Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/24/2020 - RegularINVOCATION: Roanoke County Board of Supervisors March 24, 2020 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES FLAG Disclaimer: "Any invocation that may be offered before the official start of the Board meeting shall be the voluntary offering of a private citizen, to and for the benefit of the Board. The views or beliefs expressed by the invocation speaker have not been previously reviewed or approved by the Board and do not necessarily represent the religious beliefs or views of the Board in part or as a whole. No member of the community is required to attend or participate in the invocation and such decision will have no impact on their right to actively participate in the business of the Board." Page 1 of 5 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Agenda March 24, 2020 Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for March 24, 2020. Regular meetings are held on the second and fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Because of the present state of emergency, and until further notice, members of the public are urged to not attend Board of Supervisor meetings in person. All are encouraged to view and participate in meetings through electronic means. Meetings may be viewed live on RVTV, Channel 3, or on the County's website https://roanokecountyva.gov and click on the "Watch Board Meetings Online" button. Prior to and during meetings, citizens may email comments to diacks(abroanokecountyva.gov. When submitting comments, please include your name and address. Comments will be read aloud during meetings, subject to reasonable time limitations. For further information regarding the County's operations in response to the Coronavirus, please refer to the County's website and click on the "Coronavirus" button. A. OPENING CEREMONIES 1. Roll Call B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing to update the Board of Supervisors on the Coronavirus emergency (Stephen G. Simon, Chief of Fire and Rescue) Page 2 of 5 D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution supporting an amendment to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), to further enable public bodies to meet by electronic communication means during times of emergency (Peter Lubeck, County Attorney) E. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES F. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding a proposed amendment to the fiscal year 2019-2020 budget in accordance with Code of Virginia Section 15.2-2507 (Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services) THERE WILL BE A TEN (10) MINUTE BREAK TO ALLOW FOR E -COMMENTS CONCERNING THIS PUBLIC HEARING. PLEASE EMAIL ALL COMMENTS TO DJACKS(a-)ROANOKECOUNTYVA.GOV AND INCLUDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. ALL COMMENTS RECEIVED WILL BE READ ALOUD INTO THE RECORD OF THIS MEETING. G. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance accepting and appropriating funds in the amount of $3,020,308 from the Regional Surface Transportation Program for the Roanoke River Greenway through Explore Park (Megan G. Cronise, AICP Transportation Planning Administrator) H. APPOINTMENTS 1. Library Board (appointed by District) 2. Parks, Recreation and Tourism (appointed by District) I. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY 1. Approval of minutes — January 14, 2020; January 28, 2020 2. Resolution encouraging all Roanoke County residents to participate in the 2020 Census Page 3 of 5 J. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS K. REPORTS 1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves 2. Outstanding Debt Report 3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of February 29, 2020 4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances as of February 29, 2020 5. Accounts Paid — February 29, 2020 6. Statement of Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy as of February 29, 2020 L. WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors the County Administrator's Proposed Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Operating Budget (Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services; Meredith Thompson, Budget Division Director) EVENING SESSION M. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Public hearing for citizen comments on the Real Estate effective tax rate for calendar year 2020 (Meredith Thompson, Budget Division Director; Kenneth Fay, Director of Real Estate) THERE WILL BE A TEN (10) MINUTE BREAK TO ALLOW FOR E -COMMENTS CONCERNING THIS PUBLIC HEARING. PLEASE EMAIL ALL COMMENTS TO DJACKS(a-)ROANOKECOUNTYVA.GOV AND INCLUDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. ALL COMMENTS RECEIVED WILL BE READ ALOUD INTO THE RECORD OF THIS MEETING. Page 4 of 5 N. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS 1. Public hearing for citizen comments on the maximum 2020 calendar year tax rates for Real Estate, Personal Property and Machinery and Tools Taxes (Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services) THERE WILL BE A TEN (10) MINUTE BREAK TO ALLOW FOR E -COMMENTS CONCERNING THIS PUBLIC HEARING. PLEASE EMAIL ALL COMMENTS TO DJACKS(a-)ROANOKECOUNTYVA.GOV AND INCLUDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. ALL COMMENTS RECEIVED WILL BE READ ALOUD INTO THE RECORD OF THIS MEETING. 2. Resolutions to set the following maximum tax rates for calendar year 2020 to support this fiscal year 2020-2021 operating budget: (a) Resolution to set the Real Estate maximum tax rate for calendar year 2020; (b) Resolution to set the Personal Property maximum tax rate for calendar year 2020; (c) Resolution to set the Machinery and Tools maximum tax rate for calendar year 2020 (Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services) O. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. The petition of Roanoke Valley Resource Authority to obtain a special use permit for a sanitary landfill on approximately 8.05 acres zoned AG -3, Agricultural/Rural Preserve, District and to amend the special use permit for an existing sanitary landfill (Smith Gap Landfill) on approximately 886.80 acres zoned AG -3S, Agricultural/Rural Preserve, District with a special use permit, located on the northwest side of Fort Lewis Mountain between Smith Gap and Bradshaw Road, Catawba Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning) P. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Q. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 1. Paul M. Mahoney 2. Martha B. Hooker 3. Phil C. North 4. P. Jason Peters 5. David F. Radford R. ADJOURNMENT Page 5 of 5 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: March 24, 2020 Briefing to update the Board of Supervisors on the Coronavirus emergency Stephen G. Simon Chief of Fire and Rescue Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator This time has been set aside to update the Board of Supervisors on the Coronavirus emergency. Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. D.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: March 24, 2020 Resolution supporting an amendment to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), to further enable public bodies to meet by electronic communication means during times of emergency Peter S. Lubeck County Attorney APPROVED BY: Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator ISSUE: Whether to support a potential amendment to the Freedom of Information Act to further enable local governing bodies to meet by electronic communication means during times of emergency. BACKGROUND: Section 2.2-3708.2 of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act presently allows any public body to meet by electronic communication means without a quorum of the public body physically assembled at one location when the Governor has declared a state of emergency in accordance with Section 44-146.17 of the Code of Virginia, provided that (1) the catastrophic nature of the declared emergency makes it impracticable or unsafe to assemble a quorum in a single location and (ii) the purpose of the meeting is to address the emergency. Section 2.2-3708.2 does not enable a local governing body to meet by electronic communication means to provide for the orderly and continuing operation of government during times of emergency. DISCUSSION: The Board may wish to urge General Assembly and Governor of the Commonwealth of Page 1 of 2 Virginia to amend the provisions of the Virginia FOIA to further enable governing bodies to meet by electronic means in order to provide for the orderly and continuing operation of government during times of emergency. Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, MARCH 24, 2020 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE VIRGINIA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, TO FURTHER ENABLE PUBLIC BODIES TO MEET BY ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION MEANS DURING TIMES OF EMERGENCY WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3708.2 of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act presently allows any public body to meet by electronic communication means without a quorum of the public body physically assembled at one location when the Governor has declared a state of emergency in accordance with Section 44-146.17 of the Code of Virginia, provided that (i) the catastrophic nature of the declared emergency makes it impracticable or unsafe to assemble a quorum in a single location and (ii) the purpose of the meeting is to address the emergency ...."; and WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3708.2 does not enable a local governing body to meet by electronic communication means to provide for the orderly and continuing operation of government during times of emergency. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the Board encourages the Virginia General Assembly and the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia to amend the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, to further enable governing bodies to meet by electronic communication means during times of emergency, in order to provide for the orderly and continuing operation of government. Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. F.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: March 24, 2020 Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding a proposed amendment to the fiscal year 2019-2020 budget in accordance with Code of Virginia Section 15.2-2507 Laurie Gearheart Director of Finance and Management Services Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator Public hearing for budget amendment BACKGROUND: This is a public hearing to secure citizen's comments concerning amending the fiscal year 2019-2020 budget by adjusting the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year by $3,020,308. DISCUSSION: Section 15.2-2507 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, provides that whenever such amendment exceeds one (1) percent of the total expenditures shown in the adopted budget, the County must publish notice of a meeting and public hearing. The notice must state the County's intent to amend the budget and include a brief synopsis of the proposed budget amendment(s). This notice was published on March 17, 2020. Ordinance accepting and appropriating funds in the amount of $3,020,308 from the Regional Surface Transportation Program for the Roanoke River Greenway through Explore Park Page 1 of 2 FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact as a result of the public hearing. Requests for the appropriation will occur later on this agenda. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board hold the required public hearing. Board action appropriating funds, as provided in this notice, will occur later during this meeting. Conducting the public hearing does not guarantee the requested appropriation will be approved. Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: March 24, 2020 Ordinance accepting and appropriating funds in the amount of $3,020,308 from the Regional Surface Transportation Program for the Roanoke River Greenway through Explore Park Megan Cronise Transportation Planning Administrator APPROVED BY: Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator ISSUE: To facilitate the Roanoke River Greenway through Explore Park project, $3,020,308 in Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) / Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) funds must be accepted and appropriated. BACKGROUND: The Explore Park greenway segment is proposed to complete the eastern end of the Roanoke River Greenway. The proposed greenway will be approximately 1.5 mile long, ten (10) -feet wide, paved and ADA accessible. The route will parallel the Roanoke River through Explore Park from Rutrough Point to connect to the greenway segment in design for the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Rutrough Road (closed) landfill. The Roanoke River Greenway is a regional, 31 -mile bicycle and pedestrian trail proposed through the Roanoke Valley, linking the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, the Town of Vinton and Roanoke County. The Roanoke River Greenway is identified as the number one priority in the adopted 2018 Roanoke Valley Greenway Plan Update. Greenways were strongly supported by citizens during development of the Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism Comprehensive Master Plan for Parks completed in 2007. The residents of Roanoke County identified greenways as a "high priority need" for facilities and amenities desired in our community. Page 1 of 2 The Roanoke County Community Strategic Plan, adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2016, reaffirmed citizen desires for increased access to outdoor recreational amenities. Additionally, the proposed section of the Roanoke River Greenway is an implementation strategy supported by citizens in the Explore Park Adventure Plan, adopted by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors in 2016, that provides the primary alternative transportation link between Explore Park, the Blue Ridge Parkway and Virginia's Blue Ridge. DISCUSSION: The Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization (RVTPO) designated $3,020,308 in Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funding for this project on March 22, 2018, in the Fiscal Years 2019-2024 RSTP Six -Year Financial Plan. Funding for this project was identified in fiscal years 2020, 2021 and 2022. VDOT has prepared agreements for this project which require commitment of funds by the locality. Once executed by Roanoke County and by VDOT, the project can proceed. FISCAL IMPACT: The $3,020,308 RSTP / STBG funding is one hundred State with no local match required. This project necessitating acceptance and appropriation of this reimbursement requests. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: percent (100%) Federal and will be locally administered, funding to facilitate project Staff recommends approval of the second reading of an ordinance to accept and appropriate $3,020,308 in Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) / Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) funds. Page 2 of 2 STANDARD PROJECT ADNHNISTRATION AGREEMENT Federal -aid Projects Project Number UPC Local Government 9999-080-934 113567 Roanoke County THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed in triplicate this day of , 20, by and between the County of Roanoke, Virginia, hereinafter referred to as the LOCALITY and the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the DEPARTMENT. WHEREAS, the LOCALITY has expressed its desire to administer the work described in Appendix A, and such work for each improvement shown is hereinafter referred to as the Project; and WHEREAS, the funds shown in Appendix A have been allocated to finance each Project; and WHEREAS, the LOCALITY is committed to the development and delivery of each Project described in Appendix A in an expeditious manner; and; WHEREAS, both parties have concurred in the LOCALITY's administration of the phase(s) of work for the respective Prcject(s) listed in Appendix A in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local law and regulations. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: I. The LOCALITY shall: a. Be responsible for all activities necessary to complete the noted phase(s) of each Project shown in Appendix A, except for activities, decisions, and approvals which are the responsibility of the DEPARTMENT, as required by federal or state laws and regulations or as otherwise agreed to, in writing, between the parties. Each Project will be designed and constructed to meet or exceed current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials standards or supplementary standards approved by the DEPARTMENT b. Meet all funding obligation and expenditure timeline requirements in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations, and Commonwealth Transportation Board and DEPARTMENT policies and as identified in Appendix A to this Agreement. Noncompliance with this requirement can result in deallocation of the funding, rescinding of state funding match, termination of this Agreement, or DEPARTMENT denial of future requests to administer projects by the LOCALITY. UPC 113567 Project #: 9999-080-934 Locality: Roanoke County c. Receive prior written authorization from the DEPARTMENT to proceed with preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation, and construction phases of each Project. d. Administer the project(s) in accordance with guidelines applicable to Locally Administered Projects as published by the DEPARTMENT. e. Maintain accurate and complete records of each Project's development and documentation of all expenditures and make such information available for inspection or auditing by the DEPARTMENT. Records and documentation for items for which reimbursement will be requested shall be maintained for no less than three (3) years following acceptance of the final voucher on each Project. f. No more frequently than monthly, submit invoices with supporting documentation to the DEPARTMENT in the form prescribed by the DEPARTMENT. The supporting documentation shall include copies of related vendor invoices paid by the LOCALITY and an up-to-date project summary and schedule tracking payment requests and adjustments. A request for reimbursement shall be made within 90 days after any eligible project expenses are incurred by the Locality. For federally funded projects and pursuant to 2 CFR 200.338, Remedies for Noncompliance, violations of the provision may result in the imposition of sanctions including but not limited to possible denial or delay of payment of all or a part of the costs associated with the activity or action not in compliance. g. Reimburse the DEPARTMENT all Project expenses incurred by the DEPARTMENT if, due to action or inaction solely by the LOCALITY, federally funded Project expenditures incurred are not reimbursed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), or reimbursements are required to be returned to the FHWA, or in the event the reimbursement provisions of Section 33.2-214 or Section 33.2-331 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, or other applicable provisions of federal, state, or local law or regulations require such reimbursement. h. On Projects that the LOCALITY is providing the required match to state or federal funds, pay the DEPARTMENT the LOCALITY's match for eligible Project expenses incurred by the DEPARTMENT in the performance of activities set forth in paragraph 2.a. i. Administer the Project in accordance with all applicable federal, state, or local laws and regulations. Failure to fulfill legal obligations associated with the project may result in forfeiture of federal or state -aid reimbursements j. Provide certification by a LOCALITY official that all LOCALITY administered Project activities have been performed in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations. If the locality expends over $750,000 annually in federal funding, such certification shall include a copy of OAG Approved 6/18/2012; Revised 2/5/2015 2 UPC 113567 Project #: 9999-080-934 Locality: Roanoke County the LOCALITY's single program audit in accordance with 2 CFR 200.501, Audit Requirements. k. If legal services other than that provided by staff counsel are required in connection with condemnation proceedings associated with the acquisition of Right -of -Way, the LOCALITY will consult the DEPARTMENT to obtain an attorney from the list of outside counsel approved by the Office of the Attorney General. Costs associated with outside counsel services shall be reimbursable expenses of the project. 1. For Projects on facilities not maintained by the DEPARTMENT, provide, or have others provide, maintenance of the Project upon completion, unless otherwise agreed to by the DEPARTMENT. m. Ensure compliance with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, regulations of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Presidential Executive Orders and the Code of Virginia relative to nondiscrimination and as a sub -recipient of federal funds, adopt and operate under the DEPARTMENT's FHWA-approved Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program Plan in accordance with 49 CFR Part 26. 2. The DEPARTMENT shall: a. Perform any actions and provide any decisions and approvals which are the responsibility of the DEPARTMENT, as required by federal and state laws and regulations or as otherwise agreed to, in writing, between the parties and provide necessary coordination with the FHWA as determined to be necessary by the DEPARTMENT. b. Upon receipt of the LOCALITY's invoices pursuant to paragraph l.f., reimburse the LOCALITY the cost of eligible Project expenses, as described in Appendix A. Such reimbursements shall be payable by the DEPARTMENT within 30 days of an acceptable submission by the LOCALITY. c. If appropriate, submit invoices to the LOCALITY for the LOCALITY's share of eligible project expenses incurred by the DEPARTMENT in the performance of activities pursuant to paragraph 2.a. d. Audit the LOCALITY's Project records and documentation as maybe required to verify LOCALITY compliance with federal and state laws and regulations. e. Make available to the LOCALITY guidelines to assist the parties in carrying out responsibilities under this Agreement. Appendix A identifies the funding sources for the project, phases of work to be administered by the LOCALITY, and additional project -specific requirements OAG Approved 6/18/2012; Revised 2/5/2015 3 UPC 113567 Project #: 9999-080-934 Locality: Roanoke County agreed to by the parties. There may be additional elements that, once identified, shall be addressed by the parties hereto in writing, which may require an amendment to this Agreement. 4. If designated by the DEPARTMENT, the LOCALITY is authorized to act as the DEPARTMENT's agent for the purpose of conducting survey work pursuant to Section 33.2-1011 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 5. Nothing in this Agreement shall obligate the parties hereto to expend or provide any funds in excess of funds agreed upon in this Agreement or as shall have been included in an annual or other lawful appropriation. In the event the cost of a Project is anticipated to exceed the allocation shown for such respective Project on Appendix A, both parties agree to cooperate in providing additional funding for the Project or to terminate the Project before its costs exceed the allocated amount, however the DEPARTMENT and the LOCALITY shall not be obligated to provide additional funds beyond those appropriated pursuant to an annual or other lawful appropriation. 6. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a waiver of the LOCALITY's or the Commonwealth of Virginia's sovereign immunity. 7. The Parties mutually agree and acknowledge, in entering this Agreement, that the individuals acting on behalf of the Parties are acting within the scope of their official authority and the Parties agree that neither Party will bring a suit or assert a claim against any official, officer, or employee of either party, in their individual or personal capacity for a breach or violation of the terms of this Agreement or to otherwise enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement The foregoing notwithstanding, nothing in this subparagraph shall prevent the enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement by or against either Party in a competent court of law. The Parties mutually agree that no provision of this Agreement shall create in the public, or in any person or entity other than the Parties, rights as a third party beneficiary hereunder, or authorize any person or entity, not a party hereto, to maintain any action for, without limitation, personal injury, property damage, breach of contract, or return of money, or property, deposit(s), cancellation or forfeiture of bonds, financial instruments, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement or otherwise. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, unless otherwise provided, the Parties agree that the LOCALITY or the DEPARTMENT shall not be bound by any agreements between either party and other persons or entities concerning any matter which is the subject of this Agreement, unless and until the LOCALITY or the DEPARTMENT has, in writing, received a true copy of such agreement(s) and has affirmatively agreed, in writing, to be bound by such Agreement. 9 This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon 30 days advance written notice. Eligible Project expenses incurred through the date of termination shall be OAG Approved 6/18/2012; Revised 2/5/2015 4 UPC 113567 Project #: 9999-080-934 Locality: Roanoke County reimbursed in accordance with paragraphs 1.f, 1.g., and 2.b, subject to the limitations established in this Agreement and Appendix A. Upon termination, the DEPARTMENT shall retain ownership of plans, specifications, and right of way, unless all state and federal funds provided for the Project have been reimbursed to the DEPARTMENT by the LOCALITY, in which case the LOCALITY will have ownership of the plans, specifications, and right of way, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon in writing. 10. Prior to any action pursuant to paragraphs Lb or Lg of this Agreement, the DEPARTMENT shall provide notice to the LOCALITY with a specific description of the breach of agreement provisions. Upon receipt of a notice of breach, the LOCALITY will be provided the opportunity to cure such breach or to provide a plan to cure to the satisfaction to the DEPARTMENT. If, within sixty (60) days after receipt of the written notice of breach, the LOCALITY has neither cured the breach, nor is diligently pursuing a cure of the breach to the satisfaction of the DEPARTMENT, then upon receipt by the LOCALITY of a written notice from the DEPARTMENT stating that the breach has neither been cured, nor is the LOCALITY diligently pursuing a cure, the DEPARTMENT may exercise any remedies it may have under this Agreement. THE LOCALITY and DEPARTMENT acknowledge and agree that this Agreement has been prepared jointly by the parties and shall be construed simply and in accordance with its fair meaning and not strictly for or against any party. THIS AGREEMENT, when properly executed, shall be binding upon both parties, their successors, and assigns. THIS AGREEMENT may be modified in writing by mutual agreement of both parties. OAG Approved 6/18/2012; Revised 2/5/2015 5 UPC 113567 Project #: 9999-080-934 Locality: Roanoke County IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party hereto has caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day, month, and year first herein written. ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: Typed or printed name of signatory Title Signature of Witness Date Date NOTE: The official signing for the LOCALITY must attach a certified copy of his or her authority to execute this Agreement. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: Chief of Policy Date Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation Signature of Witness Attachments Appendix A (UPC 113567) OAG Approved 6/18/2012; Revised 2/5/2015 6 Date Appendix A Date: 3/3/2020 Project Number: 9999-080-934 UPC: 113567 CFDA# 20.205 Locality: Roanoke Count Project Location ZIP+4: 24014-6331 Locality DUNS # 062353610 Project Cost and Reimbursement Locality Address (incl ZIP+4): P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Project Narrative Total Estimated Cost Work Description: Roanoke River Greenway through Explore Park - extension of the Roanoke River Greenway(RRG)through Explore Park From: Entrance to Explore Park $2,995,308 To: Through Explore Park $0 $15,000 Locality Project Manager Contact info: Megan Cronise; 540 772-2106 mcronise(cDroanokecountvva.aov Department Project Coordinator Contact Info: Cheryl Becker; 540-387-5399 Cheryl. Becker(Qydot.yirginia.goy Total Maximum Reimbursement by VDOT to Locality (Less Local Share) $3,020,308 Estimated Total Reimbursement by VDOT to Locality (Less Local Share and VDOT Expenses) $2,995,308 Project Financing Aggregate RSTP Allocations $3,020,308 $3,020,308 Program and Project Specific Funding Requirements- This equirementsThis Project shall be administered in accordance with VDOT's Locally Administered Projects Manual In accordance with Chapter 12.1.3 (Scoping Process Requirements) of the LAP Manual, the locality shall complete project scoping on or before 08/03/2020. This is a limited funds project. The LOCALITY shall be responsible for any additional funding in excess of $3,020,308 Reimbursement for eligible expenditures shall not exceed funds allocated each year by the Commonwealth Transportation Board in the Six Year Improvement Program. This Project is funded with federal -aid Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds. These funds must be obligated within 12 months of allocation and expended within 36 months of e obligation. All local funds included on this appendix have been formally committed by the local government's board or council resolution subject to appropriation. This attachment is certified and made an official attachment to this document by the parties to this agreement. Authorized Locality Official and Date Typed or printed name of person signing Revised: February 1, 2019 Authorized VDOT Official and Date Jay Guy, Program Manager Typed or printed name of person signing Project Estimates Project Cost and Reimbursement Preliminary Engineering Right of Way and Utilities Construction Total Estimated Cost Estimated Locality Project Expenses $421,678 $0 $2,573,630 $2,995,308 Estimated VDOT Project Expenses $10,000 $0 $15,000 $25,000 Estimated Total Project Costs $431,678 $0 $2,588,630 $3,020,308 Total Maximum Reimbursement by VDOT to Locality (Less Local Share) $3,020,308 Estimated Total Reimbursement by VDOT to Locality (Less Local Share and VDOT Expenses) $2,995,308 Project Financing Aggregate RSTP Allocations $3,020,308 $3,020,308 Program and Project Specific Funding Requirements- This equirementsThis Project shall be administered in accordance with VDOT's Locally Administered Projects Manual In accordance with Chapter 12.1.3 (Scoping Process Requirements) of the LAP Manual, the locality shall complete project scoping on or before 08/03/2020. This is a limited funds project. The LOCALITY shall be responsible for any additional funding in excess of $3,020,308 Reimbursement for eligible expenditures shall not exceed funds allocated each year by the Commonwealth Transportation Board in the Six Year Improvement Program. This Project is funded with federal -aid Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds. These funds must be obligated within 12 months of allocation and expended within 36 months of e obligation. All local funds included on this appendix have been formally committed by the local government's board or council resolution subject to appropriation. This attachment is certified and made an official attachment to this document by the parties to this agreement. Authorized Locality Official and Date Typed or printed name of person signing Revised: February 1, 2019 Authorized VDOT Official and Date Jay Guy, Program Manager Typed or printed name of person signing Project Cost and Reimbursement Phase Estimated Project Costs Funds type Local % Participation for (choose from drop down box) Funds Type Local Share Amount Maximum Reimbursement (Estimated Cost - Local Share) Estimated Reimbursement to Locality (Max. Reimbursement - Est. VDOT Expenses) Preliminary Engineering $431,678 RSTP 0% $0 $431,678 $0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total PE Right of Way & Utilities $431,678 $0 $431,678 $421,678 Total RW $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $2,588,630 RSTP 0% $0 $2,588,630 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total CN $2,588,630 $0 $2,588,630 $2,573,630 Total Estimated Cost $3,020,308 $0 $3,020,308 $2,995,308 Total Maximum Reimbursement by VDOT to Locality (Less Local Share) $3,020,308 Estimated Total Reimbursement by VDOT to Locality (Less Local Share and VDOT Expenses) $2,995,308 Project Financing Aggregate RSTP Allocations $3,020,308 $3,020,308 Program and Project Specific Funding Requirements- This equirementsThis Project shall be administered in accordance with VDOT's Locally Administered Projects Manual In accordance with Chapter 12.1.3 (Scoping Process Requirements) of the LAP Manual, the locality shall complete project scoping on or before 08/03/2020. This is a limited funds project. The LOCALITY shall be responsible for any additional funding in excess of $3,020,308 Reimbursement for eligible expenditures shall not exceed funds allocated each year by the Commonwealth Transportation Board in the Six Year Improvement Program. This Project is funded with federal -aid Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds. These funds must be obligated within 12 months of allocation and expended within 36 months of e obligation. All local funds included on this appendix have been formally committed by the local government's board or council resolution subject to appropriation. This attachment is certified and made an official attachment to this document by the parties to this agreement. Authorized Locality Official and Date Typed or printed name of person signing Revised: February 1, 2019 Authorized VDOT Official and Date Jay Guy, Program Manager Typed or printed name of person signing AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2020 ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,020,308 FROM THE REGIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FOR THE ROANOKE RIVER GREENWAY THROUGH EXPLORE PARK WHEREAS, it is a priority to construct the Roanoke River Greenway through Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, the County was awarded Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) grant funds, now named the Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG), in the amount of $3,020,308 for design and construction of the Roanoke River Greenway through Explore Park; and WHEREAS, the project is locally administered, and certain agreements between the County of Roanoke and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) must be executed for this cooperative work to be accomplished; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be appropriated by ordinance; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 10, 2020, and the second reading was held on March 24, 2020. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as follows.. 1. That the sum of $3,020,308 is accepted and appropriated from RSTP/STBG for the purpose of completing the Roanoke River Greenway through Explore Park. Page 1 of 2 2. That this ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption. Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. H.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: March 24, 2020 Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards Deborah C. Jacks Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator Open district appointments. BACKGROUND: 1. Library Board (appointed by District) The following District appointments remains open: Vinton Magisterial District Windsor Hills Magisterial District 2. Parks, Recreation and Tourism (appointed by District) Mike Roop's three (3) year term representing the Vinton Magisterial District has expired effective June 30, 2019. Open Windsor Hills Magisterial District FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. Page 1 of 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2020 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I- CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for March 24, 2020, designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 2 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes — January 14, 2020; January 28, 2020 2. Resolution encouraging all Roanoke County residents to participate in the 2020 Census Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. 1.2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: March 24, 2020 Resolution encouraging all Roanoke County residents to participate in the 2020 Census Toni Cox Assistant Director of Library Services Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton have four locations that the Census Bureau anticipates will have a higher non -response rate in 2020 (16.6% to 20.6%). BACKGROUND: On April 1, 2020, the Census mandated by the U.S. Constitution in Article 1, Section 2, will be taken. The Census Bureau encourages local governments to establish volunteer committees to increase awareness and motivate residents to participate in the 2020 Census. On August 27, 2019, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution establishing an Ad Hoc Committee known as the "Complete Count Committee" charged with the responsibility of helping the U.S. Census Bureau count all of Roanoke County, including the Town of Vinton residents. The Committee consists of 15 members representing a broad cross section of Roanoke County's population. The Committee, in collaboration with Census Bureau representatives and neighboring localities, has been actively involved in opportunities to increase awareness of the 2020 Census. DISCUSSION: Federal, State, and local governments rely on accurate Census data. The number of seats we have in the U.S. House of Representatives is determined by the U.S. Census, which also affects the number of votes in the Electoral College. Every person not counted represents a loss of $2,000 in federal funding. This funding supports: Medicaid, Page 1 of 2 Medicare Part B, Highway Planning and Construction, the Federal Pell Grant Program and the National School Lunch Program, among others. The Census Bureau anticipates a higher non -response rate (between 16.6% to 20.6%) in four (4) locations in Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton. Under -reporting tracts are located around Colonial Ave, Route 220, in SW Hollins, and the Town of Vinton. Typically, seniors and children under five are most at risk for being under -reported. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adopting the resolution to encourage all Roanoke County residents to participate in the 2020 Census. Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2020 RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING ALL ROANOKE COUNTY RESIDENTS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE 2020 CENSUS WHEREAS, the U.S. Census Bureau is required by Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution to conduct an accurate count of the population every ten years; and WHEREAS, Federal and State funding is allocated to communities, and part of the basis for receiving these funds relies, in part, on census data; and WEHEREAS, census data also helps determine how many seats each state will have in the U.S. House of Representatives and is used in the redistricting of state legislatures, county boards of supervisors and city councils and voting districts; and WHEREAS, information from the 2020 Census is a vital tool for economic development and increased employment; and WHEREAS, the information collected by the census is confidential and protected by law; and WHEREAS, the decennial census is a huge undertaking that requires cross -sector collaboration and partnership in order to achieve a complete and accurate count; and WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke, in partnership with other local governments, the State, businesses, and community organizations, is committed to ensuring every resident is counted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: that the County of Roanoke encourages all County residents to participate in the 2020 Census, helping to ensure a complete, fair\ and accurate count. Page 1 of 1 H 0) i H 0) 0: fC .Q m V i m a O 0A a a O V i m O 00 v m m () ++ m 'i Q O i CL /1 m a 00 �t 00 O O ri Ol Ol 00 M Vf 0) 00 Cn r -I M Lr Lr M i > N 00 M —i N w 00 M OJ rl r I N OJ -tn -tn v ' O O O O tka LOr O rZ 00 c O V -tn -tn � OJ O O C N o � OJ W O Ol LD M M N O 00 a yV Q 00 00 M �O 0 N M Q. m N N to C u U aJ 0 CL Lnrn +� rn r -I O N Q � ^ 00 E OO Ln r -i L N 0 a) N ` 0 O U -0 E a) U 7 O u � c (6 C ai � L Q O O Ln 0 C11 O Obn +� O (6 0A Ln � 0A 7 0 M O O v O C -O N Cl O N 7 N O_ r -I O O r -IO N O O cV O cV LO rn ui E O j. L 40- w OJ 00 tvi 4- E Li N i O : 0 —a ai tn f6 4- H OJ O 0 Q v CL u O i O_ a a Q a a a Q m COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CHANGES IN OUTSTANDING DEBT Changes in outstanding debt for the fiscal year to date were as follows: Unaudited Outstanding June 30, 2019 Additions Deletions General Obligation Bonds $ VPSA School Bonds Lease Revenue Bonds _ Subtotal 168,849,175 9,025,000 11,945,422 Premiums 11,356,389 1,245,358 - $ 180,205,564 $ 10,270,358 $ 11,945,422 1,866,987 $ - $ - 91,947,188 - 8,885,422 75,035,000 9,025,000 3,060,000 Submitted By Laurie L. Gearheart Director of Finance and Management Services Approved By Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator Outstanding March 24, 2020 $ 1,866,987 83,061,766 81,000,000 165,928,753 12,601,747 $ 178,530,500 N e < as � > c a) C C C t0 V LU a J Y e � ® co O Z O ® � U i it 1 LL ® LL ! f0 , ++ L Z e m ® E e W c J C i > L t�0 ! L � L U K' V e m i i0 CL ®9 4 7 � d i3o 49 7 e �9 ix �9 'O 7 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 0 0 ® 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r, r- O Co r- M N M V N O M w M.O Lf) O M M O M w O O� 00 CO zj, M.O O CO r t3, CO O 00 M O O M r--: Mr -Z O N r Lf) W 4 M r ' r O Cl) N O w m N M O O Itil Lf ) Cfl rl� N O o0 r - Lf) Lf) N O r CMO COO T d7 00 r M'7 6a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Lf) O O O N r, O Lf) 00 1:1, (.O V r, CO M M � co o o O N T Lf) O O -,T -,T 00 O Lf) O Lf) Lf) m N Lf ) O) O M r n a0 00 n w N co O N � m MO d7 LO d' M ItT MO r M E9 O O O M.O w O O O M.O M O O O Lf) MO O O O m L N CO0W N M co O Cl) try co V Fz, Fz, f9 O r M O Lf) Lf) O Fz m, Co N Mfl w N Mfl Cfl M M W N 00 Lf) r Lf) n N M r M O N O7 Lf') co M.O M.Or ItT r- -It O M r Lf) r- r co CV r- M M U5 ® .. .. 0 0 M L6 m O O w M r- C N M M.O 00 MO H r M M � (D � r Cl) = r, O r O N N N Lf) 00 Lf) 00 O 0 eNin en Cl) c r r n C E E° LO r CO N Lf) N N 0 0 0 0 0 ® o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 O O � O O r N I® Lf') r -N Lf) Lf') r -N f9 d7 N Co r- C O) O O O 'I: (.O Lf) r- ItT Lf) M.O (.O O r O r- ItT O) Lf ) CO L6 O ® o0 M -4 CO O ® o0 Lf ) O) O) O ItT r- O O Lf) W Lf) (.O U') r- I N LO r- Lf) Lf) r - O w m N M O O Itil Lf ) Cfl rl� N O o0 r - Lf) Lf) N O r CMO COO T d7 00 r M'7 6a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Lf) O O O N r, O Lf) 00 1:1, (.O V r, CO M M � co o o O N T Lf) O O -,T -,T 00 O Lf) O Lf) Lf) m N Lf ) O) O M r n a0 00 n w N co O N � m MO d7 LO d' M ItT MO r M E9 O O O M.O w O O O M.O M O O O Lf) MO O O O m L N CO0W N M co O Cl) try N r� M r, r Lf) r MN M M.O �T N N N Lf) Co M c n n 4 Ln n T N 07 M M r 00 N n N n n N W m d7 r 00 O O r- Lf') 1:T � O r-�C ItT Lf) O U') O N Lf) CO r co CV 07 r-�' CU U5 0 0 0 0 0 Lf) m m N O w OR T Lfi C W Lf) ItT Co 00 MO H = o6 6 LO W � (D � V N r� M r, r Lf) r MN M M.O �T Lf) L® W r r Lf ) O I- P, M.O tt zj, N Lf ) M M M = = co N N Cfl CO O N 00 d' O r -tT N M r ItT Lf) V LQ O N Lf) (.O O r co CV 07 r-�' CU U5 U5 Q5 00 O Lf) M N r-� r-� 00 O) C MA O U') Co 00 MO H = r- M 00 07 M.O M Cl) = IZ3, (N 00 W O) N O N Lf) 00 Cl) 00 co 0 eNin en Cl) c r r n E E° LO r CO N Lf) N N ® O 1:T O O O O O) O r- O O ® O O Lf) O O O ® O m O O O O O O Lf) O O f9 O Lf) N O O ® O Lf) O O O (.O Lf) O Cl) O O ® Lf) w N Co O N LS% O O O L6 O M'7 O7 O 00 O O ® N U5 d' -Iz I-� N Lf) r- O r- N W O M M.O = M ® r N M.O M.O ,I: N M 00 n w M Lf) Lf) IZ3, Lf) Lq Lf) r M O M O N r M ® o 0 0 0 0 o 0 00 0 0 ®_ o 0 0 0 0 0 ® O O7 CD CD O Co Lf) M CO O) 00 00 O O V Oo � O O O O r- IZ3, r- N O co O; Lf') W O) r- O) co MA L6 .4 r-� r--� O r-� Lf) Lf) M.O ^ O O O N M Lf) (.O Lf) CO N Lf) O Lf) Lf) Lf) LRS M.O a0 w Lf) O Lf) f9 r� M O N O r, MN LL O m C Mp J U N a0 V LO r, M d' r M O Cl) m co r- 'T(Dr co r, O LO Lf) Lf) � H M c r- O co N Lf ) CO M I, CO I® M N CO N V r u 07 07 N Mx0 M O (0 M.O n 00 H M.O d' 00 O) C r\ d7= M r, MO H O M.O M O 00 IZ3, ^ N = O N d7 r- r N Lf) 00 Lf) 00 Lf) 0 eNin en M c r r NC7O.M—' E E° CO N d N N LO O Lf ) O O O I, M O NO r (D Lf) LO O O O O -'T O O O 00 O O Lf ) O ® O N CO O O ® O m O r- O M Lf) O O O O f9 Lf) M.O M Lf) O N N O 'Zi O N O N O) O CO .11 ® V r-�' N M.O O 00 O W Lf) r, M = O = M.O = M co r M Lf) W co M.O 1:T r- M M.O M Lf ) Lf ) IZ3, CO Cl r M O M O N r M Mn f6 70 x cc y p H O (0 F --C E LL H ~ N U Mxp 00 a C x HCO .Cc (n ? J ~ O MOpE u) U x M Mn Mn E c X Mn O X �_ O p O = 2 O M'- O CO U J U CO LL_ 2 F-- F-- O Ln ~ N J LL O O U _ t�0 MO o EY C Q LL O m C Mp J U N N N LL_ M N O LL = O U p U N x co H N ®Oj Q 0 Mx0 H m CO C x MO H Cl O O H — 95 O CD mQ ami U N N a O U 0 eNin en c (n N NC7O.M—' E E° Mn f6 70 x cc y p H O (0 F --C E LL H ~ N U Mxp 00 a C x HCO .Cc (n ? J ~ O MOpE u) U x M Mn Mn E c X Mn O X �_ O p O = 2 O M'- O CO U J U CO LL_ 2 F-- F-- O ~ N J LL O O U _ t�0 MO o EY C Q LL O m C Mp J U N N N LL_ M N O LL = O U p U N O M6 U > n O O O L 0 0 o 0 � 0 � 0 � 0 � 0 � 0 o 0 o 0 �_ 0 o 0 � 0 � 0 � 0 � 0 o 0 � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r, O N ® � O Lf ) M N M O 00 V d O V c CO O 00 LO O O O O LO 00 r- d7 m O LO ALO o) W r--� .4 U'9 O M O ® M M M O N O r O N a i N N LO M N CO r r r LO � yry 4Y es i0 N LO co 00 00 O N LO r M LS') I, Co d' O O i0 49 N N LO -It O> V N N Co O O N r, Lf) M CO = LO > h 00 00 It3l O V co n r- 00 00 M LO m m N LO LO 00 M Cl) 00 CO N CO 00 M -11 r- co CO Lf) r- O CO Y9 a 0 0 o 0 � 0 o 0 � 0 � 0 � 0 � 0 o 0 � 0 � 0 o 0 � 0 � 0 � 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � 0 o ®y O) M M Co r ® LO O O C9 00 O 00 W CO O O LO O CO LO ? N CO OR Lf) O O N LO r M P O O Co N N O LO r ^ N O co CO O O co CO L6 CO O CO CO -4 O ui 7 d' 00 I- r, LO co LO co Co '31 Co LO LO LO I- CO � � N 0o CO f9 00 00 CO O CO 00 LO LO co LO co O O gp ® O ® m M N MLO r- LO 00 ® co Co 00 r- LO LO ®y N (9 r r n co r N m r LO m 00 V N m N N 00 m 7 LO N Lfi 00 O r-�_ �_ V U M L6 L N O d' M N _ ® W d7 N r- CO � 00 � LO I- N CO ®y LO N N T T N N Cl N N ItT W O M V r 1:T N N r N N r M ` 1>9 ix V O ® O O ® LO O O LS') IZ3, Co LO U') O O O M O O O 00 O ® O O ® r� O N = CO r- N O O O 00 O O M LO LQ O N N (= O C LO LO I- 00 O co O Co O LO ar 49 �_ M m O 00 00 O O ® O 00 -Iz Cl) N O O Lfi Lf) V Lf) U) 00 Lf) I- Nr LO O � ® O r- 00 m N M d' N T Cl) O n Z3, N CO = CO -li N 0 Lf) V (\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ®y U') CO C9 co IZ3, ® co O O N M CO U') M v CO O O M m Oi 'T Co r M O d7 LO N N d7 CO Co a0 1:T O O 7 'a m 00 00 O L6 L6 O U-)00 L6 N I -z N L6 O O 7 Co co LO 00 LO 00 LO N n IZ3, Co LO LO LO I- m � � N ® I- n Lf) Lf) ® Lf) r O f9 CO CO N M N LO CO m m O O � N N 00 LO Co Co N O LO I- MN O co O ` N M O O) N M LO co W 00 r O ® a0 O co O M LO 7 ® 00 00 d' (0 M N I�i co O CO 00 r -,z r-� V _ 00 r- n = O co m 00 M 00 W W N = = CO 49 LO N N r co Cl N CO O M V = CO N N r N N r M 10 ® O ® O O ® LO O O LS') IZ3, Co LO LS) O 1:T N co IZ3, O O ® O ® O O ® Co O :o = M M 00 O Co LO I- m O N LO U) O N N I- (= n Lf) O CO r O r- IZ3, r N O ar 49 -'T Lfi CO Co O co Lfi CO M U) M M O O N Lfi d' 00 LO CO M T N (y co co d7 O LO = IZ3, 0 r Lfi V N -Iz m U O E e > N ® N co m n U m U J O d U U N Q N w U U _ O O O 4) C U CO "a U °) U) U U ° oa o m m o> o in in Q v°') 0: ® O Q U O LL - O Q (n ) 4 (0 N m N (0 U (0 U) LL U Lo 0 0 in a v a U o .0 o O (n (n LL �_ m x Q y O O L��O d LL � j U m N N m N i0 a N (� U v m 2) 2) v o vU U m m ai CD o E H0 H05 >> u -r ii m m U 0 w 0� 20� z U) O w 0 ® CD 0 coCD c N O p i0O r ® O ` i0 4Y cy _ m m co m 0) M i0 r (Y) a O O � O o -_ L6 o o 0 O ® O coL r � 00 r r � U O 00 N N co ++ CN 0 co N N N iy O ® CO f9 U'9 'A49 Ci O ® 00 ®0 U� U -) O ® r0 T d � O ® Cl 0) 0) 00 00) CO _ M (Y)) 0000 ` Cl I ® ® 00 CL ix Cl) LO 00 N N m W (g r 00 00 N ar co N a�- N N rl co U') L 0 r U5 N N O 7 4) 0) � O U l0 U O 0) � N O e LL U O LL l0 co O U) O75 ) O �p C: O H p F- 0 H U O � (0 O7 U Q E 7 w C W m c w CL O W Q U W W oa L7) E 7 W c W m c w Q O W j 07 CE Q U W W oa 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a a a o 0 o a a Ln 00 Ln P O (cN Ln Ln U) W Q N Ln Cl) U) O ® O O P O O O CD O (O V r N m N Ln V O r r r N N O M O LQ O O O O N O 9® N M p r ® r W r M P o0 V O N N O Q O N r O W O 00 (D O (D 00 Cl) 00 w Ln M m to M (D r O P O O O O MO W O LO Cl) M P O O ® V M N to P M Cl) m 00 ® (D (D P P M m (D O V O 0 N P (D 00 � 00 m to 00 00 � N N V � O r co r- V N O r r (D (mo N 00 M r P co S Q O (OD N � (® m P 0 0 0 o o o o a o 0 0 o a o o o o a o 0 0 (D Ln P 00 Ln LO N 00 m 00®_ V N _M (D V O 0) O V O Ln O Q O V Ln (D 00 O M O (D W P O O m (D O N O N P O M O Lq M O M V M 00 P r V V P m co r O (D Cl LO O Ln O Ln O (vj (D (D 00 (® Ln (D LO to (D to 00 (® (D (D (D P Ln (D r O (c (® (D In co 00 W W (D V N (D Ln N M m W O N (D W W O M O O O Ln O LO O N 00 O M LO 0 N iU O M P (D P P O m O P N O m M ® ® Ln V m V LO Ln (D Ln N -1 MN r N T (D m O (vj m Lo m r r �a C O (D 00 M V V O P V ® m V M P v N V co M W N r- T 00 P 04 N (O M (y 00 P (® 00 V c Ln m V N M M m ® M O O V LO r r Q m O to P (O M CO r r m Q Ln M r N Mn N N Q O co h n m (O L` V V M 00 Cl) W M m In O N P M m VV P O V M Ln N O 00 M Ln Ln m O W r O N (D M V (C O P O m (D Ow Ln M to O Ln V to O (D 00 (D N V 7 00 co (O O_ 7 Fa M m Ln (D P �a (p P W Ln r O 00 P O M M P (D ® (D N (D O Ln r V P m Ln P 00 M O N Lry (y g0 O O V) Ln N r 00 P n 00 00 r r N T (D m O ® Ln Lo V r r Q C O O 00 V C6 O P m LO (D In ® r V m P v m O N O P ® W T N N V O 00 (® co In co N P M m P O to M V O 00 O P O O V O ';t r W M O O P W rN N m W W (D In O Lfj O N P9 r O L[i Mc 0 V 00 m V 00 (D (p (D ri 00 m (`0 O O (® (D O O (y (D (o P (e m LO LO to (D to (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D m (D O (D (D P V r m P m W O O In O M r W N M W O P O 00 M (D O r c) (® L � r 00 LO m - w ( LLf _M V O L!) W O P V N CliO _M ^ N Cl) P P P 00 ® N O M m O O O ® Ln r co W M (D C O O M 00 (q O P m LO (D In ® r V m P 00 m O N O P ® W T N N N N N P 00 P (® P V M M m co r M M P m V V 00 P Ln LO r r Q m O Ln L6 (O M M r r 00 Q V N P N Mn N N Q O LO c 0 ® O O (V Ln O V M N N M P O W ® O 00 M P O r to O N (^D N V LM - w V (mD (OD P N O ® (D Cl) ® O W N M Ln m m M (D C O O M N (D _ LO m O ® r m O 00 m (D N P �a O T O Lij CO V 00 Ln P N P M (D g' to 00 00 W N M In P Cl) 00 00 r r N r r 00 00 M (O V V r r C Q ^ Vcli c 0 c o - w (0 02 C O C O c to c U N "NO (O Q O Q Mn N N Q O O E C F Q LO E > n3 (0 O 4) d Q'S C m U xi E 7- N ca X Q U N O w OE U) N O N N U n3 Ln 0.) N 0) U C 05> 03 E U N Z O Q (/) L .✓ L N U 2 .N N U m 4% W Q E o ` In > 06 (;3 'O 2 CO W (n 0 c U ® N N N L n C Ncc 70 'U W cc N co U N C Nr N CL -E N N4) O L 7 (30 �_ O C 7 N N 03 C1 N (0 7 N O O O 4) J c.7 1 0 U O � J 11 0 Q a 0 T 2 W s 0 0. 2 a U 0 d U) T- 0 0 0 � 0 0 0 0 LO 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o o � 4) U C CD W O In O O ltd a7 P N In O O O LO M W r O O P P O O9 O O O O O P ® O W O W P O e0 N Ln O CV M V O 0B N 04 ' N Cy C) O O M m 1? a) U 0 r L0 O O In O O W r O O O N O P N fb M O N O O LO LO� M O LQ O to LQ L > 0 co � m r LO O N N OM L r CD M N 0) � V Q a o o o o a o 0 0e 0 0 o a o a 00 M N P O O ® C9 M W co O V In O O N P W L0 00 P W V 00 O O O O O O CO N N N V LL 00 00 M 7 0 V O V O O N L0 (0 M O L0 O �j LO N f0 V M C)O O O O O O M N O O N 00 O e0 e0 W m � w CL O W 0) O 00 N O P @� 00 co Cl) 00 Ln P O P @� O V L0 N 00 V00 Ln O O O O P @� m Ln 00 00 P O 00 0 M 0) (V O M W Q O r P O O L0 N 00 O g`0 0 N L M r (y LO m M O N L0 W 00 O M O Cl) W O � M LSA 0) f00 0 W L00 r 00 rl r N O 0 V O Cl) 00 O 7 a C r U W W oa N Cl) O V CD8 00 O P m L0 V O P 0 O P O O L0 P O O O O O Lo O MV 00 co P LL) W O 00 O O N O OC O O 00 00 Nt O _ V M 00 N (y LO O N P 00 M LO V rl O V N f0 r O a O N r Cl) (� N P co r 70 0N N V 49 LO r P r r O co (d M co m V 09 fej (M N 0 0 0 o o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - o O 0 OR V) O to r O O 00 P O r N W N CD O O CD l(j Ln O N N N In O O O O O O P ® 00 P r P 00 N Q 4 7 w V O O O O fo (D O V r V) O nj O V V ri Ln Ln P V L0 O O L0 O N M P 04 00 N P C9 W -a w CL O W 00 P M O LO f0 O 00 Cl) O V O O M P co P V P to V V 0) O O O O P 00 N N CD M 00 N fD O M P (y O O r N O Q O P M j LO L L - rNr c OM O N C 0) E N Q r O V 09 C7 r- L0 Cl) co P O CL r d W W oa V M N 00 M r 1` O N O O LO P M O O 0 0 O 0 O O 0 0 O 0 00 7 Ln O Cl) O V C 7 O N P W O V O O O Ln 00 M r 00 N O r., V 00 M to 04 O L0 O C>O Lo r L0 00 ® co O 00 Cl) Cl) O V N co O m O M N 00 00 LO M M co P 70 N V O r Q N LT N Lii M Lf) L6 m N N O 0 .6 N cc n3 01 O 0_ 0_ W C a) 7 0 a c a) @ a) U U a a) c U ai g o E as E E o _ W o U a) > O > O c O a) O C Q O 75 2 0 > a W T >, C C m m v1 a) rn a) 2 L) � N W a>i � ® � N � a a� m � m m � ar a) C W U > m O 21` m a) m N W C U ® :4 01 C 7 9 g T m cc U "O o CL 0 O w F Y (O L 9 7 7 L 0) C _@ 0_ O O C O U o O O E X U to X n3 7 (O N O C, ' C 0 O a) f0 C C 07 � CL U d d U W U U W0 2 F T m Dc E F C:3 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: February 25, 2020 Accounts Paid - January 2020 Laurie L. Gearheart Director of Finance and Management Services Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Direct Deposit Checks Total Payments to Vendors $ - $ - $ 11,391,825.14 Payroll 01/10/20 1,524,012.88 17,506.24 1,541,519.12 Payroll 01/24/20 1,396,979.31 11,990.89 1,408,970.20 Manual Checks - 1,368.38 1,368.38 Grand Total $ 14,343,682.84 A detailed listing of the payments to vendors is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER. MEETING DATE: March 24, 2020 AGENDA ITEMS: Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy, as of 29 -Feb -20 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: CASHINVESTMENT: SUNTRUST CON 10,559,478.34 10,559,478.34 GOVERNMENT: SCOTT STRINGFELLOW CONTRA 21,808.00 SCOTT STRINGFELLOW 34,002,833.37 WELLS FARGO 2,000,000.00 WELLS FARGO CONTRA 60.00 36,024,701.37 LOCAL GOVT INVESTMENT POOL: GENERAL OPERATION 22,701,154.62 22,701,154.62 MONEY MARKET: ATLANTIC UNION BANK 2,031,044.96 HOMETRUST BANK 2,013,334.91 SCOTT STRINGFELLOW 10,100,438.83 WELLS FARGO 3,270,533.08 17,415,351.78 TOTAL 86,700,686.11 03/24/2020 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. L.