the
school administration be provided to the Members of Council for their information;
and a health insurance supplement for retired teachers.
Nancy Spiegel, representing the Retired Teachers Association, referred to
House Bill 1844, which took effect in July 1999, that provides teachers and
administrators who retire with 15 years or more of experience in the Commonwealth
of Virginia with a monthly health insurance credit of $2.50 for each year they taught,
which contains a cap of $75.00. She explained that local governing bodies may opt
to give school retirees an additional monthly health insurance benefit of $1.00 for
each year they taught in the Commonwealth, which has a $30.00 cap. She advised
that if these two benefits were combined, it would give school retirees a health
insurance benefit comparable to that of other State employees; according to the
VRS, only 500 teachers and administrator retirees in Roanoke City are eligible for
this health insurance credit, and based on the years of service, all 500 would receive
the full $30.00; and retirees who do not pay health insurance programs are not
allowed to participate in the program. She explained that it would cost the City less
than $200,000.00 to extend this benefit to retired educators; and the City of Salem,
Botetourt County, Craig County, Bedford and Campbell Counties currently provide
this benefit to their retired teachers. She requested that Roanoke City look with
favor on their request.
Upon question, the Chairperson of the School Board advised that the matter
has been reviewed on several occasions, to begin the program initially would cost
approximately $216,000.00 per year, which amount will continue to escalate, the
3
School Board would like to do what it can for retired teachers, however, the request
has not surfaced to the top of the list as a funding priority. She advised that the
School Board will continue to review the matter to find a way to help retired
teachers.
At 9:30 a.m., the Mayor declared the budget study session in recess.
At 9:40 a.m. the budget study session reconvened in the EOC Conference
Room, with all Members of the Council in attendance.
The Mayor advised that the following items were carried over from the
Thursday, May 4 budget study session:
Cost-of-living increase for retirees and excluding employees who
retired under the two for one pension plan currently earning $50,000.00
or more per year from any future pay increases;
Medical and dental insurance supplement for retirees at the same level
as regular employees.
Mr. Swain moved that Council approve a cost-of-living raise for retirees for
fiscal year 2001 who retired on or before July 1, 1999, in the amount of 2.4%, except
those retirees who received two years of creditable service for each year employed
and whose annual retirement benefit exceeds $50,000.00 shall not be eligible to
receive an increase. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Hudson, Swain, White, Wyatt and
Mayor Bowers ............................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................. 0.
Clarification was requested in regard to those persons who retired or will
retire with 30 or more years of earned service who will receive $50,000.00 or more
per year; whereupon, the Director of Finance advised that Council could address the
matter on an annual basis.
There was discussion with regard to requesting the School Board to include
funds in its budget to address the request of retired teachers for a health insurance
supplement; whereupon, the City Manager suggested that in lieu of Council making
a specific request of the School Board, she could convey the consensus of Council
to the School Board in advance of adoption of the 2000-01 budget on Tuesday,
May 9, by advising the School Board Chairperson and the School Superintendent
4
that if a budget adjustment is required at some point, it would be addressed. She
stated that a further message could be conveyed that the City/School budget is not
in a position to fund the total request, however, Council would like for the two
administrative staffs to prepare a proposal.
Mr. Harris moved that the City Manager be authorized to convey the
sentiments of Council regarding health insurance for school retirees to the School
Board Chairperson and to the Superintendent of Schools for response. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Hudson, White, Wyatt and Mayor Bowers ..... 5.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Member Swain abstained from voting inasmuch as he is a retiree of the
Roanoke City School System and Council Member Wyatt requested that the record
reflect that she is a teacher in the Roanoke City Public School System.)
Council having deferred action on a report of the City Manager and the
Director of Finance with regard to a supplemental health insurance payment to
eligible City retirees prior to attaining age 65, the matter was again before the body.
The City Manager and the Director of Finance submitted a joint written report
under date of May 5, 2000, advising that Council requested that they provide the cost
of increasing the health insurance supplement from $159.00 per month to $175.00
per month; and Council also requested the cost of providing a dental coverage
supplement of $15.44 per month to eligible retired members of the City's pension
plan which would be equivalent to that recommended for City employees in the fiscal
year 2001 budget; and the incremental cost of providing the increased health care
supplement and dental care coverage supplementwould be $7,488.00 and $7,225.00;
respectively, for fiscal year 2001.
The City Manager and the Director of Finance advised that they have reviewed
the cost and analyzed retirement allocations and supplemental payments, and as a
result, they recommend continuation the $159.00 monthly supplement and
establishing it as a pension benefit to be paid from the pension trust fund; eligible
requirements for the benefit would be 20 years or more of creditable service and less
than age 65, effective July 1,2000; retired or retiring Sheriff's Department employees
entitled to the $159.00 fringe benefit though June 30, 2000, will continue to receive
the benefit until age 65 and Sheriff's Department employees retiring on or after
July 1, 2000, would not be entitled to the benefit.
