HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/12/2023 - City Council - Agenda -RegularCity Council Meeting
AGENDA
Monday, June 12, 2023, 6:30 PM
Work Session, 5:45 P.M. Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153
Regular Session, 6:30 P.M. Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153
WORK SESSION
1.Call to Order
2.New Business
A.Discussion Items
1) Economic Development Update - Tommy Miller, Director of Economic Development
2) Other Council Discussion Items
3.Adjournment
REGULAR SESSION
1.Call to Order
2.Pledge of Allegiance
3.Bid Openings, Awards, Recognitions
4.Consent Agenda
A.Citizen Comments
Comments from the public, limited to five minutes, on matters not already having a
public hearing component at the same meeting.
B.Minutes
Consider acceptance of the May 18, 2023, Budget Work Session minutes and the May
22, 2023, Regular Meeting minutes.
Consider ordinance on second reading for the request of Salem Montessori School, Inc.,
property owner, for rezoning the property at 112 Corporate Boulevard (Tax Map # 148-1-2.2)
from RSF Residential Single-Family District and BCD, Business Commerce District with
conditions to RSF Residential Single-Family District. (Approved on first reading at the May
22, 2023, meeting.)
B.Amendment to City Code - Chapter 82
Consider adoption of ordinance on second reading amending Section 82-43, Article II, Chapter
82 of the Code of the City of Salem pertaining to Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled.
(Approved on first reading at May 22, 2023 meeting).
6.New Business
A.Job Classes and Pay Ranges 2023-2024
Consider adoption of Resolution 1455 amending the schematic list of job classes and pay
ranges previously set forth on May 23, 2022 to be part of the 2023-2024 fiscal year budget.
Audit - Finance Committee
B.Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2023-2024
Hold a public hearing on the proposed budget for fiscal year 2023-2024. This item was
continued from the May 22, 2023 meeting by Council.
C.Budget Adoption Ordinance
Consider an ordinance on first reading adopting the budget for fiscal year 2023-2024. A
summary of the proposed budget was advertised in the Salem Times Register on April 27,
2023 and May 4, 2023. This item was continued from the May 22, 2023 meeting by
Council. Audit - Finance Committee
D.Budget Appropriation Ordinance
Consider an ordinance on first reading appropriating funds for the fiscal year 2023-2024
budget. This item was continued from the May 22, 2023 meeting by Council. Audit -
Finance Committee
E.Appropriation of Funds
Consider request to accept and appropriate ARPA Law Enforcement Grant. Audit - Finance
Committee
F.Appropriation of Funds
Consider request to appropriate grant funds awarded by Virginia Tourism Corporation.
Audit
- Finance Committee
G.Appropriation of Funds
Consider request to appropriate additional State of Good Repair and Primary Formula
funding for the Colorado Street Bridge Project. Audit - Finance Committee
H.Appropriation of Funds
Consider request to appropriate and transfer excess local funding in the Capital Projects
Fund. Audit - Finance Committee
I.Carter Machinery Parking Lot Expansion
Consider setting bond for physical improvements and erosion and sediment control and
landscaping for Carter Machinery Parking Lot Expansion. Audit - Finance Committee
5. Old Business
A. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Consider approval of the fiscal agent agreements with Court-Community Corrections and
Cardinal Criminal Justice Academy. Audit - Finance Committee
7.Adjournment
J. Fiscal Agent Agreements
Item #4B
Date: 6/12/2023
UNAPPROVED
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
May 18, 2023
A work session of the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in the Parlor A,
Salem Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, Virginia, on May 18, 2023, at 7:30
a.m., there being present the following members of said Council, to wit: Renée Ferris Turk,
Mayor; James W. Wallace, III, Vice-Mayor; Councilmembers: Byron Randolph Foley,
William D. Jones, and H. Hunter Holliday(absent); with Renée Ferris Turk, Mayor,
presiding; together with James E. Taliaferro, II, City Manager; Rob Light, Assistant City
Manager and Clerk of Council; Rosie Jordan, Director of Finance; Tammy Todd, Assistant
Director of Finance; and Crystal Williams, Assistant to the City Manager; and the following
business was transacted:
Mayor Turk reported that this date, place, and time had been set in order for the
Council to hold a budget work session; and
WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding the FY 2023-2024 budget; and
WHEREAS, there were no other topics for discussion.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the work session was
adjourned at 8:51 a.m.
City Council Meeting
MINUTES
Monday, May 22, 2023, 6:30 PM
Work Session is cancelled for May 22, 2023
Regular Session 6:30 P.M. Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153
WORK SESSION
WORK SESSION IS CANCELLED
REGULAR SESSION
1.Call to Order
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia was called to
order at 6:30 p.m., there being present the following members to wit: Renée
Ferris Turk, Mayor; James W. Wallace, III, Vice-Mayor; Councilmembers:
Byron Randolph Foley, William D. Jones, and H. Hunter Holliday (absent); with
Renée Ferris Turk, Mayor, presiding together with James E. Taliaferro, II, City
Manager; Rob Light, Assistant City Manager and Clerk of Council; Rosemarie
B. Jordan, Director of Finance; Chuck Van Allman, Director of Community
Development; Mike Stevens, Director of Communications; and Jim Guynn, City
Attorney.
2.Pledge of Allegiance
3.Bid Openings, Awards, Recognitions
Mayor Turk expressed appreciation to all of the Fire and Safe ty EMS
personnel that were present this evening and for their dedication and hard
work in caring for the citizens of the City of Salem.
4.Consent Agenda
A.Citizen Comments
Comments from the public, limited to five minutes, on matters not
already having a public hearing component at the same meeting.
Eddie Hite, 122 Par Drive, was the only citizen to ad dress Council this evening.
He expressed concern about the issue of salary compression and meeting the
salary needs of the following departments: Electric, Water/Sewer,
Streets/Sanitation, Public Education, Fire/EMS, and Public Safety. He spoke of a
number of positions that had been vacated in these departments and requested that
Council take a critical look at compression during the pay study process in an
attempt to retain tenured employees. Mr. Hite specifically requested that Council
consider raising the pay for part time paramedics. The second request that Mr.
Hite presented to Council was to consider appointing a 5 -person citizen Review
Committee to review how the City operates. He noted that he had a list of names
to be considered for such a committee and that he would get this list to Council.
He thanked Council for their support and what was being done through the Pay
Study.
B.Minutes
Consider acceptance of the May 8, 2023, Work Session and Regular
Meeting minutes.
The minutes were accepted as written.
C.Financial Report
Consider acceptance of the Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for the
ten months ending April 2023.
The financial reports were received.
5.Old Business
There was no old business this evening.
6.New Business
A.Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Hold public hearing and consider ordinance on first reading for the request of
Salem Montessori School, Inc., property owner, for rezoning the property at
112 Corporate Boulevard (Tax Map # 148-1-2.2) from RSF Residential
Single-Family District and BCD, Business Commerce District with
conditions to RSF Residential Single-Family District. (Advertised in the May
4 and 11, 2023, issues of the Salem Times-Register). Planning Commission
recommended approval. See page 5 of the May 10, 2023, minutes . STAFF
REPORT
Mayor Turk opened the public hearing.
Barney Horrell, 3553 Carvins Cove Road, Brushy Mountain Engineering, spoke
on behalf of Montessori School. He explained that this rezoning request was to
clean up the zoning lines for this property as the zoning lines did not match the
property lines. This was a remnant from when the property was divided
differently as part of the old Elizabeth Campus. They are requesting to bring the
whole property to Residential Single-Family with the intent in Item 6B, the
Special Exception request, to build a new school.
Mayor Turk closed the public hearing.
William Jones motioned to adopt ordinance on first reading for the request of
Salem Montessori School, Inc., property owner, for rezoning the property at 112
Corporate Boulevard (Tax Map # 148-1-2.2) from RSF Residential Single-Family
District and BCD, Business Commerce District with conditions to RSF
Residential Single-Family District. Randy Foley seconded the motion.
Ayes: Foley, Jones, Turk, Wallace
Absent: Holliday
B. Special Exception Permit Amendment Hold public hearing to consider the request of Salem Montessori School, Inc.,
property owner, to revise the Special Exception Permit approved February 28,
2011, to allow the construction of an educational facility, primary/secondary
on the property located at 112 Corporate Boulevard, (Tax Map # 148 -1-2.2).
(Advertised in the May 4, and 11, 2023 issues of Salem Times-Register.)
Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. See page 6 of
the May 10, 2023, minutes. STAFF REPORT
Mayor Turk opened the public hearing.
Barney Horrell, 3553 Carvins Cove Road, addressed Council. He noted that this
item is intended to address the development of the property from Item 6A. The
intent is to build a new school consistent with the two across the street. They are
currently housing students in an old house across the street from GE on Roanoke
Boulevard. As the school continues to grow, additional space is needed, and they
can either put money into the old building or build a new building. They would
like to create a "campus" atmosphere with all three buildings in the same place.
Conditions were put on the purchase of the property in 2011 when this property
along with 101 Corporate Boulevard was acquired for the fi rst Montessori School.
Part of the property is a wooded lot that has been used for outdoor education. As
the school has grown, they have met with the City Horticulturist and Community
Development and have identified some trees that need to be preserved. Th e
Concept Plan will be modified to reflect trees that are to be preserved. The intent
is to preserve as many trees as possible. The condition that the entire lot remain
wooded (a deed restriction) needs to be removed. Before the deed can be
modified, the Special Exception request must be approved. Other conditions were
consistent with the site plan.
Mayor Turk asked if the older Oak trees will be preserved. Mr. Horrell responded
affirmatively, to the extent that this is possible. These trees are grouped to gether
as well. In addition, he noted that there is an easement at the bottom of the slope
of the YMCA for the future greenway.
Mayor Turk questioned if the language needed to include City staff and not just
the City Horticulturist. Mr. Light responded affirmatively.
Mr. Van Allman noted that Community Development is also working with the
developer on parking requirements and that it is challenging staying out of the
drip line of trees.
Mayor Turk closed the public hearing.
Randy Foley motioned to approve the request of Salem Montessori School, Inc.,
property owner, to revise the Special Exception Permit approved February 28,
2011, to allow the construction of an educational facility, primary/secondary on
the property located at 112 Corporate Boulevard, (Tax Map # 148-1-2.2) with the
conditions that the oak trees will remain and other trees can be eliminated with the
approval of City Staff. William Jones seconded the motion.
Ayes: Foley, Jones, Turk, Wallace
Absent: Holliday
C.Proposed Real Estate Tax Rate for Fiscal Year 2023-2024
Hold a public hearing on the effective real estate tax rate for fiscal year
2023-2024.
Mayor Turk opened the public hearing.
Ms. Jordan gave background on the requirement for the public hearing. She
noted that when reassessment is completed each year, if the assessment increases
by more than 1%, the City must publish the effective tax rate increase in the
newspaper. This information was published in the April 20, 2023, issue of the
Salem Times-Register. The effective tax rate increase would be 9.63% based on
the reassessment. There is no proposed change to tax rates. No action is required
at this time.
Mayor Turk closed the public hearing.
D. Tax Rates Resolution
Consider adoption of Resolution 1451, a resolution imposing taxes on real
estate, tangible personal property, machinery and tools, and all legal subjects
of taxation for City purposes, including the property of railroad, express,
telephone, telegraph, water, heat (gas), light and power companies. Audit -
Finance Committee
Mr. Wallace noted that real estate tax rates, personal property tax rate,
and machinery and tools tax rate will stay the same as last year.
James Wallace motioned to adopt Resolution 1451 which will set the tax rates for
the 2023-2024 fiscal year. The request is to levy the following tax rates for the
2023-2024 fiscal year:
a) Real Estate tax rate of $1.20 per $100 assessed valuation b) Personal property tax rate of $3.40 per $100 assessed valuation
c) Machinery and tools tax rate of $3.20 per $100 assessed valuation.
William Jones seconded the motion.
Ayes: Foley, Jones, Turk, Wallace
Absent: Holliday
E. Approval of Electric Rates
Consider adoption of Resolution 1452 amending the Electric Rate
Tariffs. Audit - Finance Committee
Vice-Mayor Wallace noted that once a year the Power Cost Adjustment (PCA)
must be assessed. City staff has calculated that the PCA that is needed for
electric bills beginning July 1, 2023, to be $0.013126 per kilowatt hour (KWH).
The electric rate tariffs have been updated to include this PCA.
James Wallace motioned to approve Resolution 1452 approving the updated
electric rate tariffs to be effective for all bil ls issued on or after July 1, 2023.
William Jones seconded the motion.
Ayes: Foley, Jones, Turk, Wallace
Absent: Holliday
F. Book of Rates- 2023
Consider the adoption of Resolution 1453 regarding the Book of Rates
for 2023-2024. Audit-Finance Committee
Vice-Mayor Wallace explained that this item pertains to the Book of Rates, which
is the City's book of charges for City services. The Book of Rates and Fees are
adopted each year along with the budget.
James Wallace motioned to adopt Resolution 1453 amending the Book of Rates
and Fees for the 2023-2024 fiscal year. Randy Foley seconded the motion.
Ayes: Foley, Jones, Turk, Wallace
Absent: Holliday
G.Miscellaneous Fees - 2023
Consider the adoption of Resolution 1454 regarding the Miscellaneous Fees
for 2023-2024. Audit-Finance Committee
Vice-Mayor Wallace noted that the Miscellaneous Fees are also adopted each
year along with the budget.
James Wallace motioned to adopt Miscellaneous Fees Resolution 1454 for
the 2023-2024 fiscal year. William Jones seconded the motion.
Ayes: Foley, Jones, Turk, Wallace
Absent: Holliday
H.Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2023-2024
Hold a public hearing on the proposed budget for fiscal year 2023-2024.
Mr. Light suggested that if Council was going to continue a couple of th e other
budget items to the June 12, 2023, meeting that they also continue the public
hearing to that meeting as well.
Mayor Turk noted that Council desired to look more closely at a couple of items
and had staff working on these to bring more information to Council. Once
Council has had the opportunity to review this, they will be able to move
forward.
Mr. Foley clarified that part of the delay was due to receipt of some of the Job
Comp. and Class information later and the fact that Council had not been able
to study this information as thoroughly as they would like.
James Wallace motioned to continue the public hearing on the proposed budget
for fiscal year 2023-2024 to the June 12, 2023 meeting. Randy Foley seconded
the motion.
Ayes: Foley, Jones, Turk, Wallace
Absent: Holliday
I. Salem School Division Budget
Consider adoption of Resolution 1456 approving the Salem School
Division budget for fiscal year 2023-2024. Audit - Finance Committee
Mr. Foley shared for the benefit of the public that because o f the delayed
decision on the state budget, there could be an impact on the School's budget.
James Wallace motioned to approve Resolution 1456 approving the budget for
Salem City Schools for the 2023-2024 fiscal year to fulfill our legal requirement
of approving the budget. The budget is prepared for informative and fiscal
planning purposes only and does not actually commit or appropriate funds for
expenditure. William Jones seconded the motion.
Ayes: Foley, Jones, Turk, Wallace
Absent: Holliday
J. Budget Adoption Ordinance
Consider an ordinance on first reading adopting the budget for fiscal year
2023-2024. A summary of the proposed budget was advertised in the Salem
Times-Register on April 27, 2023 and May 4, 2023. Audit - Finance
Committee
Mayor Turk stated that since Council had continued the public hearing for the
proposed budget that she would make a motion to continue the first reading of
the ordinance adopting the budget and the ordinance appropriating the budget.
Mr. Wallace stated that he would like to amend the motion to make it more
specific.
James Wallace motioned to continue the first reading of the ordinance adopting
the budget and the ordinance appropriating the budget for fiscal year 2023-2024
to the June 12, 2023 meeting. Randy Foley seconded the motion.
Ayes: Foley, Jones, Turk, Wallace
Absent: Holliday
K. Budget Appropriation Ordinance
Consider an ordinance on first reading appropriating funds for the fiscal
year 2023-2024 budget. Audit - Finance Committee
This item was also continued by the action taken for Item 6J.
L. Appropriation of Funds
Consider request to appropriate proceeds from the sale of equipment. Audit
- Finance Committee
Mr. Wallace noted that the Street Department sold a very old truck on auction
for government bids in the amount of $13, 900 and that these funds were going
back to their budget.
James Wallace motioned to appropriate revenue from the sale of surplus
equipment in the amount of $13,900 to Sale of Equipment account and increase
the expenditure budget for Machinery & Equipment account by $13,900. Also,
that any proceeds not expended in the fiscal year received be administratively
appropriated in the subsequent fiscal year. Randy Foley seconded the motion.
Ayes: Foley, Jones, Turk, Wallace
Absent: Holliday
M. Appropriation of Funds Consider request to transfer and appropriate Highway Maintenance funding
in the Capital Projects Fund for Apperson Drive Bridge. Audit - Finance
Committee
Mr. Jones noted that this bridge is the one past the bowling alley where Outdoor
Fitters used to be located. This is the first of three bridges on that road that will
be worked on in the next few years.
James Wallace motioned to transfer $74,772 from the Bridge Repairs Highway
Maintenance account to the Transfer to Capital Projects Highway Maintenance
account for repairs to the Apperson Drive Bridge located just west of Cook Drive.
Also, in the Capital Projects Fund, to appropriate $74,772 to the Transfer from
General Fund account and to the Apperson Drive Bridge Repairs #1800 account
for the purposes stated above. William Jones seconded the motion.
Ayes: Foley, Jones, Turk, Wallace
Absent: Holliday
N. Appropriation of Funds
Consider request to amend the School Grant Fund and School Cafeteria
Fund budgets as approved by the School Board on April 11, 2023. Audit –
Finance Committee
James Wallace motioned to approve the School Board’s appropriation changes
to the Grant Fund budget to increase revenues and expenditures by $87,503 and
the Cafeteria Fund budget to increase revenues and expenditures by $192,741 as
approved by the School Board at their April 11, 2023 meeting. William Jones
seconded the motion.
Ayes: Foley, Jones, Turk, Wallace
Absent: Holliday
O. Appropriation of Funds
Consider request to amend the School Grant Fund budget as approved by
the School Board on May 9, 2023. Audit - Finance Committee
Mr. Foley clarified that this was Item 6O on the agenda.
James Wallace motioned to approve the School Board’s appropriation changes
to the Grant Fund budget to increase revenues and expenditures by $151,500 as
approved by the School Board at their May 9, 2023 meeting. William Jones
seconded the motion.
Ayes: Foley, Jones, Turk, Wallace
Absent: Holliday
P. Appropriation of Funds
Consider request to appropriate net position for Electric upgrades for
the development at the former Valleydale Plant. Audit - Finance
Committee
Mr. Wallace noted that this item pertained to incentives granted by the City for
the Valleydale project.
James Wallace motioned to appropriate $335,000 from Electric Fund net position
and increasing the budget in the Valleydale Project Improvements account by
$335,000 for the rerouting of overhead power lines on 8th Street and Indiana
Street. William Jones seconded the motion.
Ayes: Foley, Jones, Turk, Wallace
Absent: Holliday
Q. Appropriation of Funds
Consider request to reappropriate Virginia Fire Programs funding. Audit -
Finance Committee
Each year, the City receives funding from the Virginia Fire Programs Fund,
which must be spent in accordance with state guidelines. If funds are not spent
in the fiscal year received, localities are allowed to carryover these funds.
James Wallace motioned to appropriate $13,000 of such funds accumulated in
previous years from fund balance to Fire Program Expenditures Account for use
in purchasing structural firefighting gear. William Jones seconded the motion.
Ayes: Foley, Jones, Turk, Wallace
Absent: Holliday
R. Take 5 Oil Change and Car Wash Express Consider setting bond for erosion and sediment control and landscaping and
physical improvements for Take 5 Oil Change and Car Wash Express.
Audit - Finance Committee
Mr. Wallace clarified for the benefit of the public that this item pertained to the
property in front of Lowe's which they may have known as the old Fast Freddy's,
the old donut shop, or the old Sonic Drive-In.
James Wallace motioned to approve bonding in the amount of $1,650,416.00 for
erosion and sediment control and landscaping and physical improvements for
Take 5 Oil Change and Car Wash Express, located at 830, 816 & 800 Blk. W.
Main Street, with a time frame for completion set at twelve (12) months. Randy
Foley seconded the motion.
Ayes: Foley, Jones, Turk, Wallace
Absent: Holliday
S. Valleydale Multifamily Community Consider setting bond for erosion and sediment control and landscaping and
physical improvements for Valleydale Multifamily Community. Audit -
Finance Committee
James Wallace motioned to approve bonding in the amount of $516,573.50 for
erosion and sediment control and landscaping and physical improvements for
Valleydale Multifamily Community, located at 710 8th Street, with a time frame
for completion set at twelve (12) months. Randy Foley seconded the motion.
Ayes: Foley, Jones, Turk, Wallace
Absent: Holliday
T. STS Group North America Inc. - Resolution 1457
Consider adoption of Resolution 1457 authorizing the City Manager to
execute a support agreement with the City of Salem Economic Development
Authority, as required, to allow the EDA to execute a bank loan, issue a
revenue bond, and use the proceeds of such loan for economic development
incentives by funding a separate loan to STS Group North American, Inc.
This resolution supersedes Resolution 1448 that was adopted at the April 10,
2023, meeting.
Mr. Light clarified that on April 10, 2023, Council adopted a resolution for a
Support Agreement to allow the Economic Development Authority to provide a
loan to STS Group North America for improvements they are making at the
former GE building. The loan structure has changed slightly, so this is a
housekeeping item. The original proposed loan was based on a fix ed interest rate
throughout the term of the loan. The revised loan terms incorporate a variable
rate, including interest only payments for twelve months. At the twelve-month
mark, the loan converts to a fixed rate for the principal they draw down with
semi-annual interest payments and annual principal payments. This is just
clarifying that as the project moved on, the loan terms changed a little bit.