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: March 24, 2020 Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors the County Administrator's Proposed Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Operating Budget Laurie Gearheart Director of Finance and Management Services Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator Review the County Administrator's Proposed Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Operating Budget. BACKGROUND: As part of the annual budget development process, County staff conducts a series of work sessions with the Board of Supervisors after the County Administrator proposes his budget. This year's operating budget was proposed on March 10, 2020. DISCUSSION: This work session will provide information to the Board of Supervisors regarding the County Administrator's Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Operating Budget. Topics to be discussed by County staff include an update on the Proposed Budget and reviewing the budget timeline. A PowerPoint presentation will be provided, but is still under development due to staff's response to COVID-19 pandemic. Page 1 of 2 FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the receipt of the attached presentation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors receive information regarding the County Administrator's Proposed Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Operating Budget. Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. M.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: March 24, 2020 Public hearing for citizen comments on the Real Estate effective tax rate for calendar year 2020 Laurie Gearheart Director of Finance and Management Services Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator Conduct a public hearing for citizen comment on the effective Real Estate tax rate for calendar year 2020. BACKGROUND: Per the Code of Virginia, 58.1-3321, when any annual reassessment (in the County of Roanoke) of real property would result " ... in an increase of one percent or more in the total real property tax levies..." excluding new construction, a calculation known as the "effective tax rate increase" is required to be completed. The County of Roanoke's real property assessments, excluding new construction, increased by 2.56% over the previous year. Therefore, per State Code, the County must calculate the effective tax rate increase, advertise the effective tax rate increase, and conduct a public hearing pertaining to the effective tax rate increase. The Code of Virginia requires specific language to be included in the advertisement of the effective tax rate. The advertisement, published in the Roanoke Times on February 23, 2020, contained the following language: "The County of Roanoke, Virginia proposes to increase property tax levies. 1. Assessment Increase: Total assessed value of real property, excluding additional assessments due to new construction or improvements to property, exceeds last Page 1 of 3 year's total assessed value of real property by 2.56 percent. 2. Lowered Rate Necessary to Offset Increased Assessment: The tax rate which would levy the same amount of real estate tax as last year, when multiplied by the new total assessed value of real estate with the exclusions mentioned above would be $1.062 per $100 of assessed value. This rate will be known as the "lowered tax rate". 3. Effective Rate Increase: The County of Roanoke proposes to adopt a tax rate of $1.09 per $100 of assessed value, which is no change over the current tax rate. The difference between the lowered tax rate and the proposed rate would be approximately $0.028 per $100. This difference will be known as the "effective tax rate increase". Individual property taxes may, however, increase at a percentage greater than or less than the above percentage. 4. Proposed General Government Total Budget Increase: Based on the proposed real property tax rate and changes in other revenue, the total General Government budget of the County of Roanoke is estimated to exceed last year's by 2.8 percent. A public hearing on the increase will be held on the 24th day of March 2020 at the Roanoke County Administration Center located at 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia 24018, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard." After conducting this public hearing, the Board of Supervisors, should it choose, may elect to keep the Real Estate Tax rate the same as the prior year or make adjustments to the Real Estate tax rate. DISCUSSION: The public hearing scheduled for March 24, 2020, is to receive written and oral comments on the Real Estate effective tax rate as defined by the Code of Virginia for calendar year 2020. The public hearing was advertised in the Roanoke Times on February 23, 2020, thereby satisfying State code requirements for public notice. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this public hearing. Page 2 of 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conducting the public hearing to receive citizen comments on the Real Estate effective tax rate for calendar year 2020. Page 3 of 3 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. N.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: March 24, 2020 Public hearing for citizen comments on the maximum 2020 calendar year tax rates for Real Estate, Personal Property and Machinery and Tools Taxes Laurie Gearheart Director of Finance and Management Services Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator Conduct a public hearing for citizen comment on the maximum 2020 calendar year tax rates. BACKGROUND: In advance of considering resolutions to set maximum 2020 calendar year tax rates, the Board of Supervisors holds a public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding the maximum tax rates. DISCUSSION: The public hearing scheduled for March 24, 2020, is to receive written and oral comments on setting the maximum tax rates for calendar year 2020 to support the fiscal year 2020-2021 operating budget. The public hearing was advertised in the Roanoke Times on March 11, 2020 and March 18, 2020, thereby satisfying State code requirements for public notice. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this public hearing. Page 1 of 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conducting the public hearing to receive citizen comments on the maximum 2020 calendar year tax rates. Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. N.2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: March 24, 2020 Resolutions to set the following maximum tax rates for calendar year 2020 to support this fiscal year 2020-2021 operating budget: (a) Resolution to set the Real Estate maximum tax rate for calendar year 2020; (b) Resolution to set the Personal Property maximum tax rate for calendar year 2020; and (c) Resolution to set the Machinery and Tools maximum tax rate for calendar year 2020 Laurie Gearheart Director of Finance and Management Services Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator Request for the Board of Supervisors to approve resolutions setting maximum tax rates for calendar year 2020 in support of the fiscal year 2020-2021 operating budget. BACKGROUND: Approval of these resolutions represents a change in setting tax rates that began as part of the fiscal year 2016-2017 operating budget development process. Prior to fiscal year 2016-2017, maximum tax rates were adopted by the Board of Supervisors simultaneous to final adoption of tax rates. Beginning with the fiscal year 2016-2017 budget development process, maximum tax rates were set by resolution at the meeting preceding the adoption of the tax rates. DISCUSSION: These resolutions will set maximum tax rates for Real Estate, Personal Property and Machinery and Tools Taxes in advance of formal adoption of calendar year 2020 tax rates. Formal adoption of the tax rates is scheduled on April 14, 2020, and will be preceded by a public hearing. Page 1 of 2 The fiscal year 2020-2021 proposed operating budget assumes the same tax rates as the current year operating budget. For reference, the adopted tax rates for calendar year 2019 along with the value of a penny change on each of the tax rates are as follows.. Tax Rate Description 2019 Calendar Year Tax Rate Value of a Penny on Tax Rate Real Estate Tax Rate $1.09 per $100 Assessed Value $899,000 Personal Property Tax Rate $3.50 per $100 Assessed Value $88,500 including Business Personal Property Tax Machinery and Tools Tax $2.85 per $100 Assessed Value $9,400 The adoption of these resolutions was preceded by a public hearing on March 24, 2020, to receive written and oral comments on setting the maximum tax rates for calendar year 2020. The public hearing on the maximum tax rates was advertised on March 11 and March 18, 2020, in the Roanoke Times, thereby satisfying State code requirements for public notice. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no immediate fiscal impact with setting the maximum calendar year 2020 tax rates. Any potential fiscal impact will be determined when the Board of Supervisors adopts calendar year 2020 tax rates on April 14, 2020. If the Board of Supervisors were to set maximum tax rates lower than current rates, there would be a loss of revenue in the current fiscal year and next fiscal year. For example, a penny change in the Real Estate tax rate would yield approximately $436,000 less in current year tax revenues in the County's General Government Fund. There would be no immediate impact to Roanoke County Public Schools (RCPS) revenue. In fiscal year 2020-2021, a penny change in the tax rate would impact both County and RCPS available revenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors set maximum tax rates for calendar year 2020, with adoption of calendar year 2020 tax rates scheduled for April 14, 2020. Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2020 RESOLUTION TO SET THE REAL ESTATE MAXIMUM TAX RATE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2020 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia will set maximum tax rates for calendar year 2020 to support the fiscal year 2020-2021 operating budget; and WHEREAS, a public hearing for citizen comments on setting maximum tax rates was held on March 24, 2020 at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will adopt final 2020 calendar year tax rates on April 14, 2020 following a public hearing for citizen comments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, set the following Real Estate maximum tax rate for calendar year 2020: (A) The Real Estate Tax for calendar year 2020 is set at a rate of not more than $1.09 per $100 of assessed valuation. Page 1 of 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2020 RESOLUTION TO SET THE PERSONAL PROPERTY MAXIMUM TAX RATE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2020 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia will set maximum tax rates for calendar year 2020 to support the fiscal year 2020-2021 operating budget; and WHEREAS, a public hearing for citizen comments on setting maximum tax rates was held on March 24, 2020 at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will adopt final 2020 calendar year tax rates on April 14, 2020 following a public hearing for citizen comments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, set the following Personal Property maximum tax rate for calendar year 2020: (B) The Personal Property Tax for calendar year 2020 is set at a rate of not more than $3.50 per $100 of assessed valuation. Page 1 of 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2020 RESOLUTION TO SET THE MACHINERY AND TOOLS MAXIMUM TAX RATE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2020 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia will set maximum tax rates for calendar year 2020 to support the fiscal year 2020-2021 operating budget; and WHEREAS, a public hearing for citizen comments on setting maximum tax rates was held on March 24, 2020 at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will adopt final 2020 calendar year tax rates on April 14, 2020 following a public hearing for citizen comments; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, set the following Machinery and Tools maximum tax rate for calendar year 2020: (C) The Machinery and Tools Tax for calendar year 2020 is set at a rate of not more than $2.85 per $100 of assessed valuation. Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. 0.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: March 24, 2020 The petition of Roanoke Valley Resource Authority to obtain a special use permit for a sanitary landfill on approximately 8.05 acres zoned AG -3, Agricultural/Rural Preserve, District and to amend the special use permit for an existing sanitary landfill (Smith Gap Landfill) on approximately 886.80 acres zoned AG -3S, Agricultural/Rural Preserve, District with a special use permit, located on the northwest side of Fort Lewis Mountain between Smith Gap and Bradshaw Road, Catawba Magisterial District Philip Thompson Director of Planning Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator Agenda item for second reading of ordinances for a special use permit for a sanitary landfill on 8.05 acres and to amend an existing special use permit for an existing sanitary landfill on 886.80 acres. BACKGROUND: Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA) is requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a sanitary landfill on 8.05 acres of property transferred to the RVRA on February 13, 2019, by Norfolk Southern. When owned by Norfolk Southern, this property was exempt from local zoning since it was regulated by the federal government. Due to the property transfer to RVRA, the property is now subject to local zoning regulations. RVRA is also requesting to amend its existing SUP by deleting the reference to the "amended landfill permit conditions and operating policies" referenced in the 1991 SUP resolution. It is proposed that any SUP conditions be incorporated into Page 1 of 3 the ordinance. A sanitary landfill is allowed only by special use permit in the AG -3 district. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this request on November 4, 2019. Four (4) citizens spoke on this request during the public hearing. Their concerns/comments included keeping tractor -trailers hauling municipal solid waste off of Bradshaw Road, the broken pavement damage from trucks on Bradshaw Road, traffic safety issues, preference for hauling trash by train, environmental concerns, detrimental effects of the landfill and safety concerns at Williby Road and railroad tracks/future road. The Planning Commission discussed whether the landfill policies should be added to the special use permit conditions, the length of the rail right-of-way in total (4.5 miles) and in Roanoke County (1,100+ feet), the current water system, road construction/conversion, DEQ regulations, erosion and sediment control and stormwater management regulations, primary and secondary access to the landfill, number of truck trips today on Bradshaw Road, width of proposed road (26 feet) and safety issues (signs, gates) to be installed at Williby Road if the railroad is converted to a road. The Commission recommends approval of a special use permit on 8.05 acres for a sanitary landfill and to amend the existing special use permit on 886.80 acres with sixteen (16) conditions dealing with access, conversion, types of waste, operating hours, emergency operations, noise, dust, odors, lighting, pests, citizen complaints, active fill areas, monitoring, screening and buffering, site security and fire protection and public water. The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on November 19, 2019. Two citizens spoke on this request during the public hearing. Their concerns/comments included safety issues on Williby Road where the transportation corridor crosses it, preference of hauling trash by rail over trucking, keeping tractor trailers off of Bradshaw Road and issues with converting the rail line to a road. The Board of Supervisors delayed action on this request for four (4) months and requested the following: a well -advertised telephone number and email address for surrounding residents, including those in the Bradshaw Road area and the Transportation Corridor, to call in complaints and maintain an open complaint log that shall be open to the public; regularly scheduled community meetings to share information and concerns and hold one meeting prior to revisiting the SUP in March; and Masons Cove community meeting concerns answered in writing along with citizen concerns that were handed out to the applicant. A postcard was developed and mailed to 700+ residents along Bradshaw Road providing a phone number and web address for citizens to file complaints or concerns Page 2 of 3 regarding the Smith Gap Landfill. A community meeting was held on March 9, 2020, to review the status of the Special Use Permit and discuss RVRA and County initiatives regarding transportation alternatives. A handout with answers to the information requested by the Board of Supervisors was distributed at this community meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact on this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the second reading of the ordinance for a special use permit on 8.05 acres for a sanitary landfill and to amend the existing special use permit on 886.80 acres with the sixteen (16) conditions recommended by the Planning Commission plus two additional conditions dealing with RVRA priorities and RVRA policies. Page 3 of 3 Requests made by Supervisor Martha Hooker at the November 19, 2019, Board of Supervisors Meeting when making her motion to postpone action on the Special Use Permit for four (4) months: Before we reconvene in March, I request the following: A well -advertised telephone number in place for use of surrounding residents including those in the Bradshaw Road area and the Transportation Corridor to call in complaints and maintain an open complaint log that shall be open to the public. Postcard with phone number and web address sent to approximately 700+ property owners along Bradshaw Road (See Attachment 1). RVRA maintains a log of all complaints that is available for public review. 2. An email address that is well -advertised for the same purpose stated in #1. Postcard with phone number and web address sent to approximately 700+ property owners along Bradshaw Road (See Attachment 1) 3. 1 would also like to request regularly scheduled community meetings to share information and concerns and hold one meeting prior to revisiting the SUP. Community meeting schedule for March 9, 2020. Other meetings to be scheduled on a regular basis. 4. Masons Cove community meeting concerns answered in writing along with citizen concerns that I handed Dan Miles prior to this meeting. Answers to questions asked at the community meeting from October 2019, and questions that were handed out to Dan Miles at the November 19, 2019, meeting are attached. Questions asked/comments raised by Supervisor Martha Hooker during the November 19, 2019 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing on RVRA's Special Use Permit: Responses to the questions below are included in Attachment 2; responses to the October Community meeting are included in Attachment 3. Fire and Rescue - I'm sure you will work with them and their concerns regarding access points of the corridor and access for any gates. 2. Community meeting -held on October 17, 2019 at Masons Cove Elementary; School. Approximately 100 citizens attended the meeting. Questions and concerns included: environmental concerns, leachate spilling onto roads from trailers, impacts to Bradshaw Road, the inadequacy of Bradshaw Road, odors, air quality, water quality, groundwater concerns, the landfill's service area, operational issues associated with the landfill including hauling trash by train versus truck and the costs associated with each, traffic safety issues with trailers on Bradshaw Road, and the need to fix Bradshaw Road. a. I would like to see these questions answered in writing. We only have a summary of questions asked. 3. The report that we received deals heavily with going to trucking instead of using rail. 4. Thank you for working with the schools and adjusting the operating hours. 5. Railroad underpass on North Fork Road: RVRA initially purchased 15 trailers that are 13'3" in height. Could North Fork Road be used as an emergency road? 6. Page 85-RVRA priorities include: a. Protection of the environment of the Roanoke Valley Service Area. b. Protection of the interests of the residents of the landfill host community. Protection of the interests of the residents of the rail corridor. 7. How many residents live on Bradshaw Road from North Fork Road to Smith Gap? 8. How many residents live on the rail corridor? 9. When will sewer be connected to take leachate instead of trucks? Citizen Questions provided to Dan Miles by Supervisor Martha Hooker prior to the November 19, 2019, Board of Supervisors Public Hearing on RVRA's Special Use Permit. Responses to these questions are included in Attachment 4. Why did the RVRA not have meeting with localities, governments involved the railroad to see what we could get on rates and work problems out as a team? Everything has been done by one person, the RVRA CEO and it reads as attitudes and personalities may have been a negative influence instead of creating a warm working relationship. 2. When preparing for Salem to come on board as a member, why was there no preparation done for the expectation of the extra trash? Why not approach the railroad (NS) before Salem joining and asking for more gondolas and other equipment (leach tankers) as needed. Why wait to after the fact then demand extra pulls for the extra trash. Pre planning should have been the first step. There should have been group meetings to discuss these issues because RVRA had to give NS 9 million dollars to put in the rail spur at the beginning and to buy equipment. 3. In the last 25 years, how many times has the railroad been late in getting the trash train to the landfill? Has it failed in its job? 4. What explanation was given for the $20,000,000 bond. What was reasons from CEO? WAS it for road and equipment for truck traffic? Has this road been approved by all localities? 5. What is the total cost of the road ($20,000,000) plus interest for 20 years and taking out the rail spur and grading rail bed, and adding hard surface, plus maintaining road: snow removal. Trailers replaced every 10 years? Have we thought about the bottoms of the trailers freezing in extreme cold weather, maintenance on trucks and trailers? Who is going to do all of this and where is money coming from? 6. Why buy another transfer station within 5 miles of each other? Pay extra for shipping to get trash to tinker creek to put trash on train. Remodeled Salem transfer station, brought extra land for truck and trailer storage. Who hauls the trash to tinker creek station now from Salem? Who pays for hauling? Why handle trash this many times? 7. Why is county Waste a new start up business cheaper, than RVRA, who has been in business for 25 years? 8. Has anyone considered the problems and traffic that are to be encountered if RVRA converts to trucks, when works starts on widening of Interstate 81 from exit 141 to 143 defines as) Bradshaw Road will become Interstate !!!!!!!!! 9. Emergency will need to be well defined for future generations if convert to truck transportation. Questions from Board of Supervisors members that were forwarded to RVRA staff in mid-November 2019. Response to these questions are included in Attachment 5. Delivery of Stone: Can you provide some information on the history of how stone has been delivered to the landfill. Apparently, it was delivered by train initially and is now delivered by truck via Bradshaw Road. Any info on when this changed and why would be helpful. Hauling of Leachate: Similar question. How is leachate hauled from the landfill site. Discussion focused on there are special cars on the train to transport leachate and that has been the practice in the past and currently but there have been situations where that has been hauled from the landfill site by truck. Any info on this situation and what would have caused any change from hauling by train would be helpful. Railroad Underpass on North Fork Road: What is the height of the underpass on North Fork Road? What height do the trucks need to safely pass under the railroad tracks? Have any improvements (lowering the roadway) been explored to increase the height of this underpass? Any estimates of what that would cost? I know that there would be many issues associated with this - like getting the railroad to agree to this, there is also a stream/creek next to the road, closure of the road, etc. Any information would be helpful on this. Z cn y n1 a/ D y e;4i • L ' W U. y n1 y e;4i • �'. ry r •O w2 J H �a W W U Y O� Z Ow 0 LO 0 LO LO �. Co 0 LO V .- �b - Z C40 N W IS (Dw O , U •N � L t 1f } D- O o t — J Co Co �m U— C) -0 L o O Z LO u C ' Q y O ^ U c MLL o m /1 dig O L o z, F- y tel` � O � m � O u� N .0 o = L > y N E •rn p dS p O 00 O — V� a y p Q N o z Mn a U •_ Q (D - 14�: (Dy LL a m a z, � y aim ���, Attachment 2 Questions Posed by Supervisor Hooker (cry, Public Hearing: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 Fire and Rescue I'm sure you will work with them and their concerns regarding access points of the corridor and access for any gates. As stated in RVRA's SUP Application in the "Project Justification" section: "In the event the Authority converts the transportation corridor from rail to trucking, automated bar -gating (see DKS 1602 Barrier Gate Appendices A8 -A10) and video surveillance will be constructed to control and monitor access to the regional landfill for all incoming and outgoing access. The gating's operation would be powered by hard -wire and solar back-up and would be located approximately'/4 mile north of Reese Mountain Road in Montgomery County. The automated gates would be controlled by 1) transponders mounted on approved access vehicles; 2) manual, hand-held remote control; 3) PIN -accessed control panel; or 4) access button located at the landfill administrative offices for deliveries and visitors. Twenty-four (24) hour, seven (7) day per week video surveillance would be located along the access corridor to monitor the access point. Additionally, fire/rescue in Montgomery and Roanoke Counties will be provided with appropriate access controls, in order to utilize the access point, if needed, at any time." 2. Community meeting- heldon October 17,2019atMasons Cove Elementary; School. Approximately 100 citizens attended the meeting. Questions andconcerns h7cluded: environmental concerns, leachatespillingonto roadsfrom trailers, impacts to BradshawRoad the inadequacy ofBradshaw Roaa odors, air quality, water quality, groundwater concerns, the landfill's service area, operational issues associated with the landfill including hauling trash by train versus truck andthe costs associatedwith each, traffic safety ksues with trailers on Bradshaw Road, and the needtofix Bradshaw Road. a. I would like to see these questions answered inwrking. We only have a summary of questions asked Responses to questions/comments posed at the October 17, 2019 Public Meeting will be provided in a separate document. 3. The report that we received deals heavily withgoing to trucking ins teadofus ing rail. As stated in RVRA's SUP Application in the Project Justification section: "By requesting this revision to the current SUP to allow for the conversion of the current railway access point to a dedicated access point for all forms of transportation alternatives to the landfill, the RVRA believes that its request further expands and improves upon the original concept of including the active areas of all landfill operations under the provisions of the SUP and reducing congestion on public roads and protection against hazards and congested travel and transportation. By allowing for an alternate, non-specific, dedicated 2-1 Attachment 2 transportation corridor, the Authority would once again, consistent with the original recommendations in the 1989 SUP and the Authority's alternate transportation methodology selected in 1991, as amended in the 1991 SUP, be able to "utilize the most cost effective, reliable, environmentally responsible course of action, and in accordance with the permit conditions and operating policies as adopted by this Roanoke County Board of Supervisors" (ref. RCRA Res. #RA91-10). If the Authority determines it will continue to utilize rail haul, there will be no noticeable changes, including the ongoing, periodic use of Bradshaw Road for some MSW deliveries. If the Authority elects to convert the rail spur to a road access, it would eliminate the need to use Bradshaw Road altogether for MSW deliveries." The Authority's Board of Directors has been considering its transportation options for several years. That process is ongoing. Should RVRA's Board ultimately select the rail transportation mode, there will be no noticeable change to the operation from what the public has become accustomed to for the last twenty seven years. Therefore, for this option, there was minimal description provided in the Application as its impact would remain without change. However, should RVRA's Board ultimately select the road/trucking option, there would be operational changes that needed to be addressed in more detail in the Application. Therefore, more detail for the road/trucking option was provided. To be clear, the inclusion of more details regarding the road/trucking option is not an indicator of RVRA's Board's final determination. RVRA's Board remains in contract negotiations with NS and will need to make a final determination in the near future as its current transportation contract with NS expires in three years. 4. Thai ikyouforworkingwiththeschoolsandadiustit igtheoperating hours. The verbiage provided by the County Board of Supervisors for inclusion in RVRA's SUP Application states: "Bradshaw Road shall not be used for the delivery of municipal solid waste before 9 a.m. and between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. on days in which local public schools are in session." This is the standard operating procedure currently utilized by RVRA in the emergency event requiring RVRA's use of Bradshaw Road for transporting municipal solid waste to its landfill. RVRA agrees it should be included for memorialization. 5. Railroad underass on North ForkRoad: RVRA initiallypurchased 15 trailers that are 13'3"in height. Could North Fork Road be used as an emergency road? In short, yes, emergency access to the Smith Gap Landfill is a legal road access that could be used for transporting municipal solid waste via tractor trailers. However, trestle limitations aside, the stretch of Bradshaw Road in Montgomery County that extends from North Fork Road to the landfill is considerably narrower than the stretch of Bradshaw Road extending from Rt. 311 to the landfill. Additionally, the Montgomery County stretch has two, single -lane bridges. The narrower road and bridge issues pose a greater safety issue than the Rt. 311 path for tractor trailers transporting MSW. RVRA does not recommend utilizing this route for safety purposes without substantial improvements to widen the Montgomery 2-2 Attachment 2 County path. Any widening of this road corridor would require VDOT's and Montgomery County's participation, approval, and funding. The rail trestle height limitations could be mitigated with the procurement/leasing of shorter trailers. Due to the flooding that currently exists at the trestle, RVRA believes it is highly unlikely VDOT would approve a lowering of the road elevation in order to increase the height distance between the road elevation and rail trestle. Additionally, cost issues aside, since the trestle is part of NS' main line, RVRA believes it is also highly unlikely NS would be amenable to raising the height of the trestle due to the interruption of its rail traffic that would be created. 6. Page 85 -R VRA Priorities include: a. Protection of the environment ofthe Roanoke ValleyServiceArea. b. Protection ofthe interests oftheresidents ofthe landfill hostcommunity. c. Protection ofthe interests ofthe residents ofthe rail corridor. RVRA's "Landfill Operating Policies" ("Policies") currently lists its "LANDFILL OPERATIONAL PRIORTIES" as: 1. Protection of the environment of the Roanoke Valley Service Area. 2. Protection or extension of the useful life of the landfill. 3. Protection of the interests of the residents of the landfill host community. 4. Protection of the interests of the residents of the rail corridor. 5. Minimization of landfill operating costs. 6. Minimization of landfill tipping fees." The Authority will continue to abide by these guiding priorities and is amenable to incorporating them into the SUP for memorial ization. How many residents live on Bradshaw Roadfrom North ForkRoad to Smith Gap? See attached sheet 8. How many residents live on the rail corridor? See attached sheet 9. When will sewer be connect to take leachate instead of trucks? Direct discharge to sanitary sewer has been discussed preliminarily as part of the road/trucking option, should that occur. The Western Virginia Water Authority has declined to provide sanitary sewer service for the near future. However, the Montgomery Public Service Authority has expressed a willingness to consider providing direct discharge via a sewer line and is amenable to discussing the merits and requirements of the project should the Authority desire to take the next step. The preliminary discussions would be for the construction of a sewer line traversing through the Transportation Corridor to a discharge 2-3 Attachment 2 point at a pumping station near the intersection of Reese Mountain and North Fork Roads. Improvements would also likely need to be made to the pumping station. Should RVRA's Board select the road/trucking option, engineering cost estimates would be prepared to determine a payback for constructing and including the sewer line as part of the final conversion of the rail spur to a road. Simultaneously, RVRA would work with Montgomery Public Service Authority, Montgomery County and Roanoke County to finalize the feasibility for the construction (design, permitting, and contract award) of a sewer line and any improvements to the pumping station. If approved by all necessary parties and if the cost and service contract conditions prove to be worth doing, the sewer line could be constructed when the road construction is performed. Of course, this would be in the provision capital funding is available and the additional work would not delay the construction timeframe of the conversion project. If capital funding is not available to include as part of the road construction project, the Authority could delay the sewer line construction until such time funding becomes available. If the payback is too long or the project proves unfeasible, a sewer line would not likely be constructed. Should the Authority elect to retain rail service, the construction of a sewer line is not likely to occur in the next several years, if at all. 2-4 'v c CL v +.E Y s c D v C v E CL y V d w C 0 U_ V CL ^D W u c D Ge L � C! � M� O Q l 1 r v a _ k CN co e1 o- f`. v CV �p V N z N O -pL V a L a � E a -0 y E E v o a Z'fn aQ in i L a � C ? (ri Cri t!y CV C4 C) CV 0� D L � a Ea y i-- ��+yy M W /.ry CYJ Z a a C4 -00 .H ® SII .-t. y� 4V CA C'7 a"! C►` - j .. .Q Z � a u � .r' -I orn r co i - %0 co C i C� - c u u 0) L 70-0 D �° o o C:c o o , O c 0 U _ CC J J Z cocoO NZ �► L -C D i o +' G a✓ � G d • i C: • s: O 61 L _ _ � LL -"�' C 0) L qE L C3 W W CnD '""" Q I C: Q) J Q �i Q) L ? O O * Q h [Y ac CO Vac o L c 0 -C � LL. i o a o '(j • _ ' v 4* �- o Q° � m m (Y)Q z > p 0)N 0 0 OO! C) '�r u QLL Q Q7 LLL Ll _C 5 � O LU O z O 7 O O NO 4 ao c a INEIIHIN I Attachment 3 Community Meeting Masons Cove Elementary School Thursday, October 17, 2019 - 6:00pm Questions and Comments raised by those in attendance: I) Mason's creek sits on a fault line. Concern with endangered clam species and potential hazardous waste. How was this landfill site chosen in the first place? This is a watershed. Concern with crawdads. Concern with creeks drying out. Trailers are travelling the roads and leaking liquids onto the road. Has complained to DEQ and VDGIF. Response: The Smith Gap Landfill site was recommended by the "Landfill Citizens' Advisory Committee" and a Special Exception Permit (a.k.a. Special Use Permit) was issued by Roanoke County to the Roanoke County Resource Authority on June 27, 1989. The SEP/SUP included "Landfill Operating Permit Conditions & Policies" as recommended by the LCAC and was contingent on the Authority's being able to permit the site. The Roanoke County Resource Authority developed into the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority on September 23, 1991. As stated in the Preface of the original "Landfill Operating Permit Conditions & Policies:" "In 1988, the local governments of Roanoke County, Roanoke City and the Town of Vinton began preparing a comprehensive solid waste disposal plan for the long term future of the Roanoke Valley. The initial study phase of the plan identified numerous methods for the disposal of solid wastes including incineration, landfilling recycling and composting. After months of review, landfilling was identified as the primary method of disposal. With the assistance of dedicated Citizens' Advisory Committees and the commitment from the elected officials, the Smith Gap Landfill and the Roanoke Transfer Station were selected. With each selection was a commitment to protect the environment and the neighborhoods. The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority and the City of Roanoke, County of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton have adopted permit conditions and operating policies for each facility of the solid waste disposal system. These commitments are expressed in the following pages and represent the concerns and compassion 3-1 Attachment 3 for the residents of the area, the impact the facilities will have on their lives, and the importance of a sound waste disposal system." The Smith Gap Landfill, upon being selected and recommended by the Landfill Citizens' Advisory Committee, Roanoke County, and the Roanoke County Resource Authority, subsequently becoming the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, was thoroughly vetted for site -suitability via the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) permitting process in order to obtain its operating permit as a sanitary landfill. Permitting for site -suitability included extensive geological exploration, any endangered species impacts, and protection of the environment, including surface and ground waters. 2) What body will approve or deny this request? Response: The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors must ultimately approve or deny RVRA's Special Use Permit application request. 3) I witnessed liquids coming out of a back corner of a trailer near Orange Market. There is no way this trailer had the required bladder. It was pouring out of the back like a hose. Response: The Authority has purchased fifty (50) MSW trailers. The first 15 trailers did not have bladders installed. The last 35 do have bladders designed to hold excess liquids. It is possible the leaking trailer could have been one of the initial trailers purchased without the bladder, but if it liquid was "pouring out of the back like a hose" as stated, it was likely the door was not shut properly preventing the door sealing from working as designed. 4) Why do you need trailers if you have a train? Which is cheaper to operate? How much money has been spent on trailers? If there is a train, trailers should not be allowed. Response: Despite its best efforts, to date, to negotiate an equitable contract with NS to provide rail transport directly from the Authority's Salem Transfer Station (STS), the Authority has been unable to do so. Therefore, RVRA has to transport solid waste from its STS to its Tinker Creek Transfer Station (TCTS) in Roanoke by tractor trailer in order to load its STS solid waste into the rail cars for shipment to the landfill. This is currently the only way to transport the Authority's STS solid waste to the Smith Gap Landfill (SGLF) without putting trucks on Bradshaw Rd. 3-2 Attachment 3 At a minimum, unless RVRA's contract with NS is amended to provide direct rail haul from the STS to the SGLF, trailers will be needed to support this operation. Current economic analyses show trucking to be the most cost effective way to transport solid waste system -wide. To date, RVRA has purchased 50 trailers at a total cost of approximately $5.5M. 5) Bradshaw Road was not designed to be used by trailers. The road is being destroyed. Response: The Authority is responsible for providing the proper disposal of the regions' MSW under contract with its Member Communities. There are specific operating guidelines the Authority must abide by per its original Special Use Permit (SUP) which includes the emergency use of Bradshaw Rd. In his June 27, 1989 report to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors immediately preceding the Board's vote on the original Special Exception Permit for the Smith Gap Landfill site, Elmer Hodge, Roanoke County Administrator, wrote and reported: "if the Smith Gap site passes the Part A application review and is chosen as the landfill site, a new road or access mechanism should be constructed if at all possible, but the Board should not proffer this as a condition of the Special Exception Permit (SEP a.k.a. Special Use Permit SUP). We should continue to study the options of an alternate access (i.e. dedicated road or rail) to the Smith Gap site, but it may be necessary to use Bradshaw Road." The Authority did obtain its permits and developed an alternate access to the Smith Gap site via the construction of a dedicated rail spur which it has diligently used for more than twenty six years. In the event the Authority is unable to deliver its MSW to the Smith Gap Landfill via its alternate access, currently rail haul, there are several options for the Authority to consider: 1) Shut down its transfer stations and refuse to accept the deliveries of MSW at its facilities (note: while this is an option, it really is not due to the severe environmental issues this would cause); 2) Shut down its transfer stations and direct all collection vehicles to transport their MSW directly to the Smith Gap Landfill individually (note: The Authority receives approximately 300 to 400 vehicles per day at its transfer stations which would equate to placing approximately 600 to 800 additional vehicles on Bradshaw Road, not counting residential customers); or 3) Continue to operate one or more transfer stations and load the MSW received into trailers and truck the MSW to either the Smith Gap Landfill via Bradshaw Rd. or to one or more third -party, fully permitted sanitary landfills. When such an incident arose in November, 2018 through early January, 2019, due to the failure of the rotary tipper, the Authority elected to use Option #3 using a combination of the Smith Gap Landfill and a third -party landfill. With the sudden failure of the tipper, sufficient drivers and tractors were not readily 3-3 Attachment 3 available to transport all the Authority's MSW to a third -party landfill and avoid the complete diversion of tractor trailer traffic off of Bradshaw Rd. The Authority believes it exercised the best option available at the time to meet its contractual obligations to its Member Communities while fully acknowledging the issues it created by making this decision and placing tractor trailer traffic on Bradshaw Rd. 6) The trailer drivers speed down the road and it is dangerous. They do not drive carefully. Response: All drivers contracted by the Authority during the emergency transport of MSW are instructed and reminded daily to obey the speed limits and to travel at safe speed. Additionally, the Authority placed its Safety Manager on Bradshaw Rd. during transport hours to monitor its contract drivers' speed and conduct. Several drivers who failed to follow instructions were removed from the contractor's services by RVRA and not allowed to return based on information obtained from residents and the Authority's internal monitoring. The Authority does not condone or tolerate unsafe operations by its employees or contractors at any time. �) If the Authority continues business as they are now, is this permit even needed? Why can't they keep doing what they are doing? Response: If the Authority were to continue doing business as they are now, yes, Roanoke County has determined a Special Use Permit (SUP) is required. Approximately 8.05 acres of land, formerly exempt from permitting when it was owned by NS, was conveyed to the Authority in February, 2019 in accordance with the original contract terms. Now that this land is owned by the Authority, it is subject to permitting requirements. Therefore, the Authority has submitted a SUP Application to include this property in order to maintain compliance. Technically, the Authority could continue with the status quo which utilizes rail transportation with gondolas and the rotary tipper at the landfill. However, due to the aging equipment, inability to replace gondolas, difficulty and cost associated with replacing/refurbishing the tipper, outdated technology that requires additional handling with higher operating and capital costs, and anticipated ongoing operational difficulties, the Authority has been looking at its long-term options for the future. The transportation options being considered include the status quo, continuing with rail haul by converting to flat cars and shipping containers, and trucking. 3-4 Attachment 3 8) How many localities do you bring in trash for? Wasn't this meant to be only for Roanoke County andRoanoke City? Response: The Authority is comprised of four member communities: Roanoke County, the Cities of Roanoke & Salem, and the Town of Vinton. These four communities, along with Montgomery County were the original localities included in the Authority's permitted service area. Upon the City of Salem's joinder to the Authority in July, 2016, the Authority was assigned a contract between the City of Salem and Botetourt and Craig Counties. Craig County continues to utilize the Authority's disposal system. 9) Iknow you all have been using the railroad since 2005. Why does it have to be changed? Concerns mentioned with asbestos storage. Mentions they have a very powerful telescope and have seen asbestos warning signs up the road to the landfill. The smell is very strong at his property. Some of the methane taps have helped but not enough. Response: The Authority has been using rail transport under contract with NS since its inception in 1993. The original contract expired June 30, 2018. Subsequently, the Authority and NS entered into a new 5 -yr. contract that will expire on June 30, 2023. Either a new or amended contract with NS will need to be negotiated on or prior to that deadline. If a new contract with NS is not negotiated or is canceled, the Authority will need to have plans in place to transition to a new transportation methodology on or prior to that deadline. The Smith Gap Landfill, since its inception, has been fully permitted to accept asbestos for disposal. Asbestos, while not a hazardous material, does require special disposal and monitoring as a condition of the landfill's operating permit. The VDEQ solid waste regulations have specific handling and disposal requirements for asbestos. Specifically, signs are required to be placed on the landfill noting that asbestos containing material is buried in the landfill. The Authority provides for asbestos disposal to ensure the need for the proper disposal of this material is provided to the region. The amount of asbestos disposed of at the landfill is minimum compared to the overall tonnage of solid waste disposed of on an annual basis. The Authority receives less than 70 tons per year of asbestos with an overall solid waste tonnage of over 200,000 tons per year. That is less than 1% of our overall solid waste received. 3-5 Attachment 3 RVRA installed a landfill gas collection system prior to having any regulatory requirement to do so. A gas collection system is one of the primary means for controlling odors generated by the operation of a sanitary landfill. In January, 2020, RVRA's Board authorized the expansion of its landfill gas collection system. Construction is anticipated to start this spring, weather permitting. Approximately twenty (20) new wells (methane taps) will be installed and the Authority anticipates it will help control the landfill's odors. Additionally, the Authority conducts quarterly surface sweeps of the landfill to determine if landfill gas is escaping the cap. If the sweeps indicate >500 ppm (which is barely above the human smell), then additional soil cover is added to the area until the levels fall below that threshold. Once the landfill is at final grade and a permanent cap is installed, the amount of odor will greatly diminish. l0) Have there been any air quality studies done for where we live? Requesting they be done. Response: The Authority's Smith Gap Landfill is subject to the requirements of Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) standards. The CAA requires the landfill meet specific air quality parameters and perform quarterly surface emissions tests with results submitted to the VDEQ and EPA Region III. These reports are available for the public to review. ll) How many wells were drilled for testing? I drilled all of them. Response: To date, 250+ borings have been made at the Smith Gap Landfill site to determine geological conditions, including soil stability and potentiometric (groundwater) mapping. These borings were a requirement for regulatory siting purposes. l2) How much does it cost per ton to transport? You said it was more economical to take the train, how? Response: The current total (i.e. operating & capital) cost/ton transportation projections for the first year after the completion of RVRA's current contract with NS expires in FY 2024 are: Rail (Hybrid) _ $23.25/ton & Trucking = $13.49/ton 3-6 Attachment 3 Trucking is currently the most economical transportation option. This is primarily due to the additional handling of the waste during the transportation process associated with the rail option (i.e. trucking and handling solid waste received at RVRA's Salem Transfer Station (STS) to Roanoke at RVRA's Tinker Creek Transfer Station (TCTS); reloading solid waste into shipping containers, loading containers onto flat cars, transporting by rail to the landfill, unloading shipping containers from flat cars and transporting into landfill). Trucking requires less personnel, lower operating costs, and less equipment/capital by loading solid waste directly into trailers and transporting directly from each transfer station into the landfill. Additionally, the remaining capital costs necessary to convert the rail system from gondolas/rotary tipper to flat cars/shipping containers is higher than the remaining trucking/road capital required. The Authority is continuing to negotiate with NS for a lower transportation system cost. 13)Will you put in writing that if the rail is put in, trailers will be off the road? Understands there may be clauses for use during emergency situations, but then concerned they will makeup emergencies. Response: The SUP Application stipulates that if rail is selected as the mode of transportation, the use of Bradshaw Rd. would continue as -is in emergency (i.e. MSW tractor trailers) and normal usage situations (i.e. equipment and stone deliveries, equipment maintenance vendors, special waste deliveries such as asbestos and dead animals, etc...). If trucking is selected and the rail spur is converted to a road, then all tractor trailers, equipment and stone deliveries, equipment maintenance vendors, special waste deliveries such as asbestos and dead animals, etc ... would access the landfill via the new road through the alternate Transportation Corridor and would be off of Bradshaw Rd. The only exception would be in an emergency condition as outlined in the Application which stipulates: 1. be designated as such by the Roanoke County Administrator, or his/her designee, and; 2. Bradshaw Rd. could not be used for any emergency situation that would last less than two days, and; 3-7 Attachment 3 3. RVRA would have to make every reasonable effort to transport its solid waste to another third -party sanitary landfill: a. Access: Primary access to the Smith Gap landfill will be via the Transportation Corridor. In the event the Primary Access is unavailable for two or more business days, the Authority will make reasonable efforts to transport all municipal solid waste to one or more fully permitted third -party sanitary landfills until such time as the Primary Access can be resumed. In the event the Authority cannot through reasonable efforts contract for sufficient immediate transportation services to transport waste to third party landfills, and until sufficient services can be obtained, Bradshaw Rd. will serve as Secondary Access to the landfill. However, Bradshaw Rd. shall not be used for the delivery of municipal solid waste before 9 a.m. and between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. on days in which local public schools are in session. Emergency Operations have been defined in the SUP Application as follows: e. Emereency Operations: Emergency operations shall allow for extended hours on all days and Sundays whenever an emergency has been duly declared by the County Administrator of Roanoke County or his/her designee. Circumstances for Emergency Operations include, but are not limited to, natural disasters or short-term (less than 2 days), temporary operating interruptions resulting from equipment failure or contract service interruptions. Emergency operations may require use of third -party landfills or use of secondary access to the Smith Gap Landfill (Bradshaw Road). However, as noted above in paragraph (a), Bradshaw Road shall not be used for the delivery of municipal solid waste before 9 a.m. and between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. on days in which local public schools are in session. 