(For full text, see report on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
5
In clarification of the report, the City Manager advised that there are
employees who retired prior to July 1, 1998, who receive no supplement; therefor,
on that basis, the City Manager and Director of Finance submitted a revised report;
whereupon, they recommended that the benefit not be increased until such time as
they are able to evaluate and make a recommendation to Council that provides the
same benefit to all retirees of the pension system. Ms. Burcham spoke against
creating another category and because of the precedent that was established in the
1998 ordinance which provided the benefit only to those who retired as of that date,
which became the confusing factor, staff should review the entire matter and rather
than approve any increase to the health care supplement or add a dental
supplement, she recommended that Council leave the $159.00 in effect and allow
staff to study the matter to find a way to provide $159.00 to all City retirees before
the amount is increased for another group of retirees. She recommended that the
$159.00 benefit be considered a retirement benefit and that the expense be
transferred to the pension fund which is where it appropriately belongs. She
advised that it is believed, subject to clarification by the City Attorney, that the net
result of moving the benefit to the pension fund and considering the benefit to be a
retirement or pension benefit would be that the Sheriff's employees would not be a
part of that group since they are not a part of the City's retirement system; therefor,
it would be the suggestion of the City Manager and the Director of Finance, subject
to review by the City Attorney, that those Sheriff's employees who are already retired
and receiving the benefit of $159.00 would not be penalized and would continue to
receive the benefit, and if Council whishes to make a judgment separately on behalf
of employees of the Sheriff's Department, it could be handled within the General
Fund and the benefit would not be considered a retirement benefit but a supplement.
Following discussion, Mr. Hudson moved that Council concur in the
recommendation of the City Manager and Director of Finance. The motion was
seconded by Mr. White and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Hudson, Swain, White, Wyatt and
Mayor Bowers ................................................................................................ 6.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
Mr. Harris moved that Council concur in the City Manager's recommended
budget, including the school budget, supplemental budget items, and
discussion/motions pertaining to items 761 - 769 of the budget study agenda; and
that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare the proper measures for consideration
by Council at its Special Meeting to be held on Tuesday, May 9, 2000, at 3:00 p.m.,
in the City Council Chamber. The motion was seconded by Mr. Swain and adopted
by the following vote:
6
AYES: Council Members Harris, Hudson, Swain, White, Wyatt and
Mayor Bowers ................................................................................................ 6.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0.
Mr. Hudson moved that Council approve the HUD Consolidated Fund budget
for fiscal year 2000-01. The motion was seconded by Mr. Swain and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Hudson, Swain, White, Wyatt and
Mayor Bowers ................................................................................................ 6.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
There being no further business, the Mayor declared the fiscal year 2000-01
budget study session adjourned at 10:25 a.m.
7
The following is a transcript of remarks regarding the medical and dental insurance
supplement for retirees that transpired at the fiscal year 2000-01 budget study session of
the Council on Friday, May 5, 2000:
Mayor Bowers: Ladies and Gentlemen, the next item on the agenda is the medical and
dental insurance supplement for retirees at the same level as regular employees, it would
be my suggestion that we would handle it virtually the same way, instead of dealing with
it on a piece by piece micro-managed way, see if we can send the issue over to the
administration but I'm open to any further discussion or motions on the matter.
Ms. Wyatt: I need some clarification, because what I saw come in on this was...
Mr. Grisso: Well, Ms. Wyatt, we handed that out.
Ms. Wyatt: Yes, I've got that. What I saw .......... Mr. Grisso, correct me if I'm wrong, what
you have here was doing dental and making the stipend for retirees as of July 1st this
coming year. That was not what I asked for. What my request was, and I've checked with
Mr. Hudson, and what his request very clearly was, was not for future retirees, but it was
for present retirees.
Mr. Grisso: All right, that came out in a discussion Ms. Burcham and I had yesterday.
Ms. Wyatt: Very clearly nobody in any way, shape nor manner ever said future retirees.
Mr. Grisso: Yesterday, we identified how many people have retired that are entitled to this
allowance, and to date there is 117 retirees that are collecting this allowance, so if we
increase ............. whatever that is, you can multiply it 117 people times 12.
Ms. Burcham: It's another $220,000.00 or there abouts, and that only covers, Mr. Mayor,
Ms. Wyatt, and other Members of Council, those who have retired since 1998 when the
Council originally adopted an ordinance or resolution that provided the $159.00. So there
are employees who retired prior to July 1, 1998, who are receiving nothing. And on the
basis of that, Mr. Grisso and I have prepared a revised report to you all that we would like
to discuss, and it's my recommendation to you that we do nothing to increase the benefit
until such time as we are able to come back and evaluate, and make a recommendation
to you that provides the same benefit to all retirees of the system, because I do not want
to create another category that allows people to say, '1 want what the other guy or gal got.'