Mr. Foley motioned to adopt Resolution 1457 authorizing the City Manager
to execute a support agreement with the City of Salem Economic
Development Authority.
Mr. Wallace requested that the text be amended to remove the word
"proposed" from the text of the resolution and the support agreement. Mr.
Light noted that it was his understanding in speaking with Mr. Miller that this
was being addressed.
Randy Foley motioned to amend text to strike the word "proposed" in the
resolution and support agreement and to adopt Resolution 1457 authorizing the
City Manager to execute a support agreement with the City of Salem Economic
Development Authority, as required, to allow the EDA to execute a bank loan,
issue a revenue bond, and use the proceeds of such loan for economic
development incentives by funding a separate loan to STS Group North
American, Inc. This resolution supersedes Resolution 1448 that was adopted at
the April 10, 2023, meeting. William Jones seconded the motion.
Ayes: Foley, Jones, Turk, Wallace
Absent: Holliday
U. Amendment to City Code - Chapter 82
Consider adoption of ordinance amending Section 82-43, Article II, Chapter
82 of the Code of the City of Salem pertaining to Tax Relief for the Elderly
and Disabled.
Mr. Light clarified that this item would modify the ordinance for Section 82 -43 of
the City Code, Article II, Chapter 82 pertaining to Tax Relief for the Elderly and
Disabled. The limits were last updated in 2001. Council recently held a Work
Session with the Commissioner of Revenue, and they provided information for
Council's consideration and made some recommendations on increasing the
income limit and the asset limit. The proposal would raise the income limit from
$50,000 to $65,000 and the asset limit from $100,000 to $185,000. There would
be no other changes to the Tax Code section.
Randy Foley motioned to adopt on first reading an ordinance amending Section
82-43, Article II, Chapter 82 of the Code of the City of Salem pertaining to Tax
Relief for the Elderly and Disabled. William Jones seconded the motion.
Ayes: Foley, Jones, Turk, Wallace
Absent: Holliday
7. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:08 p.m.
Item #5A
Date: 6/12/2023
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL
AGENDA ITEM: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Consider ordinance on second reading for the request of Salem
Montessori School, Inc., property owner, for rezoning the
property at 112 Corporate Boulevard (Tax Map # 148-1-2.2)
from RSF Residential Single-Family District and BCD, Business
Commerce District with conditions to RSF Residential Single-
Family District. (Approved on first reading at the May 22,
2023, meeting.)
SUBMITTED BY: Mary Ellen Wines, CZA CFM, Planning & Zoning Administrator
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Zoning: RSF Residential Single-Family/BCD Business Commerce District
Land Use Plan Designation: Institutional
Existing Use: Vacant
Proposed Use: Educational facilities, primary/secondary
The subject property located at 112 Corporate Boulevard consists of a 1.812 acre tract of land
which currently possesses both the RSF Residential Single -Family and BCD Business
Commerce District zoning designations. A previous amendment to the zoning ordinance
resulted in the split zoning of the subject property, in addition to conditions which included the
following clause: “The ancient grove of trees shown on the preliminary development plan and
located on the eastern portion of the property midway between Texas Street and Lynchburg
Turnpike shall be preserved.”
The Montessori School is requesting a rezoning of the property from RSF/BCD with conditions
to RSF, which will ultimately allow for the development of a new private elementary school
should a subsequent special exception permit be approved. The removal of conditions
applicable to this property will remove the existing protection of the ancient grove of trees
which currently resides on the lot; however, the City Horticulturalist, Jeff Ceasar, provided a
recommendation that many of the trees on site hold relatively little value (aside from a few
select species), and thus could be removed to accommodate development (see submitted
letter for a comprehensive list of recommendations). The developer has provided an initial
concept plan for the planned construction, but this is subject to change based on the objective
to preserve as many valuable trees as possible.
The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as institutional, which is consistent with
the proposed development of an educational facility.
REQUIREMENTS:
The proposal meets the requirements of Section 106-202.3. Site development regulations for
RSF.
OPTIONS:
1. Recommend approval of the request.
2. Recommend denial of the request.
• .> '.~ •• ' .;.i
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 106-7, ARTICLE I, CHAPTER 106,
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, RELATING TO
ZONING AND DIVIDING THE CITY INTO BUILDING DISTRICTS AND
ESTABLISHING DISTRICT BOUNDARY LINES ON THE ZONING MAP OF
THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA.
WHEREAS, the City of Salem, property owner, has
heretofore petitioned to have a 28.0426 acre parcel of land
located on Texas Street and Idaho Street rezoned from
Residential District R-2 to Business Commerce District B-C;
and
WHEREAS, in said petition, the City of Salem, property
owner, did proffer written conditions in addition to the
regulations provided for in Business Commerce District B-C
into which this property is requested to be rezoned; and
WHEREAS, Council has reviewed the proposed conditions
and is of the opinion that the requested rezoning without
the proposed conditions would not be in the best interests
of the City and that the conditions proffered will more
closely comply with the intent of the Land Use Plan
heretofore adopted; and
WHEREAS, Council has adopted the provisions of Chapter
320 of the 1978 Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia,
Sections 15.1-491.1 through 15.1-491.6, relating to
conditional zoning; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its regular meeting
held on November 11, 1998, did recommend to Council after
holding a public hearing that such rezoning be approved with
the voluntarily proffered conditions; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA, that Section 106-7, Article I, Chapter 106, of The
Code of the City of Salem, be amended, revised, and
reordained to read as follows and the map referred to shall
be changed in this respect and no other:
Section 1. That the following described property,
presently zoned Residential District R-2
in the City of Salem, be and the same is
hereby changed from Residential District
R-2 to Business Commerce District B-C
and the map referred to shall be changed
in this respect and no other. However,
in addition to the regulations for such
zoning district as contained in Chapter
106 of The Code of the City of Salem,
Virginia, there is hereby incorporated
the conditions set forth in Section 2 of
this ordinance to the same extent and
purpose as though such conditions were
herein fully set out at length:
Commencing at the intersection of the
north right of way line of Texas Street
and the east right of way line Idaho
Street; thence in a northwesterly
direction along the eastern right of
way of Idaho Street approximately 300
feet to an iron pin, common corner to a
4.950 acre tract, the actual POINT OF
BEGINNING; thence along the southern
property line of said tract N. 79° 56'
Section 2.
, .'.
34" E. 425 .. 00 feet to an iron pin;
thence along the eastern property line
of said tract N. 10 0 03' 26" W. 522.78
feet to an iron pin, common corner to
the Roanoke College property; thence
along the southern property line of
Roanoke College N. 75 0 07' 49" E. 862.53
feet to an iron pin; thence leaving the
Roanoke College property with a new
line across the City Of Salem property
N. 71 0 28' 34" E. 440.36 feet to a
point; thence S. 17 0 49' 28" E. 139.42
feet to a point; thence S. 84 0 55' 56"
E. 196.77 feet to a point; thence with a
bearing DUE SOUTH 173.81 feet to a
point; thence S. 27 0 36' 11" E. 291.09
feet to a point on the northern right of
way line of Texas Street (60 foot right
of way); thence along the northern right
of way line of Texas Street S. 62 0 23'
49" W. 537.28 feet to a point; thence
with the same with a curve to the right
whose radius is 1535.53 feet and whose
length is 495.65 feet (chord = S. 71 0
38' 39" W. 493.50 feet) to a point;
thence with the same S. 80 0 53' 29" W.
337.53 feet to a point; thence with the
same S. 69 0 59' 59" W. 145.74 feet to a
point; thence continuing with the same
with a curve to the right whose radius
is 2210.93 feet and whose length is
482.00 feet (chord = S. 73 0 15' 05" W.
481.05 feet) to an iron pin; thence
leaving Texas Street and with the
easterly right of way line of Idaho
Street (60 foot right of way) with a
curve to the right whose radius is 25
feet and whose length is 40.93 feet
(chord = N. 570 18' 10" W. 36.51 feet)
to an iron pin; thence with the same
easterly right of way line of Idaho
street N. 10 0 03' 36" W. 262.24 feet to
the POINT OF BEGINNING, and containing
28.0426 acres.
The following conditions voluntarily
proffered by the City of Salem, property
owner, shall apply in addition to the
regulations contained in Chapter 106 of
The Code of the City of Salem:
1. The areas on the west and east of
the property along Texas Street,
designated for stormwater
management, shall be developed for
use as public parks, in addition to
the use for stormwater management.
2. The ancient grove of trees shown on
the preliminary development plan
and located on the eastern portion
of the property midway between
Texas Street and Lynchburg Turnpike
shall be preserved.
Tax Parcel 148-1.2-2 (112 Corporate Blvd)
BEGINNING at a point on the west right-of-way line of Corporate Boulevard; thence leaving Corporate
Boulevard N. 71° 40’ 12” W. 514.44 feet to a point; thence N. 66° 27’ 36” E. 122.11 feet to a point;
thence N. 77° 00’ 16” E. 385.99 feet to a point on the west right-of-way line of Corporate Boulevard,
thence following the west right-of-way line the following three calls; a curve to the right with a radius of
281.17 feet, Chord Bearing S. 07° 09’ 01” E., Chord Distance 47.84 feet, and Arc Length 47.90 feet;
thence S. 01° 18’ 23” E. 173.37 feet; thence a curve to the right with a radius of 270.73 feet, Chord
Bearing S. 07° 09’ 42” W., Chord Distance 77.17 feet, and Arc Length 77.43 feet to the place of
BEGINNING, containing 1.8120 acres, and being known as Tract 2, on Plat Showing the Vacation and
Combination for City of Salem, dated March 23, 2011, prepared by Caldwell White Associates, as
recorded in the Clerk’s Office, Circuit Court, Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 13, Pages 49-52, Slide
213.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, May 10, 2023, 7:00 PM
Work Session 6:00PM Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114
North Broad Street:
WORK SESSION
1. Call to Order
A work session of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem,
Virginia, was held in Council Chambers Conference Room, City
Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, at 6:00 p.m. on
May 10, 2023; there being the members of said Commission, to
wit: Vicki G. Daulton, Chair; Denise P. King, Vice Chair; Reid
Garst, and Jackson Beamer (Neil L. Conner - absent); together
with Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator; Maxwell
Dillon, Planner; Joshua Pratt, Civil Engineer II; and Jim H.
Guynn, Jr., City Attorney; and the following business was
transacted: Chair Daulton called the meeting to order at 6:15
p.m. and reported that this date, place and time had been set
for the Commission to hold a work session.
2. New Business
A. Discussion of items on the May agenda
1. Old Virginia Brick sign
2. Salem Montessori School
A discussion was held regarding the items on the May
agenda.
B. Introduction of items on the June agenda
1. Rezoning 500 block White Street - Invisions
2. Special Exception Permit 514 West Main St - Personal
Services - Barber
Items for the June meeting were introduced, and a
discussion was held.
A discussion was also held regarding the Valleydale
combination plat and right-of-way dedication; and
regarding a Special Exception Permit to allow a pawn shop
at 1617 W. Main Street.
3. Adjournment
Chair Daulton inquired if there were any other items for
discussion and hearing none, adjourned the work session at
6:53 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
1. Call to Order
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of
Salem, Virginia, was held after due and proper notice in the
Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem,
Virginia, at 7:00 p.m., on May 10, 2023. Notice of such hearing
was published in the April 27 and May 4, 2023, issues of the
"Salem Times Register," a newspaper published and having general
circulation in the City of Salem. All adjacent property owners
were notified via the U. S. Postal Service.
The Commission, constituting a legal quorum, presided together
with Jim H. Guynn, Jr., City Attorney; H. Robert Light,
Assistant City Manager and Executive Secretary, ex officio
member of said Commission, to wit; Mary Ellen Wines, Planning &
Zoning Administrator; Joshua Pratt, Civil Engineer, II, and
Maxwell Dillon, Planner, and the following business was
transacted:
A. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Consent Agenda
A. Minutes
Consider acceptance of the minutes from the April 12, 2023, work
session and regular meeting.
Jackson Beamer motioned Motion. Denise King seconded the motion.
Ayes: Beamer, Daulton, Garst, King
Absent: Conner
3. Old Business
A. Landmark Sign
Hold public hearing to consider the request of OVB Investments
LLC, property owner, to designate the Old Virginia Brick sign
located at 2500 West Main Street, Tax Map # 175-2-3, as a
landmark sign. (Continued from the April 12, 2023, meeting.)
Staff noted the following:
According to the City of Salem code, “Signs that do not
advertise an existing bona fide business, service or product
manufactured on a premises, but which may be of significant
civic, historic, architectural, or cultural interest may be
declared a landmark sign.” The following are requirements for a
landmark sign:
1. An application shall be made to the planning commission.
2. Applicants shall provide at the time of application, a
written history of the existing sign, noting any and all
physical changes or modifications, and/or a written
account of the nature of the significance to the
community.
3. Applicants shall provide photographs of the sign,
preferably at various times throughout its history, and
from as many different views as possible, or plans or
drawings of the proposed sign from different views, along
with a certified plat determining location, and photos of
the existing property on which the sign will reside.
4. Applicants shall provide a maintenance plan as to how the
sign will be maintained in its current form or a
restoration plan to include maintenance to restore the
sign to its original form. 5. The commission shall hold a
public hearing and review the application before making a
determination as to the declaration.
6. Any alterations to any landmark sign must be approved
through this process.
7. The commission may remove such landmark designation and
require the sign to be removed if it is altered, in
disrepair, misused, or any other reason deemed
appropriate.
OVB Investments LLC, “Old Virginia Brick,” is seeking the
landmark designation for the sign located at the front of the
property at 2500 West Main Street. Standing in some form or
fashion since 1890, the “Old Virginia Brick” sign pays homage
to a company which many historians believe to be the oldest
manufacturer in the Roanoke Valley during its operation. In
addition to its contribution to numerous development projects
and homes throughout the City of Salem (such as the Veterans
Affair Medical Center) and the greater Roanoke Valley, Old
Virginia Bricks also facilitated the construction of numerous
iconic sites throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia including
the University of Virginia, Colonial Williamsburg, and Virginia
Museum of Fine Arts in Richmond.
An approval of the landmark designation for a sign does not in
any way encroach upon the allowable signage for any future
development/business operation which may occur on the site. It
is also important to note that according to Section 66-13
(7), “The commission may remove such landmark designation and
require the sign to be removed if it is altered, in disrepair,
misused, or any other reason deemed appropriate.”
Patrick Cooper, Vice President of Plant Operations, Adams
Construction of Roanoke, Virginia, appeared before the
Commission and stated that it is intended to restore the sign
to what it looked like in its original form--the brick will be
cleaned and the sign returned to its original luster. It is a
memorable place, the bricks are located in many historic places
around the State of Virginia, and restoring the sign will also
improve the aesthetic of the property from the street.
Chair Daulton questioned the timeline to restore the sign.
Mr. Cooper stated that the improvements should be completed by
the end of June.
Vice Chair King questioned if there will be landscaping added
to the sign, and Mr. Cooper stated that the company would
entertain that if it the City wants it landscaped.
Vice Chair King also inquired about placing a historic land
marker, and Mr. Cooper stated the company would entertain that
if the City wants one placed.
Vice Chair King questioned who would maintain the sign. Mr.
Cooper stated that Adams Construction will maintain the sign.
A discussion was held regarding who would maintain the sign if
the property was sold, and Mary Ellen Wines explained that the
responsibility of maintaining the sign will transfer to the new
owner if the property was sold.
No other person(s) appeared before the Commission.
Denise King motioned Approve the request of OVB Investments
LLC, property owner, to designate the Old Virginia Brick sign
located at 2500 West Main Street, Tax Map # 175-2-3, as a
landmark sign. Reid Garst seconded the motion.
Ayes: Beamer, Daulton, Garst, King
Absent: Conner
4. New Business
A. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Hold public hearing to consider the request of Salem Montessori
School, Inc., property owner, for rezoning the property at 112
Corporate Boulevard (Tax Map# 148-1-2.2) from RSF Residential
Single-Family District and BCD, Business Commerce District with
conditions to RSF Residential Single-Family District.
Staff noted the following:
The subject property located at 112 Corporate Boulevard
consists of a 1.812-acre tract of land which currently
possesses both the RSF Residential Single-Family and BCD
Business Commerce District zoning designations. A previous
amendment to the zoning ordinance resulted in the split zoning
of the subject property, in addition to conditions which
included the following clause: “The ancient grove of trees
shown on the preliminary development plan and located on the
eastern portion of the property midway between Texas Street and
Lynchburg Turnpike shall be preserved.”
The Montessori School is requesting a rezoning of the property
from RSF/BCD with conditions to RSF, which will ultimately
allow for the development of a new private elementary school
should a subsequent special exception permit be approved. The
removal of conditions applicable to this property will remove
the existing protection of the ancient grove of trees which
currently resides on the lot; however, the City
Horticulturalist, Jeff Ceasar, provided a recommendation that
many of the trees on site hold relatively little value (aside
from a few select species), and thus could be removed to
accommodate development (see submitted letter for a
comprehensive list of recommendations). The developer has
provided an initial concept plan for the planned construction,
but this is subject to change based on the objective to
preserve as many valuable trees as possible.
The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as
institutional, which is consistent with the proposed
development of an educational facility.
Barney Horrell, Brushy Mountain Engineering, appeared before
the Commission on behalf of the property owner and explained
that the request is to "clean up" the zoning and remove the
condition on the protection of the trees.
Mary Ellen Wines stated that it also involves removing the
original condition which prevents the removal of the ancient
grove of trees.
No other person(s) appeared related to the request.
Reid Garst motioned Approve the request of Salem Montessori
School, Inc., property owner, for rezoning the property at 112
Corporate Boulevard (Tax Map # 148-1-2.2) from RSF Residential
Single-Family District and BCD, Business Commerce District with
conditions to RSF Residential Single-Family District. Jackson
Beamer seconded the motion.
Ayes: Beamer, Daulton, Garst, King
Absent: Conner
B. Special Exception Permit Amendment
Hold public hearing to consider the request of Salem Montessori
School, Inc., property owner, to revise the Special Exception
Permit approved February 28, 2011, to allow the construction of
an educational facility, primary/secondary on the property
located at 112 Corporate Boulevard, (Tax Map # 148-1-2.2).
Staff noted the following:
The subject property located at 112 Corporate Boulevard
consists of a 1.812-acre tract of land which currently
possesses both the RSF Residential Single-Family and BCD
Business Commerce District zoning designations. The applicant
is requesting a revision to the Special Exception Permit
approved on February 28, 2011, for the development of an
education facility at 101 Corporate Boulevard to also include
112 Corporate Boulevard (across the street), which is
contingent on the approval of the related rezoning request.
That rezoning petition would remove the protection of the
ancient grove of trees on the parcel, paving the way for the
construction of a new school which would service students that
age of out the existing facilities.
The applicant has submitted a preliminary concept plan for the
proposed educational facility which is subject to adjustments
made to preserve as many valuable trees from the existing
forest as possible. Jeff Ceaser, the City Horticulturalist,
submitted a recommendation to save “4-5 very large and very old
white oaks on site [by] designing the newly planned development
around their canopy and vast root system” (amongst a few other
species) if the site is developed (see letter for comprehensive
list of recommendations). Additionally, City staff has agreed
to be flexible in regard to parking requirements due to the
plentiful proximal parking across Corporate Boulevard and in an
effort to preserve as many valuable trees as possible.
The applicant has noted that the building style of the proposed
facility, along with the business hours, will be similar to the
existing Montessori School operations across Corporate
Boulevard.
The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as
institutional, which is consistent with the proposed
development of an educational facility.
Barney Horrell, Brushy Mountain Engineering, appeared before
the Commission on behalf of the property owner and explained
the history of the Montessori School development, including the
"upper campus" and the GE campus, and the new building
constructed in 2015. He stated that the school serves kids from
6 weeks of age until 8th grade. The number of children
attending drops off as public school becomes an option.
Business has continued to be good, and a lot of parents would
like for their children to continue in the school. The facility
across from GE is essentially an old house that has been worked
over and remodeled numerous times, and the time has come to
either invest a lot of money into the existing building or
build a new building. He further stated that as a parent who
has had multiple children attend the school, it is a challenge
sometimes to pick them all up at the correct time if they are
not in close proximity to each other. He stated that it makes
sense to set up a "campus" feel where all of the building are
in close proximity to each other. The proposal is to construct
one additional building, for a total of three buildings. He
further stated that the Montessori School has been a good
neighbor as evidenced by the lack of opposition present at the
meeting. He also noted that the new building would operate the
same as the existing buildings. He further stated that he has
met with the City Horticulturist, Jeff Ceaser, and Mary Ellen
Wines, Zoning and Planning Administrator, on-site to view the
trees and stated that it is the intent to keep the trees. A
very preliminary concept plan was submitted prior to the trees
being located, and the building will be constructed in similar
design as the other two buildings. He discussed the easement
for a future greenway, which will be considered in the layout
of the building, and the parking flexibility. He explained that
before the site plan can be developed, two proffers need to be
removed: Item A, which says that Tract 2 will not be developed;
and Item F in the purchase agreement where the trees have to be
preserved. He again stated that the trees have been located and
will be preserved if possible.
Chair Daulton questioned if the schools would all operate at
the same times, and Mr. Horrell stated that all three buildings
would operate at the same times. He also noted that the school
operates year-round as it offers summer programs.
Vice Chair questioned if the plan is to relocate all students
from the Boulevard location, and Mr. Horrell stated that it is
the intent to relocate the students.
A discussion was held regarding the trees.
Member Beamer questioned the number of students at each school.
Mr. Horrell stated that there are currently 53 kids at the GE
Campus, and the proposed new building can handle 90 kids.
Valerie Vanderhoeven, property owner, 101 Corporate Boulevard,
appeared before the Commission and stated that there are
currently 220 students currently--53 at the elementary,
approximately 100 at the middle school, and 80-something in the
infant building.