14) Map question- is this red area the area of interest? Are trucks going to be on the road by the railroad track? Where will the road go? Response: No, the green area (8.05 acres) in the SUP Application is the area of interest RVRA is requesting to be added. The red and dark blue areas are already included in the SUP. In the event the Authority elects to convert its transportation methodology to trucking, the existing 4.5 mile rail spur accessing the landfill would be converted to a road. The road would be on the same footprint as the existing rail spur is now. There would not be an additional road constructed alongside the track. The road would traverse from North Fork Rd. (off the I-81 Ironto Exit) to Reese Mountain Rd. (in front of the Dixie Truckstop), cross the river and onto the new Connector Road (already constructed) paralleling NS' main rail line and the river to the point where RVRA's rail spur diverges from NS' main line (roughly — across from the rail trestle located on North Fork Rd.). The road would provide direct access from I-81 into the landfill without having to utilize Bradshaw Rd. 3-8 Attachment 3 IS) Can we put "stop using Bradshaw Road" on the SUP? Response: When the Smith Gap Landfill was originally sited and permitted, Bradshaw Rd. was designated as an emergency access. 16) In '91 we were told they could go through the railroad property in case of emergency and would not need to use Bradshaw Road at all. Response: The original SUP list Bradshaw Road as an emergency access. 17) In SUP- there is mention of a 3hr delay with a wreck on the interstate. Will the trucks come on Bradshaw then? Response: No. As stipulated in the SUP Application, the Transportation Corridor would have to be unavailable for use for two or more business days, minimum: a. Access: Primary access to the Smith Gap landfill will be via the Transportation Corridor. In the event the Primary Access is unavailable for two or more business days, the Authority will make reasonable efforts to transport all municipal solid waste to one or more fully permitted third -party sanitary landfills until such time as the Primary Access can be resumed. In the event the Authority cannot through reasonable efforts contract for sufficient immediate transportation services to transport waste to third party landfills, and until sufficient services can be obtained, Bradshaw Rd. will serve as Secondary Access to the landfill. However, Bradshaw Rd. shall not be used for the delivery of municipal solid waste before 9 a.m. and between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. on days in which local public schools are in session. 18) Bradshaw Road is not good for tractor trailers. It is not wide enough and dangerous if one breaks down or has to stop. In 6 months this road has been destroyed. The railroad will save money and time. Response: See #5 above regarding the use of Bradshaw Rd. and #25 below regarding the cost analyses. 19)How long will road construction take? How will that be done? Response: There are two phases for the full road construction constituting the Transportation Corridor: The Connector Rd. & the Spur Rd. The first and most timely construction phase, the approximately 0.5 mile Connector Road, has been completed. It is paved and ready for service. The second phase, the conversion of the approximately 4.5 mile rail spur to a road, has not been constructed. The Authority owns the property where the 4.5 mile rail spur is located. The rail spur is essentially a developed road with a rail ties and track on top 3-9 Attachment 3 of it. The rail spur has been graded and compacted with surface water controls already in-place. Along with land costs, these are typically the most costly and timeliest components associated with any road construction project and they have been completed. In order to convert the rail spur to a road, the rail would need to be removed and set aside; the ballast stone spread; stone fines would need to be incorporated and compacted with the ballast; and the road would be usable. Construction could begin from both ends of the rail spur or even at various points in-between to expedite the construction timeline. The Authority's engineer projects this process will take approximately 3 months to complete to convert the rail to usable form. During this part of the construction, the Authority's solid waste will be transported by tractor trailers to one or more third -party landfills. No solid waste would be delivered to the Smith Gap Landfill during this part of the construction. The Authority, upon achieving a compacted, usable roadbed, could then begin using the new road for accessing the landfill with paving being done simultaneously, using flagmen until the paving has been completed. Paving is projected to take up to another two months to complete. 2�0 (Speaker 8 again) How much did the tipper cost? Why don't you put in a new tipper if that will solve the problems? Didyou say you estimate 50 trucks a day? Response: The rotary tipper, the dedicated 4.5 mile rail spur, and 30 gondolas cost $9M in 1993 when RVRA began its operations under contract with NS. This technology was considered "cutting edge" technology when implemented more than a quarter century ago. That technology has since been surpassed in the rail - waste transportation industry. The rotary tipper requires additional handling of the waste, requires additional equipment, and creates an operational impasse in the event of tipper malfunction. Putting in a new tipper or refurbishing the existing tipper will not resolve those issues. The current average daily tonnage is approximately 1,000 tons per day. That would equate to approximately 50 tractor trailer loads per day. Tonnages are typically higher in the warmer months and lower in the colder months which would translate into more or less tractor trailers as the daily tonnages fluctuate seasonally. 2l) (Speaker 14 again) Is there construction already going on at the railroad near Williby Rd? Will there be more trucks than we see now in the future? Response: Yes, but not for any road conversion work. When the rail spur conveyed to RVRA from NS in February, 2019, the rail needed immediate, major maintenance 3-10 Attachment 3 in order to continue to safely operate the train on it. RVRA hired a rail maintenance contractor to perform work on the rail. All the work that is currently being performed by RVRA on the Rail Spur is maintenance for the rail line only. If RVRA elects to transition to trucking, the maximum annual tonnage RVRA can accept at the landfill is 320,000 tons. That has been the maximum tonnage since the landfill's inception. As stated in the SUP Application in the "Project Justification" section: "If the Authority elects to convert the rail access to trucking access, those residents on Williby Road would see an average of fifty (50) trucks entering and exiting the landfill via this access point for an average total of one hundred (100) trips per day. Such usage would occur typically between 7:30 a.m. — 5 p.m. Monday — Friday equating to approximately 5-6 vehicles per hour in each direction (i.e. entering & exiting) or one about every five (5) minutes in both directions. The maximum vehicle count could see up to seventy five (75) trucks per day if the landfill ever receives the maximum volume of waste it is allowed to accept per its Member Use Agreement." 22) You don't want to fix the tipper because it's expensive, but you've bought... (speaker goes on to summarize different properties/projects the Authority has done recently.) How much money has been spent in anticipation of going into a trucking enterprise? Why not just use that money to fix the tipper? We have to be careful and ask these questions because the language in this SUP is what we are going to have to live with. Response: Aside from the cost of replacing/fixing the tipper and most importantly, as previously outlined in #20, the rotary tipper technology requires additional handling of the waste (equipment and personnel) and retains an operational impasse in the event of equipment malfunction — solid waste cannot be unloaded by rail if the tipper is not functioning and has to be transported by tractor trailer. The rotary tipper technology has been surpassed in the solid waste transport industry. Rail haul, typically long-haul, is currently being utilized in the solid waste industry. But, the current methodology utilizes flat cars & shipping containers which reduces, but does not completely eliminate, the additional handling component of the rotary tipper. Due to its unique scale and size, which is considerably larger than its coal -tipper counterparts, replacing and/or fixing the tipper remains a costly challenge. In the last two years, the Authority has spent approximately $2M in repairs to the tipper 3-11 Attachment 3 and has spent approximately another $1M transporting and disposing its MSW in third party landfills. Because it is mechanical with multiple moving parts, the rotary tipper is and always will remain subject to breakdowns. During these breakdowns, the Authority's only recourse to transport waste it receives via tractor trailers. Approximately $19M has been spent to date towards converting the Authority's transportation system from rail to trucking. The Authority is contractually responsible for managing the disposal of solid waste collected in the region and delivered to the Authority's two transfer stations "as economically as possible" (Sec. 4. L(a) Member Use Agreement). A long-term, reliable, and cost-effective transportation system is required in order for the Authority to meet its contractual obligations to its Member Communities, the regions' residents and businesses. The rotary tipper methodology no longer provides either of these assurances. 23) Has a decision been made on trucks vs railroad? County has used our money to buy trailers and trucks, so this doesn't add up. The decision has already been made and we are being lied to. Response: At one point, in May, 2017, after requesting, receiving, and evaluating NS' "best and final offer," the RVRA Board did unanimously elect to transition to trucking. At this time, unanimous authorization was given by RVRA's Board to begin construction at the Salem Transfer Station (STS) to set it up for trucking. From that point until January, 2018, RVRA's Board also unanimously authorized the procurement of additional trailers and the construction of the Connector Road. In January, 2018, NS submitted a revised transportation contract proposal to RVRA for consideration after RVRA's account was moved to a different division in NS. Additionally, in February, 2018, Roanoke County notified RVRA of the land use issue that needed to be resolved wherein 8.05 acres in Roanoke County that had previously been exempt under from zoning under NS' ownership was going to be subject to zoning requirements under RVRA's ownership and needed to be included in the SUP. Starting with NS' revised proposal and the need to resolve the land use issue, the transition to trucking was stopped, other than projects already contractually underway. Subsequently, at the request of Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, an independent Working Group was assembled in May, 2018 to review RVRA's 3-12 Attachment 3 transportation options, including NS' revised proposal, and work was initiated to resolve the land use issue with the submittal of RVRA's SUP Application. The Working Group concluded its review with a formal report in October, 2018 recommending trucking as the Authority's best, long-term transportation option for the future. Negotiations continue with NS to obtain the best terms possible. Pending resolution to the land use issue, RVRA will need to make a determination as to its transportation methodology on or before June 30, 2023 when its current contract with NS expires. 24) What is the longevity of the landfill? How much longer will it be able to function? Response: The Smith Gap Landfill has more than 100 years of remaining capacity operating at the maximum annual tonnage (320,000 tpy) it is contractually able to accept. 25) $18.5 million has been spent preparing to switch to trucks, but that decision hasn't been made, while you said the tipper cost $9 million. You've been using our money and it doesn't make sense. - what would it have cost to use the train instead? How long would that money have lasted on train transit? Response: Cost projections were performed for three different transportation options, two of which utilize rail haul. The first option, the current transportation methodology, uses the rotary tipper and gondolas. It is termed the "Status Quo" option. The second rail option also utilizes rail haul, but converts the system to flat cars and shipping containers which eliminate the need for the rotary tipper and its associated costs. However, it still requires trucking solid waste from the STS to the TCTS in Roanoke and also requires the unloading and double -handling of the waste at the transfer stations and landfill. It is termed the "Hybrid" option. The third option is the "Trucking" option wherein solid waste at the transfer stations is loaded directly into the trailers and transported directly the landfill and unloaded without additional handling. The long term (20 -yrs starting in FY'24 after the completion of the current 5 -yr. contract with NS) cost projections for each of these three options, as determined by the independent Working Group, consisted of a low and high projection. Their cost projections are: 3-13 Attachment 3 Status Quo Low $420,267,307 High $428,345,307 Hybrid Low $418,354,192 High $450,445,714 Trucking Low $375,425,882 High $388,760,145 26) (Speaker 22 again) Do you have proposals for fixing Bradshaw? Due to all of the damage your trucks have caused? Response: No. Since Bradshaw Rd. is a public road maintained by VDOT, all repairs to Bradshaw Rd. must go through that agency. RVRA did reach out to VDOT requesting if the Authority could contribute funding to VDOT for Bradshaw Rd. repairs. VDOT informed RVRA its accounting system was not set up to receive funds wherein VDOT could ensure any financial contribution from RVRA would be used specifically for Bradshaw Rd. repairs. Subsequently, shortly after RVRA met with VDOT, VDOT did make significant repairs to Bradshaw Rd. repairing shoulders and filling in pot holes. VDOT did not perform a complete resurfacing of Bradshaw Rd. 27) (Speaker 14 again) Is there a timeframe on finishing the road and converting to that from the railroad? Response: See 419 28) Timeline? Will Bradshaw be used during the switchover? Is the track even wide enough to hold roads for tractor trailers? Response: No. If the road is built, the Authority's solid waste would be transported by tractor trailers to third party landfills until the new road becomes usable. RVRA's engineer has determined there is sufficient width to convert the rail spur to a minimum of 24' wide which is sufficient width for two-way tractor -trailer traffic. 3-14 Attachment 3 29) So is this meeting really about the SUP for the property indicated? Isn't this property currently being used now? So this SUP is just to continue the use? Response: Yes. The SUP Application's primary purpose is to include the 8.05 acres located in Roanoke County currently being used for rail transportation. However, it also clarifies some outdated provisions in the current SUP. Approval of the Authority's application will allow the Authority to continue to use rail to access the landfill via the Transportation Corridor. It will also give the Authority the option to consider its other transportation alternatives utilizing this alternate access to the landfill, other than Bradshaw Rd. 30) When the road is built, will you still be using the tipper? Response: No. If the road is built, access to the landfill via rail would become obsolete. The Authority's solid waste would be transported by tractor trailers to third party landfills during construction of the road until the new road becomes usable. The tipper would also become obsolete with the construction of road access through the Transportation Corridor. It would be surplussed. 31) (Speaker I again) One lane bridges are very dangerous. Describes being trapped on one recently. The road is not in good condition. Response: There are no one lane bridges going into the landfill from the Mason Cove area. However, there are two, narrow one-way bridges and culverts on Bradshaw coming in from the Montgomery County/fronto side. 32) If this SUP is not approved, what happens next? Response: If the SUP application is not approved without additional modifications, RVRA will have to stop utilizing rail deliveries as its current alternate access to the landfill would be out of compliance. RVRA would also be unable to continue considering the conversion of the rail spur to a road to access the landfill. The Transportation Corridor portion located in Roanoke County would be out of compliance. The only recourse for accessing the landfill without having the alternate Transportation Corridor would be to transport the Authority's solid waste to the landfill via trucks on Bradshaw Rd. in order to continue using this facility for the region's solid waste disposal needs. 3-15 Attachment 4 4-1 ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY January 14, 2020 Mr. Dan O'Donnell, County Administrator County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 lar / Dear Mr. omlell: On November 19, 2019, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing regarding the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority's Special Use Permit Application for 8.05 acres to be used as a sanitary landfill. As part of its application information, the Authority included detailed information on the two transportation options it is currently considering, rail and trucking. Both options utilize the same "Transportation Corridor" traversing through the requested 8.05 acre area. To date, a final transportation option has not been selected by the Authority. The Authority continues to actively investigate its future transportation options, including its negotiations with Norfolk Southern Corporation via an independent third party negotiator. Immediately prior to the public hearing, the Authority's Chief Executive Officer was provided with a list of questions pertaining to the Authority's transportation options and the process the Authority has used. Please find attached the Authority's responses. The Authority looks forward to continuing to work with Roanoke County to ensure the thorough vetting of the .Authority's transportation options for the best long-term transportation solution for the region. Sin rely, 4�!� Daniel D. Miles, P.E. Chief Executive Officer Attachments 1020 Hollins Road, NE Roanoke, Virginia 24012-8011 (540)1357-5050 Fax (540) 857-5056 Web Site: www.rvra.net Attachment 4 4-2 1. Why did the RVRA not have meetings with localities, governments involved and the railroad to see what we could get on rates and work problems out as a teats? Every thing has been done by one person, the RVRA CEO and it reads as attitudes and personalities may have been a negative influence instead of creating a warm working relationship. The RVRA is comprised of four member communities: Roanoke County, Cities of Roanoke and Salem, and the Town of Vinton. Each member community appoints representatives to the RVRA board. These board representatives, on behalf of the member communities they represent, were actively involved with all correspondence (written & verbal), discussions, negotiations and ongoing operational matters associated with RVRA's transportation contract with Norfolk Southern (NS). RVRA's chair conducted formal face-to-face negotiations and written correspondence. The RVRA Board also provided its Chief Executive Officer with negotiating parameters in its attempts to obtain fair and equitable pricing and operating parameters necessary for RVRA to continue utilizing NS' transportation services. 2. When preparing for Salem to come on hoard as a member, why was there no preparation done for the expectation of the extra trash? Why not approach the railroad (NS) before Salem joining and asking for more gonds and other equipment (leach tankers) as needed. Why wait to after the fact then demand extra pulls for the extra trash. Pre planning should have been the first step. There should have been group meetings to discuss these issues because RVRA had give NS 9 million dollars to put in the rail spur at the beginning and to buy equipment. Preparations had been made well prior to Salem's joinder to RVRA. RVRA first met face-to-face with NS officials on Oct. 24, 2013 to discuss the ongoing issue of gondola and tanker shortages that RVRA believes NS was contractually obligated to provide based on the Authority's $9M initial capital investment. RVRA also informed NS about the potential of adding Salem, its transfer station and the additional volume of waste to NS' transportation contract. Both parties agreed to investigate the feasibility of converting RVRA's gondola rail system to flat cars & shipping containers being used by several commercial waste companies as a win-win solution; NS would increase its business by approximately 50% and RVRA would enjoy improved operational efficiencies by eliminating the rotary tipper and the added volume of waste and the associated revenues would pay for the capital costs associated with the conversion. From the end of 2013 until 2016, RVRA worked with NS to develop a sideyard switch from NS' main line to serve the Salem Transfer Station. Conceptual plans were developed. Construction of the sideyard switch would have required RVRA's acquisition of property situated between the main line and the transfer station. RVRA entered into an agreement for RVRA's intended acquisition of the property. RVRA determined its equipment needs, located vendors, and obtained bids for all equipment necessary to convert the station to rail haul utilizing flatcars and shipping containers. Upon Salem's May 9, 2016 announced joinder, RVRA was prepared to purchase the equipment and land necessary to convert the Salem Transfer Station to rail haul via flat cars & shipping containers at its June 22, 2016 meeting. NS reneged on its promise to provide a transport rate to RVRA for the flat cars prior to the meeting. This rate was required before RVRA would obligate the capital necessary to begin the rail conversion 1 Attachment 4 4-3 process. Ultimately, NS did provide its pricing which was substantially more than RVRA was paying under its current contract with NS for gondolas. This began a protracted, good faith negotiation with NS wherein RVRA was unable to obtain an equitable pricing needed to proceed with converting its rail transportation system. RVRA ultimately requested and received NS' "best and final offer," in writing, on April 7, 2017. RVRA compared NS' best and final offer to the cost of changing the transportation method from rail to trucking and concluded that trucking was a less expensive alternative. RVRA began the conversion at its May 24, 2017 meeting 3. In the last 25 years, how many tunes has the railroad been late in getting the trash train to the landfill? Has it failed in itsjob? NS has and remains contractually obligated to transport three commodities for RVRA: Waste Water (a.k.a. leachate); Stone; & Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). A. Leachate: o Starting in June, 2015 to November, 2015, NS removed all four of its leachate tankers from service without replacement informing RVRA it would be RVRA's obligation to replace them. RVRA declined citing NS' contractual obligation. While NS did transport leachate while it had some tankers during this period, the reduced number of tankers were insufficient to keep up with the volume of leachate being produced at the landfill. Ultimately, NS removed all four tankers and completely ceased providing any leachate transportation services for approximately one month requiring RVRA to hire truck transport tankers to remove leachate from onsite and pay for third -party disposal. RVRA filed "Notice of Default" to NS on Dec. 3, 2015 for failure to perform services and ultimately incurred $1.83,000 in costs in excess of what RVRA would have otherwise paid to NS if NS had met their contractual obligation. Both parties executed a Settlement Agreement eff. July 8, 2016 in which NS defaulted. Subsequently, on October 8, 2016, RVRA notified NS of its default of the Settlement Agreement. o Nov. 17, 2017 — NS assesses demurrage fees for 3 leachate tankers released by RVRA for pickup on Oct. 6th and picked up by NS on Oct. 9th. RVRA refused to pay as tankers were contractually exempt from demurrage fees and tankers were on RVRA property during the four days NS failed to pick them up and transport. B. Stone: o In 2012, NS advised RVRA that there was an ongoing shortage of stone cars causing delays in shipment. The shipments of stone began taking four to six months from the time RVRA ordered the stone to the time NS delivered it. As a result, RVRA began placing annual stone orders for ongoing operational needs in July or August anticipating that the stone cars would arrive around the following November or December. o Stone deliveries became acute in 2017 when RVRA requested bids for construction of a new cell and closing a portion of another cell at the landfill. The RVRA specifications required contractors to make their bids based on delivery of needed stone by NS in accordance with RVRA's contract with NS. The contractors preparing their bids informed RVRA staff that NS could not meet their delivery needs based on a shortage of stone cars. RVRA amended the specifications to allow bidders to include an alternate bid to transport Attachment 4 stone by truck in addition to rail in the event NS was not able to meet stone delivery requirements. The revised specification required truck deliveries to be made via the Ironto exit off Interstate 81 to North Fork Road to Bradshaw Road to the landfill during designated hours that would not conflict with the operation of school buses. The specification also capped the number of loads that could be transported by truck. When RVRA received bids from contractors, the alternate bid for trucking stone was $375,800 less than the rail option. The RVRA Board awarded the contract with the provision that the contractor give NS the first opportunity to provide stone transport in accordance with the transportation contract and if NS was not able to deliver stone in a timely manner and in accordance with the contractual terms, the contractor could rely on trucking the stone. The selected contractor contacted NS to arrange stone deliveries. The contractor and NS could not work out the delivery or the payment options. As a result, the contractor moved the stone by truck. The stone totaled approximately 1,360 tandem truck loads. o November, 2017—RVRA orders 12 stone cars from Boxley: 5 shipped on 1113; 5 shipped on 11120 & 2 shipped on 12120. Received charge from NS on Jan. 19, 2018 for stone and RVRA informs NS stone had not been delivered, therefore, RVRA disputing bill until stone delivered. Jan. 26, 2018 - stone delivered. o RVRA and NS entered into a second contract on July 1, 2018. NS provided a price for the delivery of stone but, unlike the previous contract, NS did not exempt the stone from storage, switching or demurrage charges. RVRA placed an initial stone order for 17 stone cars in August 2018, anticipating a 4-6 month lag in delivery, NS initially shipped five stone cars. Four of the cars were delivered after Christmas in December 2018. The fifth car went missing. NS advised RVRA of a demurrage fee for the missing stone car. RVRA declined to pay the demurrage for the missing car because the car had not been delivered to the landfill. The contracted rate per stone car increased from $684 in the first contract to $2,034 per car in the second contract. The price increase was directly attributable to storage, switching and demurrage charges that NS imposed in the second contract. After reviewing the increased cost of hauling stone, RVRA canceled the remaining stone order from NS. RVRA began trucking the stone at that time. C. MSW: There have been several occurrences over the first 25 years wherein NS failed to show on a Friday evening, but did a makeup -pull on the following Saturday. Operationally, we had to keep trash on the floor overnight which is out of compliance with our DEQ permit. Recently: mNov. 2 2016 - NS failed to show for scheduled pull citing "crew scheduled for vacation." For the first time, RVRA sends 7 tractor trailers to SGLF via Bradshaw Rd. in order to keep TOTS & STS open. o May 15, 2017 — A.M. Green, RVRA's Chair, and D. Miles, CEO, meet with NS representatives. RVRA informed by NS that RVRA "no longer fits NS' business model" and agrees to cooperate with RVRA during its transition process should RVRA elect to transport by trucking. NS agrees to provide additional pulls to compensate for insufficient gondolas for duration of remaining contract term (June 30, 2018). Subsequently, after repeated requests and mostly denials, RVRA initiated logging its requests as follows: d Requested an extra pull for the week of Memorial Day 2018, NS denied End V Term Contract (25 years: June 30, 20181 Attachment 4 4-5 July 1, 2018 - Start of new 5 -yr, contract between RVRA & NS. NS contractually obligated to provide minimum of 25 gondolas and provide up to 27 extra pulls during annual term, at no additional switching fee. o Requested an extra pull during the week of Independence Day 2018, NS Denied o Requested an extra pull for the week of July 16-20, NS denied o Requested an extra pull on August 22, 2018 and received a pull. o Requested and received an extra pull September 20, 2018, mainly for leachate o Requested and received an extra pull September 27, 2018, mainly for leachate o Requested and received an extra pull on October 4, 2018, for leachate and waste o Requested and were denied an extra pull from October 15-19, 2018, for leachate and waste. o Requested an extra pull on October 23, 2018 and were denied. o Requested an extra pull on October 24, 2018 and we received one. Left at 7:30 am, have not arrived back yet. (leachate and waste) 6 gons, 2 tankers. o Requested an extra pull the week of October 30 -November 2 but there was not a crew available. As noted, our leachate tanks are still full and an extra pull will help us get the tank levels down to an acceptable level. We also hauled all of Salem's trailers to NRV all week in anticipation of not getting an extra pull and knowing that we will be working on the tipper on November 2-4, 2018. o The tipper was down between November 3, 2018 and January 7, 2019, no extra pulls were requested. Leachate was trucked between November 12 and January 7, 2019. o An extra pull was requested the Week of January 8 - 11 but no pull was received. o On March 12, 2019, NS crew ran through the derail near Tinker and the gons were not delivered at TCTS until approximately 11:00 a.m. o On March 14, 2019, NS crew ran through the derail at the Landfill and a switch, we have to arrange and pay for fixing the switch and try and get reimbursed from NS. The cars did not arrive back to TCTS until 8:00 or 8:30 the next morning. o On March 19, 2019, we requested an extra pull and NS noted that things looked good but they did not show on March 20, 2019. Called and texted but so far we got no response. NS provided an extra pull on March 21, 2019. n On March 29, 2019 (Friday) NS did not make their normal pull. According to NS, the normal crew was on vacation. NS made the null on Saturday and our staff had to stay late on Saturday and clear the floor. o We asked and received a pull on May 21 & 29, 2019. o We asked and received a pull on June 4, & 11, 2019. o We asked for and received a pull on June 18, 2019 and NS cavae late (according to Albert James, dispatch did not alert the crew correctly), they got here about 9:30 but were still here on-site at 11:30 so I canceled the extra pull. History tells us if NS does not leave by 9:00 am they will not get back until after 7:00 or 8:00 at night. I did not want our guys sitting around from 5:00 pm until 8:00 pm. NS evening crew would also have to sit around until the floor was cleared and could have prevented them from making their normal run tonight. I passed this information along to NS with "if the crew cannot leave the transfer station by 9:00 am it is no use in going". o On June 25, 2019 we requested and received an extra pull. NS's crew told our staff they were going to be taking their time and they did not get back until after five. 1. called and spoke with Brock Mutter of NS and told him what happened and I believed the crew was taking advantage of the situation and dragging their feet. End Year 1: Reguested 31 extra pulls -- Received 13 vs. 27 per contract 0 4 Attachment 4 • o On July 2 and 9 NS again provided us with an extra pull and their crew did a much better job. On July 9, 2019 they were back before three. o On July 16, 2019, NS was prepared to make an extra pull but the evening pull was delayed getting back to tinker because of locomotive problems. The cars eventually showed up around 9:30 or 10:00 am. No extra pull, requested another pull for this week, waiting on a response. NS agreed to conduct an extra pull on July 17, 2019 and they are in the process of performing that switch. o On July 23 NS made an extra switch. o On July 24, NS pulled the track out of compliance because one section of rail was beyond the 58" maximum gauge. FRC used gauge rods by July 25{!'to temporarily fix the track until the new ties come in later in August or September. Several other areas have been identified that need new gauge work. FRC will be submitting their latest inspection report and recommendations within the next few days. o On July 30, RVRA cancelled the extra switch since it was not needed. o We also cancelled the extra switch on August 6th and the 13th. o On August 16, NS left one empty gon at the landfill and we only had 14 gons available for Saturday and Monday. o Requested and received an extra pull on August 20, 2019. NS got a late start and did not get back until after 4:00. The evening crew had to wait until we cleared the floor. o On August 20, NS only brought back ten cars (there were 15 empties) after being told by our staff to bring back all the empties. o On August 21, NS was told to bring back 16 gons and two tankers, a knuckle boom was broken on one of the cars and they could not bring back any more than 10 gons. o On August 22, 2019 RVRA sent a memo to NS concerning the movement of gons between stations. NS was not bringing all the empties that were available at the landfill. o On August 23, 2019, NS left three full gons at tinker and took nine full to the landfill and brought nine empty back. o On August 26, we requested an extra pull but were not given any notification until the morning of August 27, 2019 that a crew was on duty at 5:00 am. Since we did not know for sure NS was coming, we did not hold any gondolas back and there was only a little waste (1 /2 gon) on the floor. Our staff told N S that they would have to wait a little to get two other cars filled and the tankers emptied. Shortly after that, NS informed us that there was a problem on the main line and the extra pull would have been delayed significantly and the extra pull was cancelled by NS. ■ September 24, 2019 -_fire in gon at SGLF caused by failure of bottom metal panel dropping onto wheels creating sparks that ignited fire in MSW. NS contacted to repair its gon and noted similar deteriorating condition of other Bons. ■ December 3 2019 - fire in gon at SGLF caused by failure of bottom metal panel droppin onto wheels creating sparks that ignited fire in MSW. NS contacted to repair its gon and noted similar deteriorating condition of other gons. 4. What explanation was given for the $20, 000, 000 bond. What was reasons from CEO?. WAS it for road and equipment for truck traffic? Has this road been approved by all localities? The $20M in financing proceeds were unanimously authorized and approved by RVRA's Board of Directors for "RVRA Facilities Improvements and Modifications." The initial intent for borrowing these funds was to use these funds to purchase equipment and land, and for modifications to the Salem Transfer Station necessary to begin the transition from 5 Attachment 4 railed gondoWtipper transportation to railed flat car/shipping container transportation. The actual initial use of the funds was unanimously authorized by RVRA's Board to purchase 15 trailers necessary to transport the MSW from Salem to Roanoke to load into gondolas which NS was contractually obligated to transport. Subsequently, RVRA's Board authorized the purchase of land necessary to provide a second transportation option as leverage in its negotiations with NS in an attempt to obtain equitable pricing and provide a factual transportation option that would keep trucks off of Bradshaw Rd. After unsuccessfully negotiating an equitable rate with NS, RVRA's Board unanimously authorized the use of these funds to make the modification necessary to set the Salem Transfer Station (STS) up for trucking and to purchase the remaining equipment necessary to transition its transportation operation from rail to trucking. The primary modifications have been completed at the STS. Fifty trailers necessary to truck RVRA's MSW have been purchased. The Connector Road project is complete. All expenditures from the financing proceeds were formally and unanimously approved by RVRA's Board of Directors, including all appointed representatives from Roanoke County, the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, and the Town of Vinton. 5. What is the total cost of the road ($20,000, 000) plus interest for 20 years and taking out the rail spur and grading rad bed, and adding hard surface, plus maintaining road.• snow removal. Trailers replaced every IOyears? Have we thought about the bottoms of the trailers freezing in extreme cold weather, maintence on trucks and trailers? Who is going to do all of this and where is money coming from? The road development plans are comprised of two distinct projects: Connector Road — approximately %z mile new road extending from I-81 (Ironto exit) and generally paralleling NS' main rail line to the divergence point of RVRA's rail spur from NS' main. line. This project has been completed at a total cost of approximately $5.4M. 2. Spur Road —approximately 4.5 mile conversion of rail spur to road extending from the completion point of the Connector Road into the Smith Gap Landfill, The engineering cost estimate for full conversion, including pavement, is $5M, if implemented. A "Working Group," comprised of representatives familiar with waste management operations from Roanoke County, the City of Salem, an appointee from the Waste Industries Association (commercial haulers trade assoc.), and chaired by a representative from the City of Roanoke, conducted an exhaustive study comparing RVRA's transportation options: Status Quo (utilizing rail haul via the current gondola/tipper); Hybrid (utilizing rail haul via trucking MSW from Salem to Roanoke & rail hauling via flat cars/shipping containers); and Trucking. The comparative analysis reviewed the following criteria: Dependability/Reliability of Service; Cost/Fiscal; Environmental/Safety; Regulatory Controls; Capital Investment; Maintenance of Facilities; Operations/Process/Staffing; Timing/Longevity; and the Bradshaw Community. As part of the Cost/Fiscal review, the total, cumulative costs (capital and operating costs) associated with each transportation option were calculated on a range of "high" to "low" projections for a long-term 20 -yr. period starting after the assumed completion of the current 5 -yr. contract term between NS & RVRA. Their financial analysis concluded: _HN Attachment 4 Status Quo Low $420,267,307 High $428,345,307 Hybrid Low $418,354,192 High $450,445,714 Trucking Low $375,425,882 High $388,760,145 HIN The Trucking Option provided cost estimates for the items noted including: equipment/road/facilities maintenance and equipment replacement and all net capital costs. The walking floor trailers work very well in cold weather climate and are an industry standard in the waste hauling business. RVRA has been using them for three years during winter conditions without experiencing the operational difficulties noted. The funding necessary to cover all costs for any of these options will come from the disposal fees (a.k.a. tipping fees) RVRA assesses to its Member Communities and its commercial/private customers. Therefore, RVRA must take the cost of any option, along with the other noted evaluation criteria, under strong consideration as it determines which mode of transport to utilize in order to best serve the region and comply with its contractual obligation in its Member Use Agreement wherein "the Authority further agrees to use its best efforts to operate the Facilities as economically as possible and to maintain a competitive Tipping Fee structure to encourage use of the Facilities by Private Haulers and Contract Municipal Customers (Art. IV. Sec. 4. L(a))." 6. Why buy another transfer station within S miles of each other? Pay extra for shipping to get trash to tinker creek to put trash on train. Remodeled Salem transfer station, brought extra land for truck and trailer storage. Who hauls the trash to tinker creek station now from Salem? Who pays for hauling? Why handle trash this many times? RVRA did not buy the Salem Transfer Station from the City of Salem. The transfer station was conveyed from the City of Salem to RVRA as a condition of the City's joinder to the Authority in 2016. There was some outstanding debt remaining on the facility that also conveyed to the Authority for which the Authority is responsible for paying. Approximately $800,000 remains to be paid. The Salem Transfer Station (STS) provides an additional station to the Authority and its Member communities in the event an emergency shuts one station down. It also provides improved economies of scale with increased tonnages. And the STS is strategically located where it could be utilized by Roanoke County and the City of Roanoke for their residential collections, The municipalities would save money with more efficient routing if allowed to utilize this facility. The station is located closer to the Smith Gap Landfill that should reduce transportation costs for RVRA as well. It is less expensive to transport MSW to the landfill via trucking. It is not with rail despite it being a closer location. RVRA has to continue to utilize the Status Quo transportation methodology and the only way to get the MSW to the landfill without putting trucks on Bradshaw Rd. is to haul it back to Roanoke and load it into the gondolas for transport to the landfill. It is an extremely inefficient way to operate. RVRA never intended for this additional handling to be a permanent operation. Under either rail scenario, the Status Quo or the Hybrid option, the trucking between stations would continue to be necessary as an ongoing operation. 7 Attachment 4 With the Trucking option, this movement and added cost would go away. Additionally, Roanoke County and the City of Roanoke would be encouraged to use the STS as it would save them and RVRA operating costs should they do so. The land that was purchased for the STS was for a new entrance/exit to improve traffic flow and to provide added queuing capacity for incoming traffic. That plan is currently on hold until the transportation mode is finalized. MSW is being transported from STS to Roanoke by a contract hauler, Thompson Trucking, using their trucks and RVRA's trailers. The contractor's trucks are not stored on- site and trailer storage is on land conveyed with the station. The increased cost of providing the additional transportation and handling is added to the tipping fees RVRA charges its Member Communities and its commercial/private customers. It was factored into the analysis performed by the Working Group (see #5). 7. Why is county Waste a new startup business cheaper, than R VRA, who has been in business for 25 years? County Waste (CW) has been in business since 1989, before RVRA was formed. Originally headquartered in New York, in 2011 CW was acquired by California-based Waste Connections, one of the largest, commercial waste management companies in the world. CW has been active in the state for a number of years, primarily in the Richmond/Chesterfield area and began acquiring local hauling companies in the Roanoke and Lynchburg region several years ago. CW has submitted a request to the VDEQ to permit, construct, and operate a large, sanitary landfill in Cumberland County, VA. If successful, their landfill will be considerably larger than RVRA's meaning it will be able to operate with much better economies of scale. In December 2019, CW announced its pending acquisition by GFL Environmental, a Canadian - based business entity. Recently, CW submitted a proposal to Botetourt County (BC) wherein CW will reopen and operate Botetourt's landfill. It will accept direct -delivered MSW at that landfill and will cover Botetourt's landfill's closing costs in exchange for being able to use the landfill and Botetourt's authorization for CW to permit, construct, and operate a transfer station in Daleville, VA. So, for the short term, until CW gets its landfill operational, CW is able to operate a landfill that Botetourt County paid for. They have no transfer station costs. They do have operating and closing costs. Once CW opens its landfill in Cumberland County, CW will have transfer station and transportation costs to get their MSW there, just as RVRA does now, but with a longer transportation distance. While RVRA has no inside information on how CW plans to transport its waste from Daleville to Cumberland County, RVRA presumes it would be via tractor trailer and not by rail due to the lower cost and trucking being the typical industry methodology. • Attachment 4 8. Has anyone considered the problems and traffic that are to be encountered ifRVR,4 converts to trucks, when work starts on widening of Interstate 81 from exit 141 to 143 and the roundabout at Hanging Rock1311 ? If an emergency occurs (whatever that is defines as) Bradshaw Road will become Interstate 11111 RVRA would work within the confines of the construction of I-81. Transporting through construction zones is an accepted industry norm, Interstate construction may cause the transport contractor to provide additional road tractors/drivers to haul RVRA's trailers (same number of trailers/trips) and it may cause some longer work days, but it would not constitute an emergency condition requiring the use of Bradshaw Rd. If RVRA were to convert to trucking, traffic would be routed to the Ironto exit off of I-81 onto the Connector Road to the Spur Road (i.e. "Transportation Corridor" where the NS rail spur is currently located) to the landfill. It would not traverse through the Hanging Rock/311 corridor unless access through the Transportation Corridor was unavailable and only per the "Access" conditions defined in the SUP Application as follows, including a declaration of "emergency conditions" solely at the discretion of the Roanoke County Administrator, or his/her designee (see 49 below): 4-10 a. Access: Primary access to the Smith Gap landfill will be via the Transportation Corridor. In the event the Primary Access is unavailable for two or more business days, the Authority will make reasonable efforts to transport all municipal solid waste to one or more fully permitted third -party sanitary landfills until such time as the Primary Access can be resumed. In the event the Authority cannot through reasonable efforts contract for sufficient immediate transportation services to transport waste to third party landfills, and until sufficient services can be obtained, Bradshaw Rd. will serve as Secondary Access to the landfill. However, Bradshaw Rd. shall not be used for the delivery of municipal solid waste before 9 a.m. and between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. on days in which local public schools are in session. 9. Emergency will need to be well defined for future generations if convert to truck transportation. Emergency Operations have been defined in the SUP Application as follows: e. Emereency Operations: Emergency operations shall allow for extended hours on all days and Sundays whenever an emergency has been duly declared by the County Administrator of Roanoke County or his/her designee. Circumstances for Emergency Operations include, but are not limited to, natural disasters or short-term (less than 2 days), temporary operating interruptions resulting from equipment failure or contract service interruptions. Emergency operations may require use of third -party landfills or use of secondary access to the Smith Gap Landfill (Bradshaw Road). However, as noted above in paragraph (a), Bradshaw Road shall not be used for the delivery of municipal solid waste before 9 a.m, and between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. on days in which local public schools are in session. 