But because of the (I hate to use the word precedent, we used it before today), but
because of the precedent that was established in your original ordinance in 1998, where
you only provided the benefit to those who retired as of that day, that became the
confusing factor in deciding what was the group that was intended both to answer your
question as well as for a recommendation, and we just need to go back and revisit the
entire thing, so rather than suggesting that we make any increase to the health care or add
dental at this time, we would recommend that you do nothing, leave it at the $159.00
because we've got to try to find a way, in my opinion, to get $159.00 to all City retirees
before we start giving $160.00 or $161.00, or whatever the number is to the next group
or to the new retirees. Now obviously, any retiree who retires and has been since '98 will
get, and continue to get the $159.00 so we're not taking anything away from that group,
so that would be our recommendation in response to Your request and Mr. Hudson's
request about increasing. And then we also have a recommendation for the Council as it
relates to where and how that benefit should be treated, and our recommendation to you,
and jump in Mr. Gdsso at any time, he thanked me yesterday for letting him make his
presentation yesterday, because we did have a difficult time, so I'm trying to pay him back
hopefully in a positive way today. Our other recommendation is that the benefit of $159.00
be considered a retirement benefit and that the expense be appropriately transferred to the
pension fund which is where it appropriately belongs. Th'at will also, I think, help us in our
evaluation of whatever that group is, and last night we could not find out quick enough how
many of our already retirees who aren't covered are within that prior to age 65 group, so
we can't even give you the kind of calculation on what to spend on another group. We
believe, and the attorney can address this, we believe that the net result of moving that to
the pension fund and considering it to be a retirement or pension benefit would be that the
2
Sheriff's employees would not be a part of that group since they are not a part of our
retirement system. It would be our suggestion, subject to the attorney's review, that those
Sheriff's employees who are already retired and receiving that benefit of $159.00 would
not be penalized, they would continue to receive it, and then if the Council wanted to make
a judgement separately on the Sheriff's employees they could, and that could be handled
within the general fund, but it would not be considered a retirement benefit, it would just
be considered a supplement. We do have prepared for you a chart that does give a
comparison if, some Members of Council requested yesterday of this difficult thing to
understand about what is the benefit that's received by the Sheriff's employees prior to age
65 versus the benefits received after age 65, we'd be happy to share that with you if you
have interest. Have you passed that memo around? OK, why don't you go ahead and
pass the memo around and let's give the Council an opportunity to read it and then I think
Jim and I and Mr. Hackworth, although he's been brought into it only this morning in terms
of the memo that was prepared, but we'd be pleased to try to address the issues, but we
think that's probably the best way to handle it at this time.
Mr. Harris: I move to concur.
Mayor Bowers: If l may Vice-Mayor, let me go to Mr. White first as he .............
Mr. White: Well, Nelson already, I'll yield to Nelson because that's what I was going to do.
Go ahead.
Mr. Harris: Move to concur.
Mr. White: I'll second it.
Mayor Bowers: All right, motion has been made by the Vice-Mayor, seconded by
Mr. White, to concur in the recommendation of the administration on this. Now the floor
is open for any further discussion. Do you want to take a moment to read this?
(It was the consensus of Council to do so)
Mayor Bowers: Questions from anyone? The Sheriffis here, George good morning to you.
The question has been called for, is there any objection?
Ms. Wyatt: I've got some questions .........
Mayor Bowers: There is a call for the question and you object to the call for the question.
So I've got to put it to a vote. Call for the question does need to be seconded. Is there a
second to the call for the question? Again, I ask is there a second, and thirdly, is there a
second? Mr. Hudson, let me go back to you, let's see if we have any further discussion
and Ms. Wyatt, I'll recognize you.
Ms. Wyatt: Thank you, I want to get my thoughts together on some of this stuff, so I'm
thinking out loud.
Ms. Burcham: Oh, you're back to that. Good!
Ms. Wyatt: Looking at this, one of the things that I don't see is if once everybody from age
65, you know it's like you're either 65 less or else 65 over, but there is a big difference
between being age 65 and age 80 when you go on through there. There are some break-
even points in this that aren't addressed in this chart.
Mr. Grisso: Ms. Wyatt, the assumption that's in these charts, is in the City system, public
safety people have the rule of age of normal retirement, age 50, 25 years of service, that
is the same way the VRS LEOS system is. So the assumption in here is that these people
would reach the minimum normal retirement requirement, so under age 65, in other words,
what the chart would show you is if they were 55 when they retired they would draw that
allowance for 10 years, if they were 52 and there's no end to the possibility of the ages, but
I think it covers more than just under age 65. It's not right on 65, you could be 50 years old
4
with 25 years of service and the VRS column I think would be correct.