A discussion was held regarding the number of staff members,
parking, storm water, etc. Mrs. Vanderhoeven stated that there
are six staff members dedicated to the middle/elementary school
students, but that does not include a financial manager or a
facilities manager.
A discussion was held regarding pedestrian traffic. It was
noted that conditions can be placed on the request regarding
the trees.
No other person(s) appeared related to the request.
Denise King motioned Approve request of Salem Montessori
School, Inc., property owner, to revise the Special Exception
Permit approved February 28, 2011, to allow the construction of
an educational facility, primary/secondary on the property
located at 112 Corporate Boulevard, (Tax Map # 148-1-2.2) with
the conditions that the oak trees will remain, and other trees
can be eliminated only with the approval of the City
Horticulturalist. Jackson Beamer seconded the motion.
Ayes: Beamer, Daulton, Garst, King
Absent: Conner
5. Adjournment
Having no other items before the Commission, on motion by Vice
Chair King, seconded by Member Beamer and duly carried, meeting
was adjourned at 7:41 p.m.
Absent: Conner
City Council meeting, May 22, 2023, 6:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street
1
Abstract of Minutes of the February 16, 2011,
Salem Planning Commission meeting
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City
of Salem, Virginia, was held in Council Chambers, City Hall,
114 North Broad Street, at 7:00 p.m., on February 16, 2011,
there being present all the members of said Commission, to wit:
Terrance D. Murphy, Jimmy W. Robertson, Vicki G. Daulton, Bruce
N. Thomasson, and Samuel R. Carter III; with Terrance D.
Murphy, Chairman, presiding; together with James E. Taliaferro,
II, Assistant City Manager and Executive Secretary, ex officio
member of said Commission; Kevin S. Boggess, City Manager;
Melinda J. Payne, Director of Planning and Development; Charles
VanAllman, City Engineer; Benjamin W. Tripp, Planner; Judy L.
Hough, Planner; and William C. Maxwell, Assistant City
Attorney; and the following business was transacted:
Chairman Murphy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
In re: Request of City of Salem, property owner, for the
issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow
primary/secondary educational facilities on an
approximate 3.9 acre tract and an approximate 1.8
acre tract located at 1150 Kime Lane/1130
Lynchburg Turnpike (P/O 148-1-2)
The Executive Secretary reported that this date and time
had been set to hold a public hearing to consider the request
of City of Salem, property owner, for the issuance of a Special
Exception Permit to allow primary/secondary educational
2
facilities on an approximate 3.9 acre tract and an approximate
1.8 acre tract located at 1150 Kime Lane/1130 Lynchburg
Turnpike (P/O 148-1- 2); and
WHEREAS, the Executive Secretary further reported that
notice of such hearing had been published in the February 3 and
10, 2011, issues of The Roanoke Times, and adjoining property
owners were notified by letter mailed February 4, 2011; and
WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject property
consists of two parcels zoned RSF, and situated on opposite
sides of Corporate Drive, near the Salem YMCA; the eastern
parcel is approximately 3.9 acres, and the western is
approximately 1.8 acres; both properties are currently vacant;
and this request is to issue a special exception permit to
allow primary/secondary educational facilities; and
WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson noted that he would
need to abstain from voting on this matter since he has a
family member who he believes is interested in investing in
this property, and he does not want there to be any thoughts of
impropriety involved on his behalf; and WHEREAS, Kevin Boggess,
representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
in support of the Special Exception Permit request; he noted
under normal circumstances the City of Salem typically would
not be the petitioner for a request such as this one; however,
because the City is running both the decision of whether or not
to sell the property concurrently with the decision to grant a
Special Exception Permit for the proposed use on the property,
the City is still the property owner, and there is not a true
contract purchaser for the property at this time; the City is
in negotiations with a purchaser, but the contract has not been
executed; however, the City is presenting the Special Exception
request on behalf of a proposed purchaser of the property; he
noted that when the City sells property it must hold a public
3
hearing prior to that sale; City Council held the public
hearing on Monday night, February 14, and directed staff to
begin negotiations on a contract; then at the appropriate time,
the City would sell the property; he stated that these are
being run concurrently because of the time constraints of the
prospective petitioner who is interested in building a
Montessori school at this location; further, the proposed
purchaser would like to have that school opened and operating
by September of this calendar year so obviously there is a
considerable time crunch in order to build a structure in that
time frame; thus this is the reason why we are
uncharacteristically running these concurrently; he further
noted that the City has received interest for the purchase of
the property from two other parties as well; one of the
neighbors, Mr. Mullins, has submitted a written offer to
purchase one acre of the 3.9 acre tract, and he believes that
another residential real estate developer may be submitting an
offer prior to City Council taking any formal action on the
sale; the City was approached by the Salem Montessori School to
locate a new school building on this piece of property, which
is zoned Residential Single Family District; the use of a
school whether it is private or public is a use that is allowed
in this zoning district, however, it does require the approval
of a Special Exception Permit; he noted that there has been a
lot of discussion among staff, former administrators, and some
of the people here in attendance about the use of the property
and its residential character and what promises were made in
the past about the residential use of the property; staff has
reviewed the minutes very carefully and talked with previous
administrators, and there were promises made that the property
would be developed as residential; however, looking at it from
a land use perspective and not considering what had been said
4
in the past, staff feels a school use in a residential district
is an appropriate use, and this would be an suitable use from a
land use perspective for this piece of property; he stated that
the Montessori School has a representative at the meeting to
discuss the proposed building, access, type of operation, etc.;
and
WHEREAS, Barney Horrell of Brushy Mountain Engineering,
representing Salem Montessori School, appeared before the
Commission in support of the Special Exception Permit request;
he noted that Mrs. Valerie VanderHoeven, owner, was in
attendance if there were questions that she needed to address;
he noted that he wanted to discuss several things with the
Commission; he noted that he wanted to focus on the issue that
this is a residentially-zoned property, and their use is
residential in nature; why they are building a new school, they
are not planning to take down the existing school, which is
located on the Boulevard across from the General Electric
plant; this is a very successful facility, and they have been
there for 18+ years; they need room to expand because they have
run out of room, and they are planning to change the focus of
the existing school to infants and toddlers; the new facility
will allow them to meet the growing demand within the community
for quality child care and early education; why this site –
they looked at several sites around the community and even
outside the city, and they settled on this site largely because
of the proximity to their existing facility and because the
YMCA is right next door; the YMCA has wonderful cross-
programming opportunities, and they have gotten a lot of strong
encouragement from the staff at the Y about being able to
utilize their facility during their off-peak times; this will
benefit both them and the Y; he further discussed the site for
the proposed school and the surrounding neighborhood; he noted
5
that a residential feel is very important to the Montessori
philosophy and teaching style; he further noted the layout of
the school and the individual learning spaces that make the
school much more of a homey feel; they have worked hard to
develop an exterior that matches the residential character of
the neighborhood; he stated the hours of operation are Monday
through Friday from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., and those are the outside
limits of the hours; he noted most of the students that attend
their school have older siblings in the public school system or
other nearby schools and usually the parents pick up the older
children and then come by the Montessori School to get the
younger ones and take them home; so, the numbers start
declining around 3:30 p.m.; the proposed building would have
six classrooms with a maximum of 25 children in each, which is
the maximum; the maximum number of students would be 150;
further, there is no bus service as the parents drop off the
children; there will not be 150 vehicles coming to the site as
most families drop off more than one child; he noted that he
had several exhibits displayed and also had several packets of
information to share, if anyone wanted one; they have gone to
great lengths to try and meet with the neighbors at the
direction of the City; he noted that they had met with all but
two of the residents and have tried to enter into dialogue
about what they are proposing to do and also asked about their
concerns; he noted the issues that had been brought up by the
neighbors and how they have tried to address those issues;
first, the area is supposed to be a residential development
area, and they feel their development will fit within the
residential nature of the community; they also feel that this
use will be a transitional buffer kind of use between the
residential single-family homes down to the commercial uses
along Texas Street; the next big concern is traffic along the
6
Turnpike, and the fact that this is a residential neighborhood;
after hearing the concerns about the traffic, they came up with
a site plan that only has access onto Commerce Drive; the whole
idea is to limit as much as possible the access and traffic on
the Turnpike; he noted that they feel the bulk of the traffic
will come in off of Texas Street; another concern was
protecting the view; the site topography drops off quite a bit
from the Turnpike, and their site plan takes advantage of the
topography and allows them to drop the building down to not
obstruct the view of the neighbors; he noted that the building
height at the peak is about 23’; he went out to the site and
had a companion hold up a 20’ pole, and then he walked to
several driveways along the Turnpike and took pictures to show
what a 20’ high building would look like; the photos show that
the building does not block any of the horizon or mountain
views; another concern they heard was potential noise; he
believes there may be a misconception of the nature of a
Montessori school compared to a more traditional day care
facility or school setting; he noted that he keeps pointing to
the fact that the hours of operation are from 7 am to 6 pm and
after that the site will be dark and quiet; it will not be like
residences where the quiet time will be from 7 to 6, and then
people would come home and mow their yards, etc. in the evening
hours; a couple of neighbors voiced concerns about outdoor
basketball courts and other outdoor facilities which could be
utilized by neighborhood youth; he noted with the Y located
next door, they will not need any of these facilities as they
are already there; another issue was preserving existing trees
and also what type of landscaping would they provide; he noted
that there are quite a few existing shrubs and trees along the
Turnpike and they are working with their architect to come up
with a landscaping plan that includes some retaining walls so
7
they can preserve all the existing trees; he also discussed the
new landscaping they are proposing for the site; he noted the
interior of the site would be full of flower beds and a
vegetable garden; he noted that it would be a very attractive
site from a landscaping standpoint; and he further discussed
the rendering of the building and the building materials; and
WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton noted that she had not
seen the rendering of the building; she asked if this would be
a one-story building; Mr. Horrell gave Mrs. Daulton a copy of
the rendering and noted that it would be a single story
building; also, a big goal is to get as much natural light into
the building as possible; so there is a clear story over the
central lobby area and alot of windows; he also discussed the
additional parcel of land they are requesting to purchase,
which is the wooded area; their intentions for the wooded area
is for an outdoor exploring area for the children; they have
heard several citizens requested that the trees be preserved,
and he noted it is their desire to preserve them as well; and
WHEREAS, Doug Hale of 1155 Lynchburg Turnpike appeared
before the Commission in opposition to the request; he
commended Barney Horrell on his nice presentation, and he noted
if all of us lived in a glass house, then he guesses it would
be a nice thing; he noted that he is opposed because it is a
residential area and because of his personal investment; he is
located across from where the building would be situated, and
therefore he feels it is part of his front yard; he asked if
the Special Exception Permit for educational facilities applied
to a profit earning school versus a public school in the
residential zoning; the Assistant City Attorney noted that they
do have the same rights as a public school in the Residential
Single Family zoning district, and he read the definition of
primary/secondary educational facilities in the City code; Mr.
8
Maxwell noted that it would be permitted with the Special
Exception permit; Mr. Hale asked other than the initial payment
that the City would receive if they decide to sell the property
to the particular individuals we are referring to tonight,
would there be potential revenue from real estate taxes in the
future; it was noted that there would be revenue from real
estate taxes; Mr. Hale noted that had the City pursued the
development of this property before the bottom fell out of the
economy, we probably could have housed five residences along
the area that would have brought approximately $1,500 to $2,000
per house per year for real estate taxes likewise; so, we did
have a potential to retain that residential appearance by
having additional homes built in the area; he noted that he
wondered if we have considered all the options with regards to
the position of the school and the parking lot, etc.; he
presented the Commission a copy of a drawing showing an
optional layout; he further discussed the water retention pond
the City expanded when the Y was built; if the parking were
placed on the property as he has it drawn, it would be closer
to the retention pond; he discussed the water issues that still
occur when we have a large rainfall; his point is if we add
additional parking we are obviously going to dump additional
water onto the area, and this is a consideration that the City
needs to think about; if the school decides to close in the
future, would the property convert back to a straight
Residential Single Family zoning or would it be a doorway for
some other activity other than a private school; Chair Murphy
noted that the Special Exception permit would stay with the
property; if another user wanted to use the property for
something other than a school or the other permitted uses in
RSF Residential Single Family district, then it would have to
come back before the Commission and City Council; he noted that
9
there is an expansion of activity on the Turnpike with the
College building additional sports fields and the YMCA has
certainly exceeded its capacity; so, with this continuous
growth, safety is a concern; he noted that this is a
residential area, and the speed limit is 25 miles per hour; he
further discussed the additional traffic that is going to be
generated with the proposed school, and he feels there will be
a safety factor in increasing the amount of traffic in this
particular area; he noted that he hopes the City will look at
this more closely; and he does not have a problem with this
school just not at this location; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer noted that the current
stormwater management pond located there is designed to drain
52 acres; this includes a substantial portion of the tennis
courts and Roanoke College property; he further discussed the
pond, and the fact that the pond was designed in excess of the
standards required by the state and the city; and
WHEREAS, Eddie Mullins of 1208 Lynchburg Turnpike appeared
before the Commission in opposition to the request; he noted
that he has a copy of the unapproved minutes from the November
11, 1998, Planning Commission meeting; he noted that he thought
the Commission needed to read them; the Commission at that time
noted that the property would be residential, there was to be a
park and also a track around the field; he further added he has
the City Council meeting minutes from November 23rd, and he said
he thought it would be nice if they read those too because City
Council promised the neighbors the world; he noted that he
believes that we need to keep residential homes on this
property; he has spoken to eight of his neighbors and seven are
against the proposal; he noted that if he had known the City
was going to sell the land, he would have asked them to sell
him some so he could build a patio home; he further discussed
10
the traffic issue in this area and noted that according to the
minutes, there was not supposed to be access from Corporate
Drive to Lynchburg Turnpike; he noted that there is a lot of
speeding on the Turnpike and a lot of trouble with parking when
there are meets; he noted that he had spoken with former City
Manager Forest Jones many times about the land, and he told him
that the City would talk to them before they decided to let
anybody do anything with the property; he noted that the first
he heard of this was when the school came around to talk to
them; further, he stated that if the city is going to let the
school go here, then he feels we should rezone it all to
industrial and sell for $150-200,000 an acre and make money on
it; we should not sell it cheaper; he would just as soon have a
manufacturer beside him as he would the school; and
WHEREAS, Chair Murphy noted that the Commission did review
the minutes at the work session earlier in the day; he also
reminded everyone that regardless of the location in the city,
this is the appropriate process to utilize for an approval for
a school in a residential area; Mr. Mullins noted that he
understood that but the neighbors were promised, and he
believes that the city should keep its promise; and he does not
think this is right; and
WHEREAS, Nora Smith of 1135 Lynchburg Turnpike appeared
before the Commission in support of the request; she noted that
she was also speaking for her daughter, Lucy Koons, who is also
an owner of the residence; she noted that she did not get the
opportunity to speak to the people from the school, but she
heard about the plan second hand; however, she personally
believes that this is the best thing that could happen on this
property; her house faces the proposed location of the school,
and she feels it will preserve the property and save it from
being developed; she is familiar with the Montessori school
11
concept as she has a Masters Degree in Education and her
granddaughter attended a Montessori school in Lebanon; she
likes the idea that the stand of trees will be preserved; she
noted that she and her parents moved to this house in
approximately 1958 when she was nine years old, and she has
always admired the trees; this is another reason she is in
favor of this request; she further noted that a Montessori
school is not like a regular school; she believes that it is
prestigious and will be good for the neighborhood; and there is
a campus environment there already with Roanoke College and the
Y, and she thinks it will fit right in; and
WHEREAS, Chair Murphy noted that Mr. Horrell has handouts
of the items he is displaying tonight for anyone who has not
had the opportunity to see what is being proposed; he noted as
a matter of clarification the Commission is primarily
responsible for land use issues and is charged with making a
recommendation on the matter to City Council; and
WHEREAS, Inez Good of 1203 Lynchburg Turnpike appeared
before the Commission noting that she has lived here for almost
50 years now; when she moved into this house, it was not only a
residential area, it was a rural area; they cows in the front
and horses in the back; this changed when the Civic Center and
the ballparks were built; now, they have noise and glaring
lights, and anyone who would build a home there would be out of
their mind; they have suffered with it because they have always
been there; the final straw was when the city built the water
tower; her husband planted a tree to preserve them from the
view of the monstrosity; she thinks the school is the best
solution for the property because she does not feel that they
will get any high class residential buildings there; she noted
that her only concern about the proposed school is that there
will be more noise, but the owner has assured them that the
12
children are well behaved and under control; she hopes that
this is the case, and she is in support of the request even
though it is contrary to what her neighbors think; and
WHEREAS, Brad Graham of Graham Construction, life-long
Salem resident, appeared before the Commission; he noted that
his father-in-law was Mayor at the time when all of this
controversy was going on, and he would tell you that the
neighbors were promised homes on the parcel; he noted that
before former City Manager Forest Jones retired he tried to
meet with him to talk about the property, but Forest did not
want to deal with it; as soon as Mr. Boggess came on board, he
set up a meeting with him to discuss, and he indicated to him
that he was not ready to deal with this yet; he told Mr.
Boggess to get back to him when he was ready; the first he
heard about the request was in the past week or so; he does not
think residential would be crazy in this location; it is a
great thing throughout the country – people are building homes
near Ys so that they have that connection; his company is more
than happy to make a proposal to purchase the property, and he
believes that the city should sell it to whoever is going to
pay the most; he again noted that homes were what was called,
and if it will bring a higher and better use and more money for
the city, then how can we not put homes here; and he further
noted that City Council needs to think about what is best for
the property; and
WHEREAS, Chair Murphy noted that the Commission has to
make a decision related to the current petition before them;
Mr. Graham noted that he understands this, and if he were
sitting on the Commission this evening, he would vote yes for
the request; there is no question that he would vote in favor
because it might bring the city more money for the property; it
may get into a bidding war, and the proposed purchaser may be
13
willing to pay more than they are willing to pay; but he still
has a strong feeling that homes connected near a Y will sell
well; he works out there three times a week and sees all the
empty nesters that he thinks would love to just walk down the
street to their home; he thinks the city needs to look at this
and say how can we get more money for the property; it is a
little disturbing that we are trying to push this through so
fast; it is kind of scary; he does not see how in the world
they think they are going to get a building ready for next
year; if they were trying to build houses here, they would have
to go through three or four months going back and forth to get
an approved plan; at the very least, the process needs to be
slowed down and make the right decision that we can live with;
and
WHEREAS, Chair Murphy asked Mr. Horrell if he wanted to
respond to the neighbors and also if he could address the
lighting for the proposed building; Mr. Horrell noted that
because they will not be using the facility after 6 p.m., they
do not have a lot of use for lighting for the security of
people walking to their cars, etc. so the outdoor lighting will
be very minimal; he again noted that the hours of operation are
from 7 am to 6 pm, which is your typical daylight hours even in
the winter time; the lighting will be minimal, and it will be
downward facing; he noted the covered area at the front of the
building will probably have a light to shine down over the
entryway; this would be completely shielded by the roof and
building so that the neighbors behind would not see it; the
whole focus of the conceptual plan has all the traffic being on
the south side of the building and he believes that with the
circulation pattern of the driveway as shown, car lights will
be shielded by the building; he feels that light pollution from
the facility will be minimal; he noted in regards to Mr.
14
Graham’s comments that they are drawn to the property for the
same reasons that he can see benefits for residential, such as
the proximity of the Y, etc.; they feel like this decision
should not be made purely on a financial basis and they feel
that what they will be bringing to the community is an
additional alternative educational experience in child care;
they hope the city will consider their use as a benefit to the
community – a benefit other than a financial gain; he noted
that Mrs. Good’s concerns were lighting and the water tower;
obviously they have nothing to do with the water tower; he
noted that he was sorry that they did not have the chance to
meet with Mrs. Smith in person; and they do plan to preserve
the trees, which she mentioned; he noted to Mr. Mullins that he
could not relieve his feelings of being betrayed by the city,
but he promised that they would be a good neighbor to him, if
the project is approved; he hopes that over time they will win
his respect; with regards to Mr. Hale, he commends him for
creating an alternative layout instead of just coming out and
offering constructive criticism; he noted that he has looked at
the layout; with regards to his concerns about stormwater, the
layout he drew has a little more pavement; they will have to
capture the stormwater on their site using the storm sewer; he
further noted that the impervious surface area for their
building and parking lot will be less than six residential
houses with roof tops and driveways so the runoff created will
be much less; further, the incorporation of landscaping will
improve the quality of the water runoff; and
WHEREAS, Commission Member Carter noted that he agreed
with Mr. Horrell regarding to the stormwater issue related to
putting houses with roofs, driveways, etc. rather than the
single structure as proposed; he stated that this facility is
15
one that lends itself very perfectly to thinking about porous
pavement; he feels that it could be designed with no additional
or very little stormwater runoff; with regards to the traffic
on Lynchburg Turnpike, he realizes that they would have any
control in this matter, but he feels they would have the
perfect opportunity to suggest to their clientele that whenever
possible that they use Texas Street to access the building; Mr.