01 Attachment 5 Delivery of Stone: Can you provide some information on the history of how stone has been delivered to the landfill. Apparently it was delivered by train initially and is now delivered by truck via Bradshaw Road. Any info on when this changed and why would be helpful. RVRA contracted with Norfolk Southern (NS) for transportation of three items: nonhazardous municipal solid waste (MSW); waste water (leachate); and crushed stone. In 2012 NS advised RVRA that there was an ongoing shortage of stone cars causing delays in shipment. The shipments of stone began taking four to six months from the time RVRA ordered the stone to the time NS delivered it. As a result, RVRA began placing annual stone orders for ongoing operational needs in July or August anticipating that the stone cars would arrive around the following November or December. Stone deliveries became acute in 2017 when RVRA requested bids for construction of a new cell and closing a portion of another cell at the landfill. The RVRA specifications required contractors to make their bids based on delivery of needed stone by NS in accordance with RVRA's contract with NS. The contractors preparing their bids informed RVRA staff that NS could not meet their delivery needs based on a shortage of stone cars. RVRA amended the specifications to allow bidders to include an alternate bid to transport stone by truck in addition to rail in the event NS was not able to meet stone delivery requirements. The revised specification required truck deliveries to be made via the Ironto exit off Interstate 81 to North Fork Road to Bradshaw Road to the landfill during designated hours that would not conflict with the operation of school buses. The specification also capped the number of loads that could be transported by truck. When RVRA received bids from contractors, the alternate bid for trucking stone was $375,800 less than the rail option. The RVRA Board awarded the contract with the provision that the contractor give NS the first opportunity to provide stone transport in accordance with the transportation contract and if NS was not able to deliver stone timely in accordance with the contractual terms, the contractor could rely on trucking the stone. (See the attached April 19, 2017 RVRA Board item.) The contractor contacted NS to arrange stone deliveries. The contractor and NS could not work out the delivery or the payment options (see June 1, 2017 T&K Construction letter). As a result, the contractor moved the stone by truck. The stone totaled approximately 1,360 tandem truckloads. RVRA and NS entered into a second contract on July 1, 2018. NS provided a price for the delivery of stone but, unlike the previous contract, NS did not exempt the stone from storage, switching or demurrage charges. RVRA placed an initial stone order for 17 stone cars in August 2018, anticipating a 4-6 month lag in delivery. NS initially shipped five stone cars. Four of the cars were delivered after Christmas in December 2018. The fifth car went missing. NS advised RVRA of a demurrage fee for the missing stone car. RVRA declined to pay the demurrage for the missing car because the car had not been delivered to the landfill. The contracted rate per stone car increased from $684 in the first contract to $2,034 per car in the second contract. The price increase was directly attributable to storage, switching and demurrage charges that NS imposed in the second contract. After reviewing the increased cost of hauling 5-1 Attachment 5 stone, RVRA canceled the remaining stone order from NS. RVRA began trucking the stone at that time. Hauling of Leachate: Similar question. How is leachate hauled from the landfill site. Discussion focused on there are special cars on the train to transport leachate and that has been the practice in the past and currently but there has been situations where that has been hauled from the landfill site by truck. Any info on this situation and what would have caused any change from hauling by train would be helpful. In its initial contract with NS, RVRA paid a guaranteed one-time lump sum payment of $9 million for NS to acquire all equipment necessary to transport the commodities covered by the contract. NS provided four 20,000 gallon tankers to transport leachate. During the time of the original contract, the four tankers were occasionally insufficient to handle the volume of leachate being produced at the landfill. NS offered to use extra pulls (a/k/a switches) to alleviate the shortage of tank cars. NS's effort to impose switching fees for the extra pulls was not consistent with the terms of the contract between NS and RVRA. RVRA declined to pay the switching fees and NS did not contest that decision prior to 2012. As the foot print of the landfill has grown over the years and leachate has increased, the number of leachate tankers has become an issue. This is especially evident when RVRA opens a new cell at the landfill because leachate generation increases exponentially because there is little garbage in place to act as a sponge and soak up water. RVRA opened a new cell in 2012 and the number of leachate tankers was insufficient to transport the quantity of leachate being produced. NS made additional pulls and assessed switching fees against RVRA. In 2013, RVRA declined to pay the switching fees based on the terms of the contract. RVRA paid the per tanker rate contained in the contract without added switching fees. RVRA and NS debated the issue by correspondence which is attached. In 2015, NS informed RVRA that the four tankers supplied by NS were reaching their 50 -year life expectancy and would be taken out of service. NS expressed its expectation that RVRA would replace the tank cars. RVRA declined to replace the tank cars because it considered provision of tank cars to be a contractual obligation of NS. NS removed all four tank cars from service and leachate began to build up in the on-site storage tanks. The storage tanks were in danger of spilling over containment and being released into the surrounding environment when RVRA decided to bring in over -the -road tankers to transport leachate to the disposal point. RVRA incurred in excess of $180,000 in transport and disposal fees above and beyond what RVRA would have otherwise paid NS. RVRA filed a notice of default to NS on December 3, 2015. NS continued to deny its contractual responsibility while providing two tankers for leachate transportation. Ultimately, NS acknowledged their obligation to provide tank cars but attempted to offset the amount owed RVRA as a result of NS's default. Eventually, NS and RVRA agreed on a settlement in which each withdrew their monetary claims and NS provided four tank cars. (See attached settlement agreement effective July 8, 2016.) NS did not deliver the third and fourth tank cars within the 5-2 Attachment 5 prescribed 90 days under the agreement. RVRA notified NS that it was terminating the settlement agreement and it was no longer binding. Currently, RVRA has four NS -supplied leachate tank cars to transport leachate. The four tanker cars haul leachate from the landfill. RVRA trucks some leachate under abnormal circumstances such as the tipper being down, heavy rain overwhelming leachate storage, or other unexpected events. For example, in 2018, four tankers were insufficient to keep up with leachate flows from record rainfall. RVRA supplemented the rail tankers by hauling the leachate by road. Typically, when RVRA uses road tankers, it uses four or five tractors per day and hauls 12-15 loads of leachate per day. Railroad Underpass on North Fork Road: What is the height of the underpass on North Fork Road? What height do the trucks need to safely pass under the railroad tracks? Has any improvements (lowering the roadway) been explored to increase the height of this underpass? Any estimates of what that would cost? I know that there would be many issues associated with this - like getting the railroad to agree to this, there is also a stream/creek next to the road, closure of the road, etc. Any information would be helpful on this. The rail underpass on North Fork Road is 13' 7" high. RVRA believes 13' 3" is a safe height for trucks passing through the underpass. RVRA initially purchased 15 trailers that are 13' 3" in height including the hydraulic tops when fully closed. However, they were specified at this height in order to be able to safely travel under the trestle, if needed in emergency situations, although they reduce the amount of payload they can carry which increases the total number of trips and transportation costs and increase trailer maintenance costs. The remaining 35 trailers are 13'6", including the hydraulic tops, fully closed. They were specified at this height to maximize operating efficiencies with the intent they would not be travelling under the trestle and would be using the Connector Road and Transportation Corridor to access the landfill. I do not believe a 1" clearance is a safe operating clearance for the bulk of the Authority's trailers. RVRA has not researched making any improvements to North Fork Road to increase the clearance at the underpass. The underpass is already prone to flooding and any further lowering of the road elevation would only exacerbate the flooding situation. The underpass is not part of RVRA's proposed transportation corridor. If the County grants the special use permit and if RVRA converts from rail to truck, RVRA trucks will not pass through the underpass. 5-3 OF ROA/NV 2 G7 18 8 E50 88 QUICENTrEer. � A Bea tni fulBeginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE C�nunty of 10 ttn0kr July 22, 1991 Residents of Bradshaw Road Roanoke County, Virginia Dear Citizens: bcfto ALL•AMERICA CITY '11111 1979 1989 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STEVEN A. MCGRAW, CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS, VICE-CHAIRMAN VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT During early July, an anonymous letter was sent to residents of your community. The letter focused on the new Smith Gap Landfill and the question of whether access should be by road or by rail. The letter was grossly inaccurate, and may have led the reader to think that Mr. Steve McGraw, Supervisor from the Catawba Magisterial District, was in fact the writer. Let me assure you that Mr. McGraw did not send the letter, nor did anyone connected with Roanoke County Government. Whether rail or truck is used to take solid waste to the landfill, there will be an access road from Bradshaw Road into the site for employee vehicles, emergency services, and for the delivery of certain types of waste dictated by Federal or State regulations. At the current landfill, these special deliveries total approximately 25 per year, with most being beer or wine confiscated by the State ABC Board. Most everyone in your community is aware of this. There will not be a daily delivery of municipal waste through this entrance. Neither will there be private contractors nor individuals allowed access to the landfill to dump waste. All trash will be taken to the transfer station where it will either be loaded onto the train or trucks for the trip to Smith Gap. Regardless of which method of access is used, landfill -related traffic on Bradshaw Road will be minimal. Certainly the letter distributed to you in early July distorted what will actually be the case. There has recently been some discussion in Resource Authority meetings of accepting trash from other jurisdictions, particularly if the City of Roanoke declines to participate in the landfill. The Authority has been in contact with the Virginia Department of Waste Management to ascertain what other jurisdictions in Virginia might have interest. Absent the City of Roanoke's participation, we need a comparable trash stream in order to keep our operating costs as projected. Not to have an adequate trash stream would, in fact, increase the operating costs to the citizens of Roanoke County. Letter to Residents of Bradshaw Road July 22, 1991 Page two With Virginia Tech, Christiansburg, and Blacksburg disposing of trash through Montgomery County, that trash stream is comparable to the City of Roanoke. If rail access is selected the track will cross part of Montgomery County. If this is the case, Montgomery County will be afforded special consideration for disposing of trash at the Smith Gap Site. This action has been given favorable support by the Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee made up on representatives throughout the County with weighted representation from the Bradshaw Road area. I trust that this sheds some light on the gross distortions that were presented to you by the person or persons who did not have enough character to even sign the letter. If you have any questions regarding the landfill, please feel free to contact any member of the Roanoke County Resource Authority (County Board of Supervisors). We are attempting to do everything possible to protect the interests of the citizens of the Bradshaw Community. Sincerely, Harry C. Nickens, Chairman Roanoke County Resource Authority Members: Lee B. Eddy, Vice Chairman Bob L. Johnson Steven A. McGraw Richard W. Robers DRAFT SUGGESTED CONDITIONS (SUBJECT TO CHANGE) (ORIGINAL PERMIT CONDITIONS ARE HIGHLIGHTED) 1. Access: Primary access to the Smith Gap Landfill for the delivery of municipal solid waste shall be along the Transportation Corridor (previously known as the Rail Corridor). In the event the primary access is unavailable for two or more business days, the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (or subsequent owners) will make reasonable efforts to transport all municipal solid waste to one or more fully permitted third -party sanitary landfills until such time as the primary access can be resumed. In the event that the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (or subsequent owners) cannot through reasonable efforts contract for sufficient immediate transportation services to transport municipal solid waste to third parry landfills, and until sufficient services can be obtained, Bradshaw Road will serve as the secondary access for the delivery of municipal solid waste to the landfill. 2. Conversion: If the Transportation Corridor is converted from rail to a road, then all municipal solid waste will be transported to third parry landfills during construction of this conversion. TYPES OF WASTE In order to protect surrounding residents and prolong the life of the Landfill site, the following conditions are made concerning the types of waste that may be accepted. 1. No hazardous waste will be allowed at any time during the entire life of the Landfill. 2. Wastes designated as "special wastes" shall be disposed of in separate sections of the areas designated for sanitary waste. 3. Non -hazardous incinerator Ash may be disposed of as a special waste in the new Landfill. 4. Only properly approved waste may be accepted, with the main objective always being to safely dispose of materials and prolong the useful life of the Landfill. 3. Types of Waste: Only properly approved waste may be accepted, with the main objective always being to safely dispose of materials and prolong the useful life of the landfill. Wastes designated as "special wastes" shall be disposed of in accordance with current waste management regulations. No hazardous waste will be allowed at any time during the entire life of the landfill. OPERATING HOURS In consideration of the adjoining neighborhoods, it is recommended that the following operating limits be placed at the new facility: Normal working hours shall be: Monday -Friday Saturday Deliver of Waste by Authorized Vehicle 8:00 am -5:00 pm 8:00 am -3:30 pm Deliver of Waste by Rail Operation of all Equipment 7:00 pm -12:00 pm 8:00 am -8:00 pm 7:00 pm -12:00 pm 8:00 am -6:30 pm 2. Emergency operations shall allow for extended hours on all days and Sundays whenever an emergency has been duly declared by the Roanoke County Administrator. 3. Operating hours can only be changed by action of the Board of Supervisors, after public notice and hearing. 4. Operating Hours: Normal working hours shall be as follows: Delivery of Waste by Authorized Vehicle — Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.; Delivery of Waste by Rail — Monday through Saturday from 10:00 a.m. — 12:00 a.m.; Operation of all equipment — Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. 5. Emerstency Operations: Emergency operations shall allow for extended hours on all days and Sundays whenever an emergency has been duly declared by the County Administrator of Roanoke County or his/her designee. Circumstances for Emergency Operations include, but are not limited to, natural disasters or short-term (less than 2 days), temporary operating interruptions resulting from equipment failure or contract service interruptions. Emergency operations may require use of third -party landfills or use of secondary access to the Smith Gap Landfill (Bradshaw Road). OPERATING CONTROLS Effective control over potential Landfill pests and nuisances are of great concern to all residents surrounding the Landfill site. The following policies are designed to minimize such nuisances: 1. Noise a. Noise levels generated by the Landfill machinery and equipment may not exceed the following amounts: b. Landfill operations vehicles must be equipped with the best possible muffler or exhaust system available to minimize noise 2. Dust a. Fugitive dust emissions will be monitored by an authorized agent of Roanoke County or by the Landfill Operators for compliance with state regulations. b. Problem areas arising during dry seasons will be controlled with water. c. Access roads should be cleaned and dust controlled with water if excessive amounts of dust are generated. d. Any fill area of intermediate cover must be seeded in vegetative cover within 30 days of fill. 3. Odor a. Odor problems will be minimized if the Landfill operation is conducted properly and active fill areas are covered daily. b. If problem odors exist that adversely impact surrounding residents, deodorizing agents will be used. c. All holding tanks for Leachate collection systems shall be in enclosed underground structures. 4. Lights a. Sufficient lighting must be maintained at all times to facilitate normal operations and to provide adequate security over the Landfill site. b. Lighting must be directed inward to keep the main -body of light and glare off surrounding residents. c. Adjoining property owners will be consulted as to light placement, direction and height. d. Lighting shall be limited to fixtures attached to buildings as necessary for security and operations and freestanding poles of not more than 16 feet in height, and no lights shall exceed one foot-candle of light measured at the base of the pole or structure. 5. Pests a. A bonded, licensed pest control company will be retained by the Landfill Agency throughout the active life of the Landfill to provide preventive inspections and treatments. b. Adjoining property owners who incur pest problems that are proven to be directly related to the Landfill operation must be provided proper extermination at the expense of the Landfill Agency. c. Breeding areas for flying insects must be treated as often as is necessary to prevent the breeding cycle. 6. A telephone number will be provided for use of surrounding residents including those in the rail corridor to call in complaints about noise, dust, odor, or pests. These calls will be recorded and corrective actions documented. 6. Noise: Noise levels may not exceed the following limits: 80 db (decibels) at landfill site borders; 65 db (decibels) at surrounding residences. 7. Dust: Dust shall be controlled in accordance with the landfill's state solid waste facility permit. Problem areas arising during dry seasons will be controlled with water. Access roads should be cleaned and dust controlled with water if excessive amounts of dust are generated. 8. Odors: Odors shall be controlled in accordance with the landfill's state solid waste facility permit. If problem odors exist that adversely impact surrounding residents, deodorizing agents may be used. All holding tanks for leachate collection systems shall be in enclosed structures. 9. Lighting: Sufficient lighting must be maintained at all times to facilitate normal operations and to provide adequate security over the landfill site. All exterior lighting fixtures shall be designed, located and arranged so as not to direct glare on adjoining streets or residential properties. The intensity at adjoining streets or residential properties shall not exceed 0.5 foot candles. Lighting shall be limited to fixtures attached to buildings as necessary for security and operations and freestanding poles of not more than 16 feet in height. 10. Pests. A bonded, licensed pest control company will be retained throughout the active life of the landfill to provide preventive inspections and treatments. Adjoining property owners who incur pest problems that are proven to be directly related to the landfill operation must be provided proper extermination at the landfill owner's expense. 11. Citizen Complaints: A telephone number will be provided for use of surrounding residents including those in the Transportation Corridor to call in complaints (noise, dust, odor, pests, or other issues). These calls will be recorded/logged and corrective actions documented. The complaint log shall be open to public inspection. ACTIVE FILL AREAS The active areas of the Landfill are regulated by the Virginia Department of Waste Management. Strict guideline are specified in the regulations; however, the Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee feels that active areas shall be designed to allow for final cover as soon as possible. Fill areas should be designed as far as practical from adjoining properties to provide maximum buffering, and in no case should extend within 100 feet of the Landfill boundary line. 12. Active Fill Areas: The active fill areas of the landfill shall comply with the landfill's state solid waste facility permit. Fill areas should be designed as far as practical from adjoining properties to provide maximum buffering, and in no case should extend within 100 feet of the landfill boundary line. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 1. The responsible Landfill Agency must have all landfill facilities inspected at least annually by a qualified independent contractor to determine compliance with all special exception permit conditions and all other landfill conditions. Any violations must be reported to the responsible Landfill Agency and shall be made public information and the Landfill Agency shall take whatever steps are necessary to immediately correct the violations. 2. The responsible Landfill Agency will be required to log all complaints from any adjoining residents or businesses of the landfill and rail corridor and all reasonable and legitimate complaints shall receive the proper attention and shall be corrected immediately. The complaint log shall be open to public inspection. 13. Monitoring: The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality conducts inspections during the year to ensure compliance with the landfill's state solid waste facility permit. Any violations shall be reported and made public information. The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (or subsequent owner) shall take whatever steps are necessary to immediately correct any violation. SCREENING AND BUFFERING Adequate screening and buffering is a paramount concern of the Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee. Effective screening and buffering can reduce or mitigate the adverse impacts of noise, dust, and light from the landfill on adjoin properties, as well as improve the visual appearance of the landfill operation. 0 In addition, landscaping of obtrusive buildings and active areas within the landfill can reduce the visual blight from improved properties which are above and overlook the landfill site. Finally, minimizing the size of active and disturbed areas and immediate seeding of these areas once activity ceases can further reduce this visual blight. To address these items, the following standards are recommended. Additional requirements may be formulated for site specific conditions upon review of the proposed landfill sites. Any modification shall be subject to such site specific circumstances, as determined by the Director of Planning. 1. The following buffer yard and plantings shall be established around the perimeter of the landfill property, except adjacent to an existing residential property or private right-of-way. Trees shall be planted in three separate rows or in clusters, where natural land characteristics allow within the buffer yard. a. 50 foot buffer yard; b. Three large deciduous trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard; c. Five large evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard; and, d. Seven small evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 15 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. 2. In areas adjacent to an existing residential property or public or private right-of-way, the following shall be established and maintained around the perimeter of the landfill property. Trees shall be planted in three separate rows or in clusters, where natural land characteristics allow with the buffer yard. a. 100 foot buffer yard; b. Six large deciduous trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard; c. Ten large evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard; and, d. Fifteen small evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 15 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. 3. The buffer yard may only be used for passive recreation, such as pedestrian, bike or equestrian trails provided that: a. No plant material is eliminated; b. The total width of the buffer is maintained; and c. All other requirements and conditions are met. 4. Buildings, active landfill areas, equipment storage areas and other facilities shall be landscaped in such a manner as to enhance (but not necessarily screen) the visual appearance from adjoining properties. 5. The administrative standards and procedures contained under Section 21-92 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance shall apply unless more restrictive or specific standards are required above. 6. The rail line may or may not be able to be totally buffered by natural topography or feasibly by normal screening methods. Where feasible, buffering will be negotiated with the property owner during purchase negotiations with Norfolk Southern. 14. Screening and Buffering: 61, The following buffer yard and plantings shall be established around the perimeter of the landfill property, except adjacent to an existing residential property or private right-of-way. Trees shall be planted in three separate rows or in clusters, where natural land characteristics allow within the buffer yard. 50 -foot buffer yard with three large deciduous trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard, five large evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard, and seven small evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 15 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. b. In areas adjacent to an existing residential property or public or private right-of- way, the following shall be established and maintained around the perimeter of the landfill property. Trees shall be planted in three separate rows or in clusters, where natural land characteristics allow with the buffer yard. 100 -foot buffer yard with six large deciduous trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard, ten large evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard, and fifteen small evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 15 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. Buffer yards may only be used for passive recreation, such as pedestrian, bike or equestrian trails provided that: no plant material is eliminated; the total width of the buffer is maintained; and all other requirements and conditions are met. d. Buildings, active landfill areas, equipment storage areas and other facilities shall be landscaped in such a manner as to enhance (but not necessarily screen) the visual appearance from adjoining properties. SITE SECURITY In compliance with State regulations, the following suggestions are to make the landfill the most up to date facility. 1. All facilities shall be surrounded on all sides by natural barriers, fencing, or an equivalent means of controlling vehicles access and preventing illegal disposal. All access will be limited by gates, and such gates shall be securable and equipped with locks. a. All fencing utilized at the facility shall be adequate to control unauthorized access. b. Gates shall be at the main entrance as well as the entrance to additional service areas. 2. Access to a solid waste disposal facility (landfill) shall be permitted only when an attendant is on duty and only during daylight hours, unless otherwise specified in the facility permit, such as for rail delivery of waste. 3. Each solid waste disposal facility should be provided with an adequately lighted and heated shelter where operating personnel can exercise site control and have access to essential sanitation facilities. Lighting, heat and sanitation facilities may be provided by portable equipment, as necessary. a. Dusk to dawn light to be placed around buildings and at each of the security gates. 4. All sanitary landfills will be equipped with permanent or mobile telephone or radio communications. 11 a. The main security gate should be able to communicate with all necessary areas of the landfill. 5. The operator is responsible for safety hazards to operating personnel through an active safety program. a. Security rules and regulations shall be posted at each gate. b. Security guard of landfill personnel shall be on site 24 hours each day. 6. All vehicle access points to the rail spur shall be properly gated, with lock, and shall be posted with "No Trespassing" signs. Signs will also be posted at intervals along the rail spur. 15. Site Security: All facilities shall be surrounded on all sides by natural barriers, fencing, or an equivalent means of controlling vehicles access and preventing illegal disposal. All access will be limited by gates, and such gates shall be securable and equipped with locks. All fencing utilized at the facility shall be adequate to control unauthorized access. Gates shall be at the main entrance as well as the entrance to additional service areas. Access to a solid waste disposal facility (landfill) shall be permitted only when an attendant is on duty and only during operating hours, unless otherwise specified in the facility permit, such as for rail delivery of waste. Each solid waste disposal facility should be provided with an adequately lighted and heated shelter where operating personnel can exercise site control and have access to essential sanitation facilities. Lighting, heat and sanitation facilities may be provided by portable equipment, as necessary. Dusk to dawn lights may be placed around buildings and at each of the security gates. All sanitary landfills will be equipped with permanent or mobile telephone or radio communications. The main security gate should be able to communicate with all necessary areas of the landfill. The operator is responsible for safety hazards to operating personnel through an active safety program. Security rules and regulations shall be posted at each gate. Security guard of landfill personnel shall be on site 24 hours each day. All vehicle access points to the Transportation Corridor shall be properly gated, with lock, and shall be posted with "No Trespassing" signs. Signs will also be posted at intervals along the Transportation Corridor. FIRE PROTECTION AND PUBLIC WATER Fire protection for the site shall be provided on site with adequate storage, distribution, and hydrants to properly extinguish fires. The system shall be designed as a potable water system in conformance with the standards of Roanoke County. The system may be deeded to Roanoke County for ownership and operation. The system shall be designed to serve all on-site water needs as well as being capable of serving adjoining properties. Expansion of the water supply system, except when groundwater contamination has been documented, shall be prohibited without prior review for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. This review shall follow the requirements and criteria outlined in Section 15.1-491(h) Site Plan Review, of the Code of Virginia. 16. Fire Protection and Public Water: Fire protection for the site shall be provided on site with adequate storage, distribution, and hydrants to properly extinguish fires. The system shall be designed as a potable water system. The system shall be designed to serve all on-site water needs as well as being capable of serving adjoining properties. Expansion of the water supply system, except when groundwater contamination has been documented, shall be prohibited without prior review for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. SITE REJECTION The Special Exception permit for a landfill shall become null and void upon official notification of the rejection of the site by the Department of Waste Management or the date Roanoke County selects not to submit a Part "B" application for the site. Norfolk Southern Corporation Industrial Products Marketing Three Commercial Place Norfolk, VA 23510 October 25, 2016 Mr. Dan Miles Chief Executive Officer Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Roanoke, VA 24012 Scott McGregor Group Vice President 757-823-5465 scott.mcgregor@nscorp.com Re: Transportation Contract VASCC-NS-11148 (the "Contract") Dear Dan: Norfolk Southern (NS) received your letter dated October 11, 2016. This letter serves the purpose of summarizing your conversation with Marc Hoecker on October 19, 2016. The three issues discussed during the call were as follows: 1. Increasing Rail Traffic Norfollc Southern plans to handle the increased volume expected due to your agreement with the City of Salem through the use of extra train switches. While we do not believe that NS is legally obligated (contractually or otherwise) to provide this additional service to the RVRA, we are willing to do so at the rates prescribed in the Contract beginning on November 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017. It is Norfolk Southern's expectation that during this six-month period, the two parties will wort-, together to develop a comprehensive plan to address the end of the Contract on June 30, 2018. This plan will be expected to cover operational, capital, and public funding strategies. It is our intention to work with RVRA on a public funding strategy in order to submit an application for public funding by February 1, 2017. If by May 1, 2017, the negotiations between NS and. RVRA have not resulted in the development of such a plan or at least substantial progress toward one, NS reserves the right to implement charges for the extra switches in accordance with NS 8002.-A Section 4. 2. Tank Car Settlement Agreement Our records indicate CTCX 76352 1 arrived at Bradshaw Creels on October 20, 2016. As of October 24, 2016, car CTCX 763524 is ready for delivery as soon as RVRA needs the car in Bradshaw Creek. 3. Smith Gap Spur Norfolk Southern's Real Estate Department has reported that it is not aware of any discussions or inquiries regarding a potential purchase by a third party of any portion of the Smith Gap Spur. A search of Real Estate's database and records does not reveal any correspondence of any type that would indicate an active negotiation or request to sell this property. Because the Smith Gap Spur is an active right of way, NS Real Estate's first response to any inquiry would be that it is not available for sale because it is an operating asset. Should you have any evidence to support the assertion made in your October I 1 letter, please forward to me for further investigation. In regards to the Gondola Rehab Program, NS recently completed repairs on five gondolas and returned the cars into service. On October 20, 2016, two additional cars were being cleaned in order to move them into a shop for repairs. In order to sustain this gondola maintenance program, NS requests that RVRA release a minimum of one car per week into the program. Norfolk Southern appreciates the opportunity to handle the additional Salem volume beginning on November 1, 2016. Over the next six months, we look forward to collaboratively working with the RVRA to develop a plan that addresses the long term future of the relationship between NS and RVRA. Sincerely, /* Scott McGregor 2 Mr. Scott D. McGregor Group Vice President Norfolk Southern Corporation 3 Commercial Place, Box 252 Norfolk, VA 23510 ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AU THORErY October 11, 2016 Manager Marketing Publications Norfolk Southern Corporation 110 Franklin Road, S.E. Roanoke, VA 24042-0041 Re: NS Transportation Contract VASCC-C-I 1148 - Roanoke Valley Resource Authority "RVRA" Dear Scott: fam writing to you with the purpose of summarizing, and seeking final resolution of, various matters pertaining to the above -referenced rail transportation contract ("Contract") between Roanoke Valley Resource Authority ("RVRA") and Norfolk Southern Railway Company ("NS"). Although we have engaged in various meetings, calls, and written correspondence regarding these matters over the past year, the follow-through from NS has been inconsistent and incomplete in multiple respects. By laying out the current status of all those issues in this letter, I hope that we can finally resolve them, or if not, agree on a path towards obtaining final resolution. There are three issues that require prompt attention. I. Increasing Traffic Volume First, we appreciate your team initiating and participating in the conference call on October 4, 2016. The purpose of the call was to discuss how to NS proposes to manage the transpoit of the additional volume of municipal solid waste that will begin moving through the Tinker Creek Transfer Station to the Smith Gap Landfill on or about November 1, 2016. The current anticipated average increased throughput of approximately 300 tons per day is projected to further increase to a maximum of approximately 500 tons per day by spring of 2017 and will continue through the fall of 2017 when it is expected to gradually diminish back to the seasonally adjusted 300 tpd average. And then, this annual seasonal cycle is anticipated to continue and possibly increase if RVRA is successful in growing its business. Time is of the essence to definitively address this matter. As discussed and offered by NS on our October 4th teleconference, in lieu of providing additional gondolas to handle this volume increase, NS will provide additional train pulls when needed to transport RVRA's MSN commodity. RVRA has agreed to NS's proposal and has also agreed to provide NS with as much advance notice as possible of the need for an additional pull 1020 Hollins Road, NR Roanoke, Virginia 24012-8011 (540) 857.5050 Fax (540) 857-5056 Web Site: www.rvra.net and to request an additional pull only when RVRA is able to tender a minimum of four loaded gondolas. It is not clear, however, whether RVRA and NS have the same understanding as to the rate RVRA will pay NS for the additional pulls, RVRA's position from the outset has been that the existing Contract both contemplates and covers the additional volume. NS may fulfill its duty to transport this commodity cither by supplying additional gondolas to handle this volume in the current daily unit train or it may it may do so by providing as many pulls as needed. NS has chosen the latter option. In either case, the per -car Contract rate applies, without additional fees or charges. NS has not definitively stated whether or not it accepts RVRA's position. If NS has a different position, please notify RVRA immediately so that we can resolve this matter, or agree upon a process for resolution, prior to RVRA's need for additional pulls. 2. Tank Car Settlement Agreement On July S, 2016, NS and RVRA executed an agreement to settle their dispute over the number of wastewater tank cars that NS must dedicate to RVRA's use under the Contract. NS agreed to place two additional tank cars (CTCX 736521 and 73 6524) into RVRA's service within 90 calendar days, which expired on October 7, 2016. Although those tank cars arrived in Roanoke well before that date, NS inexplicably has refused RVRA's repeated requests to place those tankers into service. As such, NS is currently in breach of the settlement agreement which is now terminated and non-binding. The RVRA expects NS to transport the wastewater commodity, as needed, in accordance with the Contract, Smith. Gap Spur Recently, RVRA became aware of NS' negotiations to sell portions of the real estate underlying the Smith Gap Spur to a third party. Any such sale would breach our Contract with NS. According to Sections 6 and 7 of the Contract, NS purchased the right-of-way on behalf of RVRA, which has compensated NS for the purchase price through the "one-time payment" option of $9 million it paid to NS. Accordingly, Section 6(b) states that RVRA shall own the right-of-way and track upon expiration of the Contract, which RVRA may continue to use for rail service or convert to other use. Given the long-term nature of our Contract, the NS real estate department may be unaware of NS's obligations to convey the land to RVRA upon termination of the Contract. Therefore, I request that you promptly inform the appropriate NS personnel of this fact and implement appropriate safeguards to ensure no such sale occurs now or in the future. Furthermore, RVRA hereby places NS on notice that RVRA will hold NS accountable for any and all damages, including consequential damages, resulting from any unauthorized sale of the Smith Gap Spur right-of-way. The Contract between RVRA and NS is due to expire in under two years, on June 30, 2018, subject to RVRA's right to extend for an additional 5 years. As provided in Section 25, if A RVRA elects to extend the Contract at the end of the initial term and either party desires to renegotiate the Contract terms, but cannot reach agreement, they will. submit their differences to binding arbitration. Recent NS actions as described in this letter suggests that NS is not happy with the Contract and may prefer termination or, failing that, renegotiation. If that i.s the case, perhaps the patties would benefit from discussing the future of this Contract now. This may offer an opportunity for both. sides to address current issues and obtain desired clarity as to the future of their agreement. Please let me know if this is of any interest to NS. We are at the point where RVR.A needs certainty on these issues in furtherance of its business purposes, RVIU could be required to pursue formal dispute resolution. of these .matters if NS is unable or unwilling to provide that certainty. Although we have no desire to go down that road, we are quickly running out of time and options, Therefore, your prompt z,esponse to this .letter is requested. Thank- you. Since- y Daniel D. Milcs, .P.E. Chief Executive Officer FINAL SETTLE M ENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement") is entered into as ofe � 2016 by and between Norfolk Southern Railway Company and Consolidated Subsidiaries ("NSR'°) and The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority ("RVRA"). The paries acknowledge the exchange of good and sufficient consideration to support this Agreement. VVITNESSETH: WHEREAS, NSR provides commodity rail service transportation including transportation of municipal solid waste and leachate to andlor from the Smith Gap Landfill to the RVRA's Tinker Creek Transfer Station pursuant to Transportation Contract VASCC-NS-C-11148 (the "Contract"); WH ERFAS, RVRA has asserted that NSR has breached certain of its obligations to transport leachate under the Contract as detailed in RVRA's letters to NSR dated December 3, 2015 and December 22, 2015 (the "RVRA Letters"), resulting In monetary damages to RVRA, copies of the RVRA netters being attached hereto and iucorporated by reference herein as Exhibit "A", WHEREAS, NSR has asserted that RVRA owes additional switching And other charges to NSR under the Contract as detailed in NSR's and RVRA's emails dated Scptember 10, 2013, September 8, 2013, and February 7, 2014 (the "Emails") and NSR's invoices to RVRA dated May 29, 2013 -- September 5, 2013 (tire "NSR Invoices"), copies ofthe Bmails and NSR Invoices being attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. as Exhibit "B." WHEREAS, vdthout admitting liability and in order to avoid the cost and expense of litigation, it is the intent of the parties to mutually resolve and release all claims asserted against each other in the RVRA betters and the Emalls -md the NSR Iuvoices, respectively. NOW "THEREFORE, for good and mutual consideration, including the promises set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. In consideration of the waiver and release provided below, NSR on behalf of itself, its affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, successors and assigns, agrees to waive and release all claims against RVRA for the charges listed in the Emails and NSR Invoices, including, without limitation, all claims for monetary damages. NSR hereby further agrees to lease or provide, at its sole cost and expense, as set forth herein, two (2) additional tank cars (the "Additional Cars") which are comparable to the current cars being provided by NSR and suitable for providing service to RVRA, to be available and usable by RVRA for the remainder of the initial twin of the Contract. NSR shall put both Additional Cats into service and available for use by RVRA no later than ninety (90) calendar days from the effective date of this Agreement. If RVRA determines that one or more tank cars are needed in addition to those pt ovided for in this Agreement, RVRA shall at its sole expense directly lease such additional tank car(s) from appropriate sources and NSR shall charge RVRA the satire rate to transport such car(s) as is applicable to the first four cars under the Contract. 2. In consideration of the waiver and release provided above and NSR's agreement to provide the Additional Cars, RVRA on behalf of itself, its affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, successors and FINAL assigns, agrees to waive and rclease all claims against NSR. as set forth in the RVRA Letters, including, without limitatioi-, all claims for monetary damages. For the avoidance of doubt, RVRA expressly acknowledges that by providing the four (4) total tank cars for service to RVRA as contemplated herein, NSR shall be, deemed to have satisfied its obligation to provide tank cars to RVRA under the Contract. 3. Except as expressly set forth herein, this Agreement is specifically applicable only to the claims in the RVRA Letters, Emails, and the NSR Invoices. Notwithstanding any other term or provision of this Agreement, except far (1) the claims as set forth by RVRA in the RVRA Letters, (ii) the claims as set forth by NSR in the Emails and NSR Invoices and (iii) any claim that the Contract requires NSR to provide RVRA with more than four (4) tank cars, neither party releases the other from any other past or future obligation or liability under the Contract. 4_ Wherever possible, each provision ofthis Agreement shall be interpreted in such manner as to be effective anal valid under applicable law. If any provision of this Agreement is held illegal or unenforceable in a judicial proceeding, such provision shall be severed and shall be inoperative, and all remaining; provisions of this Agreement shall remain operative and binding on the parties. S. To the extent permitted by applicable law, including, without limitation, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, each party, on behalf of itself, its affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, successors and assigns, agrees that the terms and conditions of this Agreement -will be kept confidential and will not be disclosed to any person or entity without the written permission of a duly authorized representative of the other party or upon lawful order of a court or regulatory agency after having provided notice to the affected party. Each party specifically acknowledges that this Agreement and the release language contained herein floes not constitute an admission of liability by the other party for any of the costs end damages claimed. 6. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to create any rights in favor of, or to inure to the benefit of, any third party or parties, or to waive or release any defense or lhnitation against third party Claims. 7. This Agreement shall be binding upon the legal representatives, successors and assignees of NSR and RVRA. $_ This Agreement camot he modified except in a wrifing signed by both Parties. 9. The parties agree to execute, acknowledge and deliver such other instruments, releases or documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out or fulfrll each pasty's covenants and obligations under this Agreement. 10, This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts each of which when executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original with all counterparts constituting but one and the same institiunent. The execution of this Agreement by either party hereto will not become effective Witil counterparts hereof have been executed by the other party. The parties executing this Agreement hereby represent and warrant that they are properly authorized to bind the respective party. 1 L. NSR and RVRA have been represented by counsel who have materially participated in the authorship oftlus Agreement, it being understood that the rule of construction that a written agreement is i'11YN1-lL construed against the party di°afting or preparing sueh agreement shall not specifically'be applicable to the. interpretation of this Agreement, 12,. The laws .of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall govern the validity, perfol-mance, irite�pretation, and enforcement of this reenrent, In light of this express choice of law provision, Virgitria law for deteirnining.governing law shall not apply tO the provisions of this Agreement: 8very action brought under or related to this Agreement shall be brought hi a Virginia court of competentjurisdiction ln.fhe City or County of Roanoke, or in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Roanoke, Virginia. and not elscwhere, and such federal andlar state courts of Virginia shall have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arisiJug. out of this Agreetnenl. 13, The terms of this Agreement arecontractual and not mere recitals. The terms of this Agreement contain the entire agreement beiween,the par zes and all prior promises, inducements, agreements, statements, representations and negotiations are stipweded and, to-the.0,Xtent inconsistent herewith, are of no force or effect IN I MIC, SS WAR REO ., the.parties lxereto have caused this Agreement to be executed in their names by their proper officers duly aufhorized as ofthe date written above. ANP $y: /r Al Title: Date: AUTUO Y in Officer Date, 10. . From: "Brooks, Denise" <Denise.Brooks@nscorp.com> To: "dmlies@rvra.neV <dmiles@rvra.net> Date; 7/6/2016 4:24 PM Subject. FW: Fwd: Trash on floor Attachments: Daniel Miles.vef Dan, This is an acknowledgment that we received your correspondence below and are in the process of addressing your situation with the gons. We are also working on the revised rate proposal for the Salem waste movements. And last of all, the settlement agreement has been submitted to our Vice President for his signature and we will get that to you as soon as it's received from his office. If you have any additional questions, let me know. Thanks, Denise Denise D. Brooks J Manager Distribution & Network Services J Norfolk Southern Corporation [ 3 Commercial Place, Norfolk, VA 23510 [ *: den ise. broo ks@nscorp. com < mai [to: denise. brooks@nscorp.com> J * 757-629-2746[cell: 757-752-12221 fax: 757-823-5425 From: Daniel Miles [mailto:DMILES@rvra.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 12:36 PM To: Brooks, Denise <Denise. Brooks@nscorp. com> Cc: McGregor, Scott <sdmcgreg@nscorp.