Ms. Wyatt: That's not my problem. What we haven't addressed is over 65.
there's a point of diminishing returns for the Sheriffs deputies in this.
Because
Mr. Grisso: Yes, that's covered under the bottom one out of, well at 30 years of service,
there is no difference, and quite frankly, the VRS, if you work over 30 years it becomes a
little bit more positive because there's not a cap. Our system caps at 63%, and I think,
doing the calculations yesterday, 35 years times 1.7 is 59~%, so when you move over 30
years the VRS is not capped like our system at 63, but ....
Ms. Wyatt: Not capped. What do you mean?
Mr. Grisso: Well, in other words, our retirement calculation is after you work 30 years of
service and you apply the multiplier to your 2.1, you're at 63%. If you worked 40 years,
you're still capped at 63%, and the only change in your retirement calculation is your
increase in your annual salary will marginally increase Your retirement allowance and under
VRS, I guess if you worked how ever many years you worked, you're 1.7% per year with
no cap on it. So the longer you work, but it's pretty unusual for somebody to have 30-35
years.
Ms. Wyatt: Most people, when they are under VRS, when.they get their retirement, general
rule of thumb, it's not 63% of their salary, it's 50% of their salary.
Mr. Grisso: At 30 years ...................
Ms. Wyatt: Well, let's not haggle over the numbers.
Mr. Grisso: O.K.
Ms. Wyatt: So, what we're looking at then, if that is a general rule of thumb, is most
people under YRS, when they retire get about 50% of their salary as opposed to 63% of
their salary. The figures I have, is up to age between 65 to 70 and 73. You're o.k., you're
better off if you're in the YRS system. After age 73, Mr. Grisso, the point of diminishing
return for the Sheriff's Department people, they greatly feel, and it gets worse each
successive year they live. Sheriff's Deputies really need to die off by age 70 if they're
going to really reap any great benefit, now I'm not encouraging anybody to do that, but
that's what the figures say.
Mr. Grisso: Well, I agree with you and I would even move that age back to 65 because
that's when the $9,264.00 stops, I guess in the month that a Deputy turns 65 that payment
stops. I'd move it back to 65 .... at that point, retirees that retire under our system are in a
better position.
Ms. Burcham: I think Ms. Wyatt, if you look to this bottom chart you'll see we tried to
portray that, but while regardless of how many years are shown for VRS or the City system,
20, 25, 30 or 35, the Sheriff's employees and those als0 covered under the same State
program have a higher annual retirement because of that supplement. Once you reach
age 65 down here because that drops out, you do have more salary or retirement from our
system. So, in these analysis, we've dropped all that money out, so even the person with
just 20 years as well as the person with 35 years sees a significant reduction as a Sheriff
retiree come age 65, and that's when they would benefii by a couple of thousand dollars
it looks like here in the high end if they had been in the City system. So we do
acknowledge that there is a major change when age 65 occurs.
Ms. Wyatt: I'm tired of fooling around on the same argument over and over and over again
each time this comes up. My feeling, my very strong feeling, if we are asking the Sheriff's
Department to abide by our rules and regulations and we're saying we want you to take the
same holidays, we want you to go through the same pay scale, we want you to do all of the
things that we indeed are saying are what we want for our employees and we ask him to
do that, and in effect contracted them to do that, then we have, I think, a moral if not a legal
responsibility that when we are looking at providing ............. our people, that we do the
same for these employees, if we are asking them to abide by the same rules and
regulations, then they have a right to the same benefits too. I think that's only fair,
equitable and the right thing to do.
Mr. Hudson: I want to clarify one thing. They don't abide by all of our guidelines, they do
not abide by the holidays, they get several more holidays a year, that's excluded from the
contract.
Mr. White: Mr. Mayor ........ this is a complicated issue .... the Manager and Finance Director
have given us a recommendation which we have moved on and I think that's the way to
handle it. We've got professional people who also have access to additional professionals
and I think the goal is, we want to be fair to all employees and not pit one group against
the other and I think that message is clear from what we asked the administration to report
on. I would like to move on and call for the vote on this thing.