Horrell noted that they are going to want people to be driving
25 miles per hour as much as the neighbors since there will be
children here; and
WHEREAS, Chair Murphy noted that he appreciates the
neighbors’ patience in this area when there are swim meets,
etc.; he asked if the school might consider allowing parking
for these events in their parking lot; Mr. Horrell noted that
they would prefer not to have the general public parking here
for liability reasons and upkeep;
WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson noted that he was
involved in the planning for this property initially, and he
recalls quite vividly some of the things that were proposed for
the property; with regards to land that was left as
residential, he personally does not recall anyone saying that
houses would definitely be built on this land; all he knew was
that it was zoned residential, and as has been mentioned
earlier, the City’s zoning ordinance clearly permits schools in
a residential area subject to the Special Exception Permit
being obtained; he noted that he has tried to listen as closely
as he could to the speakers and to take into consideration
everyone’s thoughts, but he is left with the feeling that we
should approve this request based on the fact that it is
residential, and it is a permissible use; he noted that if the
request is approved, he would fully expect that the final plans
should be very, very close to, if not exactly, what has been
16
discussed this evening; and Mr. Horrell noted that is their
intent;
ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSION MEMBER ROBERTSON, AND DULY
CARRIED, the Planning Commission of the City of Salem doth
recommend to the Council of the City of Salem that the request of
City of Salem, property owner, for the issuance of a Special
Exception Permit to allow primary/secondary educational
facilities on an approximate 3.9 acre tract and an approximate
1.8 acre tract located at 1150 Kime Lane/1130 Lynchburg Turnpike
(P/O 148-1-2) be approved -- the roll call vote being as follows:
Mr. Carter – aye; Mr. Thomasson – abstaining; Mrs. Daulton –
nay; Mr. Robertson – aye; and Mr. Murphy - aye.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
There being no further business to come before the
Commission, the same on motion adjourned at 8:33 p.m.
1
Abstract of Minutes of the February 28, 2011,
Salem City Council
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Salem,
Virginia, was held in Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North
Broad Street, on February 28, 2011, at 7:30 p.m., there being
present the following members of said Council, to wit: Byron
Randolph Foley, John C. Givens, William D. Jones, and Lisa D.
Garst (Jane W. Johnson– absent); with Byron Randolph Foley,
Mayor, presiding; together with Kevin S. Boggess, City Manager;
James E. Taliaferro, II, Assistant City Manager and Clerk of
Council; Frank P. Turk, Director of Finance; Melinda J. Payne,
Director of Planning and Economic Development; Charles E. Van
Allman, Jr., City Engineer; Mike Stevens, Communications
Director; and Stephen M. Yost, City Attorney, and the following
business was transacted:
Mayor Foley called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Foley reported that this date and time had been set
to hold a public hearing to consider the request of the City of
Salem, property owner, for the issuance of a Special Exception
Permit to allow primary/secondary educational facilities on an
approximate 3.9 acre tract and an approximate 1.8 acre tract
located at 1150 Kime Lane/1130 Lynchburg Turnpike (P/O Tax Map
#148-1-2); notice of such hearing was published in the February
9 and 16, 2011, issues of The Roanoke Times, a newspaper having
general circulation in the City of Salem; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its regular meeting
held March 16, 2011, recommends approval of said request; and
WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject property
consists of two parcels zoned RSF, and situated on opposite
sides of Corporate Drive, near the Salem YMCA; the eastern
parcel is approximately 3.9 acres, and the western is
approximately 1.8 acres; both properties are currently vacant;
and this request is to issue a special exception permit to allow
primary/secondary educational facilities; and
WHEREAS, Anna Sachs, 825 Virginia Avenue, appeared before
the Council and questioned if this item pertains to additional
construction on the campus, land grant from Andrew Lewis site;
2
and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that the property in question
is located on the property formerly known as the Elizabeth
Campus; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst stated that if you are entering
the Salem YMCA, the property is located to the left of the YMCA;
and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the City of Salem is
the petitioner of the request as there is not yet a contract
purchaser; however, the Salem Montessori School has a
representative present at the meeting who would give a
presentation on the proposed project; he stated that the
proposed project would be located on a parcel of property
located between Commerce Street and Lynchburg Turnpike; he
stated that the City was approached by the Salem Montessori
School a couple of months ago about purchasing the property, as
well as a small parcel across the street, which is a wooded
area, in order to construct a primary elementary-type school for
the Montessori program; he stated that the Montessori school has
outgrown its current location on the Boulevard and will move
some of the older students from the Boulevard location to the
Commerce Street location; he further stated that the Special
Exception Permit request and the sale of the property went
concurrently, and Council held a public hearing to authorize the
sale of the property; the City Attorney began to negotiate a
contract with the proposed purchaser being the Salem Montessori
School; he stated that at the same time the special exception
process was going through because in a residential single-family
zoned area a primary or secondary education school requires a
Special Exception Permit in a residential area; he stated that
the item has gone before the Planning Commission and the body
recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, Barney Horrell, 3555 Carvins Cove Road,
representing the Salem Montessori School appeared before the
Council; he stated that Council has a packet of information
regarding the proposed plans and pointed out the parcels the
Montessori School would like to purchase; he stated that the
Montessori School is currently located across from the GE
facility on Roanoke Boulevard; Valerie VanderHoeven has been
running the facility for 18 years and has been very successful;
he further stated that the Montessori School has grown to the
point where it has used up all of the available land at its
current location; he stated that Ms. VanderHoeven started
looking for an alternative site to expand, not replace the
3
existing facility, but to use it to focus more on the infants
and toddlers and use the additional location for children ages 3
to 6 and a couple children up to 10 years of age; he stated that
when Ms. VanderHoeven started looking for a location, the
undeveloped property located next to the Salem YMCA was found;
the property is currently zoned residential and a school is
allowed in residential zoning with a Special Exception Permit;
he stated that the Montessori program has a couple key
differences than a public school or a traditional daycare
facility—a Montessori school is intended to be very residential
in character, the idea that the children are coming home during
the day; the children change their shoes to inside slippers and
traditional classroom settings are not used, it’s more of a
carpet and beanbag feel; he further stated that when sites were
being looked at it was important for it to be in a residential
area so that the residential feel could be captured; the
architecture of the building, the appearance of the site—its
heavily landscaped with garden plots to get the children
involved with as many outdoor activities as possible; that’s
important to the program—with its residential feel and the added
benefit of having the YMCA next door made this property ideal;
he stated that the YMCA allows for some cross-programming
opportunities that the Montessori school could not afford if it
had to build its own gym and athletic facilities; Mr. Horrell
stated that he and Ms. VanderHoeven have talked with Mark
Johnson and the YMCA staff about utilizing the YMCA facility
during the day when it is underutilized (i.e. swim lessons, use
the gym, etc.); he stated that the advantage to the YMCA of the
Montessori school’s use is that they would increase the YMCA’s
numbers during slower times, and it would encourage the parents
of the children to join the YMCA if their children are going
there; he further stated that the wooded area parcel was
identified as an additional piece of property to be kept wooded
and utilize for outdoor programming; the trees would be
preserved as much as possible with the understanding that some
of the trees are aged, but the idea is to preserve the wooded
area as a nature and exploring area for the children; he stated
that they have tried to keep the residential character of the
area in the design of the building—one-story brick structure
with a gray metal hip roof to keep the roof line down and
prevent blocking the view of the neighbors; and to address
traffic, the traffic will be kept to Commerce Drive instead of
being directed toward Lynchburg Turnpike; he stated that the
goal is to educate the parents and direct them to utilize
Commerce Drive toward Texas Street away from Lynchburg Turnpike;
and
WHEREAS, Brad Graham, 801 Carrollton Avenue, appeared
4
before the Council and stated that he has owned a residential
home building business in Salem since 1987 and he worked out at
the Salem YMCA today; he stated that he mentioned those facts
because he feels that there is a nation-wide demand for
residential housing to be located near facilities like the YMCA;
he stated that he has reviewed the plan of the Elizabeth Campus
and went for a long run; he stated that there are some walking
trails and he would like to see the remainder of the walking
trails developed on the property; he feels that Salem is about
promoting families and healthy living and feels that is what
Council and the former City Manager had in mind when they made
the compromise with the neighbors; he stated that it is his
understanding that the Montessori school plans to move to
Roanoke County if their request is not approved; he assured
Council that his business will not leave Salem regardless of
Council’s decision; he stated that the following are reasons he
opposes the Special Exception Permit for the Montessori school:
he is not convinced that the request conforms to the City’s
Comprehensive Plan for the property, the Montessori school is
not a by-right use for the property; he feels that the Planning
Commission and City Council have a strong obligation to look at
other projects whose owners have made written offers that would
have less of an adverse affect on surrounding neighbors, and the
reason there is not a roomful of upset residents present at the
meeting is because they have been worn down and are tired of
fighting to get what they were promised by a previous Council
and City Manager; he stated that he has spoken with several of
the neighbors surrounding the property and they feel that the
decision has already been made and he hopes that is not true; he
stated that he has personally been very close to the entire
Elizabeth Campus project for the past 10 years and it has
dominated his family’s happy hour conversations for at least two
years; he stated that through fights with neighbors, lawsuits,
and eventual compromise in order to approve the current plan,
his company has proposed a compromise that would allow the
Montessori school to locate on the tract adjacent to the
residential tract, which in his view is a win-win situation;
however, no one seems to want to compromise and the citizens may
be correct, this decision has already been made; he questioned
what is wrong with homes being built on the residential tract
and the Montessori being built on the commercial tract below,
which would fulfill the commitment made to the residents by
prior City officials; he stated that he was at the Planning
Commission meeting regarding the Special Exception Permit
request and the City Council meeting regarding the sale of the
property, and feels that he was not given the same opportunity
to have access to the City Attorney who has met with the
Montessori school and is in the process of drafting a contract
5
to sell the property to the school; he feels that he has not
been given the same consideration as the Montessori school; he
stated that a traffic study was not presented at the Planning
Commission meeting or the City Council meeting and feels that
there is not enough parking for parents and visitors; he further
stated that if approved, there would be a line of cars
stretching to Texas Street as up to 150 students are dropped and
picked up each day; any parent driving their children to school
can attest to long car pool lines; he stated that if the request
is approved, parking will have to be expanded; Mr. Graham stated
that he submitted his proposal to purchase the property the
morning of February 23, 2011, and have received no response and
will provide a copy of the offer if needed; he stated that by
his calculation, his proposal of 14 residential units with an
average tax valuation of $250,000 per unit would bring in
approximately $41,000 per year in real estate taxes for the City
versus his calculation of 150 students at $5,000 per year
roughly BPOL tax of $3,000 is far less of an income generator
for the City; he asked Council to explain how the Montessori
school is more advantageous to the City than his proposal; he
stated that at the very least he feels the project demands
further review and by the City Manager’s own admission, the
process has been expedited as requested by a private entity
which would not have been granted to a residential home builder;
he stated that in closing, as a life-long resident of Salem if
Council can prove that the Montessori school project is better
for the City it has his full support; he thanked Council for its
time and consideration; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones asked Mr. Graham to repeat the
numbers he talked about regarding the taxes and explain how he
came up with those numbers; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Graham stated that the first part of the
numbers are factual; he stated that if he had not been at a
dinner party the week before last he would not have known this
was being proposed; he stated that right before the former City
Manager retired, he scheduled a meeting with him to discuss the
project and he informed Mr. Graham that he was on his way out
and it needed to be the next city manager’s decision; he stated
that he met with the current City Manager as soon as he took
office and the City Manger stated that he was not up to speed on
the project and he needed more time to study the project; he
stated that, what was quickly put together, without a doubt 14
units which is based on a plan drawn up by the City that shows
12 units, but 14 units will fit within the same block of
housing, would generate an average valuation of $250,000 each;
he stated that based upon his experience of people who are
6
looking to move to a patio home, that price would sell and would
be extremely popular; he stated that based upon his assumption
with an average valuation of $250,000 with the units being sold
from $260,000 or $270,000 to $310,000 or $320,000 that the
City’s current real estate tax rate of $1.18 per $100 equals
$41,000 per year; he stated that the BPOL tax was calculated
based on a service if you take 150 students multiplied by $5,000
per student, which is an assumption, $3,000 per year was
determined; he stated that he does not know what the Montessori
School’s offer is and questioned if Council has seen his offer;
and
WHEREAS, Council stated that they have seen Mr. Graham’s
offer; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Graham stated that as a gesture to the City he
would purchase the wooded parcel located across the street and
would donate it to the Montessori school if they are willing to
build on the commercial tract, which he feels is a better
building site for the school based upon the grade of the
property; he stated that the way the proposed site is graded, he
would place the street in the middle with homes on a slab on the
left and homes with basements on the right, which would be
perfect for the site; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst stated that it is her
understanding that the property located below this parcel is
zoned HBD Highway Business District, which makes it a more
valuable piece of property and would be more expensive to
acquire; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Economic Development
stated that the parcel in question is zoned Highway Business
District; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Graham stated that doesn’t mean that the City
wouldn’t negotiate; he stated that he feels that the entire
Elizabeth Campus project has been about compromise; he stated
Council is aware of the relationships he has with people who
were involved with the project and a former Council member, who
is currently trying to sell his house, told Mr. Graham that the
project Mr. Graham is proposing would be the perfect project for
he and his wife to move to, and Mr. Graham feels that means a
lot; he again stated that the former City Manager stated that
the plan for the residential parcel was for homes to be placed
on the property; and
7
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if there was a
covenant on the property that states homes were to be built on
the property; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that he is not aware of a
covenant on the property; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if when the property
was in question, there was not a covenant placed on it; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that there was not a
covenant placed on the property that restricted it to only
single family residences; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Graham stated that single family residences
are allowed within residential zoning; the commercial parcel was
mentioned and the Montessori school could be built on the
commercial parcel just as well as it could be built on the
residential parcel with a special use permit; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley thanked Mr. Graham for his comments;
and
WHEREAS, Nora Smith, 1135 Lynchburg Turnpike, appeared
before the Council and stated that she is also representing Lucy
Coons; she stated that she and Ms. Coons own the residence
located at 1135 Lynchburg Turnpike; she stated that rezoning to
accommodate the construction of a Montessori school is the best
thing that could happen to us; she understands the reasoning of
some of the neighbors who area opposed to the project; however,
she feels that if the property is not rezoned to accommodate the
school, she will be either looking at modest patio homes or less
than impressive businesses which will decrease the value of the
surrounding properties; she stated that either option will
produce more noise, lights, and traffic than the school would
especially at night; she further stated that she supports the
school being built because all of the available land will be
purchased, she will be assured there will be no more
construction on the property; the site will be landscaped and
properly maintained which will add value to the surrounding
properties; the school will have a campus environment which will
blend in with what is already nearby (Roanoke College and the
Salem YMCA) and is a very good fit; she stated that she
appreciates the school’s plan that the grove of old oak trees
will be preserved as they are; she stated that when she moved
into her residence in 1956 the trees were huge then and she is
certain that they are over 100 years old and possibly close to
200 years old; she stated that when the property was part of the
Lutheran Children’s Home she knows that arrowheads were found in
8
the vicinity and feels Salem should recognize the historic
property for what it is; she stated that the first manor house
was named Sherwood and feels the property should properly be
called the Sherwood Property; she further stated that having
studied the Montessori concept of education in graduate school
at Virginia Tech and having a granddaughter who has attended a
Montessori school, she is impressed with the concept and the
quality of education students receive at these schools; she
feels the school will add prestige to the neighborhood and
neighbors should be grateful that the school has chosen them to
be neighbors; she then read a comment from Sarah L. Ahalt and
Martha S. Ahalt who reside at 1123 Lynchburg Turnpike: “As
owners and residents of the property at 1123 Lynchburg Turnpike,
we are very interested in the potential sale of the land under
consideration. The sale of the land for construction of a
Montessori school is a good fit with the use of the land to the
west of those parcels of land. The school will not create a
substantial increase in traffic and noise during the day time.
We consider the Montessori school to be a good fit. At night,
it should create less traffic and less light and noise pollution
than many alternate uses for which the land might be sold. We
also see an advantage to having the matter settled in an
acceptable way rather than as a source of continued
controversy;” and
WHEREAS, William Mullins, 1208 Lynchburg Turnpike, appeared
before the Council and stated that the property is located next
to his property and he was promised homes, not a school; he
stated that he would like for homes to be built on the property,
not a school; he also questioned what happened to his bid on an
acre of the property in question; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that his bid for an acre
of the parcel was forwarded to Council and Council is aware of
his offer also, along with Mr. Graham’s offer; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins questioned if the land was going to be
sold at this meeting and asked for clarification on the item
before Council; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that the item is regarding
granting a Special Exception Permit to allow a school to be
built on the property; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins questioned if the Special Exception
Permit was approved and his bid was accepted, will the school
still be built on the property; and
9
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that the Special Exception
Permit is to grant them the ability to build the school; he
stated that if the permit is approved, their offer is for the
entire property; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins stated that he was told that he could
bid on one acre of the property and it would be sold that way;
and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that Mr. Mullins was told
that he could place a bid on the property, but not that the
property would necessarily be subdivided; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins stated that if he had realized that he
may have placed a bid for the entire parcel he would have done
so; he stated that when the City promises something and then
doesn’t keep its promise, what can residents expect; he further
stated that homes would not only generate real estate tax
revenue, but would also generate personal property taxes on
vehicles also; he thanked Council for its time; and
WHEREAS, Jamie Sachs, 825 Virginia Avenue, appeared before
the Council and stated that he came to the meeting to discuss
chickens, but he is concerned about this issue; he stated that
as a resident of the neighborhood, he would prefer to see a
Montessori school than 14 new houses down the hill; he stated
that he feels that there has already been too much development
in that area; he stated that he is also the great-great-great
nephew of Andrew Lewis so he feels that he has a bias related to
this item, but he would prefer to see the Montessori school than
14 people with vehicles, etc.; he stated that he feels the
Montessori school would be better stewards of the land and
better members of the community; and
WHEREAS, Doug Hale, 1155 Lynchburg Turnpike, appeared
before the Council and stated that he originally intended to not
attend the meeting because he felt like the entire process has
been on a fast track with blinders on to anything else that was
coming from the sides; he stated that he lives in the acreage
that will be somewhat directly across the street from the
proposed development; he stated that he has been looking at the
dirt pile across the street for five years and has been
patiently waiting for its removal; he stated that portions of
the dirt pile have gradually been removed, but there is still a
large pile of dirt located on the parcel that would have to be
leveled or removed, etc.; he does not oppose the Montessori
school, but opposes the school being built across the street
from his residence; it is a residential neighborhood; therefore,
10
he would like to see homes built on the property; he referenced
the patio homes that were built on Maple Street and feels that
they are nice homes; he stated that as many people begin to
“season out” who have homes to maintain may not be able to care
for their homes in the future and would prefer to live in a
patio style home; he stated that his greatest concern regarding
the proposal is that it was fast tracked and was something else
he didn’t know about; he asked Council to look at the whole
picture and consider the best interests of the City—financial
gains, good contributions to the property, etc.; he further
stated that there are many things he has recognized over the
past 11 years and feels there are several mechanical things that
have yet to be resolved that go beyond a vote at this meeting;
he again asked Council for its consideration and thanked Council
for its time; and
WHEREAS, Joe Thomas, Jr., owner of Thomas Ltd. located at
494 Glenmore Drive, appeared before the Council and stated that
he has been before Council many times on behalf of most things;
he stated that through a lot of years serving on the Board at
the YMCA, and also through performing a lot of the site work on
the Elizabeth Campus, he feels that he almost knows the property
as well as his own property; Mr. Thomas apologized to Mr. Hale
for piling a lot of the dirt up across from his property and
thanked him for his comments regarding the townhouses on Maple
Street; he stated that he supported the City’s conceptual plan
for the Elizabeth Campus when it was approved years ago, and
addressed many issues and concerns and proved to be a nice blend
of proposed business and residential that was all connected by
walking trails and green space; he stated that he does not
understand why the City is abandoning the proposed residential
in favor of a private school; he stated that his company, and
noted that he and Brad Graham are partners, submitted a proposal
that would allow Council to follow through with its promises to
the citizens of Salem at least in regard to the residential use;
he stated that the walking trails have not been developed and
the additional job producing businesses that were a part of the
original concept have not been fulfilled, but feels the City is
doing everything it can to make sure those promises will come to
fruition as well; he stated that his various companies have been
located in the City of Salem since the early 1960s and in the
last 10 years, over $70 million worth of revenue has been
generated out of his operation on Glenmore Drive; he further
stated that many of his subcontractors and suppliers are also
located in the City of Salem so the economic impact to the City
of Salem is somewhat far-reaching; he stated that a residential
development proposal was submitted to the City that offers the
City significantly more money than what he understands has been
11
offered for the previously proposed residential parcel; he
stated that his proposed development is in conformance with the
City’s Comprehensive Plan, doesn’t require rezoning or a special
use permit, and will generate over $2.8 million in potential
work for local subcontractors and suppliers; the proposal
fulfills a need related to affordable housing for empty nesters
and active adults; it is a convenient location to area
businesses, shopping, and restaurants; he stated that between
Carter Machinery, GE, Atlantic Mutual, One Beacon, and Virginia
Orthopaedic alone there are at least 2,000 jobs whereby
employees at those companies could walk to work from the
location if they desired; he further stated that details to the
offer were submitted on February 23, 2011, and they have yet to
receive a response; he stated that the potential economic impact
his proposal would generate has been calculated and asked
Council to address how the private school would in fact be more
fiscally beneficial to the City of Salem than his proposal; he
stated that the citizens deserve to know those numbers before
any proposal is accepted; he stated that in closing, he believes
that his proposal addresses a direct need in the City, it
provides a significant economic impact, both immediate and long-
term, and it allows the current Council to fulfill its promise
to the residents that the parcel would be use for its intended
residential purpose; he stated that all anyone wants is what is
best for the City; he further stated that after considering both
proposals with equal diligence, if Council feels the
construction of a private school on the property is the best use
for the property and maximizes the fiscal impact of the
residents of the City, then Council has no alternative but to
accept the proposal and move forward; otherwise, he feels his
proposal should be accepted; he thanked Council for its
consideration; and
WHEREAS, Dr. Michelle Hartman, Roanoke, appeared before the
Council and stated that she is a pediatric nurse practitioner on
the faculty at Jefferson College of Health Sciences, and most
importantly a mom of two children who have attended Salem
Montessori School for the last seven years; she stated that as a
pediatric nurse practitioner, she is well trained in pediatric
growth and development principles; she stated that Salem
Montessori School is an optimal environment to allow children to
master the critical task of development such as autonomy,
independence, and being industrious; she stated that she brings
her nursing students to observe this excellent environment which
highlights what children can and should be able to do; she
encouraged Council to take time to observe the school also; she
stated that along with the exceptional instruction in math,
12
reading, science, and other subjects, as a Montessori mom she
values the many life lessons her children have and are learning
at Salem Montessori School; her children and other children are
learning how to problem solve, be stewards of their environment,
be community servants, and learn how to resolve conflicts
peacefully; she urged Council to approve the Special Exception
Permit to allow the Montessori school so that more children and
their families may benefit from the enriched environment at
Salem Montessori School; she stated that she picks up and drops
off her children twice a day at different times during the day,
and she has never had to wait on the Boulevard; she stated that
the families stagger their drop-off and pick-up times so that
has never been an issue; she thanked Council for its
consideration; and
WHEREAS, Merna Helsty, a Southwest Roanoke County resident
and parent of a Montessori school student, appeared before the
Council and stated that she drops off her child at 8 a.m., which
is the busiest time of the day, and she has never been delayed
for more than five minutes; she stated that the parking flow is
very easy; she stated that she lives on Keagy and Sugarloaf
Drive, which is across from the Allstate building, and there has
been a large parcel that has been depleted of trees and
everything that’s called nature to build homes; she stated that
the original plan was for 50 homes, but there have only been two
homes that people have purchased; she questioned how in the
current soft economy and housing market, how it is expected for
a $250,000 plus home to be sold, especially 14 of them; she
questioned if there truly is a market for the homes right now;
she stated that based on what she has seen where she lives is
that homes have been sitting and nothing is being built; she
further stated that the site near her residence is one of the
saddest sights because where the land was full of trees and
nature, now there is nothing; she stated that she has been very
happy with the Montessori school and feels that many of the
residents of Salem realize the value that the school would bring
to the community, especially with preservation of nature being
of first importance to the school; and
WHEREAS, Walt Gordon, 100 Kimball Avenue, appeared before
the Council and questioned how the sale of City property is
advertised; he stated that according to the newspaper, the
school made an offer for the property back in December 2010; he
again questioned how it was advertised that the property was for
sale; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that a public hearing is
held prior to the sale of piece of property; therefore, if
13
someone makes an offer on a parcel owned by the City, City
Council then would hold a public hearing whether or not to sale
the property and enter into a contract under the terms of that
offer or ask for a different offer, or deny the offer outright;
he stated that is the process the City goes through to sell a