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Trash on floor Denise, We maxed out our gondolas last night (14) and had to leave solid waste on the floor overnight. Please see the attached email from my Operations Supervisor with accompanying pictures. As I have previously notified NS (ref: 6124116 email for June 13, 2016 capacity exceedance notice), 14 Bons are not sufficient to handle the amount of waste currently being generated at RVRA's Tinker Creek Transfer Station (TOTS). Per our agreement - Sec. 16: The "Authority shall be responsible for compliance with all new or changed laws and regulations in the area of handling waste which apply to or affect the proposed operation, and shall immediately advise Railroad of any new or changed law or regulation which may affect the operation." Per this requirement, please be informed that on July 5, 2016, the Authority filled and shipped all 14 available gondolas to the maximum extent possible and exceeded the available gondola capacity provided by NS, resulting in solid waste left on the floor at the end of RVRA's operating day. This in direct violation of VDEQ regulation 9VAC20-81-340.6.1. RVRA routinely utilizes its maximum allotment of 14 transport gondolas provided by NS, each way, and previously notified NS of this operational and regulatory shortcoming. NS has not provided any response to my previous request for additional gondolas necessary to ensure regulatory operating compliance. Please be informed that RVRA will be notifying VDEQ of any and all future exceedances wherein NS' failure to provide transportation services to RVRA due to insufficient gondola capacity requires RVRA to leave solid waste on the floor at the end of any daily operation. To the extent VDEQ penalizes RVRA for this noncompliance matter, RVRA will hold NS accountable for any and all penalties, corrective actions, and fines incurred as a direct result of NS' failure to provide sufficient transportation services per its contractual obligation. Therefore, RVRA requires a minimum of two additional gondolas necessary to provide sufficient transportation service per RVRA's current needs and NS' transportation obligation for this commodity. Two gondolas are needed in order to stage one gondola at the TCTS and one gondola at the SGLF for return service per our currently operating methodology. Also, as NS has previously been officially informed, the City of Salem, VA has become RVRA's 4th Member Community as of July 1, 2016. RVRA is now contractually obligated to dispose of the City of Salem's solid waste. Also, as I have previously informed NS, RVRA's current, sole, available option at this time is to transport solid waste from the Authority's new Salem Transfer Station (STS), located in the City of Salem, to the TCTS where it will be loaded onto gondolas contractually to be provided by NS. Please note that the average daily tonnage that will be added to RVRA's system in need of NS' transport services is 300 tpd with a recent daily peak of 440.55 tons on June 1, 2016. In order to prevent solid waste left on the floor at the end of RVRA's operating day at the TCTS, NS will need to provide, at NS' sole expense, a minimum of 14 gondolas to meet the Authority's transportation service needs per the terms of our agreement. This number is derived by: (440.55 tons)/(65 tons/gondola) = 6.78 gondolas rounded up to 7 gondolas (as a partial load requires a whole gondola) x 2 (7 at the TCTS & 7 at RVRA's Smith Cap Landfill (SGLF) in order to have returned service). Note that RVRA and the City of Salem have made very temporary arrangements to postpone the delivery of Salem's solid waste to RVRA's TCTS from July 1, 2016 through September 30, 2016. This delay is resulting in the substantial loss of revenue for RVRA and there will be no extension offered to NS beyond that date to meet its contractual obligation. As of October 1, 2016, RVRA will begin transporting Salem's solid waste to its TCTS, at RVRA's sole expense, and will be requiring NS to provide sufficient gondolas to serve this commodity increase per the terms of our agreement, at NS' sole expense. As of October 1, 2016, to the extent NS is unable or unwilling to provide its required transportation services to RVRA, please be informed that RVRA will hold NS financially accountable for any and all costs above and beyond what RVRA would have otherwise paid to NS for its contractual transportation services for any and all waste that has to be transported and disposed of at a 3rd party, fully permitted, sanitary landfill. RVRA cannot and will not knowingly operate outside OUR (both RVRA's & NS') regulatory requirement prohibiting solid waste being left on the floor at the end of any daily operation. Please notify RVRA as to if and when NS intends to honor its contractual obligation to provide sufficient transportation services for RVRA's immediate (2 gondolas) and pending (14 gondolas as of Oct. 1, 2016) transportation requirements as outlined above. If NS' does not intend to honor its contractual obligation, RVRA hereby requests the immediate initiation of binding arbitration per Sec. 20 of our agreement and begin the mutual selection of an arbiter. Lastly, on June 27, 2016, 1 executed two originals of our negotiated settlement agreement for the leachate tanker disputes. I attached a pdf copy of my executed document in my email to Scott McGregor on that same date as I was of the understanding that NS desired to resolve this matter promptly. Therefore, I noted and requested the following in this same email; "I will be overnighting two original executed copies [of said pdf copy] today as soon as I know who and where to send them to. Do you prefer they be sent to the POC in our contract (Manager Marketing Services in Roanoke)? Or, should I send them elsewhere?" To date, I have not received a response from NS as to whom or where I should send the two originals which I have already executed and await NS' instruction. Please provide me with the appropriate POC's. Otherwise, I can only presume NS does not wish to proceed with the negotiated settlement agreement. And if that is indeed the case, RVRA hereby requests to add this matter to the binding arbitration as well and to proceed accordingly. Please inform me immediately as to how NS wishes to proceed on: 1. RVRA's request for additional gondolas (16 total); and 2. NS' POC's for the execution of the two original leachate tanker settlement documents. or, 1. The selection of an arbiter for one or both matters, Thank you, Dan Miles v viii' � /�p / vd/ ✓�y �J`s��ir�,�v tea. �t�JYvw/�r,�� wwrwur�1 I ill 01 I� ti�low . .. Akw-71046W SOUTHERN Norfolk Southern Corporation Scott D. McGregor Industrial Products Group Vice President�� Three Commercial Place Industrial Products Norfolk, VA 23510 757-823-5465 757-823-5425 (fax) sdmcgreg@nscorK),com March 30, 2016 VIA E-MAIL Daniel D. Miles, P.E. Chief Executive Officer Roanoke Valley Resource Authority 1020 Hollins Road, NE Roanoke, VA 24012-8011 RE: Settlement Offer Dear Dan: We are following upon your Notice of Default dated December 22, 2015. We appreciate your patience with this process, and as always we appreciate your business. And, we are certainly pleased that the new tank cars fit and are being utilized by RVRA. Regarding the Notice of Default, we agree that we are obligated to reimburse you for a portion of the additional costs that you incurred due to our inability to provide the contractually obligated tank cars. The information and detail that you provided to support your claim for $176,000 in extra costs was extremely helpful in our analysis. After reviewing the contract and the data provided by RVRA and taking into account other services that we have provided, we are prepared to offer $96,782 as a settlement, $46,000 of which will be paid in the form of refund payments on fixture traffic, and the remainder of which includes forgiveness of amounts that RVRA owes to NS. Below is a more detailed description of our proposed settlement terms. In reviewing your request of $176,000, we believe there were offsets and mitigating circumstances that need to be considered. First, the most significant factor contributing to the delay in getting the replacement cars was RVRA's insistence that we had to find 122" cars. As we have previously stated, we started looking for replacement cars in April 2014 and limited our search to smaller cars. In addition, we may have taken a different stance on the car that was damaged in August 2014 had our Sales/Marketing group been informed of the damage immediately after it occurred. Sales/Marketing was not notified about the car being out of service until several months later and by that time all involved concluded that it would not be worthwhile to repair the car due to the out of service date of September 2016. Second, as you know, we have never resolved the issue with the outstanding special switch charges that amounted to $72,500. We offered 2 proposals; (1) RVRA pays $40,000 NS and the special switch charge remains at $2,500 per car and; (2) RVRA pays NS $51,250 and the special switch charges are lowered to $1,900 per car. For this exercise, we considered the lower of the two proposals and reduced the settlement amount by $40,000. And last of all, the settlement amount wars, h reduced by the depreciated value of the car that was damaged, which amounted t 0,782. yW �� f y To arrive at the refund portion of our settlement offer, we first looked at the daily number of gallons of leachate that were hauled by truck from the landfill. For the months of October and November, we will reimburse RVRA for the number of gallons that 2 tank cars (approximately 22,000 gallons each) would handle per haul, and 3 cars during the first 3 weeks of December. These were the number of cars that were over age during this period and that we were unable to provide replacements for. In our calculation, we divided the daily number of gallons provided on the Tidy Services invoice by the hours provided on the Bio -Noetic work orders to arrive at an hourly factor. We then divided the number of gallons that we were unable to haul by rail by the aforementioned hourly factor multiplied by the hourly rate of $155. We reduced each day's total by $589 which is the linehaul revenue that we lost for the damaged car. The second part of our calculation addressed the disposal costs at the Western Virginia Water Authority. We calculated the difference in costs between what is charged to dump the leachate by rail versus truck. We multiplied the difference in costs by the number of gallons that we were unable to haul on a daily basis. After deducting the offsets described above, we arrived at a figure of $46,000. We have attached our analysis. The $46,000 settlement will be issued as a $30 per car refund, payable on all traffic that RVRA is the payer of freight. In addition to the $46,000 refund commitment, the settlement also takes into account services that we provided at no cost, and prior charges that we have waived. As you recall, the total charge for the special switch charges referenced above amounted to $80,000. We previously waived $7,500 and proposed writing off an additional $32,500, for a total of $40,000 in waived charges. And, we need to point out that we did not charge for the approximately 20 extra switches that our crew performed during the month of October 2015. Regarding your request for a third car, we do not believe that we are contractually required to provide one as we believe we can fulfill our obligation to you with 2 cars. However, as an accommodation to RVRA, we are willing to provide a third car in exchange for a volume commitment that ensures that NS receives an adequate return on its investment in the additional equipment. We would need a volume commitment of at least 277 leachate moves on an annual basis through the end of your contract in 2018. There would be penalty of $300 per car that RVRA would have to pay us for annual volume and 77 carloads. Once we come to an agreement on the settlement terms, a customary, mutually acceptable settlement agreement will be executed by both parties. Per your communication with Denise Brooks, if you have any questions or wish to further discuss this, we will arrange a conference call. Sincerely, "14D ^ lkl— Scott McGregor Group Vice President—Industrial Products Page 1 of 2 Daniel Miles - Feb Leachate Data.xlsx From: Daniel Miles To: Denise Brooks Date: 3/1/2016 11:53 AM Subject: Feb Leachate Data.xlsx Ce: Scott McGregor; Steven Barger Be: Anne Marie Green; Mark Williams; Mark 2 Attachments: Daniel Miles.vcf; Feb Leachate Data.xlsx Denise, Please see the attached spreadsheet outlining the number of tanker pulls provided by NS during the full month of February, 2016 versus the continued increase of leachate head in RVRA's leachate storage tanks. As you know, RVRA has previously provided data at NS' request to show that this is not an anomaly. Tank #1 is now at 65% capacity and Tank #2 is at 68% capacity vs. the 57% & 63% values, respectively, that I provided to NS in my Feb. 22, 2016 email and spreadsheet to you. So, the tank volumes have increased by 8% & 5%, respectively, in a little more than a week. Again, keep in mind, RVRA is sending the maximum number of tankers we can on a daily basis and we're rapidly losing ground ... I cannot fathom how NS can continue to deem the two tankers it is providing as being "sufficient." RVRA anticipates having to utilize our emergency, outside leachate hauling service provider within the next month at the current rate of progression. The exact date will depend on how much rain we continue to receive coupled with ongoing drainage as a result of the recent rainfall (note: almost 3 in. in Feb. which is not an unusual month). And please note that the growing volume of leachate is without a major storm event, such as 10+ inches of rain over a few days time which usually occurs several times a year. If and when major storm events such as these occur, our storage tanks provide minimal holding capacity, especially when they are maintained at more than half their capacity as NS is forcing RVRA to do by only providing two tankers. RVRA will continue to track and provide NS with any outside service charges wherein RVRA will continue to hold NS accountable to pay RVRA for any difference above and beyond our normal contractual costs. Since NS first informed RVRA that it would be removing its aging tankers from service to RVRA, RVRA has consistently informed NS of its gross and calculated failure to provide appropriate services for this commodity. RVRA has promptly provided NS with complete and full information, as NS has requested, and NS continues to refuse to meet its contractual obligations. RVRA is willing to meet and discuss these ongoing issues. I have offered to come to Norfolk to meet with NS officials or to meet in Roanoke with NS officials. I will meet with NS officials wherever you want to meet. And to be crystal clear, RVRA is ready and willing to participate in a binding arbitration, as provided in our contract, if NS truly believes it is justified in its position and NS does not believe further discussion by both parties to be warranted. RVRA does believe its position is solid enough to let an impartial third party decide based on the facts to date ... I just want to get this matter resolved as it is an extremely pivotal issue for RVRA. To date, the only feedback I have received from NS is that NS has deemed the two tankers NS has provided as being "sufficient" and NS has no plans to increase the number of tankers or the number of pulls necessary to meet the Authority's service needs. I do appreciate your efforts to relay RVRA's concerns to the appropriate NS officials responsible for making these operational decisions, However, RVRA has been forced into an untenable position based on the actions of these individuals. file:///C:/LTsers/drniles/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/56D582A9POI DO... 3/2/2016 Page 2 of 2 I await NS' prompt response on how NS wishes to proceed. Thank you. Dan Miles filet//C:/Users/dmiles/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/56D582A9PO1 DO... 3/2/2016 rtUKUAKY Lulb - iviontmy i-,recipitation, Leacnate Report, and Mixed Waste Railcar Report Date Time Tank 1 Tank Precipitation Number of 2 Inches Leachate Cars Leachate Gallons No. of Waste Raflcars Railcar Tons Average Per Car 2/1/2016 2:OOPM 12.05 7.50 1 24,000 13 781.01 60.08 2/2/2016 2:OOPM 11.72 7.50 0.08 1 24,000 10 621.07 62.11 2/3/2016 2:OOPM 11.43 8.50 0.75 1 24,0001 7 468.65 66.95 2/4/2016 2:00PM 11.38 9.50 0.07 1 24,0001 9 543.52 60.39 2/5/2016 2:OOPM 11.10 9.50 0.011 1 24,000 - - #DIV/01 2/8/2016 2:OOPM 1 24,000 161 1,103.44 68.97 2/9/2016 2:OOPM 11.60 9.50 0.01 1 24,000 10 586.77 58.68 2/10/2016 2:OOPM 11.00 9.50 0.04 1 24,000 7 464.17 66.31 2/11/2016 2:OOPM 11.60 9.50 0.01 1 24,000 8 461.79 57.72 2/12/2016 2:OOPM 9.32 9.50 1 24,000 4 253.73 63.43 02/17/16* 2:OOPM 12.901 12.00 1.07 1 24,000 14 894.85 63.92 2/18/2016 2:OOPM 12.511 12.00 - 1 24,000 10 616.90 61.69 2/19/2016 2:00PM 14.59 12.50 1 24,000 12 662.15 55.18 2/22/2016* 2:OOPM 18.16 12.501 1 24,0001 12 815.07 67.92 2/23/2016 2:00PM 18.08 12.50 0.55 1 24,000 10 690.11 69.01. 2/24/2016 2:OOPM 1 20.70 12.50 0.35 1 24,000 8 518.85 64.86 2/25/2016 2:OOPM 20.14 12.50 0.02 1 24,000 8 494.51 61.81 2/26/2016 2:0013M 20.38 12.50 11 24,000 4 285.61 71.40 2/29/2016 2:OOPM 20.72 13.50 0.02 1 24,000 14 779.77 55.70 --T Total 259.38 193.00 2.98 19 456,000 17611,041.97 62.74 Icar Special Total Tons Waste Waste Received 781.01 621.07 468.65 0.251 543.77 - 1,103.44 586.77 - 464.17 461.79 4.33 258.06 - 894.85 616.90 662.15 815.07 518.85 494.51 285.61 3.57 783.34 8. Page 1 of 3 Daniel Miles - Re: RVRA Question From: Daniel Miles To: Denise Brooks Bate: 2/22/2016 5:22 PM Subject: Re: RVRA Question Ce: Steven Barger; Scott McGregor Be: Anne Marie Green; Marls Williams; Mark 2 Attachments: Daniel Miles.vef; Net Alt T&D Costs 012016.xlsx; CY15Data 022216.pdf; CYI6Data 022216.pdf Denise, The additional step is having to truck the leachate to Tidy Services where the leachate was discharged into Tidy's metered discharge point to the sanitary sewer system. As I pointed out in my Jan. 20, 2016 email to you, this step was and is necessary because the Western VA Water Authority could not accept the tanker trucks for direct -delivery at its treatment plant. The cost, just for the disposal through Tidy, was and is $0.05/gal. vs. the $0.0035/gal we pay for normal discharge. Again, these costs were provided and outlined in the summary spreadsheet ("Leachate Disposal Costs" starting on line 14 - copy of spreadsheet attached) previously provided via Jan. 20, 2016 email. Tidy's detailed invoices were also provided. And with all due respect, NS' "internal" staff is way off base on making the assumption, and this truly is an assumption, that just because RVRA used approximately the same number of tank cars during a small sample period of time, less than two months during 2015 and 2016, that additional tankers are not necessary. RVRA actually would have transported more tankers so far this year, but we couldn't because we don't have more ... RVRA has shipped its maximum of 1 tanker every day we could this year. And it just so happens to be about the same number of tankers as it was last year. But, it should have and would have been more if we had them. Don't you think it would have been prudent for someone from NS to ask for RVRA's explanation and any documentation prior to NS making such an assumption and prolonging this matter even further? The true issue is our dwindling storage capacity in our two, on-site storage tanks, based on how many tankers it takes to maintain control of this head. These storage tanks are the devices that will ultimately overflow and create an environmental issue that RVRA will not knowingly cause. RVRA is doing everything in our power to prevent a spill, but should a spill occur, be advised that RVRA will hold NS accountable due to its failure to provide adequate transportation services. The costs for a spill clean-up could make these external transportation costs pale in comparison. NS is contractually accountable should this happen directly due to NS' negligence. While it is correct that we have hauled a similar number of tankers for Jan & Feb. in CY'15 & CY16, the head in Tank #1 was 5.63' and Tank #2 was 3.00' at the end of Feb. 2015 (see CY15Data attached). As of today, the head in Tank #1 is 18.16' & Tank 42 12.50' (see CY16Data attached). And so you'll know, the maximum head in Tank #1 is 32' & Tank #2 is 20'. So, Tank #1 is currently at 57% capacity and Tank #2 is at 63% capacity vs. 18% & 15%, respectively, in CY'15 for the end of February. And both tanks are steadily increasing in volume. That is very clear looking at the tank volumes for CY '16, despite hauling the maximum number of tankers N5 has provided. And this is with relatively light rainfall approx. 2"/month. And we can't and won't wait until the tanks start to overflow before we call in our emergency transportation service. If it's raining, we're collecting it and it's going into our storage tanks. RVRA cannot reduce, much less maintain, the head in our storage tanks without additional tanker capacity that NS is obligated to provide. Two 24,000 file:///C:/Users/dmiles/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5 6CB43 EAPO 1 _D... 2/24/2016 Page 2 of 3 gal. tankers, as currently provided by NS, is clearly insufficient based on the storage tank head data provided. With additional tankers, we were able to keep the head in our storage tanks at an acceptable level to prevent an overflow from happening, even with the occasional deluge. We no longer have that luxury thanks to NS' intentional decision, based on flawed logic, to provide insufficient transportation services. What this means is: we are currently, gradually filling up our storage tanks based on the two tankers NS is currently providing. At the current rainfall levels, we may be able to go a few weeks, or possibly more if we are extremely lucky, before we have to have them pumped down by again using our emergency services provider. While we have been blessed with relatively normal precipitation levels so far this year, you can know that we will be getting some deluges at some point and time. If we get hit with a big storm that dumps several inches of water at one time, much less a large volume of rainfall over a sustained period of time, any excess storage capacity we currently have will be eliminated very rapidly. We can pump the tanks down using the external service provider and that will again temporarily solve our issue, but it won't be a permanent fix. The additional tankers are necessary to maintain an acceptable head in our storage tanks, plus provide additional capacity for the major storms that come year in and year out. I believe the actual data I have provided clearly shows that fact vs. making an assumption... NS is contractually obligated to provide sufficient transportation capacity to manage RVRA's wastewater (leachate) commodity. Clearly, at this juncture, despite RVRA's repeated requests for service, NS has and is electing to not meet its contractual obligation. RVRA will continue to monitor its storage tanks and should we be forced to call in the external service provider, we will. And we will continue to track our expenses and seek to recover our additional costs, including fines or damages from spills, from NS as our contract clearly provides. I await NS' response. If NS deems it necessary to call in an arbitrator to resolve this matter, then let's proceed with doing so as RVRA would rather give NS our business versus contesting NS over business going to other parties. In my estimation, NS has already lost more business in missed leachate transport than the entire value of purchasing an additional tanker, much less leasing one wherein RVRA has agreed to shared costs. Thank you, Dan a» "Brooks, Denise' <Qenise.Brooks@nscorp.com> 2/22/2016 2;40 PM »> Good afternoon, We are still in the process of analyzing an amicable settlement and appreciate you sharing your detailed file:///C:/Users/dmiles/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/56CB43EAPQ l—D... 2/24/2016 Page 3 of 3 records with us. We are trying to get a better understanding of the leachate disposal costs and our liability after the product is railed to the transfer station. In your email on January 28, you provided the disposal rate of $3.50/1000 gallons for the Western Virginia Water Authority. What is the difference in handling the leachate by rail vs truck after the leachate has arrived at the transfer station($50.00 per 100 gallons vs $3.50 per 1000 gallons)? In other words, what additional processes/steps take place when shipping the product to the waste water facility by truck instead of rail. Again we appreciate the information. Senior Management at N5 will review and ultimately sign off on the settlement, so we have need to present a complete package. Regarding an additional tank car, we have reviewed this internally and it is our position that 2 cars are sufficient based on the current volume. For the year-to-date through yesterday, we have hauled 27 tank cars from the land fill to the transfer station, 2 less than last year and the new cars hold more volume. We are always open to negotiation, so if you have any documentation showing that the 2 cars are insufficient, please forward to me. We will add this as a discussion topic when we get together. Thanks for your help, Denise Denise D. Brooks I Manager Distribution Services I Norfolk Southern Corporation 13 Commercial Place, Norfolk, VA 23510 *:den ise.brooks @ ns corp.com < ale monj a nscor ,coma 1* 757,629-27461cell: 757.752-1222 fax: 757_-823- 5425 file:///CJUsers/dmiles/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/56CB43EAPO1 D... 2/24/2016 From: "Brooks, Denise" <Denise.Brooks@nscorp.com> To: "'Daniel Miles"' <dmiles@rvra.net> Date: 1/28/2016 4:36 PM Subject: RE: Re: Notice of Default Response still don't have an answer - we want to get a few more weeks of moving the new cars under our belt before we can do an analysis. Scott McGregor knows this is a major concern of yours. Denise -_---Original Message ----- From: Daniel Miles [mailto:dm!les@rvra.net] Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 3:38 PM To: Brooks, Denise Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Notice of Default Response No problem Denise. I'm very appreciative that you are helping us to get this straight. Can you tell me if NS is trying to get additional tankers for us? That really is our highest priority right now. Thanks! Dan Sent from my !Phone > On Jan 28, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Brooks, Denise <Denise.Brooks@nscorp.com> wrote: > Thanks] And sorry that I overlooked the information. > Denise, > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jan 28, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Daniel Miles <dmiles@rvra.net> wrote: >> Denise, >> The rate RVRA pays the Water Authority is shown on the spreadsheet I sent you. It's $3.5011,000 gals or $0,00351ga1. The spreadsheet calculates our total 3rd party costs vs. our normal contract costs and the difference is the amount we believe to be our impact ant. » >> Let me know if you need additional info. >> Thanks! >> Dan >> Sent from my iPhone >>> On Jan 28, 2016, at 9:45 AM, Brooks, Denise <Denise.Brooks@nscorp.com> wrote: >>> Good morning, >>> We appreciate the detailed information and thorough responses to your questions. We are slowly making our way through this. In my email on 1118, 1 asked what the charges were to dispose of the leachate when the tank cars were used. I think that the only thing that we will need to evaluate this is the cost per gallon. If we can get that last piece of information, we can get the total picture of how much additional money that RVRA had to spend due to lack of tank cars. >>> Thanks again for your assistance! >>> Denise >>> 757-752-1222 >>> From: Brooks, Denise >>> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 1:38 PM >>> To: 'Daniel Miles' >>> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] FW: Re: FW: Notice of Default Response >>> And, one last item...... How long does it take to load a car at Smith Gap and to unload at Hollins. >>> If you don't have this tomorrow, that is fine. As long as we can get the information sometime this week, we're good. >>> Thanks again. >>> Denise »> >>> From: Daniel Miles (mailto:DMILES@rvra.net] >>> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 10:20 AM >>> To: Brooks, Denise >>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] FW: Re: FW: Notice of Default Response »> >>> Denise, >>> I'll have all this to you by tomorrow. Our office is actually closed today for the MLK holiday. I came on in just to get some stuff done >>> Thanks! >>> Dan »> »»» "Brooks, Denise" <Denise.Brooks@nscorp.com<mailto:Denise.Brooks@nscorp.com» 1/18/2016 9:59 AM >>> >>> Good morning and hope all is well today. >>> We are in the process of reviewing your emergency leachate disposal costs and are hoping that you can provide some additional information for our internal analysis. >>> We specifically need to know: >>> * The specific dates that the hauling services by truck were performed >>> * How many trucks were used each day to haul the leachate from the landfill »> >>> * The specific dates that the leachate disposal services were performed »> >>> * What are the leachate disposal costs per gallon to drain the cars when rail is used >>> We appreciate your assistance with this. This will assist us in our upcoming discussion with you as we try to resolve this. >>> Thanks! >>> Denise >>> 757-752-1222 >>> From: Daniel Miles [mailto:DMILES@rvra.net] >>> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 10:16 AM >>> To: Brooks, Denise >>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: FW: Notice of Default Response >>> Denise, >>> I look forward to receiving NS' reply and having a meeting to discuss this matter as soon as possible. >>> Thank you very much. >>> Dan »> »»» "Brooks, Denise" <Denise.Brooks@nscorp.com<mailto: Denise. Brooks@nscorp.com<mailto:Denise. Brooks@nscorp.com% 3cmailto:Denise. Brooks@nscorp.com>>> 1/11/2016 10:04 AM*»> >>> Good morning, >>> We are in receipt of your letter dated December 22, and are in the process of reviewing your comments. It is our suggestion that our next step should be to plan a meeting and have an open discussion about the best way to resolve this. We will get back in touch with you shortly regarding potential dates and locations for our meeting. >>> Take care, and we will talk to you soon. >>> Denise >>> 757-752-1222 >>> 757-629-2746 >>> From: Daniel Miles [mailto:DMILES@rvre.net] >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 10:41 AM >>> To: McGregor, Scott >>> Cc: Brooks, Denise; CU Barger, Steven (Roanoke Valley Resource Auth) >>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Notice of Default Response >>> Scott, >>> I've attached a response from RVRA in regard to your letter of December 17, 2015. >>> I do appreciate NS' efforts to obtain the tankers and the two recently delivered tankers are certainly a big help. However, they still are insufficient to handle the amount of leachate we are producing and we've got to get some resolution to this matter as soon as possible. >>> I'm hoping that we can get together after the first of the year to discuss this in person or at least over the phone. I can come to Norfolk if that would be easier to get together, unless you already have a trip to Roanoke on your calendar for early January. >>> Just let me know. »> >>> 1 do hope you and your family have a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! >>> Dan » ROANOKE VALLEY RFS0URCF AuTHoRr" December 22, 2015 Manager Marketing Publications Norfolk Southern Corporation 1.10 Franklin Road, S.P. Roanoke, VA 24042-0041 Mr. Scott D, McGregor Group Vice President Norfolk Southern Corporation 3 Commercial Place, Box 252 Norfolk, VA 23510 Re: Failure to Perform Contract Transportation Service Bear Scott, Thank you for your letter of December 17, 2015. As your letter acknowledges, NS Is obligated pursuant to the October 23, 1991, Contract ("Contract") to transport the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority's ("RVI19) Waste Wafter ('Commodity") from the Smith Gap landfill to the Authority's Tinker Creek Transfer Station in NS provided tank cars ("Transportation Service"). As you know, since the inception of the Contract, NS has established a course of performance In providing the necessary Transportation Service by electing to use at least four 20,000 gallon tank cars to haul the Commodity. (1) NS 840000; (il) NS 840001.; (Iii) 840002; and, (lv) 840003. Your letter attempts to claim excuse for NS's failure to perform the Transportation Service based on force maJeure under section 5 of the Contract. This section provides that a party may be excused if it is Prevented or delayed in performance by a condition beyond the party's control. Contrary to the statement in your letter, however, NS's selection of aging tank cars with lifespans less than the initial Contract term was a decision within NS's complete discretion and control. NS's operational and economic decisions can in no way be considered a force maJeure or a cause beyond NS's control as required under Section 5 of the Contract to excuse its performance, NS knowingly entered into a contractual obligation with equipment (e.g. p1l four tankers) insufficient to last the duration of the first term of agreement. NS has had twenty two years since the Inception of the contract to obtain replacement tankers. Furthermore, please note that the Contract expressly provides that the party declaring the force majeure shall promptly notify the other party both: (1) when the claimed force maJeure begins, and; (ii) the nature (OKUs9a.n040 Rollins Road, NE Roanoke, Virginia 24012-8011 (540) 857,5450 Fax (540) 857.5456 Web ;Site: www-rvramet of the force majeure. Under the Contract, regardless of the validity of NS's force majeure claim, such claim cannot be read to excuse any fall ure by NS to perform that occurred prior to December 17, 2015, the date of your letter. Your letter also attempts to claim that RVRA Is responsible for NS's failure to meet Its obligations because RVRA did not arrange for the repair of a single tank car (NS 840002) that was derailed by RVRA in August of 2014. A single tank car not being returned to service is not a basis for NS falling to meet its obligation to provide Transportation Service under the Contract. However, to clarify this matter, RVRA and NS staff jointly agreed that spending $12,000 for the relatively short remaining life expectancy could not be justified, especially with the anticipated imminent delivery of other tank cars. So, it was a joint decision to not repair NS 840002. Hind-sight being 20-20, had RVRA (and probably NS too) known then what we know now, that NS would not replace the aging tankers in a timely manner, RVRA would have elected to repair this tanker, regardless of N5' recommendation, as the repair amount would have been worth the cost to help minimize the worsening situation versus the actual scenario that ultimately unfolded. Nevertheless, having only one leachate tanker car would not have and cannot provide sufficient disposal volume to adequately service RVRA's transportation needs for this contractual commodity. In fact, RVRA had specifically been requesting additional tankers even prior to being informed on September 16, 2014 (note: this date is shortly after the derailment of NS 84002 and was the principal point of discussion leading to the Joint decision to not repair it) by NS that all four tankers were being taken out of service prior to the expiration of the first term of the contract. Instead, RVRA has continuously lost tanker capacity rather than gaining as requested. The two tankers NS delivered on December 18, 2015 are a welcome relief and we appreciate NS' efforts. However, they do not provide sufficient volume to adequately transport this commodity that NS is obilgated to provide. So again, please Inform RVRA if, how, and when N5 Intends to meet its contractual obiigation as N5 remains In default of its contractual obligation to transport this commodity, Your letter also attempts to avoid NS's contractual responsibility by claiming that RVRA provided inaccurate measurements of the maximum car widths which "impeded NS's efforts to secure replacement equipment." NS, not RVRA, is responsible for NS's decision to use aging tank cars which resulted in the need for NS to secure replacement tank cars. Furthermore, NS is contractually responsible for securing, in its sole discretion, either leased or NS-owned tank cars, with a minimum capacity of 20,000 gallons, necessary to provide the required Transportation Service. At no time did RVRA representatives provide inaccurate measurements to N& in fact, NS' own representatives inspected and made the necessary measurements themselves for the tank cars on at least two separate occasions. RVRA has consistently stated its openness to anything NS could and would provide sufficient to perform this task and our willingness to assist in any way possible. RVRA continues to maintain its position as a committed partner with NS. Finally, your letter Incorrectly states that NS is only required to Indemnify RVRA for events arising from NS's negligence. In addition to NS being liable for Contract damages resulting from failure to perform the required Transportation Service, Section 10 expressly requires NS to Indemnify and hold RVRA harmless for NS's acts oromissions in the performance of the Transportation Service. Specifically, Section 10 of the Contract requires NS to save, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless RVRA from any and all claim, loss, liability, expense and damages arising from NS's negligence, `_qn_d1y1th respect to any cxct or_omFssfon by Railroad be ore a er, and during the Performance o trans ortation service pursuant to this A reement... " (emp. added). { URS3.00ex j Therefore, NS is responsible under the Contract for RVRA's costs and damages resulting from NS's failure to provide the required Transportation Service. RVRA will continue to keep N5 informed of these costs. If it would be helpful, I would be pleased to discuss this matter by phone, or In person, or to provide any additional information or documentation to support my responses. Thank you. Sincer Daniel D. Miles, P.E. Chief Executive Officer (W122651DOCH ) FINAL Exhibit "B" The Emails and NSR Invoices (Sae attached) RE: RE: RE: Notice of Default From "Brooks, Denise" To Daniel Miles Date 2015/12/1109:17 RE. RE' RE: Notice of Subject: Default The cars are enroute on the Union Pacific and scheduled to arrive in Chicago on the 13th. The cars will be interchanged to NS and then head to Roanoke. I should be able to give you an ETA to your facilitt after the cars get on our line. Denise From: Daniel Miles [DMILES@rvra.net] Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 9:06 AM To: Brooks, Denise Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: RE: Notice of Default Denise, Is there any update on delivery? Thanks. Dan >>> "Brooks, Denise" 12/4/2015 4:16 PM >>> Hello. That is the million dollar question, and I cannot provide a definite answer, nor reliable projection. According to our internal statistics, cars that traveled between Omaha, NE and. Roanoke, VA in the last 60 days took an average of 5 days. We cannot guafantee that this will be the case with your cars. The cars are being routed UP -Chicago -NS. After the cars arrive in Roanoke we may inspect them, and the person that makes that determination is on vacation today. If there is a need for an inspection, we are going to get the cars in and out of the shop in I day, and the cars will head to your facility. We are aware of the critical nature of the shipments and will carefully monitor the movements of the cars. As information, the car numbers are NS 840004 and NS 840005. I plan to give you an update on Monday. I hope you have a good weekend as well. Denise From: Daniel Miles [mailto:DMILES@rvra.net] Sent: Friday, December 4, 2015 3:01 PM To: Brooks, Denise Cc: Omdorfff, Carol; Raber, Bob; McGregor, Scott; CU Remington, Randy (Roanoke Valley Resource Auth); CU Barger, Steven (Roanolce Valley Resource Auth) Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Notice of Default Denise, I appreciate you getting back to me. If there's any way to get us a date to expect deliveries, we can make plans to maximize our storage capacity on-site. flight now, we're having to play it sate, because we don't have a net under the tightrope... I'm sure we'll all be glad when the calvary arrives. Hope you have a good weekend. Dan >>> "Brooks, Denise" > 12/4/2015 2:43 PM >>> Good afternoon, We are in receipt of your Notice of Default dated December 3, 2015, and are in the process of reviewing the letter and summary of your incurred expenses with our Law Department. We plan to send you a response indicating our position next week. Regarding the replacement tank cars, we have been advised by the leasing company that the cars were released from the repair shop in Omaha, Nebraska and are scheduled to be picked up by the Union Pacific today to begin transit to Virginia. Regards, Denise Denise D. Brooks ! Account Manager - Industrial Products I Norfolk Southern Corporation 13 Commercial Place, Norfolk, VA 23510 *: denise.brooks@nscorp.com J* 757-629-27461cell: 757-752-12221 fax: 757-823-5425 From: Daniel Miles [mailto:DMILES@rvra.net] Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 10:49 AM To: Brooks, Denise; McGregor, Scott Cc: CU Remington, Randy (Roanoke Valley Resource Auth); CU Barger, Steven (Roanoke Valley Resource Auth) Subject: [EXTERNAL] Notice of Default Denise & Scott, Please find attached the Notice of Default that has been sent via certified mail today. I have also attached a spreadsheet of the current third -party costs already incurred by RVRA necessary to transport RVRA's waste water commodity NS per the notice of default. Please note that the Western Virginia Water Authority will not accept direct deliveries of the tractor - delivered waste water and we are forced to discharge the loads to another third -party entity as shown on the spreadsheet. We are currently scheduled to resume the third -party transport and disposal on Friday, December 4th until this matter has been resolved by NS. RVRA will provide weekly updates on any and all costs we incur. I look forward to your response and a rapid resolution to this matter as it is an absolutely critical matter for RVRA. You may contact me directly at (540) 857-5055 if you would like to discuss this matter further. Thank you. Dan Miles, RVRA Chief Executive Officer r ROANOIKE VALLEY RE, SOURCE AUTHORM December 3, 2015 Manager Marketing Publications Norfolk Southern Corporation 110 Franklin Road, S.E. Roanoke, VA 240420041 Mr. Scott D. McGregor Group Vice President Norfolk Southern Corporation 3 Commercial Place, Bax 2.52 Norfolk, VA 23510 Re: Notice of Default; Transportation Contract with Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Dear Sirs: This letter serves as notice that Norfolk Southern Railway Company and Consolidated Subsidiaries ("NS") is in default of its obligations under Transportation Contract VASCC-NS-C-11.148 ("Contract") with the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority ("RVRA" or "Authority") to transport the Authority's Waste Water Commodity STCC 40-291.-20 ("Waste Water' or "Commodity") from the Smith Gap Landfill ("Qrlgln") to the Authority's Tinker Creek Transfer Station ("Destination"). The Contract expressly requires NS to transport the Commodity from Origin to Destination in NS- owned or [eased 20,000 gallon, minimum, capacity tank cars. Since the inception of the Contract in 1993, NS has performed its obligation to transport the Commodity, including using four, 20,004 gallon tankers, in the past year, by reducing the number of tankers available, NS has fal led to provide the amount of Waste Water transportation service required under the Contract. As of November 30, 2015, in total breach of the Contract, NS has failed to provide "n Water transportation service, reducing the number of tanker cars available to zero. As of the date of this letter, none of the tankers previously taken out of service by NS have been replaced. NS has also failed to agree to make additional tanker -pulls, at least not without charging switching fees to do so, to meet NS's obligations under the Contract to transport the Waste Water, despite the Authority's repeated requests to do so. NS's breach of its contractual obligations to provide the transportation services required under the Contract as described above has placed the Authority in a completely untenable position. As a result of NS's on-going breach of its obligations under the Contract, the Authority has been forced to take emergency measures and incur significant expense to transport the Waste Water. To date, NS's failure .1020 Hollins Road, NE Roanokr,'Virginia 24012.8011 (540) 857-5050 ftx (540) 857-5056 Web Site: ivwtiv.rvra.net to provide adequate transportation services has resulted in the Authority's emergency procurement of transportation services by a third party in the amount of $183,.302,59. The Authority anticipates ongoing additional expenditures to a third party transportation provider until NS remedies its default. The Authority hereby notifies NS that NS will be required to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless from any and all current and future Bairn, loss, expenses, and damages, including special and consequential damages and environmental damages, arising from NS's breach of the Contract and failure to provide the required transportation service underthe Contract. Until this matter is resolved, the Authority will continue to track and snake NS aware of any and all third party expenditures incurred byAuthorlty due to NS's failure to provide the required transportation services. The Authority also demands that NS immediately provide the Authority with NS's planned course of action to remedy MS's default, Including: 1) a definitive timeframe for the replacement of the three tankers taken out of service; 2) a schedule for the replacement of the fourth tanker on or before its expiration date in September, 2016; and 3) an operating plan to provide additional transport capacityto meet the Authority's growing needs for its Waste Water Commodity in excess of the four original tankers, Daniel D. Mlles, P.E. Chief Executive Officer Page 1 of 4 Daniel Miles - Re: RE: Re: Tank car lease From: Daniel Miles <DMZLES@rvra.net> To: Denise Brooks <denise.brooks@nscorp.com> Date: 12/2/2015 11:26 AM Subject: Re: RE: Re: Tank car lease Cc: Anne Marie Green <AGREEN@roanokecountyva.gov>, Brock Mutter <broek.mutte... Attachments: TEXT.htm; Daniel Miles.vcf Denise, I certainly realize and appreciate that you and NS have been working to obtain the tankers necessary to transport RVRA's leachate commodity per our contract. I really do. But, without any timeframe to work off of since "as soon as possible" is not a defined period of time and that is not something RVRA can plan for. I am now at the point where I believe itis necessary for RVRA to submit a letter of default to NS. I'm sorry, but NS has put RVRA in an untenable position. It is not RVRA's responsibility to provide tankers. It is NS' contractual obligation. That doesn't mean we don't want to keep working with NS to resolve this issue. We do. However, the four tankers originally provided by NS have not been sufficient to handle this specific commodity for some time now. And RVRA has formally notified NS of this. To compound matters, as of November 30th, NS took the last remaining tanker out of service due to it reaching it's maximum 50 year life. We are currently down to zero tankers! In my opinion, that constitutes a complete failure, and default, on NS' part to honor its contractual obligation to RVRA and I fail to see how it can be construed any other way... As you know, in late October through early November, RVRA had to issue an emergency contract with an over -the -road tanker transportation company in order to prevent leachate overflowing our storage tanks. Such an occurrence would create an environmental issue that would likely result in clean-up/mitigation costs and fines that we expect would exceed the approximately $183,000 in additional costs RVRA has already absorbed from the emergency contract. RVRA did not seek compensation from NS for the additional expense as we have been trying to work with NS to get this matter resolved. Unfortunately, it hasn't been resolved nor can we get any definitive timeframe as to when it will be resolved. The emergency contract bought us both a little time. However, we are losing ground rapidly in our leachate storage capacity and RVRA is not in a position to absorb any additional costs to transport a commodity NS is obligated to transport. please be informed that RVRA is currently reviewing its contractual options, including the option of seeking reimbursement from NS for any additional costs to transport leachate via a third party as of today until this matter has been resolved. Without any definitive timeframe from NS to resolve this matter, I anticipate getting a formal notification to NS later this afternoon. Thank you. Dan »> "Brooks, Denise" <Denise.BrooksCg)nscorp.com> 12/2/2015 8:19 AM >>> file:///C:/Users/dmiles/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5759310EP01 DO... 6/9/2016 Page 2 of 4 Good morning, The leasing company (CIT) sent us the lease agreement with all of their comments/suggested changes late yesterday. We're reviewing and will hopefully sign it SOON. I hate to speculate and give you a projected time that the cars will arrive since I've been wrong far too many times. Everyone at NS knows that this is the highest priority and we will arrange to get the cars to you as soon as possible. Denise Sent from my iPhone On Dec 1, 2015, at 9:29 AM, Steven Barger <s ar er rvramet> wrote: Denise, I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving and everything is going well. I guess after yesterday or today, we will be without any tankers for our operations. It has been raining here for two days now and the tank elevations are on the rise. They are calling for more rain tomorrow. We really could use some tankers at this time and am curious to see where we are. Please let us know when we can anticipate the tankers arriving so that we do not have to hire an. outside contractor to haul leachate for us. As you know, we have been needing tankers now for over a year and we need them NOW! Thanks, Steve >» Steven Barger 1.7./12/2015 7.4:7.5 AM >> Denise, How are we coming along? Thanks, Steve >>> "Brooks, Denise" 11/6/20151.0:50 AM >>> So, are you saying that RVRA will agree to the contract language that CIT is proposing? As you are aware, the transportation contract between RVRA and NS ends in mid -2018 and our lease for the CIT cars will end at the same time. At this time we donknow how the equipment negotiations with the contract beyond 2018 file:///C:/Users/dmiles/AppData/L,ocal/Temp/XPgrpwise/575931 CEPO Z _DO... 6/9/2016 Page 3 of 4 between NS and RVRA will play out - if we will continue to lease the cars for you, or if RVRA will lease directly(which I donthink CIT will have a problem with)or you may want to own your own cars. I just need to verify that RVRA is OK with CIT's contract language request for this current lease. Hope this makes sense. Denise -----Original Message ----- From: Steven Barger [mailto:sbargeo(D vra.net] Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 10:06 AM To: Brooks, Denise Cc: Daniel Miles; CU Barger, Steven (Roanoke Valley Resource Auth) Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Tank car lease Denise, Thanks for the update and anyone is welcome to come and inspect the existing tankers. We have some data (lab work) in the leachate and I will be glad to share that data in Monday. If the tanks fit through the tipper, we will need tankers for at least another thirty years. Thanks Steve Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 6, 2015, at 9:56 AM, Brooks, Denise <I)enise.I;rooks kt)liscor .conl> wrote: > Good morning, > As I mentioned during our conference call, we have an excellent lead on 2 cars that would be available "soon"(and there is a good chance that we would get a third car). > As I also mentioned., one of the problems that we are running into in securing cars is that the potential leasing companies are hesitant about hauling leachate. The company that we're working with, CIT, is concerned about the commodity file:///C:/Users/dmiles/AppDataCLocal/Texnp/XPgrpwise/5759310EPOI DO... 6/9/2016 Page 4 of 4 and wants to include special language in the agreement. Specifically, CIT wants to add language that states that RVRA will agree to purchase the cars at the conclusion of the lease in the event that the future usage becomes restricted as a result of hauling leachate. The approximate depreciated value of each car is $79,000. > As Carol stated on our conference call, we handle products far more toxic than leachate. Perhaps it would be a good idea to get our Research & Tests group out again to inspect the inside of the tank car at your facility and determine if there are any "issues" with the car after 22 years of usage. Please let me know if you would like for me to arrange this - perhaps the results of the inspection will assist you with your decision about the contract. > As information, the two car numbers are CTCX 730797 & CTCX 730805 and are currently located in South Dakota. They are 30,000 gallon cars and built in June/July 2008. > Outside Width - 10'8" > Outside Height - 15'06" > Outside Length - 59'05" > Please let me know if you have any questions. > Denise > Denise D. Brooks j Account Manager - Industrial Products I Norfolk Southern Corporation 13 Commercial Place, Norfolk, VA 23510 > *: denise.izrooks(c7nscor .com<mailto:757629- 27461cell: 757-752-12221 fax: 757-823-5425 <Steven Barger.vcf> file:///C: Users/dmiles/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5759310EPO1—DO... 6/9/2016 From: "Brooks, Denise" <Denise.Brooks@nscorp.com> To: "dmiles@rvramet" <dmiles@rvra.net> CC: "McGregor, Scott" <sdmcgreg@nscorp.com>, "Kraemer, John" <John.Kraemer@n... Date: 12111/2014 4:19 PM Subject: RVRA/NS meeting follow-up Attachments: image001.png Good afternoon and hope all is well. I am sorry about the delay in following up after our very productive meeting in late October. During our meeting, you mentioned that you would have an update about the Salem facility. We are hoping that you have positive news and we would like to go ahead and schedule a time for our Industrial Development Manager and Engineer to get out to the property. Is the facility's address 2508 W Main Street? am hearing that the flat car market is tight and in the event that you do acquire the Salem business, it is probably prudent to start working on the securing the cars right away. Chuck Travis, who owns Travis Transportation Consultants is a good contact for the equipment. I have spoken with him and he is willing to assist in any way that he can. His phone number is 801-831-6017, and email address is chuck@travtco.corn<mailto:chuck@travtco.com>. I have also reached out to our Purchasing group and asked for additional contacts and will pass them on to you when I receive the information. The most pressing matter is the tank car situation. We're at the end of 2014 and we really need to decide what to do before the first one reaches the end of its useful life next year. During the meeting we asked you to consider leasing the tank cars and in turn, we proposed reducing the linehaul rate. Have you had a chance to evaluate this option? Do you need any additional information from us for your analysis? And in conjunction with the tank car issue, we need to address the outstanding switch charges from 2013. As discussed, we are willing to compromise on the switch charges in consideration of RVRA assisting us with the additional cost of leasing the tank cars through the end of the contract period. One last item, Scott McGregor found the announcement below regarding SPSA's reguest for a proposal and thought you may have an interest. Loaded containers would be need to be Iifte on to railcars at our Bulk Transfer Station in Chesapeake, VA, and then railed to Roanoke. If you have any questions, or need for me to set up a conference call to discuss any of the a aforementioned items, please let me know. Thanks. Denise Denise D. Brooks 1 Account Manager - Industrial Products 1 Norfolk Southern Corporation 13 Commercial Place, Norfolk, VA 23510 *: de nise. brooks@nscorp. com < ma ilto: pa lemon @nsco rp.com > 1* 757-629-27461cell: 757-752-12221 fax: 757-823-5425 [cid:image001.png@01 D0155E.37B062C0] Page 1 of 2 Daniell Mite - Re: NS Special Switch Charges 'A'r_`sr.�v:��zcs-Fr.+:?�vv�s�5sxx� —•���nianna�nrs�sa�,;'n�scz5�m��rru�e�xaset�'.,�:,n�ss ,'x��ss��:;��so�-,ef�;�. �-�w�:sxcus�mr��sav: rr•� From: Daniel Miles To: Denise Brooks; Steven 6arger Date: 2/7/2014 11:25 AM Subject: Re: N5 Special Switch Charges Attachments: Daniel Miles.vcf Denise, I do appreciate you getting back with me although I am obviously disappointed with N5' determination. As I have previously stated, while I am not privy to all the contracts NS has with its customers and what they pay, the Authority has a very different opinion based on our interpretation of the terms of its current transportation agreement with NS and how this matter has been dealt with previously by both parties. I will discuss this matter with my board of directors at our next meeting which Is scheduled for Feb. 26th. I anticipate getting back with you very soon thereafter. Thank you. Dan >>> "Brooks, Denise" <denise.brooks@nscorp.com> 2/7/20141,0:54 AM >>> Good morning, I apologize for the delay in following up with you regardingthe special switch charges. I feel like we've been going In circles on this issue. I have spoken with Bob Raber, the Pricing Manager for the leachate, and he in turn has vetted this with his Director regarding a settlement which is outlined below. In total, 52 special switches occurred from May through September, resulting in charges of $80,000. We cancelled the charges for the first B invoices in their entirety. Bob Raber and his Director have agreed to reduce the charges for 8 special switches that occurred between May 28 and June 17, by 50%. We cannot offer any relief on the remaining charges for the 21 switches that occurred after June 18, and those must be paid at the $2,500/car rate. As mentioned In our meeting In Norfolk, and the meeting with the Trainmaster in late November at your office, all customers are assessed this charge which Is outlined by tariff NS 8002-A, Item 4050. Railroad assets and railroad personnel were Involved in these movements and I am sure that you will agree that we should be compensated. Total Charges for 82 switches $80,000 S Cancelled Invoices $7,500 50% of Invoices 5/28 -- 6/17 $1.0,000 charges 6/1.8-9/5 $52,500 Amount Owed $62,500 Going forward, a reduction in the amount of the switch Is being heavily considered and your contract wilt be amended. Bob Raber is currently working on this. As previously discussed, we want to get this behind us, and work with you to move forward on your initiative at file:///C;/Users/dmites/AppData/1 ocal/Tenip/XPgrpwise/52F4C2A2P01 DOMAINA-L P.., 2/12/2014 Page 2 oE2 Salem. if you have any questions, or wish to further discuss, please let me know. Thanks, Denise Brooks 757-629-2746 757.752-1222 file:///C:lUsersldn- Iles/AppDatWLocallTemp/XPgrpw'isel52P4C2A2P41 DQMAINA-L P... 2/12/2014 Page 1 of 4 Daniel Miles a RR: RVIRA Switch Charges From: "Brooks, Denise" <denise,broolcs c scorp.com> To: „'Daniel Miles" <dniiles@rvra.net>, "CU Remington, Randy (Roanoke Valley... Date: MOM 10:35 AM Subject: RE: RVRA. Switch Charges CC: Mark Williams <Marls.Williams@gmdlawfrm.com>, "Webb, Addison" <addison.w... Attachments: NS 8002-A, Item 4050.pdf Good morning, 11 I have attached the applicable tariff detailing the $2500/car special switch charge, and also provided a link to the entire document below. httia:llwww.nscarp.cam/nscorphtml(publ'tcations.2-A. pdf I hope this answers your question. Denise Denise f). Brooks l Account Manager- Industrial Products i Norfolk Southern Corporation 13 commercial Place, Norfolk, VA23510 ®: denise.bmnks nscor .cam 10 7$7-62.9-27461 cell: 757-7!i2-12221 fair: 757-32a-5425 Froirrl!: Daniel Milers [rYiaiito:dmiles@rvra.net] Sent; Wednesday, September 18, 2013 9:39 AM To: Brooks, Denise; CU Remington, Randy (Roanoke Valley Resource Auth); CU Barger, Steven (Roanoke Malley Resource Auth) Cc: Maris Williams; Webb, Addison; Lynch, Andrew P; Juhasz, Daniel N; Andris, Kevin M.; Raber, Bob; Anne Marie Green Subject: Re: RVRA Switch Charges Denise, Thank you for your email. As I understand your email, Norfolk Southern (NS) agrees that although similar situations have arisen in the past 20 plus years since the contract was signed, NS has never attempted to charge the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority ("Authority') any "switching charges" under the contract. I also understand your email to state that NS is offering to waive 3 such charges, or $7,500, from the current balance of $72,500 that has been billed to the Authority. It Is my understanding that NS is basing the claimed charges on Section 19 of the contract which states: 'in addition, except as otherwise provided herein, shipments made under the terms of this Contract are subject to a/1 classi>`icatlons, ...regulations and provisions, Including, but not limited to, statute of limitations, weighing, loss and damage, demurrage arra switching that would apply !f this Contract were not In effect.' fdoWC:1Documents and SettingAdmilesTocal SettingslTernp\XPgrpwisel5... 