Mayor Bowers: O.K. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Harris: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to make one comment and ....... (changed
tape) ............ administrators of retirement systems get into acting like administrators of
retirement systems. If I'm reading this chart right, and we can talk about people when
they're 70 and what not, but if I'm reading this chart right, say I came to work at the City
when I was 25 years old, and I retire after 30 years at age 55, then according to this under
ESRS, I'm less than 65 but I've got 30 years of service, I retired making $35,000.00, my
income would be say $24,000.00. Have I got that right? If I was a Deputy and I retired
after 30 years at age 55 and VRS supplement and so forth, my retirement income is
$29,000.00, have I read that correctly? All right, that means for 10 years, I, as a Deputy
under retirement, until I turn 65 would earn $50,000.00 more in retirement over that 10 year
period until I reached age 65. We can talk about a Deputy at 70 is earning less than a City
retiree, but let's take into account the fact that that's $50,000.00 of income that Deputy has
gotten that the City retiree hasn't gotten for 10 years prior to age 65. Now I'm not arguing,
I'm not being negative on that or arguing the point, or anything like that, but I'm just saying
there are inequities throughout the system, and for us to sit here and just pick out one
category of say a 70 year old and say well now we've got'to bring everything up to par and
what not, well you know that then throws off the City retiree and they'll be back in here
saying "well if this group", etc. And we're right back to the same place we started. I share
Ms. Wyatt's sentiment, that I as a Member of Council get a little tired of the minutiae we
get into sometimes in here in the retirement system because we are not retirement system
administrators. And frankly the reason this thing is fouled up, I don't know that it's fouled
up, but the reason I think there are problems in it is because City Council has overstepped
its bounds in getting in here and dictating little scales and this, that and the other. And
David you put it exactly right, micro-managing. Who's to blame for the retirement system
and the problems we throw over to the administrators? City Council is. Because we get
in here and micro-manage things and carry on and so on and so forth and that's why I
move to concur. Who ought to appropriately handle this? The administration, not us sitting
around here looking at this, that and the other and then just having the next group come
in next year and complain.
Mr. Hudson: Right.
Mayor Bowers: All right, there's been another call for the question. Is there any objection
to a call for the question? If there is no objection, will Ms. Parker please call the roll on the
motion to concur in the administration's recommendation.
Ms. Parker: Mr. Harris- Aye, Mr. Hudson -Aye, Mr. Swain -Aye, Mr. White- Aye, Ms.
Wyatt - Aye, Mayor Bowers - Aye.
Mayor Bowers: The ayes have it and the motion passes.
8
Office of the City Manager
June 12,2000
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Subject: Recycling Program
At City Council's Budget Study Session on Thursday, May 4, 2000, one of the items
that had been referred by Council concerned our recycling program. Several questions
were generated from discussion of this topic. Those questions and their answers are listed
below:
1. Council Member Hudson asked what portion of the recycling budget is attributed
to picking up only the recyclables in the green containers.
Of the total $650,000 recycling budget (which includes residential recycling in green
containers as well as bulk and brush collection, downtown recycling collection,'
bagged leaf collection and Christmas tree collection), $240,000 (or 37%) is the
portion of the recycling budget that is attributed to only the green containers.
2. Council Member Wyatt asked what additional manpower and equipment ( and
their related costs) will be needed for Phase 4 of the recycling program.
Under the proposal that we shift a significant portion of refuse collection from alleys
to curbside, four (4) semi-automated packer trucks, four (4) drivers and eight (8)
workers can be reallocated to the citywide recycling program (all phases). Current
salaries and benefits for these twelve (12) positions is $272,000. A total of
$135,000 would be spent on new recycling containers for Phase 4 households. The
proposed recycling program would allow Roanoke to co-mingle a broader range of
materials, making it easier to recycle.
3. Council Member Wyatt asked what cost is anticipated as part of any public
relations program to encourage recycling.
It is estimated that if we launched an aggressive public relations program, $3.00 per
single family household should be budgeted for a total of $114,000.
Room 364 Municipal South 215 Church Avenue, S.W, Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591 (540) 853-2333 FAX (540) 853-1138
CityWeb:www. ci,roanoke,va,us
Letter Mayor Bowers, Members of Council
Page 2
June 12, 2000
4. Council Member VVyatt asked what revenue does recycling generate for
Roanoke.
The market for recycled materials can vary significantly over time. Revenue for the
past three (3) years is listed below:
FY 1998/99
FY 1997/98
FY 1996-97
1,103.50 tons
1,168.72 tons
1,386.00 tons
$11,449.13
$21,912.01
$16,767.51
There is also a cost avoidance that should be considered. In FY 98/99, tipping fees
in the amount of $56,278.50 were avoided by recycling this material instead of
disposing at the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority.