piece of City-owned property; he stated that the City has
property that it markets for economic development reasons and
those pieces of property are typically not listed either and
often “sit” and wait for an offer to come in; he stated that if
the City had a piece of property it wanted to sell, it could
advertise and accept bids also; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon stated that the City Manager said
“could” accept bids and questioned if the city has to accept
bids; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the City does not
have to accept bids on property it wants to sell; he further
stated that there are a number of ways for the City to sell
property, but they must be accompanied by a public hearing at
some point; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon asked whether the school is a private
school and questioned if the school is a proprietary school, a
school for profit; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the school is a
business; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon reiterated that the school is a taxable
business; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the school is a
taxable business; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon noted that a business is going to be
placed in a residential area without the property being rezoned;
and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that any use can be
placed on the property that is allowed in the ordinance; he
stated that the ordinance allows, with a Special Exception
Permit, a school use; he further stated that whether the school
is making a profit or not is not relevant, the use is what is
relevant; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon reiterated that the school is a
business; and
14
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that the school is a
business, just like other uses that are allowed by special
exception in residential zoning (i.e. stables, etc.); he again
stated that it is the use that is the issue, not necessarily
whether someone makes a profit or not; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon thanked Council for its time; and
WHEREAS, Inez Good, 1203 Lynchburg Turnpike, appeared
before the Council and stated that she lives directly across
from the property in question and has lived there for 50 years;
she stated that she feels that the school would be a good fit
for the area; she would rather have the school with some open
area and landscaping than homes; she stated that she does not
feel the homes would sell very well due to the noise and lights,
etc. from the ballpark and the civic center; she feels it would
be beneficial for the school to be built on the property; she
stated that the neighborhood is no longer a quiet residential
neighborhood as it was 50 years ago; and
WHEREAS, Bob Hunt, 709 Maryland Avenue, appeared before the
Council to address the environmental aspects of the plans; he
stated that he does not plan to address the 3.8 acres where the
school, homes, or other use might be placed, but would like to
address the 1.8 acres of wooded area; he stated that he was very
active in the Elizabeth Campus plans in what was planned on the
campus and what has been developed on the site; he stated that
there were pros and cons at every step and the only thing that
was not controversial at any point was the wooded area; he
stated that Harry Haskins started calling the parcel an ancient
grove of trees, which is what it is referred to in social
discussions; he further stated that everyone feels that the
parcel of trees should be preserved and hopes to continue to see
that the trees are preserved and enhanced; he stated that the
trees are beautiful even though they have deteriorated some in
the last few years; he stated that it is a beautiful grove of
trees that adds a lot to the area; he questioned if the wooded
area could be segregated from the other acreage so that the City
could concentrate more on the use of the 3.9 acres and then
concentrate separately on the wooded area; he stated that the
City currently owns the wooded area and feels that the City
would be a better owner of the wooded area than the Montessori
school or a homeowners’ association; he stated that he feels the
City could better care for the trees; he further stated that the
pond that forms on the property from time to time also needs to
be preserved; he stated that wetland areas such as the pond that
forms on the property have special protection under the EPA; he
15
stated that whoever the property is sold to, if the wooded area
is included with the other acreage to be developed, he feels
that special terms need to be in the contract as to how the
wooded area would be handled and preserved for the future; he
again stated that he feels it would be better if the City
maintained ownership of the wooded parcel and let the Montessori
school use the area for activities; he again stated that he
would rather the City maintain ownership of the wooded area than
have a private entity own the parcel; and
WHEREAS, Stella Reinhard, 213 North Broad Street, appeared
before the Council and stated that from what she has heard so
far at the meeting, there is cause to slow down the process a
bit; she stated that fast tracking has been mentioned and
several projects have been proposed for the property in
question; she feels that more thinking and discussion time needs
to be taken; she stated that she was also a part of the process
a few years ago that was looking at the land known as the last
part of a land grant to Andrew Lewis; she stated that she saw
the development of the mixed use design of the property and one
of the main arguments used by the City as to why the property
would be developed in the first place was because the City of
Salem needed revenue; she questioned if the revenue being
brought into the City would be sufficient to justify the
development of another chunk of Elizabeth Campus; she stated
that several parcels have been developed, but there is still
some open land that has been undeveloped; she stated that she is
not against the Montessori school, but a school does not bring
in much tax revenue; she also knows that a school located next
to the YMCA will benefit from the YMCA, but she also questioned
if the school would want two campuses separate from each other
in the long-term; she stated that Elizabeth Campus has one of
the best views in Salem, and feels that it is an ideal space for
the use of the undeveloped land to be used for the running
trails that were a part of the campus design; she stated that
there are at least two separate wetland areas on the site, as
well as the grove of trees; she stated that she feels that it
would be better for the City to retain ownership of the grove of
trees and begin to think about giving the citizens what they
were promised several years ago—the running trails, maybe the
use of the grove of trees, and the wetlands to possibly be used
as part of a linear park that could be a benefit to the YMCA,
Roanoke College students, and the neighbors near the property;
she further stated that the citizens were promised running
trails and as Council chooses what to do with the last pieces of
property located on the Elizabeth Campus, she hopes Council
considers that the City would be a better steward of the grove
of trees, the wetlands, and the potential for the linear park
16
that was promised before; she asked Council to also consider the
tax revenues; she stated that she would not like to see the last
piece of Andrew Lewis’ land to go for no good enough reason; she
further stated that if revenue is needed for the City, then
Council needs to consider the best way to obtain the revenue;
she thanked Council for its consideration; and
WHEREAS, Barney Horrell reappeared before the Council; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst asked Mr. Horrell to show
Council what he has been showing the audience present at the
meeting; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell showed Council a rendering of what the
school would look like—all brick construction, single story
building with a hip roof to help preserve the views of the
neighbors; he stated that with the grade of the parcel they will
be able to bench the site so that the building will be placed as
low as possible on the property and will be on a slab; he stated
that they are trying to do everything possible to keep from
blocking the view from across the street; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst asked Mr. Horrell to state what
construction materials will be used; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that in order to stay
residential in appearance and character, the building will have
a 100 percent brick exterior, will be a single story building,
the brick will be a red color consistent with the other
buildings in the area, will have white trim, the building will
have a gray/ slate in color metal roof, a couple of dormers will
be on the building itself to help further create a residential
character to the building and also to bring in as much natural
light as possible; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned the total height of the
building; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the plans are not final
yet pending the outcome of the request, but the building is
between 22 and 23 feet in height at its peak; and
WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens questioned if the roof would be
tin; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the roof would be like a
standing, seemed metal roof and not a corrugated metal roof; he
stated that the metal will be a coated metal roof; and
17
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones asked Mr. Horrell the projected
cost to construct the building; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the estimate is a little
over $1 million; he showed the conceptual drawing of the
proposed building; he stated that the building was purposefully
placed away from Mr. Mullins’ property and away from Lynchburg
Turnpike in an effort to preserve the existing trees and
landscaping along Lynchburg Turnpike; he again stated that the
traffic would be directed to Texas Street from Commerce Drive,
and stated that the whole focus of the building is to take
advantage of the view of the surrounding area; he discussed the
parcels the Montessori school wants to purchase and reiterated
that the existing landscaping will be preserved; he displayed
various photos taken from different driveways near the property
that show the height of the proposed building and how little it
will block the neighbors’ view of the area; he addressed the
concern he heard regarding revenue that would be brought into
the City from the school versus homes being built on the site;
he stated that more than just tax revenue needs to be considered
in as a financial benefit to the community; he stated that as a
community Salem needs to have points to sell the City on, and
Salem has plenty of great things to point to, but another
facility for early childhood development and care, and early
education is a great draw to the community; he stated that the
school would benefit the community as another selling point—at
least 15 new jobs will be created; he pointed out that the
property is not being rezoned, a Special Exception Permit is
being requested and if for some reason the school would close,
the property could not be used for anything else other than a
private school; Mr. Horrell also addressed the concerns that the
property needs to stay residential in use; he stated that the
Montessori school is a perfect transition use in his mind of
going from homes to the future commercial use to the south of
the parcel, and in keeping with a campus feel going across
Lynchburg Turnpike; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst stated that the construction
schedule is very aggressive and questioned how the building
could be completed in such a short period of time; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that there is an alternative
site available that they would prefer not to go to, but they
have gone ahead and started designing the building itself; a
local architect is currently working on building plans and they
are close to having a final set to send out to begin the bidding
process; he stated that this process has not been fast tracked
18
in any way other than their aggressiveness in pushing our
contractors; the City process has been followed and will
continue to be followed; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that the building could be
built on another piece of property, and questioned if that is
why he is confident in moving forward with the project; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that is why the design of the
building was ordered; he stated that the building will be built
either in Salem or on the alternative property; he stated that
the preferred site is here in Salem; he stated that the goal is
to start construction in April and have been assured by several
contractors they have met with that it is a doable schedule
because of the style of construction, nearby utilities, etc.; he
stated that it is not a complicated construction and they have
been reassured that the project can be completed on the
timeframe they have requested; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if any type of LEED
or energy efficiency programs would be implemented; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that they are not seeking LEED
certification due mostly to a cost issue for the certification
itself; however, there are many design elements being placed
into the school such as a lot of natural light, lighting
fixtures and water fixtures; he stated that there will be a lot
of things incorporated but they are not seeking actual
certification; he further stated that part of the Montessori
theme ties into environmental education and making a building
that is environmentally efficient is part of their goal; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned the intended use of
the 1.8 acres of wooded area to be used as a nature area; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that they view the wooded area
the same way as the citizens do; there is a beautiful grove of
trees there that we want to preserve as long as possible, and at
the same time add to it with some plantings of new trees on the
parcel; he stated that the intent is to create a couple of mulch
paths on the parcel and use it as an outdoor exploring area for
the children; the 3.9 acre lot the building is proposed to be
built on does not have a grove of trees and they would like for
the children to explore the grove of trees to find lizards,
butterflies, etc.; he stated that his children attend the
Montessori school and came home and could identify six birds; he
further stated that in the future they would like to lay down a
couple of logs and use it as a log amphitheatre; he discussed
various programs offered at the school; and
19
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst asked the City Attorney what
type of concessions the Montessori school could offer to ensure
the 1.8 acre parcel would stay a wooded area; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that there could be a
condition that there would be no development on the site; he
stated that he would need to research it further; he stated that
as far as maintaining the wooded area, it would be subject to
the disease of trees, etc.; he stated that there could be
reasons why it couldn’t be maintained; he stated that he
believes that a condition could be placed on that parcel that it
could not be developed in any way, shape, or form unless it was
brought back before Council with the appropriate advertisement
and public hearings, etc.; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if the City could
place a right of first refusal if the property were to be sold;
and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that could be done and
has been done consistently; he stated that the process has been
done consistently by every City Council since he has been City
Attorney, which is almost 30 years; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that the lower parcel was
recently repurchased by the City; he stated that if the
developer had developed the property the way he had hoped to
develop it, there would now be an existing building of some size
on the parcel, but he was unable to construct the building;
therefore, the City exercised its option to repurchase the
property; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney noted that the City repurchased
the property for the original purchase price the developer paid;
and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that if the property is ever
sold, it would still be zoned residential with the only special
exception allowed being a school facility; he stated that a
McDonald’s could not be placed on the property if it were sold;
he further stated that the Montessori school does not have any
intention of selling the property; and
WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens questioned if the Montessori
school would be willing to proffer a condition that on the lower
side near Mr. Mullins’ property to plant a close growing row of
trees that would act as both a visual and a sound barrier and
20
possibly some lower growing trees or shrubs along Lynchburg
Turnpike, not to block the view of the neighbors across the
street, but to also act as a barrier; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that they are very willing to
make that proffer; he stated that the intent is to fully
landscape the part of the parcel located next to Mr. Mullins’
property; he stated that they have met with Mr. Mullins and all
of the neighbors and landscaping has been discussed; he stated
that along Lynchburg Turnpike, the school has a vested
interested in screening that side of the property because any
traffic noise that can be absorbed by trees, etc. also benefits
the school; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned the type of exterior
lighting to be used on the development (height, brightness,
etc.); and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the hours of operation are
from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. five days a week; he stated that the last
teacher goes home at 6 p.m. and at that point there is no need
for lighting other than just security lighting right around the
building itself; he stated that the rendering shows a covered
entryway on the south side of the building facing the stadium,
which would be the entryway for all students being dropped off
and picked up; he stated that some lighting may be placed
underneath the covered entryway that would shine down, but would
not shine out; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if there would be any dusk
to dawn lighting in the parking lot; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that they would prefer not to
have dusk to dawn lighting if possible and would like as much
natural exchange as possible; he stated that they do not want a
consistent lighting throughout the day, they want a connection
to what is outside; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins reappeared before the Council and
questioned where the air conditioning units will be placed; he
described a situation where a church placed air conditioning
units facing residential property; he also questioned if the
units would be shielded from Lynchburg Turnpike; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the designs are still at
the conceptual level and he does not know exactly where the
units will be placed, but he assured Mr. Mullins and the other
residents that wherever the units are placed on the exterior of
the building, they will be screened in an enclosure and
21
landscaping will be placed around the units in an effort to
reduce the noise from the units as much as possible; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst stated that Mr. Mullins’
concern is a legitimate concern because when Roanoke College was
doing some construction, the Broad Street neighbors had an issue
with the noise from the chillers; therefore, the plantings were
not as mature as they needed to be in order to accommodate the
noise; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that because of their hours of
operation and because they are trying to be as green as
possible, the thermostats will be adjusted so that the units
will not run as much as night; he stated that the entire site
will get much quieter at night, as opposed to a residential
facility which gets louder at night; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned the type of fencing that
would surround the parcel; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the existing facility has
solid cedar fencing that is six feet high, and a similar type
fencing would be used on the proposed property; he stated that
it has not been determined exactly where the fencing will be
placed on the property; he further stated that they do not want
the fencing to be an impediment to the neighbors across the
street and is more effective closer to the building; he stated
that they are not going to fence the entire property, they are
going to create little play areas outside of each classroom that
would utilize an outdoor classroom space when the weather
permits; he stated that fencing would be closer to the building
and likely cedar in nature; he stated that there would not be
chain link fencing on the property; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned the maximum number of
children who could attend the school; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that between 120 and 150
students is the maximum number of students; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley asked how many students are currently
enrolled in the school; and
WHEREAS, Ms. VanderHoeven stated that 110 students are
currently enrolled in the school; and
WHEREAS, Doug Hale reappeared before the Council and stated
that he does have some trees and the floodlights, etc. light up
22
his house at night but it has never bothered him; he stated that
real estate sells well in Salem as most people know; therefore,
he does not feel that would be an issue if homes were built on
the property; he questioned if the utilities (electric, water,
and sewer) for the proposed building would come from Lynchburg
Turnpike; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that they are still in the
conceptual design phases of the project, but there is sanitary
sewer along Lynchburg Turnpike; he stated that it appears that
the depth needed to service the school is not available in order
to have the water and sewer lines from Lynchburg Turnpike; he
stated that there is also sanitary sewer along Texas Street and
they are looking to extend a main down to Texas Street which
would benefit the commercial lot below the parcel; he further
stated that water would probably come from Lynchburg Turnpike,
and he assumes that the electric will come from the Turnpike
also; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hale stated that all of that is located on the
opposite side of the street; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if the electric
could be buried; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that yes the electric could be
buried; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hale stated that the street has been called
Commerce Drive, but the street sign says Corporate Lane; he
clarified that it was the same street that is being discussed;
and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley noted that the street sign needs to be
looked at; and
WHEREAS, Joe Thomas, Jr., reappeared before the Council and
stated that Mrs. Reinhard makes a point and he doesn’t know why
they have to move so fast on this, and maybe they aren’t; maybe
part of the process is getting the zoning and then slowing
everything down; he stated that there is a good reason for
placing the school in the City of Salem because if you need to
get something built fast, Salem is the best place to do it
because the City has the best people to deal with; he further
stated that even with the good people in Salem, to get site
plans in and approved, it is a tough schedule; he stated that he
has been doing this a long time and it’s tough; he requested
that the school at least gets a response from its proposal and
23
hopefully make a presentation to Council, the City Manager, or
Engineering so that they can have a better feel for what the
school plans to do; he stated that as of yet a decision has not
been made on whether the school can move forward or not; he
stated that even though design plans for the building are moving
forward he does not feel that things need to be pushed that
quickly so that Council can take time to make an educated
decision and have some of the questions answered that have been
brought forth at the meeting; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned if the City Manager or
the Director of Planning and Economic Development have any
reservations about what the school has proposed; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that he is not aware of
any reservations; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned why a traffic study was not
conducted; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that most roadways are 30
feet curb to curb and usually the vertical and horizontal curves
are built to VDOT standards; he stated that in most situations
those type streets can handle upwards of 10,000 ADT (average
daily traffic); unless there is a situation where there is an
extreme amount of traffic, a traffic study is not needed unless
there is a specific reason; he stated that there is not a need
in the area of the proposed development; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that in other areas where
development has been discussed, that has been an issue; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that the traffic on
Commerce, in and of itself, there is no traffic on Commerce
besides the YMCA traffic and that is the only draw; he stated
that he has not looked at it specifically but there is no
concern in Engineering regarding traffic on Commerce or off
Lynchburg Turnpike; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned if staff had any
additional comments; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that staff is available to
answer any questions; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if the Special Exception
Permit was approved and the school was built and later sold, the
building could only be used as a school or would the property
need to be rezoned; and
24
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that the Special
Exception Permit would allow a school, but the property could
also be used for a single family dwelling, or anything that is
allowed in the zoning ordinance for the Residential Single
Family District zoning classification; he stated that the mere
fact that there is a permit to build a school on the property
does not preclude someone making another use of it; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if a government building
could go on the property; and
25
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that he did not think a
government building is allowed in RSF zoning; he stated that RSF
zoning allows parks, golf courses, stables and other things
allowed according to the code; and
WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding possible uses of
the property if the school was built and then later sold and
what the current zoning ordinance would allow, etc.; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager noted that in the current RSF
classification, there are very few other uses the property could
be other than a school; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley asked Mr. Graham and Mr. Thomas what
would the approximate height of a patio home similar to the ones
built on Maple Street be; and
WHEREAS, Brad Graham stated that the height would be
approximately 20 feet in height; he stated that he lives on
Carrollton Avenue in The Hill subdivision and there is a
constant stream of noise from the interstate; he stated that he
goes running at the YMCA and there is no noise; he stated that
he has been developing projects in Salem for 20 years and Salem
has been very diligent about knowing exactly what is going to be
on a property and what is allowed before it is approved by the
City; he stated that the building should be designed and
submitted before a special use is approved, otherwise the City
will lose control if the project continues to go through at the
current pace; he stated that it is unrealistic to think the
school will be able to open by its projected opening date; he
stated that there is extensive cut and fill work that has to be
done on the site and rain can cause a two or three day delay; he
stated that he doesn’t feel that there is anyway the school can
open by its projected September 1 opening date; he further
stated that if that is why the project has to be approved so
quickly, it is another reason to slow down; he stated that the
school may have to open in January but it would give the City a
chance to step back and get the project done correctly; and
WHEREAS, Nora Smith reappeared before the Council to
address the issue about there not being any noise at the YMCA;
she invited him to come to her house on a Friday night when
there is a football game going on, or when the Horse Show, or
the Salem Fair is in town; she stated that the noise sounds
louder than if you were on the premises; she stated that people
are not going to pay a whole lot of money for expensive housing
to live in that kind of situation with the noise and lights, and
feels that it is not a suitable site for homes; and
26
WHEREAS, Bob Hunt reappeared before the Council and
questioned if there was any distinction in Salem between a park
and property like the ancient grove of trees that the City owns;
he questioned if calling City-owned property a park was more
significant than not; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that he does not think
there is a difference; and
WHEREAS, Lisa Reynolds, 1458 Deacon Street, appeared before
Council and stated that she has a school in her neighborhood;
she stated that she understands the logistics that must be
considered from a fiscal or business standpoint, but she stated
that the children also need to be remembered; she stated that
all of her children have grown up in Salem—one graduated from
Salem High School and has two children who currently attend
Salem High School; she further stated that all three of her
children also attended Salem Montessori School; she stated that
her oldest son, who is now 20, attended the school when there
were only 25 students; she stated that Ms. VanderHoeven did not
plan to get any larger, but students kept coming and coming
because of the programs offered at the school; she stated that
her children learned how to be productive citizens, were taught
conflict resolution, and other life lessons; she further stated
that if children could learn these things when they are small,
they take it with them and continue to practice what they have
learned; her children still say they miss Salem Montessori
School; she stated that her oldest son couldn’t wait to get out
of Salem went to school in Connecticut, and is back telling his
friends that they don’t know how good they have it in Salem and
that he can’t wait to get back; she stated that Salem is a great
city and asked Council to consider the children as a part of
everything else to be considered; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones stated that it’s been mentioned
about fast tracking the request; he stated that issues regarding
Elizabeth Campus have been on-going for 10 years; he further
stated that he has been on Council for two years and eight
months, and this is the first time to his knowledge that anyone
has come to the City wanting to purchase the parcel in question;
he stated that he feels that when someone comes to the City
wanting to purchase city-owned property, especially during the
current economic times, Council needs to listen to what they
have to say and what they have to present; he stated that he
feels that the Montessori school has been honest and upfront on
where it stood, where it was going, and time tables; he stated
27
that he does not feel that this process has gone through fast;
he further stated that Council has listened to both sides and no
one has spoken against the school and most schools are located
in a residential area; he stated that Salem’s motto is kids
first; he stated that previous Councils promised different
things and he was not involved in what was previously promised;
he stated that times are different now; he again stated that
this is the first time since he has been on Council that the
City has been approached about selling this parcel; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins reappeared before the Council and
stated that that the former City Manager told him personally
that he would talk to the residents before anything was
developed on the land; he stated that he was told that if homes
were placed on the property, it would be discussed how the
residents wanted the homes placed on the property, etc. and that
the residents would be notified before anything was done on the
property; he stated that he didn’t receive any notification
until people from the Montessori school walked up and knocked on
his door; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones stated that he was not told that
the former City Manager had told the residents they would be
notified; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins stated that he realizes that, but he
figured the current City Manager was told because he called the
former City Manager at home and asked him what was going on; he
stated that the former City Manager told him that he did not
know what was going on, and told him that he promised Mr.