9/24/2013 Page 2 of 4 Is this correct? If so, where can I find the "switching charges" of $2,500? We have yet to receive any basis for this charge other than "that is what it is and you must pay it ... 11 Please Inform me where and how to find this charge as, up to this point in our correspondence, the reference to section 19 is the only language that has been provided to the Authority as the rationale for the charges being claimed. We would sincerely appreciate being provided with this information. Based on our understanding of the contract and the past experience bebveen the parties, the Authority Is not aware of the basis for the claimed charges. It is my understanding that in discussions between the Authority's counsel and NS's counsel, NS's counsel confirmed that NS was not able to point to any such switching charges being claimed or billed in the past and provided no additional authority or basis for the charges currently claimed. For the reasons I have stated in this Email, we remain In dispute over these charges. I do believe It would behoove both parties to meet, with our without counsel, but in any event with appropriate authorized representatives to discuss the possible resolution of this matter. I would be glad to come to Norfolk to meet with the appropriate Individual(s) If needed. My email is intended for no purpose other than to attempt to resolve this matter. If you are not the appropriate NS representative that I need to be discussing this with, please let me know as soon as possible the proper -person and how I may contact them. Again, thank you For your email and your help. Dan Miles, CEO >>> "Brooks, Denise" <denise.brooks r, nscorpxom> 9/10/2013 I.1; ].1 AM >>> Good morning, We have spent a great deal of time discussing the special switch charges for your waste water removal from Smith Gap. Our attorney has reviewed the contract language and determined that we are assessing the $2540/car charges properly and in accordance to the contract. We do realize that we have never assessed these charges In the past, and that the crew performed the switches for you once or twice a year. In view of this, we are going to waive the $2,500/car charge for the first 3 bills that you received In May - bill#'s 1142083859, 1142083867 and 1142083875. Regarding the rate for the switches, 1 have spoken at length with the Pricing Manager for wastewater and he advises that we cannot adjust the charge at this time. He discussed the situation with his senior management and they are in agreement that we cannot reduce the rate. We ask that you work with Addison Webb in our Accounts Receivable group to remit payment for these outstanding invoices. The list below shows the current outstanding balance of $72,500, We apologize that It has taken so long to give you an official response regarding our position, but we wanted to thoroughly review this and vet all possible resolutions for this issue. Thank you. Denise Brooks Denise%Brooks I Account Manager -Industrial Products I Norfolk southern Corporation 13 Commercial Place, Norfolk,VA2351D F4: denise.brooks@nseorp.com i V 157-629-27461 tell: 757-752-12221 fax; 757-823-5425 file:XADocuments and SettingsWraifeALocal SetUng8lTempWglpwisel5... 9/24/2013 Page 3 of 4 file: C:1Documents and Settingsldmiles%ocal SeWngs\Temp\XPgrpwisel5... 9/24/2013 Bill of FreightBdi Ladlng FB Date Age Waybill WB Date Car/Trailer Origin ST STCC Net NS 1248075300 C14 9/5/203.3 4 508820 9/8/2013 840000 ROANOKE VA 192* $2,500.00 NS 1248075318 C14 9/5/2013 4 508824 9/3/207.3 840000 ROANOKE VA 192* $2,500.00 N5 1247077278 C14 9/4/2013 5 508821 913/2013 840001 ROANOKE VA 192* $2,500.00 N5 12.47077286 C14 9/4/2013 5 508822 9/3/2013 840002 ROANOKE VA 192* $2,500.00 NS 1247077294 C14 9/4/2013 S 50$823 9/3/2013 840003 ROANOKE VA 192* $2,500.00 N5 3.212084321 C14 7/31/ZD13 40 497882 7/29/2019 840003 ROANOKE VA 192* $2,500.00 NS 1212084339 C14 7/31/2013 40 497883 7/29/2013 8401101. ROANOKE VA 192* $2,500.00 NS 1212084347 C14 7/31/2013 40 497888 7/29/2013 840003 ROANOKE VA 192* $7_,500,00 N5 1212084355 C14 7/31/2013 40 497887 7/29/2013 840001 ROANOKE VA 192* $2,500.00 NS 1211098319 C14 7/30/2013 41 497884 7/29/2013 840002 ROANOKE VA 192* $2,500.00 NS 1211098327 C14 7/30/2013 41 497885 7/29/2013 840000 ROANOKE VA 192* $2,500.00 NS 1204090318 C14 7/23/2013 48 1 495448 7/19/2013 840003 ROANOKE VA 192* $2,50tl.44 NS 1204090326 C14 7/23/2013 48 495449 7/19/2013 840000 ROANOKE VA 192* $2,500,00 NS 1200079019 C14 7/19/2013 52 494944 7/17/2013 840000 ROANOKE VA 192' $2,500.00 N5 1200079027 C14 7/19/2013 52 494945 7/17/2013 840001 ROANOKE VA 192* $2,500.00 NS 1200079035 C14 7/19/2013 52 494946 7/17/2013 840OD2 ROANOKE VA 192* $2,500.00 NS 1200079043 C14 717.9/2013 52 494948 7/17/2013 840000 ROANOKE VA 192` $2,500.00 N5 1200079051 CM 7119/2013 52 494949 7/17/2013 840001 ROANOKE VA 192' $2,500.00 NS 1200079069 CM 7/19/2013 52 494951 7/17/2013 840002 ROANOKE VA 192* $7,500.00 NS 1199076528 C14 7/18/2013 53 494947 7/17/207.3 840003 ROANOKE VA 192* $2,500.00 NS 1190064003 C14 7/9/2013 62 492434 7/8/2013 840000 ROANOKE VA 192* $2,500,00 NS 1169096564 C14 6/18/2013 83 487491 6/17/2013 840001 ROANOKE VA 192* $2,500.00 NS 1169096572 CM 6/18/2013 83 487492 6/17/2013 840002 ROANOKE VA 192* $2,500.00 NS 1169096580 C14 6/18/2013 83 487493 6/17/2013 840003 ROANOKE VA 192* $2,500.00 NS 1169096598 C14 6/18/2013 83 487494 6/17/2013 840000 ROANOKE VA 192* $2,500.00 NS 1149076489 C14 5/29/2013 103 481710 5/28/2013 840001 ROANOKE VA 192* $2,500.00 NS 1149076497 C14 5/29/2013 103 481711 5/28/2013 840002 ROANOKE VA 192* $7.,500.00 NS 1149076502 C14 5/29/2013 .108 481712 5/28/2013 840000 ROANOKE VA 192* $2,500.00 file: C:1Documents and Settingsldmiles%ocal SeWngs\Temp\XPgrpwisel5... 9/24/2013 Page 4 of 4 1149076510 C14NS _ _5/29/2013 1_108 [ 481713_.I..5/28/2013 1 840003 I ROANOKE r VA 1 192* fleWCADocuments and SettingsldmilesTocal Settin9sWemp1XPgTwisel5... 9/24/2013 1020 Hollins Rd. NE Roanoke, VA 24612 To: Manager, Marketing Publications, Norfolk Southern Corporation Kendal Haynes, NSC, 3 Commercial Place, Box 252, Norfolk, VA 23510 From: Steven R Barger, Operations Manager, RVRA Date: May 22, 2013 Re: Contract - Extra billing for switches CC: Daniel D. Miles, Randy Remington, CYO First, I want to thank Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC) for working with the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA) for the past nineteen years and we look forward to continuing our relationship well into the future. However, we currently have an issue that we would like to resolve as soon as possible. Historically, whenever RVRA has needed an extra switch, NSC has always been willing to assist with working out the details and getting the job done and has never assessed an additional service fee. This time NSC agreed to provide the additional service, but at an extra fee of $2,500.00 for which RVRA cannot find to be supported by any of the terms in our service agreement. Therefore, RVRA requests NSC to provide the contractual basis for assessing this fee. Absent that contractual support, RVRA disputes the $2,500.00 extra service fee assessment and will be withholding payment of this invoice until such support is provided. Furthermore, even if there is contractual support that NSC can provide, RVRA does not believe the extra charges are merited. Last Thursday, May 16"', an extra switch of two tankers was conducted by NSC. In addition to the two tankers delivered during the normal switch from Wednesday evening, RVRA received and emptied its full complement of four rail tanker cars at the Tinker Creek Transfer Station and staged the tankers to be returned to the Smith Gap Landfill that evening. However, Thursday evening, NSC's regular evening crew did not return any of the empty tankers back to the Smith Gap Landfill. Therefore, on Friday, May 17a', RVRA did not have any empty any tankers to fill and stage. In other words, RVRA did not gain anything with the extra switch on Thursday due to NSC's failure to return the emptied tankers to the Smith Gap Landfill. So no extra charge is warranted; even if there is a contractual provision to do so which we do not believe is present. And to compound matters, on Monday, May 20`x', NSC's crew, had a derailment mishap causing damage to one of RVRA's tankers leaving RVRA with only three tankers in our inventory. Section 5 — Force Majeure, states the following: "In the event of service disruption due to derailment or accident, Railroad agrees to supply additional cars suitable for waste loading at the transfer loading point (e.g. Smith Gap Landfill for tanker cars) but only if dedicated equipment cannot be made available for loading, and only until such time that dedicated equipment can resume movement." RVRA interprets that provision to enable NSC to conduct additional switches, if necessary, in lieu of providing additional rail cars or tankers in order to provide RVRA with its service requirements. Again, we have not gained any additional headway with the extra switches, so no charge is warranted; again, even if there is a contractual provision to do so which we do not believe is present. I would appreciate NSC addressing this matter as expeditiously as possible, especially now that we have only three tanker cars to keep up with the leachate through no fault of our own. Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. 2 P Amh it ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY March 9, 1998 Mr. Phillip C. North, Manager Environmental Services Norfolk Southern Corporation 110 Franklin Road, SE Roanoke, VA 24042-4041 Dear Phil: The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Board of Directors expresses their deep appreciation for the excellent service that Norfolk Southern continues to provide and the attention that you have provided to seek the best service possible. The Authority will continue, to the best of our ability, to limit any need to require service beyond Monday through Friday. We believe that both parties benefit from our abilities to efficiently use our resources. The Authority Board has reviewed your request to amend the transportation agreement to include additional charges for service provided outside the normal Norfolk Southern internal work schedule. The Authority believes that the agreement is clear in that service is not limited to the normal Norfolk Southern schedule and that the commodity will be transported from the Transfer Station to Smith Gap at the specified rates in the appendices. I sincerely appreciate your efforts on this matter and others in the past. JRH/mej Sincerely, John R. Hubbard, P.E. Chief Executive Officer 1020 Hollins Road Roanoke, Virginia 24012 (540) 857-5050 Fax (540) 857-5056 NORFOLK SOUTHERN Norfolk Southern Corporation Merchandise Marketing Department 110 Franklin Road, S.E. Roanoke, Virginia 24042-0041 540 985-6305 540 985-6706 FAX e ary 3, 1998 "98 FEB -4 A 1 RECEIVED RVRA R -5P -X-115172 Mr. John R. Hubbard, P.E. Chief Executive Officer Roanoke Waste Resource Authority 1020 Hollins Road Roanoke, VA 24012 FAX: 540-857-5056 Dear John: This will refer to special waste water trains and our conversations. Phillip C. North Manager Environmental Services dl As you will recall, Special Train charges, as covered by tariffs, amount to $56 per mile, minimum 110 miles, or $6,160 per train. hi addition, present waste water rates would apply, or $405 per car. In an effort to assist the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, I recommend we amend your Contract effective January 26, 1998 and provide the following for special waste water trains, when applicable: Per car charge for special two car train: $717 per car Per car charge for special four car train: $507 per car These would be subject to same escalation provisions as in the contract today. John, this will help with the present circumstances and provide a solution for future occurrences. We appreciate your consideration of this proposal and look forward to hearing from you. 115172d1 Sincerely, 5r Phil North Operating Subsidiaries: Norfolk Southern Railway Company 1 North American Van bines, Inc, Delivery of Stone: Can you provide some information on the history of how stone has been delivered to the landfill. Apparently it was delivered by train initially and is now delivered by truck via Bradshaw Road. Any info on when this changed and why would be helpful. RVRA contracted with Norfolk Southern (NS) for transportation of three items: nonhazardous municipal solid waste (MSW); waste water (leachate); and crushed stone. In 2012 NS advised RVRA that there was an ongoing shortage of stone cars causing delays in shipment. The shipments of stone began taking four to six months from the time RVRA ordered the stone to the time NS delivered it. As a result, RVRA began placing annual stone orders for ongoing operational needs in July or August anticipating that the stone cars would arrive around the following November or December. Stone deliveries became acute in 2017 when RVRA requested bids for construction of a new cell and closing a portion of another cell at the landfill. The RVRA specifications required contractors to make their bids based on delivery of needed stone by NS in accordance with RVRA's contract with NS. The contractors preparing their bids informed RVRA staff that NS could not meet their delivery needs based on a shortage of stone cars. RVRA amended the specifications to allow bidders to include an alternate bid to transport stone by truck in addition to rail in the event NS was not able to meet stone delivery requirements. The revised specification required truck deliveries to be made via the Ironto exit off Interstate 81 to North Fork Road to Bradshaw Road to the landfill during designated hours that would not conflict with the operation of school buses. The specification also capped the number of loads that could be transported by truck. When RVRA received bids from contractors, the alternate bid for trucking stone was $375,800 less than the rail option. The RVRA Board awarded the contract with the provision that the contractor give NS the first opportunity to provide stone transport in accordance with the transportation contract and if NS was not able to deliver stone timely in accordance with the contractual terms, the contractor could rely on trucking the stone. (See the attached April 19, 2017 RVRA Board item.) The contractor contacted NS to arrange stone deliveries. The contractor and NS could not work out the delivery or the payment options (see June 1, 2017 T&K Construction letter). As a result, the contractor moved the stone by truck. The stone totaled approximately 1,360 tandem truckloads. RVRA and NS entered into a second contract on July 1, 2018. NS provided a price for the delivery of stone but, unlike the previous contract, NS did not exempt the stone from storage, switching or demurrage charges. RVRA placed an initial stone order for 17 stone cars in August 2018, anticipating a 4-6 month lag in delivery. NS initially shipped five stone cars. Four of the cars were delivered after Christmas in December 2018. The fifth car went missing. NS advised RVRA of a demurrage fee for the missing stone car. RVRA declined to pay the demurrage for the missing car because the car had not been delivered to the landfill. The contracted rate per stone car increased from $684 in the first contract to $2,034 per car in the second contract. The price increase was directly attributable to storage, switching and demurrage charges that NS imposed in the second contract. After reviewing the increased cost of hauling 1 stone, RVRA canceled the remaining stone order from NS. RVRA began trucking the stone at that time. Hauling of Leachate: Similar question. How is leachate hauled from the landfill site. Discussion focused on there are special cars on the train to transport leachate and that has been the practice in the past and currently but there has been situations where that has been hauled from the landfill site by truck. Any info on this situation and what would have caused any change from hauling by train would be helpful. In its initial contract with NS, RVRA paid a guaranteed one-time lump sum payment of $9 million for NS to acquire all equipment necessary to transport the commodities covered by the contract. NS provided four 20,000 gallon tankers to transport leachate. During the time of the original contract, the four tankers were occasionally insufficient to handle the volume of leachate being produced at the landfill. NS offered to use extra pulls (a/k/a switches) to alleviate the shortage of tank cars. NS's effort to impose switching fees for the extra pulls was not consistent with the terms of the contract between NS and RVRA. RVRA declined to pay the switching fees and NS did not contest that decision prior to 2012. As the foot print of the landfill has grown over the years and leachate has increased, the number of leachate tankers has become an issue. This is especially evident when RVRA opens a new cell at the landfill because leachate generation increases exponentially because there is little garbage in place to act as a sponge and soak up water. RVRA opened a new cell in 2012 and the number of leachate tankers was insufficient to transport the quantity of leachate being produced. NS made additional pulls and assessed switching fees against RVRA. In 2013, RVRA declined to pay the switching fees based on the terms of the contract. RVRA paid the per tanker rate contained in the contract without added switching fees. RVRA and NS debated the issue by correspondence which is attached. In 2015, NS informed RVRA that the four tankers supplied by NS were reaching their 50 -year life expectancy and would be taken out of service. NS expressed its expectation that RVRA would replace the tank cars. RVRA declined to replace the tank cars because it considered provision of tank cars to be a contractual obligation of NS. NS removed all four tank cars from service and leachate began to build up in the on-site storage tanks. The storage tanks were in danger of spilling over containment and being released into the surrounding environment when RVRA decided to bring in over -the -road tankers to transport leachate to the disposal point. RVRA incurred in excess of $180,000 in transport and disposal fees above and beyond what RVRA would have otherwise paid NS. RVRA filed a notice of default to NS on December 3, 2015. NS continued to deny its contractual responsibility while providing two tankers for leachate transportation. Ultimately, NS acknowledged their obligation to provide tank cars but attempted to offset the amount owed RVRA as a result of NS's default. Eventually, NS and RVRA agreed on a settlement in which each withdrew their monetary claims and NS provided four tank cars. (See attached settlement agreement effective July 8, 2016.) NS did not deliver the third and fourth tank cars within the PA prescribed 90 days under the agreement. RVRA notified NS that it was terminating the settlement agreement and it was no longer binding. Currently, RVRA has four NS -supplied leachate tank cars to transport leachate. The four tanker cars haul leachate from the landfill. RVRA trucks some leachate under abnormal circumstances such as the tipper being down, heavy rain overwhelming leachate storage, or other unexpected events. For example, in 2018, four tankers were insufficient to keep up with leachate flows from record rainfall. RVRA supplemented the rail tankers by hauling the leachate by road. Typically, when RVRA uses road tankers, it uses four or five tractors per day and hauls 12-15 loads of leachate per day. Railroad Underpass on North Fork Road: What is the height of the underpass on North Fork Road? What height do the trucks need to safely pass under the railroad tracks? Has any improvements (lowering the roadway) been explored to increase the height of this underpass? Any estimates of what that would cost? I know that there would be many issues associated with this - like getting the railroad to agree to this, there is also a stream/creek next to the road, closure of the road, etc. Any information would be helpful on this. The rail underpass on North Fork Road is 13'7" high. RVRA believes 13'3" is a safe height for trucks passing through the underpass. RVRA initially purchased 15 trailers that are 13'3" in height including the hydraulic tops when fully closed. However, they were specified at this height in order to be able to safely travel under the trestle, if needed in emergency situations, although they reduce the amount of payload they can carry which increases the total number of trips and transportation costs and increase trailer maintenance costs. The remaining 35 trailers are 13'6", including the hydraulic tops, fully closed. They were specified at this height to maximize operating efficiencies with the intent they would not be travelling under the trestle and would be using the Connector Road and Transportation Corridor to access the landfill. I do not believe a 1" clearance is a safe operating clearance for the bulk of the Authority's trailers. RVRA has not researched making any improvements to North Fork Road to increase the clearance at the underpass. The underpass is already prone to flooding and any further lowering of the road elevation would only exacerbate the flooding situation. The underpass is not part of RVRA's proposed transportation corridor. If the County grants the special use permit and if RVRA converts from rail to truck, RVRA trucks will not pass through the underpass. 3 INFORMATION REPORT ITEM NO V.A. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY (RVRA); ROANOKE, VIRGINIA; HELD AT THE RVRA TINKER CREEK TRANSFER STATION MEETING DATE: SUBJECT. SUBMITTED BY: August 2$, 20 1 9 Stone and Delivery — Annual Stone Quarry Service Contracts Daniel D. Miles, P.E. Chief Executive Officer SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff annually provides budgetary funding for stone necessary to maintain the Authority's our gravel roads at its facilities. In accordance with purchasing requirements, Staff solicited bids for stone and delivery to all our facilities. Two quarries submitted bids. Based upon their proximity to the respective facilities, some stone and delivery charge is less expensive than their competitor. The bid specifications allow the Authority to enter into multiple contracts for stone if it was deemed advantageous to the Authority. Therefore, the Authority has entered into annual service contracts for stone and delivery with Sisson Ryan and Boxley quarries to allow for the most advantageous pricing for the Authority. The service agreement contracts allow for up to four additional annual extensions, with mutual written agreement by both parties. The Authority's landfills, Smith Gap and Rutrough, use the most stone and traffic restrictions have been placed in the contracts for both facilities. This annual service contract is within the limits previously established by the Board for the Chief Executive Officer to authorize without a formal resolution. T & K Construction, LLC 235 County Road 1242 Vinemont, Alabama 35179 (256) 734-6611 Office June 1, 2017 Pieter Scheer Smith + Gardner 14 N. Boylan Avenue Raleigh, NC 27603 RE: Smith Gap Regional Landfill Phase VI Construction & Closure Event #1 Dear Mr. Scheer, (256) 734-4977 Fax We spoke again with Paul Heymann with Norfolk Southern concerning the railing of the aggregate. Norfolk Southern now requires T & K Construction to set up bank drafts so they can automatically deduct payment every fifteen days instead of issuing a line of credit. T & K Construction owner Tim Tucker has decided that a direct deduction is not agreeable. We are at a stand -still on terms at this point. We are willing to work to any other solution, such as the Owner purchasing the aggregate material and deducting the cost from our future estimates. Mr. Heymann called to remind us that it would take several weeks after agreement to arrange the rail cars and get actual delivery which will further delay the project. We believe that the best option is to continue hauling the aggregate by truck and complete this project in the time frame in which it was bid. Very truly yours, `&*i,tnd,+?i 13tw9e4�/ 1:, NInie Blwg,ess (ierieral Mmage;r T&K Constniction LLC 235 CouErtyRoad 1242 Vi.nw—wont, AL 35173 (756) 734-6611 Off'ix (256) 339-9301. Coll NEW BUSINESS ITEM NO. III.B. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ROANOKE VALLEY RESOUCE AUTHORITY (RVRA); ROANOKE, VIRGINIA; HELD AT THE RVRA TINKER CREEK TRANSFER STATION MEETING DATE: April 19, 2017 AGENDA ITEM: Contract Award and Transfer of Funds for the Smith Gap Landfill Phase VI Construction and Closure Event No. 1 SUBMITTED BY: Daniel D. Miles, P.E. Chief Executive Officer SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At the Board's October 26, 2016 meeting, the Board authorized staff to enter into a professional services contract with Smith Gardener, Inc. (S+G) for the Engineering and development of Phase VI (the next phase of landfill) at the Smith Gap Regional Landfill. As staff informed the Board during previous meetings, the Authority is required by DEQ to close approximately the same amount of acreage as we plan to open for any new future phases of the landfill. Over the last couple of months, the plans and specifications were developed and we advertised the project in accordance with the Virginia Procurement Regulations. Since we are building a new phase for landfilling and closing similar acreage, there are two parts of the bid: Schedule A for the construction of Phase VI of the landfill; and Schedule B forthe closure of approximately eight acres. In addition, during the course of the advertisement and bid opening, Norfolk Southern informed the Authority and the Contractors that there was a shortage of stone cars readily available and they may not be able to meet the delivery dates that coincide with the project schedule. Historically, NS has been able to deliver the stone by rail for this type of construction. After discussing this issue internally, Staff and S+G developed a bid alternative to allow some or all of the stone to be trucked in the event that NS fails to deliver the stone in a timely manner. An addendum was prepared and sent out to all the prospective bidders and we received the following bids on April 17, 2017: No. Contractor Schedule A Phase VI Schedule B Closure Total Bid Alt Bid Trucking Total Bid 1 T & K Construction 3,773,823.60 1,285,980.065,059,803.60 -376,800 4,684,603.60 2 Shamrock Environmental 4,299,332.01 1,359,091.00 5,658,423.01 -493,078 6,165,345.01 3 GCS- Global Containment 4,345,325.00 1,536,675.00 5,882,000.00 -605,000 5,277,000.00 Jimmy R. L nch 4,236,316.20 1,585,389.00 5,821,705.20 -511,602 5,310, 1 D3.2 5 U64 Sargent Corp. 4,998,700.00 1,625,500.00 6,624,200.00 -670,000 5,954,200.00 Morgan Corp. 5,928,290.31 1 2,166,630.60 8,094,820.91 -397,108 7,697,712.91 S+G and Staff have reviewed the bid by the lowest responsible and responsive bidder { and determined that the bid is acceptable meeting all the requirements included in the request for bids. The total bid is within the Engineer's estimate of $5.2M for both projects; however, the recently approved FY 2018 Reserve Budget underfunded the phase VI construction and administration estimate by $500,000 but over -funded the closure by approximately $950,000. Therefore, adequate funding is available for both project components and Staff will adjust the future Reserves estimates based upon bid tabulations noted above and adjust the contributions to those accounts as required. Upon receiving the Board's authorization to proceed for the development of the Phase VI and Phase I closure projects, Staff will direct the Contractor to have NS to start hauling stone to the landfill as soon as possible. In the event that NS refuses or cannot keep up with the Contractor's schedule for timely stone deliveries, Staff will authorize the Contractorto haul the needed stone in by truck until such time NS can meet the delivery times. In the event truck deliveries are deemed necessary, Staff will restrict the delivery times while school is in session from 10:00 am until 2:00 pm and will require all vehicular deliveries from the Ironto Exit. Approximately 27,000 tons of various stones are required for both projects which equates to roughly 273 rail stone cars or 1,366 20 -ton tandem dump trucks or some combination thereof. FISCAL IMPACT, Based upon March 31, 2017, financial reports, there is $3,495,219 in the Site Development Reserve Fund (#C8489214) and $6,576,646 in the Landfill Closure Fund (#C8469209). The project management and remaining engineering fees for this project are also scheduled to be paid for from the Site Development Fund. Therefore, based upon those fees and the T & K Construction's, LLC. Phase VI base bid, the Site Development Fund will be underfunded by approximately $500,000 as of July 1, 2017. Staff recommends the Board authorize the transfer of $500,000.00 from the Landfill Closure Fund to the Site Development Fund to coverthis projected shortfall. After the transfer of funds, sufficient funds remain in the Landfill Closure Fund for T & K Construction's Bid of $1,285,980. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board adopt the attached resolution authorizing: acceptance of the bid of T & K Construction, LLC. in a not -to -exceed amount of $5,059,803.60, for the Smith Gap Phase VI Construction and Closure Event # 1; the transfer of $500,000.00 from account #C8469209 to account #C8489214 for supplemental funding; authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to execute the necessary documentation for such construction, including such additional terms and conditions in the best interest of the Authority in form approved by General Counsel; and, upon finalization of the contract and all documentation, authorizing the Board Secretary to notify and thank all other bidders for their bid. RESOLUTION OF THE ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY Adopted this 19th day of April 2017 RA#2017- 769 A RESOLUTION awarding a contract to T & K Construction, LLC. for the RVRA — Smith Gap Regional Landfill Phase VI Construction and Closure Event No. 1, upon certain terms and conditions, and authorizing the transfer of funds from the Landfill Closure Account # C8469209 to Future Site Development Account # C8489214. BE IT RESOLVED by the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority that: Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the bid of the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, T & K Construction, LLC., for the labor and materials necessary for the RVRA — Smith Gap Regional Landfill Phase VI Construction and Closure Event No. 1, in the total bid amount not to exceed Five -Million and Fifty -Nine Thousand and Eight -Hundred and Three dollars and Sixty -Cents, ($5,059,803.60) as set forth in such company's bid, is hereby ACCEPTED, such bid being in full compliance with the Authority's Invitation to Bid Package and plans and specifications therefore, including any addenda thereto, which bid is on file in the Office of the Authority Secretary; and, 2. The Board authorizes the Treasurer to Transfer Five -Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) from the Landfill Closure Account # C8469209 to Future Site Development Account # C8489214; and, 3. The Chief Executive Officer and Secretary are hereby authorized to execute and attest, respectively, in form approved by General Counsel, the requisite contract and any related documentation with the successful bidder based upon its bid and the Authority's Invitation to Bid and specifications, including any addenda thereto, with such contract to include such additional terms and conditions as are determined to be in the best interests of the Authority, to be funded from funds currently appropriated or being appropriated and available for this purpose, all as more particularly set forth in the report of the Chief Executive Officer to this Authority dated April 19, 2017; and, 4. Effective upon execution and final acceptance of the contract, any and all other bids made to the Authority for the aforesaid work are hereby REJECTED, and the Secretary is directed to notify each such bidder and to express to each the Authority's appreciation for such bids. On motion of Mr. Shockley to adopt the resolution, seconded by Ms. Owens and carried by the following roll call and recorded voice vote: AYES: Anne Marie Green, Keith Garman, Joey Hiner, Dennis Nalley, Rebecca Owens, Mike Shockley, Mike Tyler NAYS: None ABSENT: Bobby Edwards and Tom Gates r ATTES � -�. Peggy L. Bisho RVRA Board Secretary STAFF REPORT Petitioner: Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Request: Special use permit for a sanitary landfill on approximately 8.05 acres zoned AG -3, Agricultural/Rural Preserve, District and to amend the special use permit for an existing sanitary landfill (Smith Gap Landfill) on approximately 886.80 acres zoned AG -3S, Agricultural/Rural Preserve, District with a special use permit Location: 8484 Bradshaw Road Magisterial District: Catawba Suggested Conditions: See Attached Document EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA) is requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a sanitary landfill on 8.05 acres of property transferred to the RVRA on February 13, 2019, by Norfolk Southern. This property is part of the transportation corridor (previously referred to as rail corridor) located in Roanoke County. When owned by Norfolk Southern, this property was exempt from local zoning since it was regulated by the federal government. Due to the property transfer to RVRA, the property is now subject to local zoning regulations. RVRA is also requesting to amend its existing SUP by deleting the reference to the "amended landfill permit conditions and operating policies" referenced in the 1991 SUP resolution. It is proposed that any SUP conditions be incorporated into the ordinance. These properties are located at 8484 Bradshaw Road, Salem VA 24153. The subject parcels are zoned AG -3 Agricultural/Rural Preserve, and are designated Rural Preserve on the future land use map of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. Rural Preserve is a future land use area of mostly undeveloped, outlying lands. These rural regions are generally stable and require a high degree of protection to preserve agricultural, forestal, recreational, and remote rural residential areas. 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines a sanitary landfill as: "the use of land for the legal disposal of municipal solid waste derived from households, business and institutional establishments, including garbage, trash, and rubbish, and from industrial establishments, other than hazardous wastes as described by the Virginia Hazardous Waste Regulations." A sanitary landfill, which is classified as an industrial use, is allowed only by special use permit in the AG -3 district, and is subject to use and design standards under Sec. 30-87-2 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance (attached). 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Background — In 1989, the Board of Supervisors approved a special exception permit for a sanitary landfill (Smith Gap Landfill). The special exception permit was issued to the Board of Supervisors. The primary access for trash delivery was proposed to be by a new road that would be constructed to the landfill site. The special exception was approved subject to landfill permit conditions and operating polices that were contained in a document that was attached and incorporated by reference to the approving resolution. In 1991, the Board of Supervisors granted a special use permit amending the permit conditions and operating policies for the Smith Gap Landfill. The special use permit was issued to the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority. The primary access for trash delivery was by a rail corridor. The special use permit was subject to the amended permit conditions and operating policies contained in a document that was attached and incorporated by reference to the approving resolution. In 1993, the Board of Supervisors approved a special exception permit which amended the extent of the Smith Gap Landfill to the actual surveyed acreage of the landfill (752.01 acres) and added another 126.74 acres as part of the sanitary landfill which included the entrance, tipper building, and rail yard (878.75 total acres). Topography/Vegetation - The landfill property is mostly wooded except for those portions that have been developed: access road off Bradshaw Road, railroad tracks, tipper, buildings and active fill area. The property slopes significantly from Bradshaw Road to the rear of the property. The property has significant topography elevation changes throughout the site. Surrounding Neighborhood - The subject parcel is surrounded by parcels also zoned AG -3 in Roanoke County, and A-1 Agricultural in Montgomery County. Private properties, some undeveloped and others developed as residential uses, surround the landfill site. 3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Proposed Project - This special use permit would add 8.05 acres to the operation of the Smith Gap Landfill (878.75 acres). This property has been utilized in the operation ever since the rail spur has operated. The property was exempt from local zoning when it was owned by Norfolk Southern. In addition, the applicant is seeking to remove the reference to the "amended landfill permit conditions and operating policies" referenced in the 1991 SUP resolution. Staff suggests incorporating any special use permit conditions into the ordinance. Operational Issues - This special use permit does not include the method of transportation (road versus rail) along the transportation corridor (previously referred to as the rail corridor). That decision will be made by the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Board. Agency Comments - The following comments were provided by various agencies on this request: Building Safety: Any construction for this project will need to meet the requirements of the applicable Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Economic Development offers no objection to the proposed special use permit request by the RVRA. Fire & Rescue: With the potential of the railway being converted to a trucking corridor, it could increase the likelihood of an accident occurring. Fire and Rescue would be interested in access points of the corridor and access for any gates. Solid Waste: No impact on solid waste. Stormwater: No comment. VDOT: 1. A land use permit will be required if a new entrance is needed from the VDOT right-of-way or for the change in use of an existing entrance. 2. The VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: Access Management Design Standards for Entrances and Intersections must be adhered to where applicable for commercial entrances. This includes but is not limited to commercial entrance spacing and intersection sight 2 distance. The intersection sight distance must be field verified and measures taken to ensure the minimum required distances can be met. 3. The department will not issue an approval of the plans or any necessary Land Use Permits until the locality approves this request. In addition, information regarding any changes to the existing drainage system should also be included for review. Western Virginia Water Authority: No comment. Community Meeting - A community meeting was held on October 17, 2019 at Masons Cove Elementary School. Approximately 100 citizens attended the meeting. Questions and concerns included: environmental concerns, leachate spilling onto roads from trailers, impacts to Bradshaw Road, the inadequacy of Bradshaw Road, odors, air quality, water quality, groundwater concerns, the landfill's service area, operational issues associated with the landfill including hauling trash by train versus truck and the costs associated with each, traffic safety issues with trailers on Bradshaw Road, and the need to fix Bradshaw Road. A summary of the meeting is attached. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The subject parcel is designated Rural Preserve on the future land use map of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. Rural Preserve is a future land use area of mostly undeveloped, outlying lands. These rural regions are generally stable and require a high degree of protection to preserve agricultural, forestal, recreational, and remote rural residential areas. Land use types included in Rural Preserve include agricultural production, agricultural services, forest and wood products, parks and outdoor recreation facilities, rural residential, rural institutional, mining and extraction operations. 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS Roanoke Valley Resource Authority is requesting a SUP for sanitary landfill for a recently transferred 8.05 -acre parcel adjacent to the approximately 887 -acre Smith Gap Landfill, currently operating under a SUP. This property is part of the transportation corridor (previously referred to as rail corridor) located in Roanoke County. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses and development and the existing SUP for Smith Gap Landfill. RVRA is also requesting to amend its existing SUP by deleting the reference to the "amended landfill permit conditions and operating policies" referenced in the 1991 SUP resolution. It is proposed that any SUP conditions be incorporated into the ordinance. The subject parcels are zoned AG -3 Agricultural/Rural Preserve, and are designated Rural Preserve on the future land use map of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. CASE NUMBER: PREPARED BY: HEARING DATES: ATTACHMENTS: 15-1112019 Philip Thompson PC: 1114119 Suggested Conditions Application Aerial Maps Zoning Maps Future Land Use Maps BOS: 11/19/19 1991 Ordinance Landfill Permit Conditions and Operating Policies Document -10122192 1993 Ordinance Community Meeting Summary AG -3 District Standards Sanitary Landfill Use & Design Standards Rural Preserve Future Land Use Designation DRAFT SUGGESTED CONDITIONS (SUBJECT TO CHANGE) Access: Primary access to the Smith Gap Landfill for the delivery of municipal solid waste shall be along the Transportation Corridor (previously known as the Rail Corridor). In the event the primary access is unavailable for two or more business days, the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (or subsequent owners) will make reasonable efforts to transport all municipal solid waste to one or more fully permitted third -party sanitary landfills until such time as the primary access can be resumed. In the event that the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (or subsequent owners) the Authority cannot through reasonable efforts contract for sufficient immediate transportation services to transport municipal solid waste to third party landfills, and until sufficient services can be obtained, Bradshaw Road will serve as the secondary access for the delivery of municipal solid waste to the landfill. Conversion: If the Transportation Corridor is converted from rail to a road, then all municipal solid waste will be transported to third party landfills during construction of this conversion. Types of Waste: Only properly approved waste may be accepted, with the main objective always being to safely dispose of materials and prolong the useful life of the landfill. Wastes designated as "special wastes" shall be disposed of in accordance with current waste management regulations. No hazardous waste will be allowed at any time during the entire life of the landfill. Operating Hours: Normal working hours shall be as follows: Delivery of Waste by Authorized Vehicle — Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.; Delivery of Waste by Rail —Monday through Saturday from 10:00 a.m. — 12:00 a.m.; Operation of all equipment —Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Emergency Operations: Emergency operations shall allow for extended hours on all days and Sundays whenever an emergency has been duly declared by the County Administrator of Roanoke County or his/her designee. Circumstances for Emergency Operations include, but are not limited to, natural disasters or short-term (less than 2 days), temporary operating interruptions resulting from equipment failure or contract service interruptions. Emergency operations may require use of third -party landfills or use of secondary access to the Smith Gap Landfill (Bradshaw Road). Noise: Noise levels may not exceed the following limits: 80 db (decibels) at landfill site borders; 65 db (decibels) at surrounding residences. Dust: Dust shall be controlled in accordance with the landfill's state solid waste facility permit. Problem areas arising during dry seasons will be controlled with water. Access roads should be cleaned and dust controlled with water if excessive amounts of dust are generated. Odors: Odors shall be controlled in accordance with the landfill's state solid waste facility permit. If problem odors exist that adversely impact surrounding residents, deodorizing agents may be used. All holding tanks for leachate collection systems shall be in enclosed structures. Lighting: Sufficient lighting must be maintained at all times to facilitate normal operations and to provide adequate security over the landfill site. All exterior lighting fixtures shall be designed, located and arranged so as not to direct glare on adjoining streets or residential properties. The intensity at adjoining streets or residential properties shall not exceed 0.5 foot candles. Lighting shall be limited to fixtures attached to buildings as necessary for security and operations and freestanding poles of not more than 16 feet in height. Pests. A bonded, licensed pest control company will be retained throughout the active life of the landfill to provide preventive inspections and treatments. Adjoining property owners who incur pest problems that are proven to be directly related to the landfill operation must be provided proper extermination at the landfill owner's expense. Citizen Complaints: A telephone number will be provided for use of surrounding residents including those in the Transportation Corridor to call in complaints (noise, dust, odor, pests, or other issues). These calls will be recorded/logged and corrective actions documented. The complaint log shall be open to public inspection. Active Fill Areas: The active fill areas of the landfill shall comply with the landfill's state solid waste facility permit. Fill areas should be designed as far as practical from adjoining properties to provide maximum buffering, and in no case should extend within 100 feet of the landfill boundary line. Monitoring: The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality conducts inspections during the year to ensure compliance with the landfill's state solid waste facility permit. Any violations shall be reported and made public information. The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (or subsequent owner) shall take whatever steps are necessary to immediately correct any violation. Screening and Buffering: a. The following buffer yard and plantings shall be established around the perimeter of the landfill property, except adjacent to an existing residential property or private right-of-way. Trees shall be planted in three separate rows or in clusters, where natural land characteristics allow within the buffer yard. 50 -foot buffer yard with three large deciduous trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard, five large evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard, and seven small evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 15 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. b. In areas adjacent to an existing residential property or public or private right-of-way, the following shall be established and maintained around the perimeter of the landfill property. Trees shall be planted in three separate rows or in clusters, where natural land characteristics allow with the buffer yard. 100 -foot buffer yard with six large deciduous trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard, ten large evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard, and fifteen small evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 15 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. c. Buffer yards may only be used for passive recreation, such as pedestrian, bike or equestrian trails provided that: no plant material is eliminated; the total width of the buffer is maintained; and all other requirements and conditions are met. d. Buildings, active landfill areas, equipment storage areas and other facilities shall be landscaped in such a manner as to enhance (but not necessarily screen) the visual appearance from adjoining properties. Site Security: All facilities shall be surrounded on all sides by natural barriers, fencing, or an equivalent means of controlling vehicles access and preventing illegal disposal. All access will be limited by gates, and such gates shall be securable and equipped with locks. All fencing utilized at the facility shall be adequate to control unauthorized access. Gates shall be at the main entrance as well as the entrance to additional service areas. Access to a solid waste disposal facility (landfill) shall be permitted only when an attendant is on duty and only during operating hours, unless otherwise specified in the facility permit, such as for rail delivery of waste. Each solid waste disposal facility should be provided with an adequately lighted and heated shelter where operating personnel can exercise site control and have access to essential sanitation facilities. Lighting, heat and sanitation facilities may be provided by portable equipment, as necessary. Dusk to dawn lights may be placed around buildings and at each of the security gates. All sanitary landfills will be equipped with permanent or mobile telephone or radio communications. The main security gate should be able to communicate with all necessary areas of the landfill. The operator is responsible for safety hazards to operating personnel through an active safety program. Security rules and regulations shall be posted at each gate. Security guard of landfill personnel shall be on site 24 hours each day. All vehicle access points to the Transportation Corridor shall be properly gated, with lock, and shall be posted with "No Trespassing" signs. Signs will also be posted at intervals along the Transportation Corridor. Fire Protection and Public Water: Fire protection for the site shall be provided on site with adequate storage, distribution, and hydrants to properly extinguish fires. The system shall be designed as a potable water system. The system shall be designed to serve all on-site water needs as well as being capable of serving adjoining properties. Expansion of the water supply system, except when groundwater contamination has been documented, shall be prohibited without prior review for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. f ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY August 28, 2019 Mr. Philip Thompson, Deputy Director Department of Community Development — Planning & Zoning 5204 Bernard Drive, S.W. P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 2018-0798 Re: Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Special Use Permit Application (8.05 acres +/-) Dear Mr. Thompson: On behalf of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RA# 2019 — 859; attached), I am pleased to submit application to Roanoke County requesting a Special Use Permit for land (8.05 acres +/-) it recenaiy acquired from the Norfolk Southern Corporation. This property was previously exempt from zoning restrictions. Now that is owned by the Authority, it is subject to zoning restrictions. Accordingl,,, the Authority is requesting to include this property under the same provisions of its existing Special Use Permit for the Smith Gap Regional Landfill. Additionally, the Authority is requesting to delete the reference to the "amended landfill peri—nit conditions and operating policies" referenced irr the December 3, 1991 SUP resolution #12391-7. I trust you will find the application complete with the requested and necessary information. In the event you need additional information or clarification, please do not hesitate to ask and I will do rnk best to provide it in an expeditious manner. The Authority looks forward to working with Roanoke ounty to address this matter. Please find enclosed the Authority's check in the amount of $1,931.25 which I understand is the appropriate application fee. ;2�za Daniel D. Miles, P.C. Chief Executive Officer 1020 Hollins Road, NE Roanoke, Virginia 24012-8011 (540) 857-5050 Fax (540) 557-5056 Web Site: www.rvra.net RESOLUTION OF THE ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY Adopted this 28th day of August, 2019 RA #2019 - 859 A RESOLUTION to Authorize the Authority to submit formal application to amend the Special Use Permit for the Smith Gap Regional Landfill. BE IT RESOLVED by the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority that the Chief Executive Officer is authorized to submit formal application to Roanoke County seeking amendment to the Special Use Permit for the Smith Gap Regional Landfill, all as more particularly set forth in the report of the Chief Executive Officer to this Authority dated August 28, 2019. On motion of Mr. O'Donriell to adopt the resolution, seconded by Mr. Powell and carried by the following roll call and recorded voice vote: AYES: Bobby Edwards, Joey Hiner, Rob Light, Daniel O'Donnell, Rebecca Owens, Jeffrey Powell, Mike Tyler and Dan Webb NAYS: None ABSENT: Timothy Martin ATTEST: Peggy L. ishop RVRA Board Secretary Lm •- Ln a 06-- o y QO , (D •{ j i 5 W to {'] Qj1 4_ _ un cn ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY: SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Table of Contents Section Page # Sumittal Letter Cover Letter - Copy of RVRA Resolution Authorizing Submittal of Application Application Requirements 1 Application 2-27 - Executed Application 2 Justification 3-10 Supplemental SUP Application Information 4-7 - Dec. 3, 1991 SUP Amendment (Res.