We hope that this information is responsive to your questions. Please let me know
at your earliest convenience if any further clarification is necessary.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
DLB/RKB/gpe
c: v/City Clerk
City Attomey
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
.~~ Melinda J. Payne, Chairman
F. B. Webster Day, Vice Chairman
Charles W. Day
Roanoke
/'City School Board P.o. Box 13145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031
Marsha W. Ellison
Sherman P. Lea
Ruth C. Willson
8dan J. Wishneff
E. Wayne Harris, Ed.D., Superintendent
Cindy H. Lee, Clerk of the Board
· 540-853-2381 · Fax: 540-853-2951
May 26, 2000
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council:
As requested by Council Member Linda Wyatt during our May 5, 2000, joint
budget study session, the following information is enclosed:
The number and location of Macintosh LC computers.
The status of school network infrastructures.
On behalf of the Roanoke City School Board and Superintendent Harris, thank
you for the opportunity to meet in joint session. Please let us know if you have any
questions regarding the enclosed information.
Sincerely yours,
Melinda J. Payne
Chairman
Enclosures (2)
Preparing Students for Success
Item 7.b.1.
City of Roanoke
May 4, 2000
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice-Mayor
The Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., Council Member
The Honorable Carroll E. Swain, Council Member
The Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member
The Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Re:
Cost of Livin~ Raise for Retirees - FY2001
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council:
Eligible members of the City of Roanoke Pension Plan received a 2.0% permanent cost-of-living
adjustment (COLA) on July 1, 1999. This is the fifth consecutive year a permanent COLA has
been provided to eligible retirees. The social security increase for January 2000 was 2.4% and
historically this has been our guideline. After discussions with other municipal retirement systems
and our administration, we recommend the following:
Effective July 1, 2000, and payable July 31, 2000, we recommend a 2.4% permanent increase to
a member's or surviving spouse's annual retirement allowance. This increase does not apply to
any incentive payments made under the Voluntary Retirement Incentive Program established by
Ordinance No. 30473.41591, adopted April 15, 1991.
Ootion A provides an increase to those retirees who retired on or before July 1, 1999.
Option B also provides an increase to those retiree.s who retired on or before July 1, 1999,
except any retiree who received two years of creditable service for each year employed and
whose annual retirement benefit exceeds $50,000 shall not be eligible to receive an
increase.
Approximately 1243 of 1345 retirees or 94.6% of those receiving benefits as of April 30, 2000 will
be eligible for this increase. The average annual increase in retirement allowance is $205, costing
the pension fund an additional $260,965 annually.
l0
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
May 4, 2000
Page 2
The actuarial cost of a 2.4% permanent COLA is estimated at $2.5 million to be funded over the
next 20 years through the annual contribution rate.
All City operating funds along with the Airport, School Board, Roanoke Valley Resource
Authority, Roanoke Valley Detention Commission, and the Commonwealth of Virginia will
assume their pro rata share of cost of funding of the COLA for retirees.
We would be pleased to address questions regarding the proposed retirement allowance increase.
Respectfully submitted,
DLB/JDG:s
//~ector of Finance
C~
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Joyce Sparks, Retirement Administrator
ll
Association of Municipal Retirement Systems of Virginia
Cost of Living Adjustments
Arlin~on
Charlottesville
Danville
FaJrfax*
Falls Church**
Newport News
Norfolk
Portsmouth
Richmond
COLA
Recommended
FY2001
2.5%
2.0%
2.2%
4.0%
1.2%
1.85%
2.4%
2.2%
COLA
Approved
FY2000
1.7%
2.5%
1.6%
2.6%
.6%
1.3%
.0%
1.6%
2.5%
1.6%
* Average of three systems
** COLAs granted on a calendar year basis.
12
- City of Roanoke, Virginia
Department of Finance
Schedule of Cost of Living Adjustments
City of Roanoke Pension Plan CPI Social Security
Cost of Living Adjustments (Calendar COLA
Effective July 1 Year) Effective January 1
1986 3% lump sum 1.7% 3.1%
1987 3% permanent 3.7% 1.3%
1988 3% b~rnp sum 3.9% 4.2%
1989 3% permanent 5.2% 4.0%
1990 3% lump s~rn 4.7% 4.7%
1991 none 4.7% 5.4%
1992 3% permanent 2.9% 3.7%
1993 3% l~rnp sum 2.8% 3.0%
1994 3% permanent 2.2% 2.6%
1995 3% l;~mp sum 2.8% 2.8%
1996 3% permanent 2.7% 2.6%
1997 2.9% permanent 2.2% 2.9%
1998 2.1% permanent 1.8% 2.1%
1999 2.0% permanent 1.6% 1.3%
2000 2.4% permanent 2.7% 2.4%
13
Association of Municipal Retirement Systems of Virginia
Health Insurance Premiums
Charlottesville
Danville
Fairfax
Falls Church
Newport News
Norfolk
Portsmouth
Richmond
VRS
Roanoke
Portion of Health Insurance
Premium Paid For Retirees
Before Age 65
Enrollment in City Group Required
100% Of Retiree Premium
None
Age 55 And Over Or Disabled
$100 Per Month
Enrolled in any City Group Plan
50% Of Health Insurance Premium
Enrolled In Any City Group Plan
75% Of Health Insurance Premium
None
5% - 25% Depending On Service
$106- $213
Depending On Plan
15 Years Of Service - Receive $4 For
Each Year of Service, Up To 30 Years
$120
$159 For 20 Years Of Service
Item 7.b.2.