Mullins that homes would be built on the property and that Mr.
Mullins would be notified before anything was done on the
property; he again stated that he was not notified prior to
people from the Montessori school knocking on his door; he
stated that he feels that it should also be considered that the
City did not notify the neighbors that anything was being
proposed for the property; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if the City was accepting
any less than what is required by standard operating procedures
or City Code; is the City allowing anything that it would not
normally allow; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that a site plan has not
been received or anything of that sort; he stated that the site
plan review process has not even begun; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if the process should have
28
already begun; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that the site plan review
process normally begins after someone who owns a property
submits a proposal to develop the property, once the owner has
all the details; he stated that the City does not have the
details for a site plan review; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if anything in this request
is happening faster than it has in any other situation regarding
the sale of City-owned property; he questioned if the City is
requiring less from the petitioners than it has from anyone
else; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the sale of City
owned property goes through the process that is required by
State Code; he stated that what has happened in this case that
is not always done, and someone who has been with the City
longer than he has would know if the City has done this before,
is that the Special Exception Permit request is being done
concurrently with the sale of the property; he stated that it is
not unusual outside of Salem for the process to be done that
way, but he does not know in the City of Salem if it’s been done
before; he stated that in a more typical transaction, the
contract with the contract purchaser is done contingent upon a
Special Exception Permit being approved; he stated that in this
case the contract and the Special Exception Permit request are
being considered at the same time; he further stated that the
same notice and public hearing requirements are being followed
as if they are being done separately rather than concurrently;
and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned in a normal sale of
property would one bidder know the proposal offered by another
bidder; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that as Council is aware,
an offer to purchase another parcel on the Elizabeth Campus
property was presented to Council recently for Council to decide
if the offer would be considered; he stated that Council decided
not to consider the offer; he stated that the offer is generally
kept confidential until such point that it is required to be
made public by state code; he stated that the City is allowed to
keep the terms of the sale of certain property confidential up
to a certain point; he stated that in this case, the Montessori
School’s offer was made public very early on in the process and
has been public knowledge from the beginning; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if there were any
29
proffers being offered and asked the City Attorney if she could
ask that question; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that proffers concerning
a rezoning request are different than conditions being placed on
a Special Exception Permit request; he stated that the City’s
ordinance and the state code states that in approving any
special exception or a use not provided for, Council may require
and attach any conditions necessary to ensure the proposal is
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and community,
etc.; he stated that conceivably if Council were inclined to
approve the special exception request, Council could make the
request subject to everything that has been presented at the
meeting; including the statement that the HVAC units would be
screened, the fencing would be cedar or cedar-like, etc.; he
stated that Council would not need to specify the conditions
because they are all part of the record and Council could make
all of those conditions part of the special exception approval;
he further stated that not only would the conditions be special
conditions to the Special Exception Permit, but the conditions
would be incorporated into the deed on the property, as has been
the practice, and if the conditions are not met then Council
could exercise its option to repurchase the property; and
WHEREAS, Doug Hale reappeared before Council and questioned
what happens to the other individuals who are interested in the
property; he questioned if the other individuals will still have
a viable option to purchase the property; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that if the Special Exception
Permit is approved and the contract is executed, then a
contractual agreement has been made; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hale questioned if it will just be implied
that the other individuals’ offers were not accepted; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that if Council has three
offers and only accepts one of the offers, then it means that
Council has denied the other two offers; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hale clarified that it is implied since the
individuals were not verbally told; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that he feels it is
explicit that the other offers were denied if Council accepts
one offer; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hale stated that he feels that Council should
30
have let the other individuals who submitted offers know that
their offers were not accepted; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned the procedure when there
are multiple bidders on a piece of property; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that there are currently
three offers on the parcel or a portion of the parcel; he stated
that the City has not entered into a contract at this point;
therefore, all three offers are still on the table; he stated
that the City would not generally provide a letter stating that
the contract was rejected unless Council said that it wasn’t
going to consider the offer, or the City had accepted another
contract on the property; he stated that if Council decides to
approve the Special Exception Permit, then it is implied that
the sale of the property to the Montessori school would move
forward; he stated that if Council decides not to approve the
Special Exception Permit, there are two other viable offers
because he is certain that the Montessori school will withdraw
its offer to purchase the parcel; he noted that Council then
would have to decide whether to accept one of the other offers,
not accept any of the other offers, continue to “sit” on the
property while the adjoining property develops, or any other
alternative; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hale stated that it is a gray area and he
appreciates the consideration given to help him understand the
process; he stated that he now understands that the Special
Exception Permit is the issue and not whether to sell the
property to the highest bidder; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that is correct; and
WHEREAS, Barney Horrell reappeared before the Council and
stated that the Montessori school is very comfortable with
voluntarily proffering the landscaping that was discussed,
screening the HVAC units outside, that the building will be a
single-story brick building with a gray, metal hip roof, traffic
will be directed onto Commerce Drive, and the character of the
building will be very similar as to what was presented at the
meeting; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned if the 1.8 acre parcel
will remain all trees; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the parcel is not all
trees, but the trees that are on the parcel will remain and the
school will maintain them; he stated that he needs to make a
31
minor correction for the record; he stated that he said the
fencing would be a solid, cedar fencing but Ms. VanderHoeven
pointed out a black wrought iron type higher fencing that will
allow some visibility might be erected in the play areas as an
alternative to cedar; he stated that there may be some cedar
fencing, but the wrought iron type fencing is more desirable;
and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if the school would agree
to granting the City first right of refusal on the two parcels
in question; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the City would have
right of first refusal on both parcels if the parcels are not
developed; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that he would like for the City
to have right of first refusal on the 1.8 acre parcel even if
the 3.9 acre parcel was developed; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the 1.8 acre parcel would
not be developed; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned the review time once
a site plan is submitted; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that the City has 45 days
to review the site plan, but staff tries to get it done as fast
as they can; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Economic Development
stated that it takes approximately two weeks for a site plan to
be reviewed; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if that was standard
procedure; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and
Economic Development stated that two weeks are standard for
Salem; the City Engineer stated that if it is a complicated site
plan, it can take longer but he does not consider the Montessori
school proposal to be a complicated plan based on what has been
presented at the meeting; and
WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens questioned if the existing
detention pond is sufficient for the development of the parcel,
or if another storm water management system would need to be
placed on the parcel; and
32
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that the existing
detention pond was built to serve approximately 52 acres of the
Elizabeth Campus, and when it was designed, it was designed for
an ultimate build-out which meant it was assumed that there
would be a lot of paving, a lot of impervious surfaces; he
stated that the pond was designed to handle a 25-10 and a 10-2,
which exceeded state standards at that point in time; and
WHEREAS, Bob Hunt reappeared before the Council and stated
that he hopes that the use of the 1.8 acre parcel would still be
available for all residents to enjoy and not for the exclusive
use of the school; he stated that he feels there is no reason to
sell that parcel to the school because the parcel is ok with the
City owning the parcel; he stated that the City does not have to
sell the parcel to the school, it can allow the school to use
it; he stated that he feels that the City could be taking on a
problem by selling the parcel to the school; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that he is now aware that the
City currently maintains the 1.8 acre parcel; he stated that the
City does own the property; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hunt stated that the property does need some
maintenance; he stated that he feels it would be a low liability
for the City to allow the school to use the property; he asked
Council to consider that the 1.8 acre parcel does not need to be
sold to the school, if the school is allowed to be built on the
3.9 acre parcel; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst stated that the school intends
to make the 1.8 acre parcel a nature trail; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hunt stated that the City should allow the
school to build the trail without actually owning the property;
he stated that he wants to see the maximum preservation and use
by the citizens of Salem of the parcel so that it’s not
determined to be private property; and
WHEREAS, Barney Horrell reappeared before the Council and
stated that the school has liability reasons for not making the
1.8 acre parcel open to the general public even after school
hours; he stated that the school will invite people other than
its students to attend the cross programming opportunities at
the site; he stated that the parcel will be used by more than
just the Montessori students, but it will be at the school’s
invitation only; therefore the school will control the liability
of it; and
33
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned how the proposed
walking trails on the Elizabeth Campus cross in relation to the
1.8 acre parcel; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that there is a section
of an easement the City has on the border of the YMCA property
on the north side, but it would not be directly adjacent to it;
he stated that the City still owns the property and a trail can
connect down to the parcel up to the point of purchase; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned when the trail was
discussed and conceptualized, were easements put in place around
the properties to be sold; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that currently is being
worked on to have easements in place for the City to put in
trails; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if the sale of the
1.8 acre parcel would prohibit the development of the proposed
trails; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that if the 1.8 acre
parcel was sold, it would not affect the layout of the proposed
walking trails; and
WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to the
request;
ON MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMAN JONES, SECONDED BY
COUNCILWOMAN GARST, AND DULY CARRED, a Special Exception Permit
to allow primary/secondary educational facilities on an
approximate 3.9 acre tract and an approximate 1.8 acre tract
located at 1150 Kime Lane/1130 Lynchburg Turnpike (P/O Tax Map
#148-1-2) was hereby approved conditioned on what was presented
– the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones –
aye, Jane W. Johnson – absent, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron
Randolph Foley – aye.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
There being no further business to come before the
Council, the same on motion adjourned at 10:29 p.m.
MBLU Location Owner Name Co-Owner Name Address 1 Address 2 City, State, Zip
148-1-2.2 112 CORPORATE BLVD SALEM MONTESSORI SCHOOL INC P O BOX 1213 SALEM VA 24153
148-1-2 120 CORPORATE BLVD CITY OF SALEM P O BOX 869 SALEM VA 24153
148-1-2.1 1126 KIME LN YMCA OF ROANOKE VALLEY INC P O BOX 2130 ROANOKE VA 24009
118-3-1 104 CORPORATE BLVD CITY OF SALEM P O BOX 869 SALEM VA 24153
117-2-1 101 CORPORATE BLVD SALEM MONTESSORI SCHOOL INC P O BOX 1213 SALEM VA 24153
149-1-4.1 107 CORPORATE BLVD SALEM MONTESSORI SCHOOL INC P O BOX 1213 SALEM VA 24153
149-1-4 113 CORPORATE BLVD RICHARD C BISHOP 331 ROBIN HOOD RD SE ROANOKE VA 24014
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 106-110, ARTICLE I, CHAPTER 106, OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, RELATING TO ZONING AND DIVIDING THE CITY INTO BUILDING
DISTRICTS AND ESTABLISHING DISTRICT BOUNDARY LINES ON THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
SALEM, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, that Section 106-110, Article
I, Chapter 106 of The Code of the City of Salem, Virginia, relating to building district boundary lines be
amended in the following particular and no other, viz:
That the following described property in the City of Salem of Salem Montessori School, Inc.,
property owner, located at 112 Corporate Boulevard (Tax Map # 148-1-2.2) be and the same is hereby
changed from RSF Residential Single-Family District and BCD, Business Commerce District with
proffered conditions to RSF Residential Single-Family District without conditions, and the map referred
to shall be changed in this respect and no other, said property being described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the west right-of-way line of Corporate Boulevard; thence leaving Corporate
Boulevard N. 71° 40’ 12” W. 514.44 feet to a point; thence N. 66° 27’ 36” E. 122.11 feet to a point;
thence N. 77° 00’ 16” E. 385.99 feet to a point on the west right-of-way line of Corporate Boulevard,
thence following the west right-of-way line the following three calls; a curve to the right with a radius of
281.17 feet, Chord Bearing S. 07° 09’ 01” E., Chord Distance 47.84 feet, and Arc Length 47.90 feet;
thence S. 01° 18’ 23” E. 173.37 feet; thence a curve to the right with a radius of 270.73 feet, Chord
Bearing S. 07° 09’ 42” W., Chord Distance 77.17 feet, and Arc Length 77.43 feet to the place of
BEGINNING, containing 1.8120 acres, and being known as Tract 2, on Plat Showing the Vacation and
Combination for City of Salem, dated March 23, 2011, prepared by Caldwell White Associates, as
recorded in the Clerk’s Office, Circuit Court, Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 13, Pages 49-52,
Slide 213.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be and
the same are hereby repealed.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect ten (10) days after its final passage.
Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows:
H. Hunter Holliday –
William D. Jones –
Byron Randolph Foley –
James W. Wallace, III –
Renee F. Turk –
Passed:
Effective:
/s/____ _
Mayor
ATTEST:
H. Robert Light
Clerk of Council
City of Salem, Virginia
Item # 5B
Date: 6/12/2023
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA
HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: June 12, 2023
AGENDA ITEM: Consider adoption of ordinance on second reading amending
Section 82-43, Article II, Chapter 82 of the Code of the City of
Salem pertaining to Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled.
(Approved on first reading at the May 22, 2023 meeting.)
SUBMITTED BY: Rob Light, Assistant City Manager
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This change would raise the income limit from $50,000 to $65,000 and asset limit from
$100,000 to $185,000 for eligibility to participate in the City’s tax relief for the elderly and
disabled program. The limits have not been adjusted previously since 2001.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The overall impact is dependent on the number of eligible citizens that may apply and their
individual real estate tax valuation changes. There is no fiscal impact for FY24 as this would
be the baseline year for new participants. The impact would happen in FY25 but is projected
to be less than $15,000 based on modeling hypothetical future participation and real estate
valuation changes.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND, REVISE, AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 82, ARTICLE II,
SECTION 82-43, PERTAINING TO TAX RELIEF FOR THE ELDERLY AND DISABLED
REQUIREMENTS FOR EXEMPTION.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, that
Section 82-43, Article II, Chapter 82, of The Code of the City of Salem, Virginia, be amended,
revised, and reordained to read as follows:
CHAPTER 82
TAXATION
Article II. Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled
Section 82-43. Requirements for exemption.
Exemption under this article shall be granted to persons subject to the following
provisions:
(1) The title to the property for which exemption is claimed is held, or
partially held, on January 1 of the taxable year by the person claiming
exemption.
(2) The head of the household occupying the dwelling and owning title, or
partial title, thereto is 65 years or older on December 31 of the year
immediately preceding the taxable year.
(3) The gross combined income of the owner(s) during the year immediately
preceding the taxable year shall be determined by the commissioner of the
revenue in an amount not to exceed $50,000.00 $65,000. Gross combined
income shall include all income from all sources of the owner(s) and of
the owner's relatives living in the dwelling for which exemption is
claimed; except, that the first $6,500.00 of income of each relative, other
than the spouse, of the owner or owners, who is living in the dwelling
shall not be included in such total.
(4) The total combined financial worth of the owner(s) as of December 31 of
the year immediately preceding the taxable year shall be determined by
the commissioner of the revenue in an amount not to exceed $100,000.00
$185,000. Total financial worth shall include the value of all assets,
including equitable interest, of the owners and the spouse of any owner
but shall exclude the fair market value of the dwelling and the land upon
which it is situated, not exceeding one acre, for which exemption is
claimed.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be
and the same are hereby repealed.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect ten (10) days after its final passage.
Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows:
H. Hunter Holliday -
William D. Jones -
Byron Randolph Foley -
James W. Wallace, III -
Renée Ferris Turk –
Passed:
Effective:
/s/ Renée Ferris Turk___________
Mayor
ATTEST:
H. Robert Light
Clerk of Council
City of Salem, Virginia
Item #6A
Date: 6/12/2023
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA
HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: June 12, 2023
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution adopting the City Job Class List and Pay Scale
SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie B. Jordan, Finance Director
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The City annually approves the schematic list of job classes and the pay scale that is
included in the budget. The attached pay scale incorporates changes from the pay study
that was recently completed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approving the attached resolution that adopts the schematic list of job
classes and the pay scale for FY2023-2024.