#12391-7) 8-10 Concept Plan 11-25 Executed Checklist 11 Vicinity Site Map 12 Overall Conceptual Plan 13 Overall Conceptual Plan Detailing Location of 8.05 ac's requested for inclusion in SUP 14 Listing of Smith Gap Landfill Parcels for Existing and Proposed SUP Coverage 15 - Legal Description of 8.05 Acres Requested for SUP Inclusion 16 -Aerial Map Showing Intersection of Williby Rd. with Transportation Corridor 17 Contour Map of 8.05 Acres Requested for SUP Inclusion 18 - Plat Map Showing All Smith Gap Landfill Parcels/Highlighting of 8.05 Acres 19 - Drawing Showing Existing Landfill Acreage in SUP (752.01 ac's + 126.74 ac's = 878.75 ac's) 20 - Drawing Showing Existing (878.75 ac's) & Proposed (8.05 ac's) Totaling 886.80 ac's 21 - Listing of Adjacent Property Owners; Property Addresses; Mailing Addresses; Zoning; Current Land Use 22 -Drawing Showing Existing Landfill Features; Planned Expansion; Conservation Easement Areas 23 - Drawings of Existing Typical Rail & Road Sections 24 - Sight/Stopping Distance Calculation of Williby Rd. & Transportation Corridor @ 25 m.p.h. 25 Potential of Need for Traffic Analysis and/or Traffic Impact Study Sheet 26 Executed Notice to Applicants for Rezoning, Subdivis€oin Waiver, Public Street Waiver, or SUP Petition 27 Appendices - Al -AIS Montgomery County SUP Determination Letter (May 3, 2019) for Transportation Corridor Al -A3 RVRA Working Group Report (Sept. 18, 2018) A4 -A7 Bar Gate Specifications (Proposed Gating for Transportation Corridor) A8 -A10 Smith Gap Landfill Operating Procedures (Information Only) A11 -AIS County of Roanoke 4 Rn�Na Community Development ° Planning & Zoning p c 5204 Bernard Drive P O Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 P— .QFaff ITca Univ Daleece ved: } Qck Received by: AppEicalio,' fee: PC/DZA dale: Placardsisssued: EOS date: Case Nurnber I ALL APPLICANTS Check type of application filed (check all that apply) ❑ Rezoning VSpecial Use ❑ Variance ❑ Walver ❑ Administrative Appeal ❑ Comp Pian (15.2-2232) Review Applicants name/address w/zip Phone: (540) 857-5050 Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Work: C/O Daniel D. Miles, P.E. Chief Executive Officer Cell 4: i ngn Hnllinc PH n F n Irc VA 94in Fax No.: f 5_ C _aS7 -r) 055 Owner's name/address w/zip Phone 4: Same Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Work: (same as above) Fax No. #: Same Pi-operty Location SEE ATTACHED Magisterial District: Catawba Community Planning area: Masons Cove Tax Map No.: SEE ATTACHED Existing Zoning: AG -3, AG -3S Size of parcel(s): Acres: 885.$0 ¢/- Existing Land Use; Regional Landfill REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WAIVER AND COMP PLAN (15.2-2232) REVIEW APPLICANTS (R/S/W/CP) Proposed Zoning: AG -3S Proposed Land Use: Regional Landfill Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes V No ❑ IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST (Rezoning). Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type in Article IV (Special Use Permit)? Yes No D IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes n No 11 VARIANCE, WAIVER AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL APPLICANTS (VIW/AA) Variance/Waiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordina i r o: A. Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinan Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE AC TED rfi—Ai'PY OF' I�HES ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. (iMlw„+ "Lille R/SAVICP V/AA R/SIWICP V/AA U/S/W/CP V/AA ConsultationJaW 112'" x l I" concept plan Applica Applicationvletes and bounds description Pralfcm ifJustificationWater and sewer application Adjoining propertI hereby certify that I am either the oor contract purchases- and ani acting with the knowledge and consent f the owner. Owner's Signature 2 JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT WAIVER OR COMP PLAN (15.2-2232) REVIEW REQUESTS Applicant —Roanoke Valley Resource Authority c/o Dan Miles, CEO The Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use permit waiver or community plan (15.2-2232) review requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare, Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance, Plan. SEE ATTACHED SEE ATTACHED to Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. Stat= ATTACHED SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA or Authority) is requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a sanitary landfill on 8.05 acres of property it acquired on February 13, 2019. Also, the Authority is requesting to amend its existing SUP by deleting the reference to the "amended landfill permit conditions and operating policies" referenced in the 1991 SUP resolution (attached pp. 8-10), PROJECT HISTORY.' The Smith Gap Landfill, owned and operated by the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, has operated under a Special Exception Permit (SEP)/Special Use Permit (SUP) since it was first formally proposed as a sanitary landfill site on June 27, 1989 to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. Active portions of the landfill site, excluding buffers, were included under the SEP provisions, to the extent these active areas were subject to permit restrictions. A portion of the active landfill property in Roanoke County was acquired by Norfolk Southern Railroad (NS) under contract (10/25/1991) to construct a dedicated rail spur access serving the Iandfill which was not part of the June 27, 1989 SEP/SUP, nor was it subsequently subject to the amended Dec. 3, 1991 SUP. Please note the Authority did request and receive an amendment to its SUP on May 25, 1993 to add land subject to the SUP. The land obtained by NS, under the terms and provisions of the 1991 contract, to construct a dedicated rail spur serving the Smith Gap Landfill, reverted to the Authority's ownership upon expiration of the 1991 contract on June 30, 2018 with final conveyance of the properties completed on February 13, 2019. Therefore, the NS --owned land, formerly exempt from SUP requirements, became subject to the SUP requirements upon the conveyance of these properties thereby necessitating the need to amend the SUP accordingly in order for the Authority to continue to provide an alternate access to the Smith Gap Landfill, other than Bradshaw Road, regardless of transportation mode utilized. As it did in 1989, the Authority is once again reviewing its MSW transportation options via an alternate access to the landfill; 1) Dedicated access to truck -transport MSW and 2) Dedicated rail spur access and rail haul MSW. These are the same options the Authority considered in 1989 through 1991, albeit under somewhat different circumstances after twenty five years as 1) the same alternate access corridor would be utilized for either option; and 2) the Authority now owns all the properties necessary to utilize the access corridor. Additionally, when the regional landfill was originally proposed at the Smith Gap location, there was significant concern raised as to the amount of truck traffic that would be using Bradshaw Road. An alternate access means was recommended by the Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee (LCAC) and a subcommittee comprised of representatives of the LCAC, Planning Commission, and County Staff as part of the County's consideration to grant the original Special Exception Permit for the Smith Gap site on June 27, 1989. The Authority did continue to study the development of an alternate access means as recommended, including two options it deemed viable: 1) Construct a dedicated access road and truck MSW and 2) Construct a dedicated rail spur access and rail haul MSW. At its September 24, 1991 meeting, the Authority stated "the Authority has been considering various alternatives with respect to the most cost effective, reliable, and environmentally responsible course of action, and in accordance with the permit conditions and operating policies as adopted by this Roanoke County Board of Supervisors." (RCRA Res. #RA91-10) As such, it was determined that a dedicated railway line directly to the landfill would significantly reduce those concerns by providing a transportation option for the hauling of regional waste that would minimize the use of Bradshaw Road for accessing the landfill. Subsequently, the SEP was amended on December 3, 1991, most notably, to add rail haul delivery and hours to the Permit Conditions and extend property value protection to the Operating Policies. This compromise was reached as a means of abiding by the recommendations of the subcommittee in the original June 27, 1989 SEP and complying with the Section 3-30 of the Roanoke Zoning Ordinance which states the "ordinance is designed to give reasonable consideration to each of the following purposes" which include the reduction of congestion on public roads and to protect against the hazards and congestion in travel and transportation. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION It is the Authority's understanding that under the Roanoke County zoning ordinance, driveways or approaches to a landfill .most be Dart. of the special use permit for the landfill. At the time that the Authority acquired the 8.05 aches frora Norfolk Southexii Railway, it was unclear whether or not the parcel was included in the existing SUP. The parcel has been in use as access to the landfill for over 20 years. Having determined that: the parcel is not part of the existing SUP (because railroads are not subject to local. zoning regulations), the Authority is making this application to ensure that it is in compliance with the zoning requirements for its landfill. By requesting this revision to the current SUP to allow for the conversion of the current railway access point to a dedicated access point for all forms of transportation alternatives to the landfill, the RVRA believes that its request further expands and improves upon the original concept of including the active areas of all landfill operations under the provisions of the SUP and reducing congestion on public roads and protection against hazards and congested travel and transportation. By allowing for an alternate, non --specific, dedicated transportation corridor, the Authority would once again, consistent with the original recommendations in the 1989 SUP and the Authority's alternate transportation methodology selected in 1991, as amended in the 1991 SUP, be able to "utilize the most cost effective, reliable, environmentally responsible course of action, and in accordance with the permit conditions and operating policies as adopted by this Roanoke County Board of Supervisors" (ref. RCRA Res. #RA91-10). If the Authority determines it will continue to utilize rail haul, there will be no noticeable changes, including the ongoing, periodic use of Bradshaw Road for some MSW deliveries. If the Authority elects to convert the rail spur to a road access, it would eliminate the need to use Bradshaw Road altogether for MSW deliveries. The original SUP was approved after due consideration of the purpose of the .AG -3 district itself, which is to "maintain these areas essentially in their rural state, and attempt to protect sensitive and unique land resources from degradation as recommended in the rural preserve land use category of the comprehensive plan." The conversion of the already dedicated railway access point to a dedicated access point for all forms of transportation to the landfill certainly eliminates the need to make any further modifications or changes to the land that would cause degradation to the rural land upon which it current is situated. The RVRA has and fully intends to continue to 5 comply with all of the requirements imposed upon it by the Roanoke Zoning Ordinance, specifically as set forth in Section 30--86--6. One of the strategic initiatives set forth in the Roanoke County Community Strategic Plan is to "support improvements to the regional transportation network." The conversion of the current railway access point to a transportation access point for all forms of transportation would further this initiative by providing for a single, dedicated access point from I-81 directly to the landfill minimizing the placement of such transportation on the public rights-of-way, thereby freeing up such roadways to accommodate traffic other than traffic to the landfill. The conversion of the railway access point, specifically to a trucking transportation access point for all forms of access to the landfill, will have, in the opinion of the RVRA, a tradeoff of positive and negative effects to the directly adjoining properties with a net positive impact to the greater surrounding area. There is already a railway access point that allows for the hauling of muilicipal solid waste directly to the landfill via rail. The rail access currently crosses a public right of way at Williby Road, an unpaved, private road, with one, contiguous, residential property in Roanoke County. The Authority is currently negotiating an equitable solution with the owner in order to properly mitigate any impact, if conversion of the access point is selected. There are seven, additional residential properties east of the rail spur accessing Bradshaw Road via Williby Road. The Authority is willing to provide additional screening buffer in the form of natural landscaping and/or fencing, again, if conversion is selected. If the Authority elects to convert the rail access to trucking access, those residents on Williby Road would see an average of fifty (50) trucks entering and exiting the landfill via this access point for an average total of one hundred (100) trips per day. Such usage would occur typically between 7:30 a.m. — 5 p.m. Monday — Friday equating to approximately 5-6 vehicles per hour in each direction (Le, entering & exiting) or one about every five (5) minutes in both directions. The maximum vehicle count could see up to seventy five (75) trucks per day if the landfill ever receives the maximum volume of waste it is allowed to accept per its Member Use Agreement. As an enhanced safety measure, the Authority would propose asphalt paving the length of Williby Road, installing stop signs at the intersection of the transportation corridor and Williby Road, and limiting truck speed to 25 m.p.h. The rail delivery currently occurring typically between 8 p.m. — 1 a.m. Monday — Friday would be eliminated. Conversion of the transportation corridor from rail to truckitig will have no appreciable negative effects to those properties already affected by rail traffic using the transportation corridor. It will provide a significantly more positive impact on the greater surrounding area by eliminating current truck traffic off of the public fights -of -way, specifically Bradshaw Road, and put such traffic on a dedicated, alternate, transportation corridor directly to the landfill. The Authority currently routinely utilizes Bradshaw Road for the deliveries of certain types of solid waste, stone, and equipment. In addition, there should be no impact to public services and facilities except for a positive one on roads by reducing the amount of landfill traffic using the public roads and diverting it to the dedicated transportation corridor. Again, should the Authority elect to continue using rail delivery as the primary delivery means, there would be no changes to the transportation corridor and thus, no changes to the existing impacts on the immediate or greater surrounding areas, either positive or negative. 2 In the event the Authority converts the transportation corridor from rail to trucking, subgrade construction to convert the rail trach to roadway is projected to take approximately three months to complete. The transportation corridor would then be sufficient to resume usage for vehicular traffic. Paving is projected to take another two months to complete while simultaneously using the converted alternate access. During the three-month, subgrade construction period, alternate access to the Smith Gap Landfill via the transportation corridor will be unavailable. The Authority may elect to transport all or some of the region's MSW to other permitted, sanitary landfills during this interim. The Authority currently has contracts in-place with New River Resource Authority, Bedford County, Region 2000, and Waste Management to provide alternate disposal options. Should the Authority need to access the Smith Gap Landfill for any reason during subgrade construction, it would do so via Bradshaw Road. In the event the Authority converts the transportation corridor from rail to trucking, automated bar -gating (see DIES 1602 Barrier Gate Appendices A8 -A10) and video surveillance will be constructed to control and monitor access to the regional landfill for all incoming and outgoing access. The gating's operation would be powered by hard -wire and solar back-up and would be located approximately % mile north of Reese Mountain Road in Montgomery County. The automated gates would be controlled by 1) transponders mounted on approved access vehicles; 2) manual, hand-held remote control; 3) PIN -accessed control panel, or 4) access button located at the landfill administrative offices for deliveries and visitors. Twenty --four (24) hour, seven (7) day per week video surveillance would be located along the access corridor to monitor the access point. Additionally, fire/rescue in Montgomery and Roanoke Counties will be provided with appropriate access controls, in order to utilize the access point, if needed, at any time. If the Authority selects trucking as its sole transportation operation, all on-going regular access of deliveries to the landfill would be conducted via the transportation corridor thereby, eliminating the periodic deliveries currently utilizing Bradshaw Road. Furthermore, if trucking is selected and in the event I-81 becomes inaccessible for durations longer than three (3) hours, trucks would be routed via U.S. 460 to North Fork Road to the access point. The Authority would store waste at its transfer stations and/or in its trailers for durations shorter than three (3) hours. If rail is selected, some deliveries will continue to access the landfill via Bradshaw Road. In the event the transportation corridor becomes inoperable for either option selected, the Authority would utilize Bradshaw Road as the emergency access to its regional landfill and/or third --party landfills using trucking as the transportation operation. In the event rail is selected as the transportation option, if rail loading/unloading facilities become inoperable or insufficient, the Authority would utilize Bradshaw Road as the emergency access to its regional landfill and/or third -,party landfills using trucking as the transportation operation. 7 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1991 RESOLUTION 123_-- 91-7 -GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND AUNDING CONDITIONS AND OPERATING POLICIES TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY RESOURCE AUTHORITY FOR THE SMITH GAP SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL - FACILITY, LOCATED IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on November 7, 1991; and WHEREAS, the the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke county, Virginia, held a public hearing on this matter on November 19, 1991; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolVed by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows; 1. That the Board finds that the granting of amendments to the special Exception Permit conditions and operating policies for the solid waste disposal facility at the Smith Gap site is substatially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.5.1-456 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. 2'.__/ That this action is taken upon the petition of the Roanoke County Resource Authority. 3. That this action amends the Resolution 62789-12 of this Board adopted on June 27, 1989. 4. That the Board hereby grants Exce tion Permit to the Roanoke County Resource Authority. (and upon its creation and 1 approval by the State Corporation Commission, its successor, the Roanoke valley Resource Authority) to publicly own and operate a solid waste disposal facility on what is known as the "Smith Gap Site" located on 640.39 acres on the northwest side of Fort Lewis Mountain between Smith Gap and Bradshaw Road in the Catawba Magisterial District, subject to the amended landfill permit conditions and operating policies, which are attached hereto and into orated herein by reference. . That the Board acknowledges, to the extent permitted by law, that the Authority has a non --binding moral obligation to pay such amounts as may be needed to address the adopted operating policies, including property value protection, and that such payment is subject to future appropriations. Nothing in the approved operating policies shall be deemed to constitute the creation of a debt, the lending of the credit, nor a pledge of the credit of the County under the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, nor shall any provision thereof give any person any legal right to enforce the terms thereof against the County or the Authority. 6. That this Resolution shall be in full force and'effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict with the provisions of this resolution be, and the same hereby are, repealed. on motion of supervisor Robers to adopt the ordinance amending the corridor to provide protection to 1800 feet contiguous to rail line with protection extending only to current residents and 2 9 existing improvements and provided that further constuction is exempt from protection, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: Mary H. llen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Johnz;R -ViN5 fd; ssistant County Administrator Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning 3 10 CONCEPT ELAN CHECKLIST A concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shall graphically depict the land use change, development or variance that is to be considered. Further, the plan shall address any potential land use or design issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezoning&, the applicant may proffer conditions to limit the future use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deficiencies that may not be manageable by County permitting regulations. The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building permit, Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require changes to the initial concept plan. Unless limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent permitted by the zoning district and other regulations. A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use permit, waiver, community plan (15.2-2232) review and variance applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may vary, depending on the nature of the request, The County Planning Division staff may exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items, but the following are considered minimum: ALL APPLICANTS V a. Applicant name and name of development V b, Date, scale and north arrow V c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties c. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. V f. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties g. All property lines and easements h. All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights V i. Location, widths and names of all existing or plaited streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development V j. Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces Additional informalion required for REZONING and SPECIAL USE PER111TAPPLICANTS �% k. Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site I. Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers m. Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals �✓ n. Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections V o. Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants ✓ P. Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed q. If project is to be phased, please show phase schedule I certify at all itcros required in the checklist above are complete. Signature of applicant pate 11 N pa-A'j"I .�. . K1A § a2\ � , § §` 2 A 1}\�\}/���I \ . ...\-.a.z � �|! 0 4 q \ $ 4 A Q�z-== m = ~» . co \ C14 Lnw » § _ § \ � _ % E m u me z § 0 < §_ _ $ -222 /}/\/ \ ® ) /.� \ )\ \ §\ j > CL. \j \\ / LU 0/ LU0 ®z \ yw / \ ) \ § / / \/ E 0 5 «° )__= i /}\} �ezz / 0 §\\\ \ }r En§ j §/ \ Q= » § \ \ � _ /\ E §_ _ $ -222 /}/\/ ® \ \ _ \ )\ \ §\ j > \w » u LU 0/ LU0 / / ) w ke 0 5 «° /}\} �ezz / $\ }r q qa � j« / \\\\ \\ \\//.0 o � \{ §\j j\0 "rrr 2 uw Legal Description 8.05 Acres of Rail Spur Property Conveyed From NS to RVRA (formerly exempt from zoning rep's) All of that certain tract or parcel of land, lying and being partially in the Catawba Magisterial District, Roanoke County, Virginia, being more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a corner of the land of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, being Roanoke County Tax Parcel no. 052.00-01-02.00-0000, situated approximately 1,800 feet southwest of the Smith Gap Landfill Office and unloading facility; THENCE, running with the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority. with a curve to the right with an arc length of 523.43', with a radius of 1055.37', with a chord bearing of S 71°46'29" W, with a chord length of 518.08'; THENCE, continuing with said Authority, S 85°58'59" W 80.06' to a point; THENCE, continuing with said Authority, S 04,°01'01" E 50.00' to a point; THENCE, continuing with said Authority and crossing a hollow and Williby Drive S 85°58'59" W 506.04' to a point in the line of Alvin Smith and Patricia Smith; THENCE, leaving said Authority and running with Smith N 24°05'56" W 117.11' to a point; THENCE, continuing with Smith, S 85°59'02" W 164.84' to a point; THENCE, continuing with Smith, S 56°33'50" W 167.22' to the Montgomery and Roanoke County boundary; THENCE, continuing along the Montgomery and Roanoke County boundary, N33°39'53" W 237.17'to a point; THENCE, continuing with Hodges, on as non -tangent curve to the right with an arc length of 171.00', with a radius of 1055.37', with a chord bearing of N 76"28'49" E, with a chord length of 170.81', to a point in an open field; THENCE, N 5633'50" E 1.96.74' to a point in Williby Drive on the line of Paul W. Hicks; THENCE, leaving Hodges and running with Williby Drive and Hicks, S 24°06'03" E 49.13' to a point; THENCE, leaving Williby Drive and running with Hicks, N 85°58'59" E 615.73'to a point; THENCE, continuing with Hicks, S 04°01'01" E 50.00' to a point; THENCE, N 8558'59" E 80.06' to a point; THENCE with Hicks and lands of Becky Sue Sink, on a curve to the left with an arc length of 453.61', with a radius of 855.37', with a chord bearing of N 70°47'27" E, with a chord length of 448.31.', to a point, a corner to lands of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority; THENCE, leaving Sink and with the Authority's land, S 24°06'03" E 202.64' to the BEGINNING; The above described tract or parcel of land contains 8.051 Acres, more or less and is comprised of portions designated as Roanoke County Virginia Tax Parcel 052.00-01-02.08-0000. 16 sir rt. Irv° �` �� � ' '` .�.. �t f6. • � Nm~ Ad Jc RIC :. � � ��. � eel � kNtr �; ;..f � • . LA ���, f` - �� F `fin. � ,� i � 1, +f '.•'' '' '� � ��r � `Q _ `� ¢ ' .{.fix �!�.,,��j•N. - #, f aa 'Fr����:f y, 9 �S°L 3�1�/�� � •j� •t � ti' .�°"' '° �?.!. 'f^f��^?' r' � ,�`;'FY ' A',s Ili y ' A� ��,,,*. t y � k•' _i .�. y t � f f � e�4M a t f P ss° iot*• A fiffiFl° 17 L 4 W x u + M 7D 19 �04v Y - � ands - f ga , A w ���� 51 ES 5 _ 8 w 222 �9 y a �A nd 2 20 21 � Cm7i7C7Cm7Cm7C'�C7C7C7C7C7C7C7C7C7C'm7C7C7C7Z"7C7C7im7t7C7C7CM7C'7C7 col Vi a o � N r N T ai N M L w �4 �rn s �LID � 00 C7, eq �N�'neF V W o ocn N ul VI cn ulW 'n V" V) m"oU2 En V) a m m m m m m m m m eY m - m h tl' m - m h H m h o--� -m h o --I - M 1n M kn M ko m (Y M Vi M VI »>ddddddddddd N N N N N N r N N N N N N N N N N �¢� N '� N ddd����r CJ N M m rr� ViM � 1-4 wwwaaaaaaaacvmcaaaaaaaaci ca aar�r�wcv�, Cl O O O O O op L� N 00 O m G N N Cl) 00 m d' m O cF �o rn kn U1 iO V1 co h 'D O 00 W O CD� O T N O M m m d N �O 0 oo 00 0 od �O m W dl 00 - �a�3 00 00 - rn O d d0 DO OO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 DO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 S4�J W w � U Q. V] Vl z�zi FR7�-1 6 �C O �� �3a3U Qdaiy Q E¢ W] W z IL X 0.1 (Dzw U ��UC7 �c�� WQU1r1 W Z� dela ~3za� yOOO ffl(.�Q U OUrn ZUZ w7C7 va�wZ a � �A i i r i i i i b r N M V1 �O l� O1 O M ,�-•i vi .�-'i CO 00 a\ a, N N N N ,.,. V ^„r Vl N '�l O ,y N tV hl N N rl N r- i r i i i i i i i i i r 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [ti eh ch .-i d' �i V' Y -i Ir v et d' w+ d' +-� d' �-i cp �-i TP .-i d' .-i � � r. d' d' •--� � d' N V' N It N �n N 4'i N un N rn N " N vl N rn M rn tries 4, I f 1 5 23 i O G 1 � L f r�� tries 4, I f 1 5 23 i 24 IES mm 09 0 x ti a' uj L) 0 w r lu J J 7 Y b z Q O x I,I I I r SII I i r Ixr��• IFI+rI� � 'i � ? � j'�� Ro , `g� '..A. r 1 4 z I kl f 0 x ti a' uj L) 0 w r lu J J 7 Y b z Q O x Community Development x Planning & Zoning Division POTENTIAL, OF NEED FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND/OR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY The following is a list of potentially high traffic -generating land uses and road network situations that could elicit a more detailed analysis of the existing and proposed traffic pertinent to your rezoning, subdivision waiver, public street waiver, or special use permit request. If your request involves one of the items on the ensuing list, we recommend that you meet with a County planner, the County traffic engineer, and/or Virginia Department of Transportation staff to discuss the potential additional traffic related information that may need to be submitted with the application in order to expedite your application process. (Note this list is not inclusive and the County staff and VDOT reserve the right to request a traffic study at any time, as deemed necessary.) High Traffic -Generating Land Uses: • single-family residential subdivisions, Multi -family residential units, or Apartments with more than 75 dwelling units • Restaurant (with or without drive-through windows) • Gas station/Convenience store/Car wash • Retail shop/Shopping center • Offices (including: financial institutions, general, medical, etc.) • Regional public facilities Educational/Recreational facilities • Religious assemblies Hotel/Motel • Golf course • Hospital/Nursing home/Clinic Industrial site/Factory • Day care center Bank Non-speclflc use requests Road Network Situations: • Development adjacent to/with access onto/within 500 -ft of intersection of a roadway classified as an arterial road (e.g., Rte 11, 24, 115, 117, 460, 11/460, 220, 221, 419, etc) • For new phases or changes to a development where a previously submitted traffic study Is more than two (2) years old and/or roadway conditions have changed significantly • When required to evaluate access Issues • Development with Ingress/egress on roads planned or scheduled for expansion, widening, Improvements, etc, (i.e. on Long Range Transportation Plan, Six -Yr Road Plan, etc.) • Development In an area where there Is a known existing traffic and/or safety problem • Development would potentially negatively impact existing/planned traffic slgnal(s) • Substantial departure from the Community Plan • Any site that Is expected to generate over one hundred (100) trips during the peak hour of the traffic generator or the peak hour on the adjacent streets, or over seven hundred fifty (750) trips In an average day Effective date: April 10, 2005 26 k poaa�gk F Community Development z F Planning & Zoning Division t8 A NOTICE TO APPLICANTS FOR REZONING, SUBDIVISION WAIVER, PUBLIC STREET WAIVER, OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITION PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE PROCEDURE The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver or Special Use Permit petition if new or additional information is presented at the public hearing. If it is the opinion of the majority of the Planning Commissioners present at the scheduled public hearing that sufficient time was not available for planning staff and/or an outside referral agency to adequately evaluate and provide written comments and suggestions on the new or additional information prior to the scheduled public hearing then the Planning Commission may vote to continue the petition. This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the new or additional information and provide written comments and suggestions to be included in a written memorandum by planning staff to the Planning Commission, The Planning Commission shall consult with planning staff to determine if a continuance may be warranted. POTENTIAL OF NEED FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSES AND/OR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver, or Special Use Permit petition if the County Traffic Engineer or staff from the Virginia Department of Transportation requests further traffic analyses and/or a traffic impact study that would be beneficial in making a land use decision (Note, a list of potential land arses and situations that would necessitate fzcrther study is provided as part of this application package). This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the required traffic analyses and/or traffic impact study and to provide written comments and/or suggestions to the planning staff and the Planning Commission. If a continuance is warranted, the applicant will be notified of the continuance and the newly scheduled public hearing date. Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Name of Petitia Z�) -- Petit, per's Signature Hate Effective date, April 19, 2005 27 May 3, 2019 MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING PLANNING & Gis SERVICES (�AS & MAtTI1NG 755 RoANOKE STREET, ,St.T.ITF 2A; CH -R.18.1 IANSBU G, 'VI:RG:INLA 24Q73-.31.77" Mr. Daniel D. Miles, P.E. Chief Executive Officer Roanoke Valley resource Authority 1029 Hoflins Road, NE Roanoke; Virginia .24012-8011 First Class Mail Re; Request for Zoning Administrator Interpretation Dear Mr. Miles. Thank you for your leer dated February 26, 20:19 and subsequent information provided March 14 & 15, 2019 regarding an interpretation request of zoning requirements applicable to the transportation access corridor under ownership of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA) to access Smith Gap Landfill. In particular, the interpretation is a request for determination whether a special use permit or other form of permit is required in order to continue operation of the rail line or the development of a dedicated access roadway along the same corridor. The real estate parcels involved in this request are detailed in a document identified by instrument No. 201.9000869, filed February 1.3, 2019 and recorded in Montgomery County, Virginia by Erica W� Conner, Clerk of Circuit Court.. Specific details of these parcels are provided as an attachment to this leder. Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA).F identified as a politica] subdivision of the .Commonwealth of Virginia crewed pursuant to the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act 15.2-51.00 .et seq., Code of Virginia (1950), as amended has owned and operated Smith Gap Landfill since 3une 27, 1.989 under a Roanoke County issued Special Exception Permit (` EP)/Special Use Permit (SUP.). The parcels transferred. February 13, 2019.to Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA) were acquired and owned "by Norfolk. Southern Railway under a contract dated October. 25, 1991 to construct an alternate, dedicated rail ,spur access serving the landfill which was not part: of the Roanoke County issued (SEP)/(SUP) as Norfolk Southern Railway was exempt from exempt from such conditions". The contract expired .Lune 30, 2018 and subsequently the Norfolk Southern Railway parcels were transferred to RVRA. Based upon the .review of the materials provided by RVRA and the Montgomery County Code, along with the fact that RVRA is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, it is my determination that the use(s) requested qualify as "public use, public facility defined by Section 1.0-61 below. Public use, public fiaciliiy:.Any use or facility for exclusively public purposes, without reference to the oWhorship of the building or structure .or the, realty upon which it is situated, by any department or branch ofthe federal, Coj=Qn.weattli of Virginia, or Montgomety County governments. Al Mr, Daniel D. Miles, P. E. May 3, 2019 Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Request for Zoning Administrator Interpretation Page 2of2 Additionally, Montgomery County Code, Section 10"(4)(d)4 requires that ".where areas appear to be unclassified, or where territory is added to the jurisdictional area, it shall be: considered to be classified as C-1 (Conservation .District] until action is taken to amend the zoning map or otherwise determine the boundary and/or district, in accord with the provisions of this chapter:" Since these properties were previously owned by Norfolk Southern Railway, they were preempted from zoning. However, now that the parcels have been transferred to RVRA, Montgomery County zoning applies and per Section 1.0-(4)(d)4 above, they are designated as Conservation District (C-1) until the owner requests a change in zoning. Further, Section 10-22, Conservation District (C1), specifies "Public use, public facility" as a "use permitted by right" within the district. 1n summary, it Is my determination that. the parcels referenced herein, may be utilized as a "use permitted by right" in the Conservation (Ci) zoning district as access either by rail or road to a °`public use, public faciiity identified as Smith Gap Landfill, awned by Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA). Section 10-55(2) of the Montgomery County Code. provides that anyone aggrieved by this decision may appeal the decision within thirty (30) days. The appeal shall be received in writing along with the $260 fee on or before 3une 03, 2019. Failure to appear this decision within thirty (30). days shall render this decision unappealable, We've had an opportunity to talk with Roanoke County staff regarding the Roanoke County Special Use Permit dated December 3, 1991. and Special Exception .dated May 25, 1J93. We look forward to discussing the potential RVRA Special Use Permit application as you move forward with Roanoke County requirements for this Project. Please feel free to contact me by email at jerlki sdsCc rr�orr ctameryC_O_qgtyv,�a_goov or by telephone at (540) 394-2148 if I can be of further assistance., Sincerely, Dari S. Jenkins; CZ Planning &. Zontng Administrator DJ Attachment: Montgomery County Parcel Information per lostrument No. 20.19000869 C: Emily Gibson., Planning Director Marty McMahon, County Attorney Jim H. Guynn, Esq., Guynn, Waddell, Carroll & Lockaby P,C, Mark. C. Popovich, Esq., Guynn, Waddell, Carroll & l-ockaby P,C. Philip Thompson, Roanoke Co. Dep. Director of Planning, 5204 Bernard Dr., 2nd Floor, Roanoke, VA 24018 John Murphy, Roanoke Co. Zoning Administrator, 5204 Bernard Dr., 2nd Floor, Roanoke, VA 24018 A2 Montgomery County Parcel Information Prepared by Paul Hester, Cartographer Montgomery County Commissioner of the Revenue per Instrument No. 2019000869 filed February 13, 2019 Montgomery Montgomery Montgomery County County County Parcel 10 Tax Map No. Acreage 030951 046 -A -3A 7.660 032904 045 -A -64C2 21.200 032905 045 -A -64C1 2.940 031038 045 -A -64M1 6.290 023617 045 -A -64H 23.854 030936 045-A-6411 2.040 032906 045 -A -64E1 5.470 060001 045 -A -64N 4.095 030946 045 -A -63D 11.970 031592 045 -A -61A 3.020 031103 045 -A -62A 0.750 032901 032 -A -57A 6.500 031592* 045 -A -61A 0 032901* 032 -A -57A 0 032299 033 -A -GA 22.110 030939 032-A-511) 1.060 030938 032-A-5181 0.820 030927 032 -A -38A 13.240 030925 033-A-3 3.730 030954 033 -A -2A1 15.610 030954* 033 -A -2A1 0 031032 021 -A -3D 10.600 030985 021 -A -3A1 2.680 TOTAL Acres = 165.639 A3 RVRA Working Group Report Date: September 18, 2018 To: Board of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority From: Robert K. Bengtson, Chair, RVRA Working Group Subject: RVRA Transportation Options to Landfill - Recommendation The Board of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA) adopted a .resolution (Attachment A) on May 23, 2018 creating a sub -group (Working Group) to explore transportation options related to the hauling of trash to the Smith Gap Landfill. The Working Group met on five separate occasions beginning July 10, 2018 and concluding on September T, 2018 to develop a recommendation in response to the MA Board's fundamental question: "What transportation option is RVRA's best long-term solution to continue providing service into the future.?" The Working Group identified three primary options:. Gondolas aria Rail (Status Quo) s Hybrid (Shipping Containers and Trucking) Trucking Only These. options were evaluated using nine separate criteria.considered by the Working Group as key to assessing the merits of each option: • Dependability/reliability of service • Cost/fiscal Environmental/safety • Regulatory controls • Capital investment • Maintenance of facilities A4 • Operations/process/staffing a Timing/longevity • Bradshaw community The attached document titled "RVRA Transportation Options to the Landfill" (Attachment B) uses a matrix format to assess the nine criteria for each of the three captions. Additionally, the projected 25 -year budget and tip fee chart (Attachment C) as well as a graphical representation of the 25 -year budget projections (Attachment D) have been prepared to provide financial analyses for each of the three options. It is important to nate that when comparing these cost figures that thea be a greater focus on the relative difference in cost between each of the three options. After thorough consideration of the options, as documented in the attached material, the consensus determination of the Working Group is that the Trucking Only option would be RVRA's best long-term solution to continue providing service into the future. Since its inception in 1933, trash by rail has been an Innovative and progressive model for trash management in the Roanoke Valley. Current conditions have evolved such that the status quo methodology is no longer effective. The trucking option overcomes current system constraints and service deficiencies. Further, as the market for trash disposal options increases, trucking trash to the Smith Gap Landfill allows RVRA to remain a competitive option for its commercial customers. Any .significant loss of RVRA's commercial customers is expected to have a spiraling affect upon the costs borne by RVRA's member localities. The RVRA Board is encouraged to more fully examine the attached documents to gain a greater understanding of all the considerations evaluated by the Working Group. Lastly, there is recognition that proceeding in this direction is predicated upon the resolution of the land use issue. The members of the Working Group are prepared to discuss this matter with the RVRA Board as needed. We thank you for the opportunity to serve in this capacity. . Copy: RVRA Working Group Members Attachments .A5 A6 13 :t' Y k2 wo J i O C 7 a W � a 'O E a v h, a m�1m @ b 9 vLcd Fd' a Y L J U vl Y 00 C �N!7 G. = G •'C _ m a C d o E 0: G pap $Y oo M O aC 7 ttlna in hm w o d` a w 3 L b n ro 6 g n u° c N p C °o o'ro G v a mp`io _ z wCf 3 n o? ?° E 2 w o LU o y c pp O- .G CO Y m N W h m O m c U Q T Y v m '.�J O R. Ea s L •- _E d GV1 AL-� '�a6 } 1C 7 O S V m L a s N 'N C �/rU1 C E V C d a �- N V OL m 'a . 0. C M, C p_p vat - a O Q LL G l0 L F E C C '+t O Y C 8 O% 'n a ° O '� E tb N G O Y E U E c -6 M V a '1� .Q C CE _ O o N M SG O EO nl a a 'O as u N N 'u N NF.- a Ho O n}p. G E o .fid I� .� j, p to m n+ O im/} fin' vt G tL O a' U' N v 7 O .F E: >: 'CO W r..a ILI F .�Cc V p F^ E tl1 Oap .D ° C =.1 N "° C O' C= Q. Q N A l•1 c Y m Yc Y E K t to g c r a 12 w qR 7 z> w m +a a o G m cl �L° c —p .LL �a E n u *L �n `a j- a o_ 3 r 8 u E L ° y 3v- 7 yr 9 F- ri 3 ni 4= ni -a v 9 d d o u z o s- c a m° pc a Y° a 3 l7 m u c _ Co a -0C W L C a v N- i4 w' v t ti A `a D— m Q W O 3 •'�. 6 r� a 'zL co 3 p° o pcp v ;n a L° ° y �a — v z ca N mt �^ a Y c Yn m c Cp � ° L a m o 3 c �� 5 1 F E °—� N m Ln 9° E e 0 o z m 8° 4 c L 8~ .° c^ M a aE o °u ° g d E n ¢° n o ro Ll 0 +p+ .ix E w O v— m m .1e u z T a Y N N[ c 1a � a y H E Q u a) a n? M ; G 4 W. t yuj u �^ N- C E >• v L J y a= C7 c x v N p=p m a• V? H a p a at E a-� E a °c +n $ a E-� c a .yL $ n G m L° c o_ c v a an Y �0o a v a m w F a k w o m n _ m L9 _ P ° a m a'�i E° ' 3 w ro n m e n en `o c G L° o c G �_ w N C a° "° o Y a E L Z v d C LL u m � v 0 u C cw !� [ac c - v -G m •c m m$t crs ? m }' 3 a, s Yoa �: r ❑ K x 3a b a F ro L° v .k' m a o 20 $ m n c a ua, 3 .°. m h F m v � '� �' a R E w V' F u 2 f 1° $ 3 a c a to •- po u 5 ,� a° �n a o y pp r 3 z w a c° CL N O 1'n ro t �` w E m c E H A V M 5 °3- O 3° N c 10 c Q 1'n 4= a c m c 5• 6 3 Q o o a pp Y y .� E o m m u a n a n E .c a E m Q a N a E 8 a u m o n 4 o m � � v v m x � o c a o H ap °' H p° a i OA_m L ro •L E c a o 4S 3 a o E m vpU a L °° o n per: P E p v r c u m "o a a c o E v .o o u o 3 @12 L 3 w C a E v c^ R c m n m v^ a v= n° 3 c a azamAv"amQa12v°66F�� N co 73A �F�L ^aGU D 'C a a o lw �° o n z C a vi ,° c N. p c p N Z o G m y °pa " v m a •Q, m Q vi � o ro p v 1° ' o Y m I- F- c 'w" m a c v m a o m -o P c AD a �"a '4 a ° h-6 n j, E a 3 'c m E o a v F w L as a pip o d 3 G as o o° p i -° pG a h 'a N 0.= r > m n L 3 Q F Y CL 8 Y Y" E iV 'a Y G o c *+ o 3 y a Yn m w tv ,Q m M v O O �i 3 Ci ,n - c E m ° E o' CI 7 V a m O t c$- a X o m 3 c T tL°' bO .0 �' t; m p Y a 3° v o K O p ui 8 a E $o o C m N C N a i ro -m W 'o 'O a 0 o m � P F L o-�t�- W F+ m °,eda xayap� �'C.c� L Y i m ro �"' c'—° y � � ` O. ti r m � �` L° uEii.',�, � _D a m oZ.c .gym aoy - �My. �' N C !k . F .c°,�3 m ..acaEi� c't �� n �.dc w pop O � yac o eLi.m 7o'i„ o u p4 o aro ° a E A a s po ro F a> LL?i' na C .c ' o. v m m 'a m a��. G x 3 E c .17C. 0 Z C V z L. N p -n'„ °c 3 F• Y .r o m c y .d N T m E 0.= �' O L p 0. Y a 'C O O O E �- O a !p C E C �C E O L trj. G o o t«- E O F- O p w c a c a A — j o a 'c m L= pp ... 6 y 'u w Y 'm m u po aEi m e E v \ 3— m o¢ - i� v C Q, Q' a s a c z, m to m V m h c L O a N T71G a C a +�+ o. m cp c m .n a a. bA m N ++ a .� T ? '� m �^ m 0.b — Y `ri E C G .V p p tLo m� C u C !' C •° c u ka t6 .g C Q a y0 u w A a1 L 'u O a p c i+ m tE c O O. L L y O O �7 0.r Y c O v1 m p 0 H W 0_ pp E a c N a L C C '3 Y 7N V C Y O a 'pp R r - ro m m a mm i, vt G c O ^' C m Op O m a1 3 ? [a m ry o a m m a L L z ro O pq 2 40� O N m c u H E n Vu V � C VI p C U w Oi j +ti C i �� ❑ pan W pp w Q V O A6 LL. § 0 � 0 E 0 0 P. k ILz S � § � A Q R �k Je } E �\ ) @ 0 E so)k ;]\a 2 ®43Q VL .U ED }0CL ( . � `0 f] \ \ )\k •@2 k \ )f] k ƒ ]§} ) \ i2\ ` \■� ] 2 §f )/\ f 'u IV \ §! E \ƒj\ /u � J2-\ - )s; \ \ \\\ § bD 0 \/k ;R{ )§\ /\ ) # $ 2¥ }E/ t e2 = ) j %\} 22 fk]u \ §\ £k }k & c / ■ \ / m A I Designed to control wide traffic lanes (27 NO :614IMUM) In 11MIted use Applications Suitable f 'or low -cy6l.6 applia&1048 to Wv M %A restricted access areas such as prisons, 'M alrOort socurlVareas or Industrial, Mas saw 4xq Eleotron1c IM settings , ? Three P1600 AluMIN41 Qffh6avA1IAblfl in 20, and 27 foot lengths DKS patent penL stiYF p p L)gjg vil— vehloular/ped0tr1qn. cteetian system 5-yoar 11MItod Mr.mnty OuloujAvo piojn�.�, Maw pwjfflng' 91t4JUMOMY W49i O.W di)(1 SAID ga143 q.K8'L8qP INam.-:spun marr INV M vul whhhow btyle, alim tip to 21 f0d In hlui� A8 F�qi Kit 115 VAG lotOng Y011qjO,. to ave0ho gate paviat PtUrfal? jqdvd.tln4-14 tfl pewlhd 6 a 6.6:1 Worm -god M4g0k 41000.0 R) rAlt 0' A—# 'W VI W cr job rRW �MA 4% U4SIn On Auto - ;tuft- fir M3ht--(Iaqd MOOMI Mpttlpls tip Th 10,q�:Oh� O.M Midi AS'M th" v AOM dE flib hOkrdfur Poh tbrojup'14 roforn jddWa) adwerp m.oftn a" Add ilownud*6 Avullawo-In P048 for piu�;ln Inde ddteGtnrs prqg4mmlnff swlweb pow fi'4/,Of(8.Wl.tDh Opoidft 94 b,b 'it-,, N:j DAV li'do ePtldi d ka, A I An M, 4Q., ivt- `tb.'04086 F.E. IG. MdO.Y WROr 04 64 WF P&MA ON Apt -O Date Installed; aubm Iflustrolas IND hish voltage Am pumov V6110118 Awn ION-112up 170 0.7 —L—LoCLE J -wail wisimayti il��619�8 FE 88R� RY n '"""'""""�q-a�m...,�HH.�,..we...�w+.•.�.a.«.,s.m..•e,.amn...KK.��.s..-.q�,...�..... 10 AWG {► ARV O •.wwweav�.+rrmrm.a•rv+w.+n .e®y�p 27. 460 ssa G 270 � 405 AIO I FOB IMORA MPAIAl MOWN Offf ICI 9AATMI►Lel F906I8TWIft MI TYPES OF WASTE In order to protect surrounding residents and prolong the life of the Landfill site, the following conditions are made concerning the types of waste that may be accepted. facility: 1. No hazardous waste will be allowed at any time during the entire life of the Landfill. 2. Wastes designated as "special wastes" shall be disposed of in separate sections of the areas designated for sanitary waste. 3. Non -hazardous Incinerator Ash may be disposed of as a special waste in the Landfill. 4. Only properly approved waste may be accepted, with the main objective always being to safely dispose of materials and prolong the useful life of the Landfill. OPERATING HOURS In consideration of the adjoining neighborhoods, the following operating limits be placed at the 1. Normal working hours shall be: Monday -Friday Saturd_a_y Delivery of Waste by Authorized Vehicle 7:00am-5:00pm 8:00am-3:30pm Delivery of Waste by Rail 7:00pm-12:00pm 7:00 pm-12:00pm Operation of all Equipment 7:00am-8:00pm 8:00am-6:30pm 2. Emergency operations shall allow for extended hours on all days and Sundays whenever an emergency has been duly declared by the Roanoke County Administrator. 3. Operating hours can only be changed by action of the Board of Supervisors, after public notice and hearing. OPERATING CONTROLS Effective control over potential Landfill pests and nuisances are of great concern to all residents surrounding the Landfill site. The following policies are designed to minimize such nuisances: 1 1. Noise a. Noise levels generated by the Landfill machinery and equipment may not exceed the following amounts: 80 db (decibels) — Landfill site borders 65 db (decibels) — Surrounding residences Landfill Operating Procedures All b. Landfill operations vehicles must be equipped with the best possible muffler or exhaust system available to minimize noise. 2. Dust a. Fugitive dust emissions will be monitored by an authorized agent of Roanoke County or by the Landfill Operators for compliance with state regulations. b. Problem areas arising during dry seasons will be controlled with water. c. Access roads should be cleaned and dust controlled with water if excessive amounts of dust are generated. d. Any fill area of intermediate cover must be seeded in vegetative cover within 30 days of fill. 3. Odor a. Odor problems will be minimized if the Landfill operation is conducted properly and active fill areas are covered daily. b. If problem odors exist that adversely impact surrounding residents, deodorizing agents will be used. c. All holding tanks for Leachate collection systems shall be in enclosed underground structures. 4. Lights a. Sufficient lighting must be maintained at all times to facilitate normal operations and to provide adequate security over the Landfill site. b. Lighting must be directed inward to keep the main -body of light and glare off surrounding residents. c. Adjoining property owners will be consulted as to light placement, direction and height. d. Lighting shall be limited to fixtures attached to buildings as necessary for security and operations and freestanding poles of not more than 16 feet in height, and no lights shall exceed one foot-candle of light measured at the base of the pole or structure. 5. Pests a. A bonded, licensed pest control company will be retained by the Landfill Agency throughout the active life of the Landfill to provide preventive inspections and treatments. b. Adjoining property owners who incur pest problems that are proven to be directly related to the Landfill operation must be provided proper extermination at the expense of the Landfill Agency. c. Breeding areas for flying insects must be treated as often as is necessary to prevent the breeding cycle. 6. A telephone number will be provided for use of surrounding residents, including those in the transportation corridor, to call in complaints about noise, dust, odor, or pests. These calls will be recorded and corrective actions documented. ACTIVE FILL AREAS The active areas of the Landfill are regulated by the Virginia Department of Waste Management. Strict guidelines are specified in the regulations; however, the active areas shall be designed to allow for final cover as soon as possible. 2 Landfill Operating Procedures Al2 Fill areas should be designed as far as practical from adjoining properties to provide maximum buffering, and in no case should extend within 100 feet of the Landfill boundary line. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 1. The responsible Landfill Agency must have all landfill facilities inspected at least annually by a qualified independent contractor to determine compliance with all special exception permit conditions and all other landfill conditions. Any violations must be reported to the responsible Landfill Agency and shall be made public information and the Landfill Agency shall take whatever steps are necessary to immediately correct the violations. 