City of Roanoke
May 4, 2000
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice-Mayor
The Honorable W. Alvin Hudson,/Ir., Council Member
The Honorable Carroll E. Swain, Council Member
The Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member
The Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Re: Employer Matching Contribution to ICMA-RC
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
City Council, on May 12, 1997, authorized the first matching contribution of $5.00 to the
International City Management Association Retirement Corporation (ICMA-RC) deferred
compensation plan on behalf of any non-temporary classified employee of the City who made a
contribution of $5.00 or more per pay period. Subsequently, City Council increased the employer
matching contribution from $5.00 to $10.00 for fiscal year 1999. The participation increased from
30.8% before the City match program to 71.1% as of April 28, 1999.
City Council, on May 11, 1999, authorized an increase from $10.00 to $15.00 per pay period
employer match to the ICMA-RC on behalf of any non-temporary employee of the City who makes
a contribution of an equal amount on their own behalf. Below are statistics that show participation
in the deferred compensation plan by salary range before and after the increase of an additional $5.00
per pay period employer matching contribution.
Total Nmb~r Total Number Percentage Total Number Total Number Percentage
of of of of of of
Empioyee~ Participants Participants Employees Participants Participants
Salary as of as of as of as of as of as of
Range 4~ 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/12/00 4/12100 4/12/00
$10,000 to $20,000 270 154 57.0% 209 127 60.8%
$20,000 to $30,00O 859 581 67.6% 869 618 71. I%
$30,000 to $40,000 557 428 76.8% 567 466 82.2%
$40,000 to $50,000 184 152 82.6% 225 189 84.0%
$50,000 to S60,000 43 39 90.7% 62 59 95.2%
$60,000 and above 46 39 84.8% 49 41 83.7%
Total 195..~9 1,393 71. I% 1,981 1,500 75.7%
14
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
May 4, 2000
Page 2
The statistics confu'm that the increased contribution by the City from $10.00 to $15.00 per pay
period continues to have a positive impact on employee participation.
The following statistics show participation in the deferred compensation plan by amount contributed.
The City will match what an employee contributes on their own behalf up to $15.00 per pay period.
Amount
Contributed Number of
by the City Employees Biweekly Annual
$ 5.00 38 $ 190 $ 4,940
10.00 141 1,410 36,660
12.00 2 24 624
15.00 1,319 19,785 514,410
1,500 $ 21,409 ~
In a survey conducted by the City Manager regarding employee pay, the most overwhelming positive
response, mentioned by 43% of the respondents, was the employer matching contribution to ICMA-
RC. The increased employer match from $15.00 to $20.00, effective July 1, 2000, for all non-
temporary employees who make their required contribution will continue to improve morale and
assist in recruiting and retaining qualified employees. This will provide an additional annual benefit
of $130 for each eligible participating employee, for a total annual employer match of $520.00. A
cap of $25.00 employer match per pay period should be considered a goal for fiscal year 2002.
We recommend the employer match be increased to $20.00 per pay period with the paycheck of
July 5, 2000.
Sincerely,
D~r,l~e L. Burcham
City Manager
Director of Finance
DLB/JDG:s
c;
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Joyce Sparks, Retirement Administrator
15
City of Roanoke
May 5, 2000
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice-Mayor
The Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., Council Member
The Honorable Carroll E. Swain, Council Member
The Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member
The Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Re.'
Supplemental Payment to Eligible Ci_ty of Roanoke Employees Prior to A~ainin g Age
Sixty- Five
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council:
City Council adopted Resolution No. 33845-051898 on May 8, 1998, providing a monetary
supplement to eligible retired members of the City of'Roanoke Pension Plan. The
supplement was intended to partially defray the cost of health insurance, similar to
supplements provided by other municipal retirement systems, including the Virginia
Retirement System (VRS). This supplement was paid as a general benefit funded from the
operating department from which the employee retired rather than from the Pension Plan
trust fund. Subsequent to passage of this resolution, the Sheriff initiated a review and
pointed out that the Sheriff's employees were entitled to this supplement due to a contractual
agreement to abide by the City's operating procedures and participate in City's general
benefits plan. Council adopted Resolution No. 34138-010499 extending the .benefit to
eligible employees of the Sheriff's department.