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, JUNE 12, 2023:
RESOLUTION 1455
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, that the following
schematic list of job classes and pay ranges adopted by Resolution 1432 on May 23, 2022, shall
be amended and be a part of the 2023-2024 fiscal year budget; and the effective date of the
implementation of this pay plan shall be July 1, 2023:
Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows:
H. Hunter Holliday –
William D. Jones –
Byron Randolph Foley –
James W. Wallace III –
Renee F. Turk –
ATTEST:
H. Robert Light
Clerk of Council
City of Salem, Virginia
Pay Grade Minimum Midpoint Maximum
20 33,287.90$ 43,274.27$ 53,260.64$
21 34,952.30$ 45,437.98$ 55,923.67$
22 36,699.91$ 47,709.88$ 58,719.86$
23 38,534.91$ 50,095.38$ 61,655.85$
24 40,461.65$ 52,600.15$ 64,738.64$
25 42,484.73$ 55,230.15$ 67,975.57$
26 44,608.97$ 57,991.66$ 71,374.35$
27 46,839.42$ 60,891.24$ 74,943.07$
28 49,181.39$ 63,935.81$ 78,690.22$
29 51,640.46$ 67,132.60$ 82,624.73$
30 54,222.48$ 70,489.23$ 86,755.97$
31 56,933.61$ 74,013.69$ 91,093.77$
32 59,780.29$ 77,714.37$ 95,648.46$
33 62,769.30$ 81,600.09$ 100,430.88$
34 65,907.77$ 85,680.09$ 105,452.42$
35 69,203.15$ 89,964.10$ 110,725.05$
36 72,663.31$ 94,462.30$ 116,261.30$
37 76,296.48$ 99,185.42$ 122,074.36$
38 80,111.30$ 104,144.69$ 128,178.08$
39 84,116.87$ 109,351.93$ 134,586.98$
40 88,322.71$ 114,819.52$ 141,316.33$
41 92,738.84$ 120,560.50$ 148,382.15$
42 97,375.79$ 126,588.52$ 155,801.26$
43 102,244.58$ 132,917.95$ 163,591.32$
44 107,356.80$ 139,563.85$ 171,770.89$
45 112,724.64$ 146,542.04$ 180,359.43$
Pay Ranges for Fiscal Year 2023-2024
City of Salem, Virginia
Job Title Grade Min Mid Max
Account Services Supervisor 33 62,769.30$ 81,600.09$ 100,430.88$
Accountant 30 54,222.48$ 70,489.23$ 86,755.97$
Accounting Assistant 22 36,699.91$ 47,709.88$ 58,719.86$
Accounting Manager 36 72,663.31$ 94,462.30$ 116,261.30$
Accounting Technician 23 38,534.91$ 50,095.38$ 61,655.85$
Accreditation Manager 27 46,839.42$ 60,891.24$ 74,943.07$
Administrative Assistant 21 34,952.30$ 45,437.98$ 55,923.67$
Animal Control Officer 29 51,640.46$ 67,132.60$ 82,624.73$
Animal Shelter Manager 33 62,769.30$ 81,600.09$ 100,430.88$
Animal Shelter Worker 21 34,952.30$ 45,437.98$ 55,923.67$
Applications Manager 36 72,663.31$ 94,462.30$ 116,261.30$
Assistant Chef 20 33,287.90$ 43,274.27$ 53,260.64$
Assistant Chief WTP Operator 31 56,933.61$ 74,013.69$ 91,093.77$
Assistant Commonwealth Attorney 34 65,907.77$ 85,680.09$ 105,452.42$
Assistant Director of Civic Facilities 39 84,116.87$ 109,351.93$ 134,586.98$
Assistant Director of Community
Development/Engineer 40 88,322.71$ 114,819.52$ 141,316.33$
Assistant Director of Electric Utility 40 88,322.71$ 114,819.52$ 141,316.33$
Assistant Director of Finance 39 84,116.87$ 109,351.93$ 134,586.98$
Assistant Director of Human Resources 39 84,116.87$ 109,351.93$ 134,586.98$
Assistant Director of Parks & Recreation 39 84,116.87$ 109,351.93$ 134,586.98$
Assistant Director of Water and Sewer 40 88,322.71$ 114,819.52$ 141,316.33$
Assistant Food and Beverage Manager 26 44,608.97$ 57,991.66$ 71,374.35$
Assistant Recreation Program Supervisor 25 42,484.73$ 55,230.15$ 67,975.57$
Assistant Telecommunicator Manager 30 54,222.48$ 70,489.23$ 86,755.97$
Assistant to the City Manager 34 65,907.77$ 85,680.09$ 105,452.42$
Assistant Utility Lines Manager 31 56,933.61$ 74,013.69$ 91,093.77$
Assistant Utility Maintenance Manager 31 56,933.61$ 74,013.69$ 91,093.77$
Asst Dir of Streets and GM-Street Superintendent 40 88,322.71$ 114,819.52$ 141,316.33$
Automotive Mechanic 26 44,608.97$ 57,991.66$ 71,374.35$
Automotive Service Worker 21 34,952.30$ 45,437.98$ 55,923.67$
Box Office Supervisor 28 49,181.39$ 63,935.81$ 78,690.22$
Building Engineer 30 54,222.48$ 70,489.23$ 86,755.97$
Building Maintenance Assistant 23 38,534.91$ 50,095.38$ 61,655.85$
Building Maintenance Superintendent 34 65,907.77$ 85,680.09$ 105,452.42$
Building Maintenance Technician I 26 44,608.97$ 57,991.66$ 71,374.35$
Building Maintenance Technician II 28 49,181.39$ 63,935.81$ 78,690.22$
Building Maintenance Technician III 30 54,222.48$ 70,489.23$ 86,755.97$
Building Official 36 72,663.31$ 94,462.30$ 116,261.30$
Business Analyst I 28 49,181.39$ 63,935.81$ 78,690.22$
Business Analyst II 31 56,933.61$ 74,013.69$ 91,093.77$
Business Analyst III 33 62,769.30$ 81,600.09$ 100,430.88$
Captain Deputy Sheriff 36 72,663.31$ 94,462.30$ 116,261.30$
Chef 25 42,484.73$ 55,230.15$ 67,975.57$
Chief Deputy Commissioner of the Revenue 32 59,780.29$ 77,714.37$ 95,648.46$
Chief Deputy Court Clerk I 32 59,780.29$ 77,714.37$ 95,648.46$
List of Positions for Fiscal Year 2023-2024
City of Salem, Virginia
Job Title Grade Min Mid Max
List of Positions for Fiscal Year 2023-2024
City of Salem, Virginia
Chief Deputy Treasurer 32 59,780.29$ 77,714.37$ 95,648.46$
Chief of Police 44 107,356.80$ 139,563.85$ 171,770.89$
Chief WTP Operator 34 65,907.77$ 85,680.09$ 105,452.42$
Childrens Services Supervisor 30 54,222.48$ 70,489.23$ 86,755.97$
City Assessor 42 97,375.79$ 126,588.52$ 155,801.26$
City Garage Supervisor 30 54,222.48$ 70,489.23$ 86,755.97$
City Horticulturist 34 65,907.77$ 85,680.09$ 105,452.42$
Civic Center Booking Coordinator 22 36,699.91$ 47,709.88$ 58,719.86$
Civic Center Events & Production Manager 33 62,769.30$ 81,600.09$ 100,430.88$
Civic Center Events Manager 31 56,933.61$ 74,013.69$ 91,093.77$
Civic Center Mechanic 26 44,608.97$ 57,991.66$ 71,374.35$
Civic Center Operations Supervisor 25 42,484.73$ 55,230.15$ 67,975.57$
Civic Center Operations Worker 20 33,287.90$ 43,274.27$ 53,260.64$
Civic Center Public Relations Associate 20 33,287.90$ 43,274.27$ 53,260.64$
Civic Facilities Sales Representative 29 51,640.46$ 67,132.60$ 82,624.73$
Civil Engineer I 33 62,769.30$ 81,600.09$ 100,430.88$
Civil Engineer II 35 69,203.15$ 89,964.10$ 110,725.05$
Codes Compliance Investigator I 25 42,484.73$ 55,230.15$ 67,975.57$
Codes Enforcement Officer I 26 44,608.97$ 57,991.66$ 71,374.35$
Codes Enforcement Officer II 28 49,181.39$ 63,935.81$ 78,690.22$
Communications Specialist 28 49,181.39$ 63,935.81$ 78,690.22$
Construction Inspector 26 44,608.97$ 57,991.66$ 71,374.35$
Construction Project Manager 32 59,780.29$ 77,714.37$ 95,648.46$
Crime Analyst 28 49,181.39$ 63,935.81$ 78,690.22$
Custodian 20 33,287.90$ 43,274.27$ 53,260.64$
Deputy Chief of Police 41 92,738.84$ 120,560.50$ 148,382.15$
Deputy City Clerk-Executive Assistant 28 49,181.39$ 63,935.81$ 78,690.22$
Deputy Commissioner of the Revenue II 24 40,461.65$ 52,600.15$ 64,738.64$
Deputy Commonwealth Attorney 39 84,116.87$ 109,351.93$ 134,586.98$
Deputy Court Clerk II 22 36,699.91$ 47,709.88$ 58,719.86$
Deputy Court Clerk III 26 44,608.97$ 57,991.66$ 71,374.35$
Deputy Fire Chief 40 88,322.71$ 114,819.52$ 141,316.33$
Deputy Registrar 23 38,534.91$ 50,095.38$ 61,655.85$
Deputy Sheriff I 28 49,181.39$ 63,935.81$ 78,690.22$
Deputy Sheriff II 30 54,222.48$ 70,489.23$ 86,755.97$
Deputy Treasurer I 22 36,699.91$ 47,709.88$ 58,719.86$
Deputy Treasurer II 24 40,461.65$ 52,600.15$ 64,738.64$
Director of Civic Facilities 43 102,244.58$ 132,917.95$ 163,591.32$
Director of Communications 42 97,375.79$ 126,588.52$ 155,801.26$
Director of Community Development 44 107,356.80$ 139,563.85$ 171,770.89$
Director of Economic Development 43 102,244.58$ 132,917.95$ 163,591.32$
Director of Electric Utility 44 107,356.80$ 139,563.85$ 171,770.89$
Director of Finance 44 107,356.80$ 139,563.85$ 171,770.89$
Director of Human Resources 43 102,244.58$ 132,917.95$ 163,591.32$
Director of Parks and Recreation 43 102,244.58$ 132,917.95$ 163,591.32$
Director of Streets and General Maint 43 102,244.58$ 132,917.95$ 163,591.32$
Job Title Grade Min Mid Max
List of Positions for Fiscal Year 2023-2024
City of Salem, Virginia
Director of Technology Systems 44 107,356.80$ 139,563.85$ 171,770.89$
Director of Water and Sewer 43 102,244.58$ 132,917.95$ 163,591.32$
Economic Development Specialist 25 42,484.73$ 55,230.15$ 67,975.57$
Electric Line Crew Leader 35 69,203.15$ 89,964.10$ 110,725.05$
Electric Line Supervisor 36 72,663.31$ 94,462.30$ 116,261.30$
Electric Line Technician I 28 49,181.39$ 63,935.81$ 78,690.22$
Electric Line Technician II 33 62,769.30$ 81,600.09$ 100,430.88$
Electric Meter Technician 23 38,534.91$ 50,095.38$ 61,655.85$
Electrical Engineer 37 76,296.48$ 99,185.42$ 122,074.36$
Electrical Engineering Technician 30 54,222.48$ 70,489.23$ 86,755.97$
EMS Billing Specialist 21 34,952.30$ 45,437.98$ 55,923.67$
EMS Captain 35 69,203.15$ 89,964.10$ 110,725.05$
EMS Coordinator 38 80,111.30$ 104,144.69$ 128,178.08$
Equipment Operator I 23 38,534.91$ 50,095.38$ 61,655.85$
Equipment Operator II 25 42,484.73$ 55,230.15$ 67,975.57$
Equipment Operator III 27 46,839.42$ 60,891.24$ 74,943.07$
Evidence Technician 21 34,952.30$ 45,437.98$ 55,923.67$
Financial Services Supervisor 34 65,907.77$ 85,680.09$ 105,452.42$
Fire Administrative Captain 35 69,203.15$ 89,964.10$ 110,725.05$
Fire and EMS Training Officer 38 80,111.30$ 104,144.69$ 128,178.08$
Fire Battalion Chief Administration 38 80,111.30$ 104,144.69$ 128,178.08$
Fire Battalion Chief Operations 38 80,111.30$ 104,144.69$ 128,178.08$
Fire Captain 35 69,203.15$ 89,964.10$ 110,725.05$
Fire Chief 44 107,356.80$ 139,563.85$ 171,770.89$
Firefighter EMT 28 49,181.39$ 63,935.81$ 78,690.22$
Firefighter Paramedic 31 56,933.61$ 74,013.69$ 91,093.77$
Fleet Management Superintendent 34 65,907.77$ 85,680.09$ 105,452.42$
Food and Beverage Manager 31 56,933.61$ 74,013.69$ 91,093.77$
GIS Analyst 27 46,839.42$ 60,891.24$ 74,943.07$
GIS Manager 36 72,663.31$ 94,462.30$ 116,261.30$
Human Resource Technician 23 38,534.91$ 50,095.38$ 61,655.85$
Human Resources Data Specialist 25 42,484.73$ 55,230.15$ 67,975.57$
Human Resources Generalist 30 54,222.48$ 70,489.23$ 86,755.97$
Inventory and Procurement Specialist 24 40,461.65$ 52,600.15$ 64,738.64$
Inventory Assistant 20 33,287.90$ 43,274.27$ 53,260.64$
Inventory Technician 23 38,534.91$ 50,095.38$ 61,655.85$
Laborer 20 33,287.90$ 43,274.27$ 53,260.64$
Lead Lineman 34 65,907.77$ 85,680.09$ 105,452.42$
Legal Administrator 26 44,608.97$ 57,991.66$ 71,374.35$
Librarian 29 51,640.46$ 67,132.60$ 82,624.73$
Library Director 42 97,375.79$ 126,588.52$ 155,801.26$
Library Technician 22 36,699.91$ 47,709.88$ 58,719.86$
Lieutenant Deputy Sheriff 35 69,203.15$ 89,964.10$ 110,725.05$
Maintenance-Construction Worker I 21 34,952.30$ 45,437.98$ 55,923.67$
Maintenance-Construction Worker II 22 36,699.91$ 47,709.88$ 58,719.86$
Major Deputy Sheriff 37 76,296.48$ 99,185.42$ 122,074.36$
Job Title Grade Min Mid Max
List of Positions for Fiscal Year 2023-2024
City of Salem, Virginia
Master Deputy Sheriff 31 56,933.61$ 74,013.69$ 91,093.77$
Master Police Officer 31 56,933.61$ 74,013.69$ 91,093.77$
Meter Reader 21 34,952.30$ 45,437.98$ 55,923.67$
Meter Service Supervisor 28 49,181.39$ 63,935.81$ 78,690.22$
Network Administrator 34 65,907.77$ 85,680.09$ 105,452.42$
Organizational Development and Training
Coordinator 32 59,780.29$ 77,714.37$ 95,648.46$
Paralegal 23 38,534.91$ 50,095.38$ 61,655.85$
Parks and Recreation Superintendent 36 72,663.31$ 94,462.30$ 116,261.30$
Payroll Manager 33 62,769.30$ 81,600.09$ 100,430.88$
Payroll Technician 25 42,484.73$ 55,230.15$ 67,975.57$
Permit Technician 23 38,534.91$ 50,095.38$ 61,655.85$
Planner I 33 62,769.30$ 81,600.09$ 100,430.88$
Planner II 35 69,203.15$ 89,964.10$ 110,725.05$
Police Captain 38 80,111.30$ 104,144.69$ 128,178.08$
Police Lieutenant 35 69,203.15$ 89,964.10$ 110,725.05$
Police Officer 29 51,640.46$ 67,132.60$ 82,624.73$
Police Records Specialist 21 34,952.30$ 45,437.98$ 55,923.67$
Police Sergeant 33 62,769.30$ 81,600.09$ 100,430.88$
Process Improvement-Business Efficiency Director 42 97,375.79$ 126,588.52$ 155,801.26$
Project Manager 36 72,663.31$ 94,462.30$ 116,261.30$
Purchasing Manager 31 56,933.61$ 74,013.69$ 91,093.77$
Real Estate Appraiser 27 46,839.42$ 60,891.24$ 74,943.07$
Recreation Maintenance Worker 20 33,287.90$ 43,274.27$ 53,260.64$
Recreation Program Supervisor I 27 46,839.42$ 60,891.24$ 74,943.07$
Recreation Program Supervisor II 29 51,640.46$ 67,132.60$ 82,624.73$
Recreation Site Supervisor 24 40,461.65$ 52,600.15$ 64,738.64$
Risk Manager 31 56,933.61$ 74,013.69$ 91,093.77$
Sanitation Equipment Operator 25 42,484.73$ 55,230.15$ 67,975.57$
Sanitation Superintendent 34 65,907.77$ 85,680.09$ 105,452.42$
Sanitation Worker 22 36,699.91$ 47,709.88$ 58,719.86$
Scanning-Imaging Technician 21 34,952.30$ 45,437.98$ 55,923.67$
Senior Accountant 32 59,780.29$ 77,714.37$ 95,648.46$
Senior Administrative Assistant 23 38,534.91$ 50,095.38$ 61,655.85$
Senior Animal Control Officer 30 54,222.48$ 70,489.23$ 86,755.97$
Senior Automotive Mechanic 28 49,181.39$ 63,935.81$ 78,690.22$
Senior Firefighter EMT 29 51,640.46$ 67,132.60$ 82,624.73$
Senior Firefighter Paramedic 32 59,780.29$ 77,714.37$ 95,648.46$
Senior Librarian 30 54,222.48$ 70,489.23$ 86,755.97$
Senior Library Assistant 22 36,699.91$ 47,709.88$ 58,719.86$
Senior Meter Reader 23 38,534.91$ 50,095.38$ 61,655.85$
Senior Police Officer 30 54,222.48$ 70,489.23$ 86,755.97$
Senior Programmer Analyst 33 62,769.30$ 81,600.09$ 100,430.88$
Senior Real Estate Appraiser 30 54,222.48$ 70,489.23$ 86,755.97$
Senior Tax Technician 24 40,461.65$ 52,600.15$ 64,738.64$
Senior WTP Operator 28 49,181.39$ 63,935.81$ 78,690.22$
Job Title Grade Min Mid Max
List of Positions for Fiscal Year 2023-2024
City of Salem, Virginia
Sergeant Deputy Sheriff 33 62,769.30$ 81,600.09$ 100,430.88$
Small Engine Mechanic 25 42,484.73$ 55,230.15$ 67,975.57$
Stormwater Manager 35 69,203.15$ 89,964.10$ 110,725.05$
Streets Crew Supervisor 29 51,640.46$ 67,132.60$ 82,624.73$
Tax Specialist 26 44,608.97$ 57,991.66$ 71,374.35$
Tax Supervisor 28 49,181.39$ 63,935.81$ 78,690.22$
Technical Services Supervisor 30 54,222.48$ 70,489.23$ 86,755.97$
Technology Manager 36 72,663.31$ 94,462.30$ 116,261.30$
Technology Support Specialist 28 49,181.39$ 63,935.81$ 78,690.22$
Telecommunications Manager 38 80,111.30$ 104,144.69$ 128,178.08$
Telecommunicator I 25 42,484.73$ 55,230.15$ 67,975.57$
Telecommunicator II 27 46,839.42$ 60,891.24$ 74,943.07$
Transfer Clerk 23 38,534.91$ 50,095.38$ 61,655.85$
Tree Trimmer 25 42,484.73$ 55,230.15$ 67,975.57$
Utility Asset Manager 38 80,111.30$ 104,144.69$ 128,178.08$
Utility Billing Specialist 24 40,461.65$ 52,600.15$ 64,738.64$
Utility Lines Crew Supervisor 29 51,640.46$ 67,132.60$ 82,624.73$
Utility Lines Manager 34 65,907.77$ 85,680.09$ 105,452.42$
Utility Lines Technician I 21 34,952.30$ 45,437.98$ 55,923.67$
Utility Lines Technician II 23 38,534.91$ 50,095.38$ 61,655.85$
Utility Locator 24 40,461.65$ 52,600.15$ 64,738.64$
Utility Maintenance Manager 34 65,907.77$ 85,680.09$ 105,452.42$
Utility Maintenance Mechanic 25 42,484.73$ 55,230.15$ 67,975.57$
Utility Maintenance Technician 23 38,534.91$ 50,095.38$ 61,655.85$
Water Meter Mechanic 23 38,534.91$ 50,095.38$ 61,655.85$
Water Quality Manager 28 49,181.39$ 63,935.81$ 78,690.22$
WTP Operator Class I 27 46,839.42$ 60,891.24$ 74,943.07$
WTP Operator Class II 25 42,484.73$ 55,230.15$ 67,975.57$
WTP Operator III 23 38,534.91$ 50,095.38$ 61,655.85$
WTP Operator Trainee 22 36,699.91$ 47,709.88$ 58,719.86$
Zoning Administrator 36 72,663.31$ 94,462.30$ 116,261.30$
Item #6B
Date: 6/12/2023
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA
HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: June 12, 2023
AGENDA ITEM: Hold a public hearing on the proposed budget for fiscal year 2023-2024.
This item was continued from the May 22, 2023 meeting by Council.
SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie B. Jordan, Director of Finance
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This time has been set aside for a public hearing on the proposed annual budget for fiscal
year 2023-2024. The proposed budget was presented to the City Council on April 5, 2023
and advertised in the Salem Times Register on April 27, 2023 and May 4, 2023. A copy of
the proposed budget was made available on the City website https://salemva.gov/214/Annual-
Budgets. The School’s budget is included in the overall City budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct the public hearing.
Item #6C
Date: 6/12/2023
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA
HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: June 12, 2023
AGENDA ITEM: Consider on first reading the ordinance adopting the fiscal year 2023-
2024 budget. This item was continued from the May 22, 2023 meeting
by Council.
SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie B. Jordan, Director of Finance
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The adoption of the FY 2023-2024 budget is being requested to fulfill our legal requirement of
adopting and having a first and second reading of the adoption ordinance before July 1.
Approval of the City budget is for informative and fiscal planning purposes only and does not
actually commit or appropriate funds for expenditure. The commitment of funds will not occur
until the approval of the second reading of the FY 2023-2024 appropriation ordinance.
Attached are revisions to the proposed budget that was presented on April 5, 2023. Also
attached is the ordinance adopting the fiscal year 2023-2024 budget for the City of Salem.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approving the attached ordinance for adoption of the budget for the 2023-
2024 fiscal year.
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2023.
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-2503 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, provides that
the governing body of the City shall prepare and approve an annual budget; and
WHEREAS, said budget shall be prepared and approved for informative and fiscal
planning purposes only; and
WHEREAS, the budget contains a complete itemized and classified plan of all
contemplated expenditures and all estimated revenues for the ensuing year; and
WHEREAS, a brief synopsis of said budget was published as required by the provisions of
Section 15.2-2506 of the State Code, and the public hearing as required thereon was held on
June 12, 2023;
WHEREAS, in the opinion of Council an emergency exists, therefore, the fact of the
existence of such emergency is hereby now declared to exist and this ordinance is so adopted
and shall be in full force and effect on July 1, 2023.
NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Council of the City of Salem Virginia that the
budget for fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023 is hereby adopted.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on and after July 1, 2023.
Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as fol lows:
H. Hunter Holliday –
William D. Jones –
Byron Randolph Foley –
James W. Wallace III –
Renee F. Turk –
Passed:
Effective:
/s/ Renee F. Turk
Mayor
ATTEST:
H. Robert Light
Clerk of Council
City of Salem, Virginia
Revenue Budget Originally Presented $ 108,692,471
10‐012‐0100‐40200 Designation Of Beginning Fund Balance (395,000)
10‐012‐0100‐42030 Business License Tax 80,000
10‐012‐0100‐45110 Interest Earnings 100,000
10‐030‐0100‐48395 Police State Grants 12,026
General Fund Revenue Budget‐Adjusted $ 108,489,497
Expenditure Budget Originally Presented $ 108,692,471
10‐012‐6100‐59440 Transfer To School Board 900,000
10‐012‐9100‐59410 Transfer To Capital Projects (395,000)
10‐012‐9107‐55650 Valley Metro ‐ Star Route 25,000
10‐012‐9110‐59500 Contingency 11,026
10‐030‐3140‐55859 State Grants 1,000
10‐032‐3210‐58004 Motor Vehicles And Equipment (385,000)
10‐070‐7111‐58001 Machinery And Equipment (250,000)
10‐070‐7114‐58001 Machinery And Equipment (110,000)
General Fund Expenditure Budget‐Adjusted 108,489,497$
Expense Budget Originally Presented 8,158,220$
51‐051‐0021‐52700 Workers Compensation (1,500)
51‐051‐0021‐55308 General Liability Insurance 5,500
51‐051‐0021‐59500 Contingency 5,000
51‐051‐0022‐52700 Workers Compensation 500
51‐051‐0022‐55308 General Liability Insurance 5,500
51‐051‐0022‐55894 Equipment Rental Credit (5,000)
51‐051‐0022‐55895 Labor Credits (10,000)
Water Fund Expense Budget‐Adjusted 8,158,220$
General Fund Budget for FY2023‐2024
Water Fund Budget for FY2023‐2024
Item #6D
Date: 6/12/2023
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA
HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: June 12, 2023
AGENDA ITEM: Consider on first reading the ordinance to appropriate funds for the fiscal
year 2023-2024 budget. This item was continued from the May 22, 2023
meeting by Council.
SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie B. Jordan, Director of Finance
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The fiscal year 2023-2024 budget was presented to the Council on April 5, 2023 and advertised
in the Salem Times Register on April 27, 2023 and May 4, 2023. A copy of the proposed budget
was made available to the public on the City website https://salemva.gov/214/Annual-Budgets.
The School’s budget is included in the overall City budget.
In addition to adopting the annual budget, the local government must appropriate the funds. This
is the first reading of the ordinance to appropriate funds for the fiscal year 2023-2024 budget. A
second reading is scheduled for June 26, 2023 following adoption of the budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the first reading of the fiscal year 2023-2024 budget appropriation
ordinance.
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2023, AS AMENDED.
WHEREAS, this budget is in accordance with the provisions of Section 8.3 of the Charter
of the City of Salem, and the applicable state laws; and
WHEREAS, noted in this budget is the following:
The budget incorporates revenue increases in real estate, sales, business license,
meals and lodging taxes and interest earnings
The budget incorporates increases for full-time employees as recommended by
the pay study.
The General Fund budget includes $4,250,720 for capital purchases and
$2,187,505 in reserve for any emergencies.
Electric rates will change with an increase in the power cost adjustment from
$0.06291 per KWH to $0.013126 per KWH in the proposed budget.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be
and the same are hereby repealed.
WHEREAS, in the opinion of Council an emergency exists, therefore, the fact of the
existence of such emergency is hereby now declared to exist and this ordinance is so adopted
and shall be in full force and effect on July 1, 20 23.
NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia that the
funds for operation of the City of Salem for the fiscal year beginning J uly 1, 2023 are hereby
appropriated.
Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows:
H. Hunter Holliday –
William D. Jones –
Byron Randolph Foley –
James W. Wallace III –
Renee F. Turk –
Passed:
Effective:
/s/ Renee F. Turk
Mayor
ATTEST:
H. Robert Light
Clerk of Council
City of Salem, Virginia
1
Item #6E
Date: 6/12/2023
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA
HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: June 12, 2023
AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept and appropriate ARPA Law Enforcement
Grant
SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie B. Jordan, Director of Finance
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Police Department was awarded the ARPA Law Enforcement Grant in the amount of
$215,000 to purchase two vehicles for the Narcotics Unit, a use of force training simulator,
ballistic shields and night vision for the Emergency Response Team. The purchase of this
equipment will allow specialized units to provide tactical operations to reduce gun violence.
No local match is required.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The $215,000 grant will fund the purchase of needed items that are not included in the
Police Department operating budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends accepting the $215,000 ARPA grant and appropriating $215,000 in
federal grant revenue to account 15-030-0100-48543. Increase the expenditure budget for
ARPA grant, account 15-030-3110-59604 for the purposes stated above.
Budget Entry
Date GL Account Account Name
Increase/
(Decrease)Description
6/12/2023 15‐030‐0100‐48543 American Rescue Plan Act Funding‐Law Enforcement Grant Program 215,000 Appropriate ARPA grant funds per 6/12 council action
6/12/2023 15‐030‐3110‐59604 ARPA Law Enforcement Grant Program 215,000 Appropriate ARPA grant funds per 6/12 council action
Item #6F
Date: 6/12/2023
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: June 12, 2023
AGENDA ITEM: Appropriate grant funds awarded by Virginia Tourism
Corporation
SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie B. Jordan, Director of Finance
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The City of Salem was awarded three grants totaling $54,887 from the Virginia Tourism
Corporation Marketing Incentive Program. The Salem Fair’s $20,000 grant will enhance
marketing efforts in Southwest Virginia, Richmond and Northern Virginia. The Salem Half
Marathon’s $14,887 award will help organizers attract runners from Raleigh, Richmond
and Charlotte. The $20,000 Destination Marketing Grant will be used to highlight
Downtown, antiquing and Longwood Park events. A match is required for each grant and
will be met through existing marketing.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Proceeds from the grant will cover the cost of items not included in the FY23 operating
budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Appropriate $54,887 in grant revenue to account 10-053-0100-48398 and increase the
budget for the grant expenditures, 10-053-8170-55859, by $54,887.
It is also recommended that any of this grant not spent in the current fiscal year be
administratively appropriated in the subsequent fiscal year.
Budget Entry
Date GL Account Account Name
Increase/
(Decrease)Description
6/12/2023 10‐053‐0100‐48398 State Grants ‐ Tourism 54,887 Appropriate VTC Marketing Incentive Grants per 6/12 action
6/12/2023 10‐053‐8170‐55859 State Grants 54,887 Appropriate VTC Marketing Incentive Grants per 6/12 action
Item #6G
Date: 6/12/2023
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: June 12, 2023
AGENDA ITEM: Request to appropriate additional State of Good Repair and
Primary Formula funding for the Colorado Street Bridge
Project
SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie B. Jordan, Director of Finance
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Additional State of Good Repair and Primary Formula state funding totaling $5,328,826
has been awarded to the City to replace the Colorado Street Bridge. State of Good Repair
state funding of $6,450,000 was originally awarded and appropriated in May 2018. Due
to significant inflation subsequent to the original appropriation date, additional State of
Good Repair state funding of $5,313,918 and Primary Formula state funding of $14,908
was allocated to complete the project. This funding is to be used to replace the
superstructure, repair undermining at abutments, and repair delaminated/spalled
abutments on the bridge. A total of $11,778,826 has been awarded and does not require
a local match.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The State of Good Repair and Primary Formula funding will allow the City to replace and
repair the Colorado Street Bridge.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends accepting the additional State of Good Repair and Primary
Formula funding of $5,328,826 and appropriating $5,328,826 to the Capital Projects State
Revenue account 20-012-0200-48495 and the Colorado Street Bridge Replacement
account 20-042-0205-54410.
Budget Entry
Date GL Account Account Name
Increase/
(Decrease)Description
6/12/2023 20‐012‐0200‐48495 State Grants ‐ Capital Projects 5,328,826 Council 6/12 ‐ Appropriate Additional SGR & Formula to Colorado St Bridge
6/12/2023 20‐042‐0205‐54410 Colorado St Bridge Replacement 5,328,826 Council 6/12 ‐ Appropriate Additional SGR & Formula to Colorado St Bridge
Item #6H
Date: 6/12/2023
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA
HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: June 12, 2023
AGENDA ITEM: Appropriate and Transfer Excess Local Funding in the Capital
Projects Fund
SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie B. Jordan, Director of Finance
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Utilizing American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding for general government services in the
General Fund has freed up local funds for other uses. Three identif ied projects with a total
cost of $1,423,000 need to be appropriated in the Capital Projects Fund. The budget
appropriation for these three projects was included in the public hearing dated December
12, 2022 and already exists in the General Fund.
In addition, freed up excess local funds of $360,000 need to be transferred from the Moyer
Sports Complex Renovation project to two additional projects as listed below. These funds
are no longer needed for the Moyer Sports Complex Renovation project due to bond
interest proceeds received from the 2022 General Obligation Bonds.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Use of ARPA funding to cover general government services in the General Fund frees up
local funds for other uses.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends appropriating $1,423,000 of excess local funds in the Capital Projects
Fund as follows:
20-012-0200-49905 Transfer from General Fund $1,423,000
20-032-0205-54312 Fire Station #1 Renovations $545,000
20-032-0205-54313 Fire Station #3 Renovations $378,000
20-018-0205-54737 Library Lawn Special Events Space $500,000
Staff recommends transferring $360,000 between the following projects in the Capital
Projects Fund:
20-070-0205-54729 Moyer Sports Complex Renovation ($360,000)
20-070-0205-54735 Civic Center West Field Lighting Upgrades $250,000
20-070-0205-54736 Kiwanis Park Wall Pads $110,000
Budget Entry
Date GL Account Account Name
Increase/
(Decrease)Description
6/12/2023 20‐012‐0200‐49905 Transfer From General Fund 1,423,000 Council 6/12 ‐ Appropriate and Transfer Excess Local Funding in Captial Projects
6/12/2023 20‐032‐0205‐54312 Fire Station #1 Renovations 545,000 Council 6/12 ‐ Appropriate and Transfer Excess Local Funding in Captial Projects
6/12/2023 20‐032‐0205‐54313 Fire Station #3 Renovations 378,000 Council 6/12 ‐ Appropriate and Transfer Excess Local Funding in Captial Projects
6/12/2023 20‐018‐0205‐54737 Library Lawn Special Events Space 500,000 Council 6/12 ‐ Appropriate and Transfer Excess Local Funding in Captial Projects
6/12/2023 20‐070‐0205‐54729 Moyer Sports Complex Renovations (360,000) Council 6/12 ‐ Appropriate and Transfer Excess Local Funding in Captial Projects
6/12/2023 20‐070‐0205‐54735 Civic Center West Field Lighting Upgrades 250,000 Council 6/12 ‐ Appropriate and Transfer Excess Local Funding in Captial Projects
6/12/2023 20‐070‐0205‐54736 Kiwanis Park Wall Pads 110,000 Council 6/12 ‐ Appropriate and Transfer Excess Local Funding in Captial Projects
Item # 6I
Date: 6/12/2023
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA
HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: June 12, 2023
AGENDA ITEM: Consider setting bond for physical improvements and erosion
and sediment control and landscaping for Carter Machinery
Parking Lot Expansion
SUBMITTED BY: Chuck Van Allman, Director of Community Development
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The City Engineer’s office has reviewed the estimate for physical improvements and erosion
and sediment control and landscaping for Carter Machinery Parking Lot Expansion located at
1312 Lynchburg Turnpike.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the project be bonded in the amount of $97,415.00 for a time frame
for completion set at twelve (12) months.
Item #6J
Date: 6/12/2023
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA
HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: June 12, 2023
AGENDA ITEM: Fiscal Agent Contracts for Fiscal Year 2023-2024
SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie Jordan, Director of Finance
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Attached are contracts for the City to act as fiscal agent for Court-Community Corrections
Program, Regional Alcohol Safety Action Program Board and Cardinal Criminal Justice
Academy. The City of Salem has acted as fiscal agent for these entities for a number of
years and has experienced no difficulty in acting in this capacity.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Each of these agencies reimburses the City for out-of-pocket expenses, such as audit fees,
materials and supplies, and all other contractual related items. They also reimburse a
portion of salaries and fringe benefits for all departments involved in providing services to
their agency.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council authorizes the proper Ci ty officials to execute these
contracts authorizing the City to continue to act as fiscal agent for these agencies for fiscal
year 2023-2024.
Page 1 of 5
CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA
FISCAL AGENT CONTRACT
with the
REGIONAL COMMUNITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD
and the
REGIONAL ALCOHOL SAFETY ACTION PROGRAM POLICY BOARD
THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into this 1st day of July, 2023 by and between the CITY OF
SALEM, VIRGINIA, hereinafter referred to as “the City,” and THE REGIONAL COMMUNITY
CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD and THE REGIONAL ALCOHOL SAFETY ACTION PROGRAM
POLICY BOARD, hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Board,” provides as follows:
1. To promote the common good and enhance public safety the governing bodies of the counties and cities
that make up the 23rd and 25th Judicial Circuits and Districts of Virginia, acting in accordance with
enactments of the General Assembly of Virginia, created the Regional Alcohol Safety Action Program
Policy Board and the Regional Community Criminal Justice Board and selected the members of those
boards.
2. All necessary governmental units and agencies have authorized the City to serve the Board as its Fiscal
Agent and as the Grantee of funds that may be allocated or directed to the Board (or either of its
constituent boards) by governmental or private bodies, including but not limited to the Virginia
Commission on VASAP and the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services, which funds are for
convenience hereinafter referred to as “Grant” or “Grants.”
3. The City hereby contracts, covenants, and agrees:
a. to serve the Board as its Fiscal Agent and the Grantee of Grants;
b. to provide fiscal administration and management for Grants; and
c. to do so consistently with all requirements of law and of any particular Grant.
4. The Board hereby contracts, covenants, and agrees:
2
a. Consistently with the provisions of Grants, the laws of Virginia, and the directives of the
appropriate Executive and Judicial Branch officials, to provide Alcohol Safety Action Programs
and Community Corrections Programs provided by the Grants in the area served by the
programs.
b. To have sole responsibility for the administration and operation of all Policy Board programs.
c. That all purchases made with the funds from said Grants will comply with federal and state laws
and the City’s purchasing regulations.
d. To abide by all the rules, regulations, guidelines, and general and special conditions of any
Grant.
e. To provide all information that the City needs to file, accurately and timely, any financial and
narrative reports that may be required by the any Grant, or by generally accepted accounting
practices.
f. To furnish a fidelity bond with corporate surety in an amount not less than either (a) the full
amount of the largest Grant during the term of this agreement, or (b) $250,000 whichever is
greater, which bond will indemnify and to save harmless the City, its officials, agents, and
employees, from loss or liability to the Commonwealth of Virginia for funds received by the
City pursuant to the terms of a Grant, or because of any default, malfeasance, misfeasance on
the part of the Board, or on the part of any officers, agents, or employees of any Alcohol Safety
Action Program or Community Criminal Justice Program, said bond to remain in effect until
such time as the Commonwealth of Virginia has approved all disbursements in writing or has in
writing otherwise absolved the City, its officials, agents and employees from the responsibility
for funds received pursuant to any Grant.
g. To make all non-financial reports required by any Grant and furnish a copy of all reports to the
City.
3
h. To reimburse the City for all expenses incurred in its capacity as fiscal agent, to include, but not
limited to the cost of personnel, fringe benefits, office supplies, accounting/auditing services,
printing, processing of payroll, postage and technology charges. The parties agree that, during
the term of this contract, this amount is $1,430.94 per month, which sum will be billed and paid
on a monthly basis.
5. The City’s Director of Finance will serve as Program Administrator and will maintain a separate agency
fund in the City’s accounting system in which will be recorded all financial transactions of the Board.
The City will keep complete and accurate records of the receipts and disbursements of Grants received
by the Boards.
6. All receipts from the State of Virginia, the federal government, local governments, and all fees collected
will be deposited in this agency fund.
7. The Director of the Program shall have printed receipts on which all fees shall be recorded as collected.
These fees, along with all gifts, donations or other funds received, shall be deposited daily in the agency
account.
8. The City shall maintain a complete payroll accounting system for employees of the Boards. Included in
the payroll records will be a complete reporting of all deductions from the employees’ earnings (FWT,
FICA, W2(s) and State Withholding Taxes, Virginia Retirement System Pension and Life Insurance
Plans, Health and Dental Plans, Credit Union deductions, and any other deductions).
9. The City shall maintain accurate records showing the details of all receipts and disbursements. The
accounting system shall meet at least the following minimum requirements:
a. A general ledger showing an up-to-date balance of all accounts, budget appropriations, and an
unexpended balance.
b. A complete set of journals showing all receipts, disbursements and adjustments. These journals
shall clearly identify each transaction.
4
c. All disbursements shall be by check and approved for payment by the Board, or their Program
Director, and by the Finance Director of the City.
10. Employees of the Board and its Alcohol Safety Action Program, Community Criminal Justice and
Pretrial Services program shall be considered employees of the City and as such shall have the same
benefits as other City employees.
11. In case any grievance under the City’s grievance system is filed by an employee of Regional
Community Criminal Justice Board or the Regional Alcohol Safety Action Program Policy Board,
the Board shall act as the Personnel Board for the City, and its decision as to any grievance shall be
final.
12. This contract shall commence on July 1, 2023 and shall end on June 30, 2024. To the extent allowed by
federal and state law, either party shall have the right to declare this contract void if the other party
materially violates any provision of this agreement.
5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, AND WITH INTENT LEGALLY TO BE BOUND, THE PARTIES, BY
THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES, AFFIX THEIR SIGNATURES:
CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA
By: ________________________________________
Renee F. Turk, Mayor
By:_________________________________________
Matthew T. Ward
Regional Community Criminal Justice Board
By: ________________________________________
Trevor Craddock
Regional Alcohol Safety Action Program Policy Board
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
H. Robert Light
City Clerk of Council
July 1, 2023
______________________________________
Krystal Hullette, Director
July 1, 2023
CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA
FISCAL AGENT CONTRACT FOR
CARDINAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACADEMY
THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into this the 1st day of July 2023 by and
between the CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA hereinafter referred to as the "City", and the
Cardinal Criminal Justice Academy Governing Council, hereinafter referred to as the
"Council".
WHEREAS, the City has been informed by the Council of the need for promoting
a law enforcement/corrections training program in relation to public safety in the
Roanoke Valley and surrounding jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the City has applied for and has been approved as grantee and
fiscal agent of various State grants pursuant to the appropriate provisions of the 1950
Code of Virginia, as amended, hereinafter referred to as "Gra nt" and
WHEREAS, the City contracts hereby with the Council to provide for the
administration of the Cardinal Criminal Justice Academy as provided by statute and the
terms of the prospective grants.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES
herein contained; witnesseth:
(1) The Council agrees as follows:
(a) to accept the responsibility for providing a law enforcement/corrections
training program, and other like programs, as provided by Virginia law, to the Roanoke
Valley area and surrounding jurisdictions in the manner and to the extent set out in the
provisions of the said Grants.
(b) to accept sole responsibility for the administration and operation of all
law enforcement and corrections training programs through the Cardinal Crimina l
Justice Academy.
(c) that all purchases made with funds from said Grants shall be in
compliance with State laws and purchasing regulations of the City.
(d) that the Council will abide by all the rules, regulation s, guidelines, and
general and special conditions of the Grants.
(e) to provide information required by the City to the extent that the City will
be able to meet its obligations to file accurate and timely financial and narrative reports
as may be required by the said Grants, and to furnish a fidelity bond with corporate
surety in an amount not less than the full amount of the largest of said Grants during
the term of this agreement or the sum of $200,000.00 whichever is greater, to save
harmless the City, its officials, agents, or employees, f rom loss or liability by reason of
any determination that the City, its officials, agents, or employees, are liable to the
Commonwealth of Virginia for funds received by the City pursuant to the terms of the
said Grants, or because of any default, malfeasa nce in relation to the provisions of this
agreement, or the terms, conditions or provisions of the said Grants on the part of the
Council, its officers or agents in administering said Grants, said bond to remain in full
force and effect until such time as the Commonwealth of Virginia has from time to time
approved all disbursements in writing or has in writing or otherwise absolved the City,
its officials, agents or employees from responsibility for funds theretofore received
pursuant to the said Grants.
(f) to make all reports, other than financial, to State agencies, as required by
the Grants, and a copy of these reports shall be sent to the City.
(g) to reimburse the City of all expenses incurred in its capacity as fiscal
agent, to include, but not limited to (cost of personnel, fringe benefits, office supplies,
printing, accounting, auditing, processing of payroll, postage and technology); amount
to be billed on a monthly basis by the City.
(2) The City will maintain a separate agency fund in the acc ounting system of
the City in which will be recorded the financial transaction of the Council. The City will
keep all records of the receipts and disbursements of Grants received by the Council.
(3) All receipts from the State of Virginia, the Federal Go vernment, and fees
collected in each of the participating localities will be deposited in this agency fund.
(4) The Director of the Academy shall have printed pre -numbered receipts on
which all fees shall be recorded as collected. These fees shall be dep osited daily in the
account set up for this purpose, including all gifts, donations, or other funds received.
(5) In addition to maintaining an agency fund, the City shall maintain a complete
payroll accounting system for the employees of the Council. In cluded in the payroll
records will be a complete reporting of all deductions from the employees' earnings
(FWT, FICA, and State Withholding Taxes, Virginia Retirement System Pension and
Life Insurance Plans, Health Insurance, Credit Union and other applicable deductions).
(6) The City's finance department shall maintain adequate records disclosing the
details of all receipts and all disbursements. The accounting system shall contain the
following minimum requirements:
(a) A general ledger showing an up-to-date balance of all accounts, budget
appropriations, and unexpended balance.
(b) A complete set of journals showing all receipts, disbursements and
adjustments. These journals shall clearly identify each transaction.
(c) All disbursements shall be by check and approved for payment by the
Council, or its Director, and by the Finance Director of the City.
(7) Rental of Property, the Council agrees to a monthly rental fee of $1 .00 for
use of the facility currently in place at 917 Central Avenue for fiscal year 2023-24, and
an annual lease payment of $14,500 for the use of the facility located at 912 Central
Avenue for fiscal year 2023-24. The Council may at its option, prepay any of the
required installments. The City will provide insurance protecting the Academy from
liability and property loss.
(8) As payment for services provided by the City as Fiscal Agent, and outlined
above, the Academy agrees to reimburse the City the sum of $1,010.31 per month.
(9) Employees of the Grant shall be conside red employees of the City and as
such shall have the same benefits as other City employees. Should any grievance
arise between an employee of the Cardinal Criminal Justice Academy and its Director,
or the Council, the Council shall act as the personnel bo ard for the City, and its decision
as to any grievance shall be final.
(10) The parties hereto agree that this contract shall commence on July 1, 2023,
and shall end on June 30, 20 24, subject to the City's right to declare this contract void if
the Council violates any of the provisions of this agreement.
Entered this the day and year first hereinabove written.
CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA
By: ________________________________
Mayor – Renee F. Turk
CARDINAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACADEMY
By: ________________________________
Chairman – Chief, Michael D. Crawley
By: ________________________________
Vice-Chairman – Matthew T. Ward
ATTEST:
____________________
Gary Moore, Director
Cardinal Criminal Justice Academy
July 1, 2023