City Council requested the City Manager and Director of Finance to provide the cost of
increasing the health insurance supplement from $159 per month to $175 per month.
Council also requested the cost of providing a dental coverage supplement of $15.44 per
month. The combination of these supplements would be equivalent to those recommended
for City employees h/the FY2001 budget. The incremental cost of providing the increased
health care supplement and dental coverage supplement would be $7,488 and $7,225,
respectively, for FY2001.
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
May 5, 2000
Page 2
We have reviewed these costs and have analyzed retirement allowances and supplemental
payments as shown in Exhibit A. As a result, we recommend continuing the $159 monthly
supplement and establish it as a pension benefit to be paid f~om the Pension Trust Fund.
Eligibility requirements for the benefit would be 20 years or more of creditable service and
less than age 65, effective July 1, 2000. Retired or retiring Sheriff's Department employees
entitled to the $159 monthly fringe benefit through June 30, 2000 will continue to receive
the benefit until age 65. Sheriff's department employees retiring on or after July 1, 2000
would not be entitled to this benefit.
We would be pleased to answer any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
DLB:JDG:g
c: William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Joyce Sparks, Retirement Administrator
~tor of Finance
City of Roanoke
May 4, 2000
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice-Mayor
The Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., Council Member
The Honorable Carroll E. Swain, Council Member
The Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member
The Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Re:
Supplemental Payment to Eligible Ci_ty of Roanoke Employees Prior to Attaining Age
Sixty-Five
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council:
City Council, on May 8, 1998, adopted Resolution No. 33845-051898 providing for payment
of a monetary supplement, to partially defray the cost of health insurance, to eligible retired
members of the City of Roanoke Pension Plan prior to attaining age sixty-five. Resolution
No. 34138-010499 provides the payment of $159 to certain retired officers and employees
of the Sheriff"s Department, who are members of the Virginia Retirement System (VRS).
Employees with twenty or more years of City service who retired on or after July 1, 1998,
are eligible to receive this supplement to age sixty-five at which time they become eligible
for Medicare.
The supplement is funded as a employer paid fringe benefit by the departmental budget from
which the employee retired. The resolution stated that the supplement shall not be
considered permanent and City Council reserved the right to amend the terms and conditions
of the resolution or to repeal the benefit.
Council Member Linda F. Wyatt requested the cost to increase the health insurance monthly
supplement from $159 to $175, the present supplement for current employees with Trigon
comprehensive health care coverage. Council referred the matter to fiscal year 2001 budget
study. The cost of increasing the supplement is $7,488.
Council Member W. Alvin Hudson, Jr. requested the cost to provide retired employees a
monthly supplement of $15.44 that current employees receive toward their group Delta
Dental Coverage. Council referred the matter to fiscal year 2001 budget study. To provide
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
May 4, 2000
Page 2
those eligible retirees who are currently receiving the health care supplement with the $15.44
dental care supplement, the cost is $7,225.
The City Administration reviewed and analyzed the future payments to retirees from the
operating budget. We requested our actuary, Slabaugh, Morgan, White & Associates, to
determine the impact of this payment from the City of Roanoke Pension Plan. The
recommended contribution rate to the City Pension Plan of 6.25% will cover the increased
cost of this benefit to the Pension Plan.
Retirees who are members of the City Pension Plan and are currently receiving the $159
monthly supplement to age sixty-five could be paid from the Pension Plan trust fund. The
supplement could be considered a part of the pension benefit and would be actuarially
funded as a part of the Pension fund contribution rate. The four ShefiWs Department
retirees who are members of VRS receiving the supplement to age sixty-five could continue
to be funded from the ShefiWs departmental budget. Future SheriWs Department retirees
would not receive this supplement, but as members of VRS, they currently receive a monthly
supplement of $772 to age sixty-five.
We would recommend all payments of this supplement be stopped at age sixty-five and not
transferrable to a beneficiary upon a retiree's death. The supplement would not be used in
the calculation of any future cost-of-living adjustments.
Options for City Council's discussion are as follows:
Option 1: No modifications.
Option 2:
Increase allowance to $175 per month, effective July 1, 2000, for
employees retiring after that date.
Option 3:
Increase allowance to $190 ($175 +15) per month, effective July 1,
2000, for employees retiring after that date.
Option 4:
Establish benefit as retirement benefit in lieu of employer paid fringe
benefit. Future funding would be provided from the retirement trust
fund.
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
May 4, 2000
Page 3
Numerous multiples of the above options are possible. We recommend that regardless of
which option City Council elects, the supplement be considered a pan of the pension benefit
and paid from the Pension Plan trust fund.
Respectfully submitted,
DLB/JDG:s
Dir~/or of Finance'
c'.
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Joyce Sparks, Retirement Administrator