2. The responsible Landfill Agency will be required to log all complaints from any adjoining residents or businesses of the landfill and transportation corridor and all reasonable and legitimate complaints shall receive the proper attention and shall be corrected immediately. The complaint log shall be open to public inspection. SCREENING AND BUFFERING Adequate screening and buffering is a paramount concern. Effective screening and buffering can reduce or mitigate the adverse impacts of noise, dust, and light from the landfill on adjoin properties, as well as improve the visual appearance of the landfill operation. In addition, landscaping of obtrusive buildings and active areas within the landfill can reduce the visual blight from improved properties which are above and overlook the landfill site. Finally, minimizing the size of active and disturbed areas and immediate seeding of these areas once activity ceases can further reduce this visual blight, To address these items, the following standards are recommended. Additional requirements may be formulated for site specific conditions upon review of the proposed landfill sites. Any modification shall be subject to such site specific circumstances, as determined by the Director of Planning. 3 1. The following buffer yard and plantings shall be established around the perimeter of the landfill property, except adjacent to an existing residential property or private right-of-way. Trees shall be planted in three separate rows or in dusters, where natural land characteristics allow within the buffer yard. a. 50 foot buffer yard; b. Three large deciduous trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard; c. Five large evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard; and, d. Seven small evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 15 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. 2. In areas adjacent to an existing residential property or public or private right-of-way, the following shall be established and maintained around the perimeter of the landfill property. Trees shall be planted in three separate rows or in clusters, where natural land characteristics allow with the buffer yard. a. 100 foot buffer yard; Landfill Operating Procedures A13 b. Six large deciduous trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard; c. Ten large evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard; and, d. Fifteen small evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 15 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. 3. The buffer yard may only be used for passive recreation, such as pedestrian, bike or equestrian trails provided that: a. No plant material is eliminated; b. The total width of the buffer is maintained; and c. All other requirements and conditions are met. 4. Buildings, active landfill areas, equipment storage areas and other facilities shall be landscaped in such a manner as to enhance (but not necessarily screen) the visual appearance from adjoining properties. 5. The administrative standards and procedures contained under Section 21-92 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance shall apply unless more restrictive or specific standards are required above. 6. The transportation corridor may or may not be able to be totally buffered by natural topography or feasibly by normal screening methods. Where feasible, buffering will be negotiated with the property owners. (Al) SITE SECURITY In compliance with State regulations, the following suggestions are to make the landfill the most up to date facility. 1. All facilities shall be surrounded on all sides by natural barriers, fencing, or an equivalent means of controlling vehicles access and preventing illegal disposal. All access will be limited by gates, and such gates shall be securable and equipped with locks. a. All fencing utilized at the facility shall be adequate to control unauthorized access. b. Gates shall be at the main entrance as well as the entrance to additional service areas. 2. Access shall be permitted only when an attendant is on duty and only during daylight hours, unless otherwise specified in the facility permit, such as for delivery of waste. (Al) 3. Landfill should be provided with an adequately lighted and heated shelter where operating personnel can exercise site control and have access to essential sanitation facilities. Lighting, heat and sanitation facilities may be provided by portable equipment, as necessary. a. Dusk to dawn lights to be placed around buildings and at each of the security gates. 4. Landfill will be equipped with permanent or mobile telephone or radio communications. 5. The operator is responsible for safety hazards to operating personnel through an active safety program. 6. All access points to the transportation corridor shall be properly gated and shall be posted with "No Trespassing" signs. Signs will also be posted at intervals along the transportation corridor. FIRE PROTECTION AND PUBLIC WATER 4 Landfill Operating Procedures A14 Fire protection for the site shall be provided on site with adequate storage, distribution, and hydrants to properly extinguish fires. The system shall be designed as a potable water system in conformance with the standards of Roanoke County. The system may be deeded to Roanoke County for ownership and operation. The system shall be designed to serve all on-site water needs as well as being capable of serving adjoining properties. Expansion of the water supply system, except when groundwater contamination has been documented, shall be prohibited without prior review for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. This review shall follow the requirements and criteria outlined in Section 15.1-491(h) Site Plan Review, of the Code of Virginia. E Landfill Operating Procedures A1S D E m § ƒ p o �0a d � § ƒ U w % m o q -o § q § O ® 2 � / / / 4-: . §e )§ D E m § ƒ p o �0a d � § ƒ U w % m o q -o § q § O ® 2 � / / / 4-: / \ f . m @ 3 2 _ - ) ® / ® : o / .$ § / 0/ \y§f « ® / / \ » s © '° / # om .( �o xR \ \fesƒ x �? / IL D E m § ƒ p o �0a d � § ƒ U w % m o q -o § q § O ® 2 � p,I',.,IN i <'\,O o. 00 � o Jf U .. _. %CP Y O af r �= 16 c o LD 0 by o s� 0 Ln Y>� M 0}a o LO 00 Cc.: —o 0 01:*01"qpV 440 LD 0 by o s� 0 Ln Y>� M 0}a o LO 00 Cc.: —o 0 EO 0-2 N m O � � O N LO -0 = >, O O 0 v o�°'� ����, m C 0 D O t'? � N N 'N LI) N C Q Q •� Z C,4 0 0 .p N -0 Ur 0 i 0 D- O O p ■ �oILc6 U cn N 0 p co fl� x co0 O EO 0-2 N m O � � O N LO ai +J Q E Q Q— < Q fA C U i N c0 N c0 N i N c0 + r d J U E E cin —cucu -aa)°' E E 0 ° `� cn ccu j ami T ry J cu cu C C fA Q Q ry+ N N N cu L� _ L L _ _ N N Q Q 0) 0) p p cu O tME " Q C7 Q Q J 2 J 2 Q J � a a a a U U N a ry .o .O N NIS I IIII 310 U� k-ff N 4O O U Q E O c O a U �441V Q m O r -n �I Q co Q N �I CD Ye I, Oma �U Zoning Map Montgomery County Montgomery County iGIS Map Portal M 1:312600 County Zoning Al - Agriculture C1 - Conservation CB - Community Business GB - General Business M1 - Manufacturing ML - Manufacturing Light PIN - Planned Industrial PMR - Planned Mobile Home Residential PUDCOM - Planned Unit Development Commercial PUDRES - Planned Unit Development Residential R1 - Residential R2 - Residential R3 - Residential R3C - Residential (Compact) RM1 - Multi -Family Residential RR - Rural Residential RRC - Rural Residential (Compact) N Corporate Boundaries Highway Roads Tertiary Roads and Streets Railroads Powered by Ovela Constellation GIS Platform LL 0 CD L: CD a) C) m 4-: 0 \\\�/ U) o (D E . -c D-. V3 (D o 0 v, 0 C) LL 0 CD L: CD a) C) 4-: 0 \\\�/ U) o (D E . -c D-. V3 (D o 0 v, 0 C) a 0 0 U L) IL -F:3 Q- 0 Lo C:) C: - -C C) D — —j IL 06 L" u D V) o o 0 0 00 D 7, Cie q C -A F- LO N Nt co D C) U- u - LL 0 lo c') o . o 0 Future Land Use Map Montgomery County EN -F IAL M 1:312600 Future Lana Use Residential Transition 0 Resource Stewardship Rural 0 Urban Expansion Future Land Use - Villages civic 0 High Density Residential 0 Low Density Residential 0 Medium Density Residential 0 Mixed Use 0 Open 'Space 0 Right of Way 0 Traditional Neighborhood Design Montgomery County iGIS Map Portal Ij4i z,I N Powered by Ovela Constellation GIS Platform AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1991 RESOLUTION 12391--7 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND AMENDING CONDITIONS AND OPERATING POLICIES TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY RESOURCE AUTHORITY FOR THE SMITH GAP SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY, LOCATED IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on November 7, 1991; and WHEREAS, the the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a public hearing on this matter on November 19, 1991; and, WHEREAS, legal, notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE,. be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1_ That the Board finds that the granting of amendments to the Special Exception Permit conditions and operating policies for the solid waste disposal facility at the Smith Gap site is substatial.ly in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1-456 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. 2. That this action is taken upon the petition of the Roanoke County Resource Authority. 3. That this action amends the Resolution 62789-12 of this Board adopted on dune 27, 1989. 4. That the Board hereby grants a Special Exception Permit to the Roanoke County Resource Authority (and upon its creation and 1 approval by the State Corporation Commission, its successor, the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority) to publicly own and operate a solid waste disposal facility on what is known as the "Smith Gap Site" located on 6140.39 acres on the northwest side of Fort Lewis Mountain between Smith Gap and Bradshaw Road in the Catawba Magisterial Distract, subject to the amended landfill permit conditions and operating policies, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 5. That the Board acknowledges, to the extent permitted by law, that the Authority has a non-binding moral obligation to pay such amounts as may be needed to address the adopted operating policies, including property value protection, and that such payment is subject to future appropriations. Nothing in the approved operating policies shall be deemed to constitute the creation of a debt, the lending of the credit, nor a pledge of the credit of the County under the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, nor shall any provision thereof give any person any legal right to enforce the terms thereof against the County or the Authority. 6. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict with the provisions of this resolution be, and the same hereby are, repealed. On motion of Supervisor Robers to adopt the ordinance amending the corridor to provide protection to 1800 feet contiguous to rail line with protection extending only to current residents and 2 k existing improvements and provided that further constuction is exempt from protection, and carried by the following recorded vete: AYES: Supervisors Robers, Johnson, Ni.ckens, McGraw NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: Mary H.'Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File John R. Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & zoning $ LANDFILL, D:FILL, RAIL & TRANSFER STATION PERMIT CONDITIONS 1 OPERATING POLICIES ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY Revised October 22, 1992 J 0 0 1 PREFACE In 1988, the local governments of Roanoke County, Roanoke City and the Town of Vinton began preparing a comprehensive solid waste' disposal plan for the long term future of the Roanoke Valley. The initial study phase of the plan identified numerous methods for the disposal of solid wastes including incineration, landfilling, recycling and composting. After months of review, landfilling was identified as the primary method of disposal. With the assistance of dedicated Citizens' Advisory Committees and the commitment from the elected officials, the Smith Gap Landfill and the Roanoke Transfer Station were selected.. With each selection was a commitment to protect the environment and the neighborhoods. The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority and the City of Roanoke, County of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton have adopted permit conditions and operating policies fot each facility of the solid waste disposal system. 'These commitments are expressed in the following pages and represent the concerns and compassion for the residents of the area, the impact the facilites will have on their lives, and the importance of a sound waste disposal system. Questions concerning this document may be addressed to the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority by calling 772.2130 or by writing to 3433 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia 24018. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS LANDFILL AND RAIL Page Number Permit Conditions Policies Types of Waste .... ............................... 1 Oneratina flours ................................... 1 Operating Controls .................................... 2 Active Fill Areas ................... 4 Environmental Monitoring ..............................4 Screening and Buffering . 5 Site Security ...:...... . ...................... 7 Fire Protection and Public Water ....... , .......... ..... 9 Site Rejection ...................................... 9 Groundwater Protection .............................. 10 Property 'Value Protection .......... 13 ............. ...... Appeals 15 Landfill Ownership ..............:................... 15 Landfill Users ............' . ............ 16 Landfill Operational Priorities ........................... 16 Rail (Access ........................................ 17 ]Hazardous Waste Collection ................ 17 Host Community Improvement Fund 18 I TRANSFER STATION Design Criteria Approval Process .. , .. • ... �.......................... 19 Access/internal Circulation 19 Landscanina/BufferinE/Onen Snace ........................ 20 Outdoor Storage..................................... 20 � Architectural Compatibility ............................20 .Flood Plain Protection ................................ 21 0 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 2 TRANSFER STATION Operating Criteria Page Number Types of Waste ............. 22 Operating Hours ................................... 22 Performance Standards ....... 23 Site Security ...................................... 24 Road Improvements and Access .. ...................... 25 Appeals........................................25 Property Value Protection ............................. 25 0 1 LANDFILL PERNUT CONDITIONS N I I I f PERMIT CONDITIONS TYPES OF WASTE In order to protect surrounding residents and prolong the life of the Landfill site, the following conditions are made concerning the types of waste that may be accepted. 1. No hazardous waste will be allowed at any time during the entire life of the Landfill. 2. Wastes, designated as "special wastes" shall be disposed of in separate sections of the areas designated for sanitary waste. 3. Non -hazardous Incinerator Ash may be disposed of as a special waste in the new Landfill. 4. Only properly approved waste may be accepted, with the main objective always being to safely dispose of materials and prolong the useful life of the Landfill. OPERATING FOURS In consideration of the adjoining neighborhoods, it is recommended that the following operating limits be placed on the new facility: 1. Normal working hours shall be: Monday -Friday Saturda Delivery of Waste by Authorized Vehicle Delivery of Waste by Rail Operation of all Equipment 8:00am-5:00pm 7.00pm-12:00pm 8:00am-3:30pm 7:00pm-12:00pm 8:00am-6:30pm 2. Emergency operations shall allow for extended hours on. all days and Sundays LANDFILL PERMIT CONDITIONS whenever an emergency has been duly declared by the Roanoke County Administrator. 3. Operating hours can only be changed by action of the Board of Supervisors, after public notice and hearing. OPERATING CONTROLS Effective control over potential Landfill pests and nuisances are of great concern to all residents surrounding the Landfill site. 'The following policies are designed to minimize such nuisances: 1. Noise a. Noise levels generated by the Landfill machinery and equipment may not exceed the following amounts: 80 db (decibels) - Landfill site borders 65 db (decibels) - Surrounding residences b. Landfill operations vehicles must be equipped with the best possible muffler or exhaust system available to minimize noise. 2. Dust a.. Fugitive dust emissions will be monitored by an authorized agent of Roanoke County or by the Landfill Operators for compliance with state regulations. b. Problem areas arising during dry seasons will be controlled with water. C. Access roads should be cleaned and dust controlled with water if excessive amounts of dust are generated. d. Any fillarea of intermediate cover must be seeded in vegetative cover within 30 days of fill.. 2 LANDFILL PERMIT CONDITIONS 7 .J 0, 3. Odor a. Odor problems will be minimized if the Landfill operation is conducted properly and active fill areas are covered daily. b. if problem odors exist that adversely impact surrounding residents, deodorizing agents will be used. C. All holding tanks for Leachate collection systems shall be in enclosed underground structures. 4. Lights a. Sufficient lighting must be maintained at all times to facilitate normal operations and to provide adequate security over the Landfill site. b. Lighting must be directed inward to keep the main -body of light and glare off surrounding residents. C. Adjoining property owners will be consulted as to light placement, direction and height. d. Lighting shall be limited to fixtures attached to buildings as necessary for security and operations and freestanding poles of not more than 15 feet in height, and no lights shall exceed one footcandle of light measured at the base of the pole or structure. S. Pests a. A bonded, licensed pest control company will be retained by the Landfill Agency throughout the active life of the Landfill to provide preventive inspections and treatments. b. Adjoining property owners who incur pest problems that are proven to be directly related to the Landfill operation must be provided proper extermination at the expense of the Landfill Agency. C. Breeding areas for flying insects must be treated as often as is necessary to prevent the breeding cycle. 3 LANDFILL PERMIT CONDITIONS 7 17 6. A telephone number will be provided for use of surrounding residents including those in the rail corridor to call in complaints about noise, dust, odor, or pests. U These' calls will be recorded and corrective actions documented. ACTIVE FILL AREAS The active areas of the landfill are regulated by the Virginia Department of Waste Management. Strict guidelines are specified in the regulations; however, the Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee feels that active areas shall be designed to allow for final cover as soon as possible. Fill areas should be designed as far as practical from adjoining properties to provide maximum buffering, and in no case should extend within 100 feet of the Landfill boundary line. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 1. The responsible Landfill Agency must have all landfill facilities inspected at least annually by a qualified independent contractor to determine compliance with all special exception- permit conditions and all other landfill conditions. Any violations must be reported to the responsible Landfill- Agency and shall be made public information and the Landfill Agency shall take whatever steps are necessary to immediately correct the violations. 2. The responsible Landfill Agency will be requires[ to log all complaints from any adjoining residents or businesses of the landfill and rail corridor and all reasonable and legitimate complaints shall receive the proper attention and shall be corrected immediately.. The. complaint log shall be open to public inspection. G ►0 i] LANDFILL PERMIT CONDITIONS 0 SCREENING AND BUFFERING Adequate screening and buffering is a, paramount concern of the Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee. Effective screening and buffering can reduce or mitigate the adverse impacts of noise, dust and light from the landfill on adjoining properties, as well as improve the visual appearance of the landfill operation. In addition, landscaping of obtrusive buildings and active areas within the landfill can reduce the visual blight from improved properties which are above and overlook the landfill site. Finally, minimizing the size of active and disturbed areas and immediate seeding of these areas once activity ceases can further reduce this visual blight. To address these items, the following standards are recommended. Additional requirements may be formulated for site specific conditions upon review of the proposed landfill sites. Any modification shall be subject to such site specific circumstances, as determined by the Director of Planning. i. The following buffer yard and plantings shall be established around the perimeter of the landfill property, except adjacent to an existing residential property or public or private right-of-way, .. Trees shall be planted in three separate rows or in clusters, where natural land characteristics allow within the buffer yard, - 50 foot buffer yard; - Three large deciduous trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard; - Five large evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 50,feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard; and, - Seven small evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 15 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. 2. In areas adjacent to an existing residential property or public or private right-of- way, the following shall be established and maintained around the perimeter of the landfill property. Trees shall be planted in three separate rows or in clusters, where natural land characteristics allow within the buffer yard. - 100 foot buffer yard; Six large deciduous trees with an ultimate height' of 50 feet or greaer per - 100 linear feet of buffer yard. Ten large evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard; and - Fifteen small evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 15 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. 3. The buffer yard may only be used for passive recreation, such as pedestrian, bike A LANDFILL PERMIT CONDITIONS or equestrian trails provided that: - No plant material is eliminated; The total width of the buffer is maintained; and, All other requirements and conditions are met. 4. Buildings, active landfill areas, equipment storage areas and other facilities shall be landscaped in such a manner as to enhance (but riot necessarily screen) the visual appearance from adjoining properties. 5. The administrative standards and procedures contained under Section 21-92 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance shall apply unless more restrictive or specific standards are required above. 6. The rail line may or may not be able to be totally buffered by natural topography or feasibly by normal screening methods. Where feasible, buffering will be negotiated with the property owner during purchase negotiations with Norfolk Southern. n a C: 0 0 0 LANDFILL PERMIT CONDITIONS 7 SITE SECURITY In compliance with State regulations, the following suggestions are to make the landfill the most up to date facility. 1. All facilities shall be surrounded on all sides by natural barriers, fencing, or an equivalent means of controlling vehicle access and preventing illegal disposal. All access will be limited by gates, and such gates shall be securable and equipped with locks. a. All fencing utilized at the facility shall be adequate to control unauthorized access. b. Gates shall be at the main entrance as well as the entrance to additional service areas. 2. Access to a solid waste disposal facility (landfill) shall be permitted only when an attendant is on duty and only during .daylight hours, unless otherwise specified in the facility permit, such as for rail delivery of waste. 3. Each solid waste disposal facility should be provided with an adequately lighted and heated shelter where operating personnel can exercise site control and have access to essential sanitation facilities. Lighting, heat and sanitation facilities may be ,provided by portable equipment as necessary. a. Dusk to damn lights to be placed around buildings and at each of the security gates. 4. All sanitary landfills will be equipped with permanent or mobile telephone or radio communications. a. The main security gate should be able to communicate with all necessary areas of the landfill. 5. The operator is responsible for safety hazards to operating personnel through an active safety program. a. Security rules and regulations shall be posted.at each gate, b. Security guard or landfill personnel shall be on site 24 hours each day. til LANDFILL PERMIT CONDITIONS. b. All vehicle access points to the rail spur shall be properly gated, with loch, and shall be posted with "No Trespassing" signs., Signs will also be posted at intervals along the rail spur. r 8 0 0 LANDFILL PERMIT CONDITIONS FIRE PROTECTION AND PUBLIC WATER Fire protection for the site shall be provided on site with adequate storage, distribution, and hydrants to properly extinguish fires. The system shall be designed as a potable water system in conformance with the standards of Roanoke County. The system may be deeded to Roanoke County for ownership and operation. The system shall be designed to serve all on-site water needs as well as being capable of serving adjoining properties. Expansion of the water supply system, except when groundwater- contamination has been documented, shall be prohibited without prior review for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. This review shall follow the requirements and criteria outlined in Section 1.5.1-456 of the Code of Virginia, and shall also apply to any proposal submitted under Section 15.1-475 (subdivision) and Section 15.1-491(h) Site Pian Review, of the Code of Virginia. I SITE REJECTION The Special Exception Permit for a landfill shall become null and void upon official notification of the rejection of the site by the Department of Waste Management or the date Roanoke County selects not to submit a Part °B° application for the site. 6 A i LANDFILL PERMIT CONDITIONS 1 I 11 I m POLICIES POLICIES GROUNDWATER PROTECTION The single greatest concern of all residents surrounding a landfill site is the potential —r contamination of groundwater sources. Residents must be assured that the water supplies will !` be protected at all times. 1. The responsible Landfill Agency will take all necessary actions as required by state, federal or local laws or regulations, including permit conditions to protect the groundwater and water wells from contamination as -a result of the landfill r construction and operation. 2. If private groundwater sources are contaminated as- a result of landfill leakage, construction, and/or operation, the responsible Landfill Agency will, at its expense, provide to each eligible resident or business a clean source of replacement water. a. The Landfill Agency may select any source of water they so desire but it must meet allapplicable health standards. The newly established water system will be extended to each residence or business and connected at the Agency's expense within 120 days after the date the contamination is verified. All interior plumbing contaminated to the extent that it is rendered hazardous for continued use will be replaced at the Agency's expense.. b. Eligible residents or businesses will receive free water up to 5,000 gallons per month for as long as they own and occupy the residence. All water usage over 6,000 gallons per month will be paid by the resident or business at the rates in effect at that time. Heirs of residents will qualify for free water under this provision. c. The Landfill Agency agrees to continue to provide water to subsequent owners of affected residences or businesses. However, these residents or businesses must pay the normal charge for water services being paid by other Roanoke County water users. io LANDFILL POLICIES d. The Landfill Agency will provide water during the interim period between providing a new source and the well contamination. 3. This guarantee will remain in force for a period equal to the State and EPA required monitoring period after closure, but not less than 25 years. 4. To be eligible for groundwater protection, each surrounding property owner (within 1,000 feet of landfill property boundary) must sign an agreement and must agree to allow water samples to be taken and tested at the Landfill Agency's expense. All property owners in the rail corridor are eligible for groundwater protection only after a derailment of waste along the spur line or if contamination from the landfill is detected from those wells being tested quarterly. The Resource Authority will remain responsible to the property owners during a derailment. However, Norfolk Southern may be ultimately responsible under the transportation contract. a. For all wells in existence before the opening of the landfall, the initial water sample must pass all health standards and must include. the chemical and bacteria tests. b. All eligible residents or businesses must allow water samples to be taken on a quarterly basis for testing by the Landfill Agency. All testing is to be done at the Landfill Agency's expense. C. For all wells which pass the initial test, if subsequent tests show .contamination, it will qualify under the terms of this agreement - for guaranteed replacement,. unless the Landfill Agency can prove that the source of the contamination is not the landfill. d. For all wells that fail the initial test, the exact nature of the existing contamination mush be recorded and sufficient additional tests taken to establish an accurate base -line of data against which to compare future tests. if future tests demonstrate a deterioration of water contamination the well will qualify under the terms of this agreement for guaranteed replacement. e. All new wells drilled (within 1,000 feet of the landfill property boundary) during the life of the landfill that pass an initial water sample test (chemical and bacteria) will qualify for groundwater protection under the terms of this agreement. I LANDFILL POLICIES 5. All surrounding property owners within 5,000 feet of the landfill property boundary may elect to have their water tested at the Landfill Agency's expense. This will be a one-time only. test prior to the opening of the landfill, and is to include chemical and bacteria analysis. 6. A Contingency Plan must be designed and approved, for providing potable water to surrounding residents covered under this agreement, prior to the opening of the landfill. 7. The Landfill Agency will escrow sufficient money from landfill tipping fees to guarantee fulfillment of this agreement. 12 LANDFILL POLICIES r .i PROPERTY VALUE PROTECTION A second major concern of residents surrounding the landfill site is the potential devaluation of their property. This is particularly true since people's homes usually represent the majority of their assets. Residents must be assured that their property values will be protected. 1. The responsible Landfill Agency will take all necessary actions as required by federal, state or local laws or regulations, including landfill permit conditions, -to insure residents surrounding the landfill site that their property values will not be adversely impacted by the landfill. 2. Any resident or business owning property within 5,000 feet of the landfill site border on November 1,.1992, may be eligible for compensation if they can prove their property was devalued as a result of the landfill.' (Amended 10-22-92 to become effective November 1, 1992.) Any resident or business owning property within the rail corridor on December 3, 1991, may be eligible for compensation if they can prove their property was devalued as a result of the rail spur. Only,that property, or portion thereof, and improvements existing on December 3, 1991, that lies within the frail corridor boundaries will be covered by this policy. This policy will become effective on the date that, construction begins on the rail spur. 3. The resident must establish the value of the affected property just prior to the sale date (Appraised Value) by either obtaining an appraisal by a "Professionally Certified Appraiser" or by use of the current Roanoke County or Montgomery County tax assessments. Tax assessments must reflect 100% of fair ' market value. The responsible Landfill Agency will pay 50% of the cost of the initial appraisal up to a total of $ 150. Appraisals to be made as if landfill was not existing. 4. Any resident who sells their property for an amount (Sale Value) which is less than the Appraised Value determined under paragraph 3 will be eligible for compensation from the responsible Landfill Agency for the amount of this difference, subject to the following conditions: a. The responsible Landfill Agency must be given the "Right of First Refusal" to buy any property for which a bona fide offer to purchase has 13 M LANDFILL POLICIES 4I. been received in an amount below the Appraised Value. b. The responsible Landfill Agency must exercise their rights under paragraph 4a within 30 days of the date they are notified by the resident of a bona fide purchase offer. C. Appraisal shall take into account condition of property. 5 e The foregoing agreement to compensate residents for loss in property values will only apply to properties sold before the termination date, which is defined as 5 years after the date the landfill is closed. Heirs of residents qualifying under n paragraph 2 will be eligible for compensation under the terms of this agreement. 6. Any resident who is eligible for compensation for property devaluation under the foregoing: terms of this agreement will also qualify for reimbursement of the following expenses: a.. Residents or renters will receive reasonable moving expenses to move to a new location within 25 miles of existing residence. Moving expenses are limited to the costs of transporting household goods and require three (3) written quotes approved by the Landfill Agency. Payments are to be r. made within 60 days of approved expenses. b. Residents or renters will receive reimbursement -for the Interest Differential between their existing mortgage loan and any new loan assumed on any replacement' property within 25 miles of existing residence. This reimbursement will be defined as the present value of the remaining principal payments, discounted at the difference between the interest rates on the original loam and on the replacement loan, Payments to be made within 60 days of the new loan closing. 7. It shall be the responsibility of the resident to carry adequate property insurance to cover any loss hazards. In the event that a total loss does occur, the Landfill Agency will compensate the resident (who qualifies under "the preceding terms of this agreement) for the difference between the Assessed Value and the Insurance Settlement. However, if the insurance Settlement is for any amount less than the Sale Value, the amount of compensation will be the difference between the Assessed Value and the Sale Value. For purposes of this provision, the Sale Value is understood to be the Replacement Value of the .property on the date of the insurance loss. 14 a N 0 LANDFILL POLICIES w L. A APPEALS In order to provide a timely and inexpensive method for parties that may be damaged by the landfill permit conditions and policies, any disagreement between a property owner and the responsible Landfill Agency concerning groundwater contamination or property value damage, the matter may be resolved through -the provisions of the Uniform Arbitration Act, Article 2 of Title 5.01 of the Code of Virginia (Section 5.01-551.01 et s . LANDFILL OWNERSHIP ie The citizens of Roanoke County feel strongly that the landfill operator needs to be responsive and accountable for properly operating, maintaining, and adhering to the conditions placed on the permit. The Landfill. Agency shall remain in full control and accountable for the construction and operation of the landfill. And will be accountable for the proper transportation of waste under the Norfolk Southern transportation contract. A 15 0 LANDFILL POLICIES I LANDFILL USERS The responsible Landfill Agency shall limit users of the Regional Landfill to qualifying residents and businesses of Roanoke County, Roanoke City, Vinton, Montgomery County and Salem. Private haulers will be allowed to use the landfill only if the refuse that is submitter) originates from one of the municipalities previously mentioned and if they have applied for and obtained a dump permit from the Landfill Operator'. LANDFILL OPERATIONAL PRIORITIES Siting and permitting a new landfill under current VD'WM regulations is extremely complex and difficult. This is true for technical reasons but also due to the adverse impact on [� surrounding residents. The Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee feels that the following priorities' must be used to guide the Landfill Operator and Board in making all future policy determinations. These are listed in priority order below: 1. Protection of the environment of the Roanoke Valley Service Area. 2. Protection or extension of the useful life of the landfill. 3. Protection of the interests of the residents of the landfill host community. 4. Protection of the. interests of the residents of the rail corridor. 5. Minimization of landfill operating costs. 6. Minimization of landfill tipping fees. 16 1 ri ifl LANDFILL POLICIES RAIL ACCESS A safe and adequate rail spur to the landfill is a great concern of the residents of the rail corridor. Properly constructer) and maintained rail lines are critical in protection and safety of the adjoining neighborhoods. The following conditions are an attempt to address these issues: 1. Adequate access controls and proper posting of the rail spur shall be provided. 2. The number of train runs per day will be kept to a minimum. 3. Train speed shall not exceed 25 miles per hour along the rail spur. 4. ' Grade crossings should be of asphalt or other surfacing material other than. gravel. 5. Train whistles should be kept to a minimum and only when necessary. b. Train runs should be as early as possible considering timing, scheduling, traffic and operating controls. 7. Spur line shall be for landfill traffic only. $. Ground cover and weeds shall not be controlled by use of toxic herbicides, 9, If, after. purchase of property for the rail spur, the Landfill.Agency or railroad determines that the rail will not be used to transport waste to the landfill, the property owners will have the right to repurchase their property at the fair market value. HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION The landfill presently being sited in Roanoke County is strictly for sanitary municipal solid waste. Since no hazardous waste will be allowed, it is important for the Regional Landfill service area to provide a means of disposing of hazardous waste. The responsible Landfill Agency or Board will develop and make public information for the proper disposal of hazardous waste.. 17 I w LANDFILL POLICIES A U u HOST COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT FUND A Host Community Improvement Fund will be established through donations from the Landfill Agency for the purpose of public improvements for the Host Community. The Host Comm' unity is defined as the area within 5,000 feet of the landfill along with the rail corridor. Donations will be made annually in amounts of $10,000; however, the fund shall- never exceed $150,000. The fund shall be utilized for the construction and maintenance of public improvements to Landfill Agency property approved by the Board of Supervisors' and the Planning Commission. A Public Improvement Plan shall be developed by Landfill Agency with assistance from the residents of the Host Community for the expenditure of the fund. RAIL CORRIDOR ESTABLISHMENT The rail corridor has been established to identify the area adjacent to the rail spur that may be influenced by the transportation of waste and the construction of the new line. Each property owner will be adequately and fairly compensated for any land acquired for the construction of the rail line and any residue damage, if any. Those other adjoining properties may experience some effects associated with the transportation waste along the rail spur as those adjoining properties of the landfill and, therefore, should be afforded similar protection. The rail corridor has been established and limited to those properties or portion thereof that lie within boundaries defined as 1 800 feet on both sides of the rail spur from its beginning of the existing main rail line to the Roanoke County -Montgomery County corporate lime. The rail corridor is generally depicted on the rail corridor map. MISCELLANEOUS The railroad's -responsiveness to complaints and claims is of great concern of the rail corridor residents. The Landfill Agency will make all efforts to assist the residents in satisfying their concerns and obtaining quick response and resolve from the railroad. Reimbursements for legitimate livestock claims will be resolved and paid within 60 days. 18 LANDFILL POLICIES AMENDMENTS TO LANDFILL POLICIES LANDFILL POLICIES L D MEETING: October 22, 1992 SUBJECT: Property Protection Policy - Landfill ACTION REQUIRED: Unanimous Approval of all City and County Representatives BACKGROUND. - ®n June 27, 1989, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors approved the special use permit to construct the Smith Gap Landfill. With the approval, certain conditions and operating policies were included, one -of which was the Property Value Protection Policy. The Property Value Protection Policy provides property owners within 5,000 feet of the landfill boundary, protection against the decline of property values due to the landfill. The policy becomes effective on the date the "Part B" application is approved and a permit is issued by the Department of Waste Management. This condition was selected in case the site was denied, and therefore, would not become a landfill. Since the approval of the County permit, the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority has received "Part A" approval and has begun preliminary site development, all of which indicates the intent to utilize the site. Also, the effective date of property protection in the rail corridor is May 1, 1992, the date work began on the spur line. Several property owners in the protected area have requested that the effective date be changed to reflect acceptance of the site for development, rather than "Part B" approval. The change will not require approval of the County Board of Supervisors. The Roanoke Valley Resource. Authority must approve the change with a unanimous vote of all representatives of the County and City as specified in the Members Use Agreement. The change will expose the Resource Authority to payments for affected proPerty values.earlier. FUNDING: Funds for the establishment of the Property Value Protection Fund are available within the Capital Budget. The Property Value Protection Fund should be initially established to be $200,000. OPTIONS: (1) ' Approve the effective date to be changed from "Part B" approval to .January 1, 1993, and establish the Property Value Protection Fund in the amount of $200,000. (Requires approval of all Roanoke County and Roanoke City representatives and budget approval by majority.) (2) Retain the current effective date. However, approve the establishment of . the Property Value Protection Fund in the amount of $200,000. (Requires majority vote.) (3) Make no changes at this time. (Requires no action or majority vote.) RECOMMENDATION: In an effort to make the Property Value Protection Program consistent between the rail - corridor and the landfill community and keeping in mind the initial intent of the "Part B" date, it is recommended that option. 1 be approved. Respectfully submitted:. John R. ubbard, P.E. Chief Executive Officer 0 7 TRANSFER STATION DESIGN CRITERIA 2. Comprehensive Site PIan Review a. Staff Review/Approval b. Planning Commission Review/Approval 3. Department Waste Management Review/Approval ACCESSANTERNAL CIRCULATION 1. Site shall have sufficient on-site queuing- capacity to prevent waiting collection vehicles from backing up onto public roads.* 2. Site access should be controlled to limit access and to prevent unauthorized entry. a. All facilities shall be surrounded on all sides by natural barriers, fencing, or an equivalent means of controlling vehicles and pedestrian access. Required fencing shall be set back from the property line. b.. Gates- shall be provided at the main entrance as well as the entrance to additional service areas. 3. Adequate directional signage shall be provided to insure safe and efficient internal traffic circulation on the site. 4. All internal streets and driveways shall be designed to adequately serve the needs of the traffic function for both large and small vehicles in a safe fashion. 5. All roads utilized as the main access to the proposed transfer facility must be adequate for the projected type and volume of traffic., TRANSFER STATION DESIGN CRITERIA 19 TRANSFER STATION DESIGN CRITERIA APPROVAL PROCESS 1. City Council Approval 2. Comprehensive Site PIan Review a. Staff Review/Approval b. Planning Commission Review/Approval 3. Department Waste Management Review/Approval ACCESSANTERNAL CIRCULATION 1. Site shall have sufficient on-site queuing- capacity to prevent waiting collection vehicles from backing up onto public roads.* 2. Site access should be controlled to limit access and to prevent unauthorized entry. a. All facilities shall be surrounded on all sides by natural barriers, fencing, or an equivalent means of controlling vehicles and pedestrian access. Required fencing shall be set back from the property line. b.. Gates- shall be provided at the main entrance as well as the entrance to additional service areas. 3. Adequate directional signage shall be provided to insure safe and efficient internal traffic circulation on the site. 4. All internal streets and driveways shall be designed to adequately serve the needs of the traffic function for both large and small vehicles in a safe fashion. 5. All roads utilized as the main access to the proposed transfer facility must be adequate for the projected type and volume of traffic., TRANSFER STATION DESIGN CRITERIA 19 LANDSCAPING/BUFFERINGIOPEN SPACE 1. No structural features should extend closer. than fifty feet to any property line or closer than 200 feet to any home, school, or recreational area.* 2 Minimum open space (that part of the site, including yards, which is not covered by buildings, structures, or paved areas) shall be at least ten percent of the lot. 3. Visual buffers creates/ by topography or existing vegetation shall be maintained or. enhanced to the extent possible. 4. All required yards and open spaces not used for parking, driveways or outdoor storage shall be landscaped. 5. Buildings, equipment storage areas, and other facilities shall be landscaped in such a manner as to enhance their visual appearance from -adjoining. properties. 6. Adequate on-site parking shall be provided for transfer station employees preferably from a separate entrance. 7. Except for any required storm water retention basins, there shall be no above ground open treatment facilities.. 8. Consideration shall be given to providing internal litter control fences. OUTDOOR STORAGE 1. No outside storage collected solid waste shall. be permitted with the exception of brush and other wood items prior to mulching. 2. Any outside mulching operations (including materials waiting to be mulched) shall be screened from public view. ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY The proposed transfer facility and accessory structures shall be attractively designed to blend in and/or enhance surrounding development. TRANSFER STATION DESIGN CRITERIA 20 FLOOD PLAIN PROTECTION The tipping floor elevation of the proposed solid waste transfer facility shall be above the base flood elevation for the area at a minimum. 2. No outside. storage shall be permitted within the base flood elevation. *Minimum State Department of Solid Waste Criteria TRANSFER STATION DESIGN CRITERIA 21 TRANSFER STATION OPERATING POLICIES TRANSFER STATION OPERATING POLICIES TYPES OF WASTE 1. No hazardous waste will be received or stored at .this facility. 2. Only properly approved solid waste may be accepted and transported from this facility.. 3. In the event that any hazardous waste, as defined by the .Virginia Department of Waste Management, is discovered on the site of the proposed Solid Waste Transfer Facility, the Transfer Station Operating Agency will immediately contact The City's Hazardous Material Coordinator who shall take all necessary steps to insure that the hazardous waste is properly contained and disposed of in accordance with the Department of Hazardous Waste regulations. 4. Any person, firm, or corporation who knowingly -transports hazardous waste, as defined by the Virginia Department of Solid Waste Management, into the proposed Solid Waste Transfer Station shall be subject to prosecution under applicable criminal statutes and shall be liable for the full cost incurred by the Transfer Station Operator for prbper'clean-up and disposal of such material in a licensed facility. OPERATING HOURS 1. Normal working hours shall not exceed: Delivery of Operation of Waste All Equipment Monday -Friday 7:00 a.m.-7:00 P.M. 7:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m. Saturday 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. 8:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m. 2. Emergency operations shall allow for extended hours on all days and Sundays whenever an emergency has been duly declared by the Roanoke City Manager. 3. Residential drop-off areas will operate during the hours of normal operation. TRANSFER STATION 22 OPERATING POLICIES 4. Maximum operating hours can only be changed by action of Roanoke City Council. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 1. Noise a. Noise levels generated by transfer station machinery and equipment may not exceed the following amounts: 80 db (decibels) b Transfer 'station borders 65 db (decibels) - Surrounding residences b. Equipment used at the transfer station should be as noise free as possible. 2. Dust a. Fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by an authorized agent of the City of Roanoke or by the Transfer Station Operators for compliance with state and/or local regulations. b. Problem areas arising during dry seasons shall be controlled. C. Internal access roads shall be cleaned and dust controlled if excessive amounts of dust are generated. 3. Odor a. Tipping areas shall be washed down at the close of operations each day,. I b. If problem odors exist that adversely impact surrounding residents, deodorizing agents should be used. C. All leachate shall be handled in a closed system. 4. Lights a. Sufficient lighting must be maintained at all times to .facilitate normal operations and to provide adequate security over the Transfer Station. TRANSFER STATION 23 OPERATING POLICIES b, Lighting must be directed to keep the main body within the transfer station site. C. Adjoining property owners should be considered as to light placement, direction and height. 5. Pests a. A bonded, licensed pest control company shall be retained by the Transfer Station Operating Agency throughout the active life of the facility to provide preventive inspections and treatments. b. Adjoining property owners who incur pest problems that are proven to be directly related to the Transfer Station must be provided property extermination at the expense of the Transfer Station Operating Agency. C. Breeding areas for flying insects must be treated as often as is necessary to prevent the breeding cycle. 6. Litter pick-up on the site is to be performed at least once each week or whenever needed, weather permitting. .SITE SECURITY I. All facilities shall be surrounded on all sides by natural barriers, fencing, or an equivalent means of controlling vehicle access and preventing illegal disposal. All access will be limited by gates, and such gates shall be securable and equipped with locks. a. All fencing utilized at the facility shall be adequate to control unauthorized access. b. Gates shall be at the main entrance as well as the entrance to additional service areas. 2. Access to the solid waste transfer facility shall be permitted only when an attendant is on duty and only during normal operating hours, unless otherwise specified in the facility permit. 3. Dusk to dawn lights shall be placed around buildings and at all security gates. TRANSFER STATION 24 OPERATING POLICIES ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND ACCESS 1. The Transfer Station Operator will properly maintain all on-site entrance roads and driveways in good, safe repair. 2. The Transfer Station Operator will keep all designated access roads and the adjoining rights-of-way and properties free and clean of litter and debris originating from vehicles traveling to and from the transfer facility. Litter pickup is to be made at least once each week or whenever needed, weather permitting. 3. Government-owned refuse vehicles will be required, and all other vehicles will be encouraged to use roads designated by the City of Roanoke to access the proposed transfer facility. 4. The Transfer Station' Operator will keep all designated access roads and the adjoining rights-of-way and properties free and clean of any. liquid residue originating from public or private collection vehicles. Street cleaning is to be performed whenever needed, weather permitting. APPEALS A telephone number shall be provided for use of surrounding residents to call-in complaints about noise, dust, odor, pests, or other problems associated with the operation. These calls shall be recorded and corrective actions documented. In order to provide a timely and inekpensive method for parties that may be damaged by the transfer station permit conditions and policies, any disagreement between a property owner and the responsible Transfer Station Operating Agency concerning operating problems may be resolved through the provisions of the Uniform Arbitration Act, Article 2 of Title 8.01 of the Code of Virginia {Section 8.01-581.01 et SN. . PROPERTY VALUE PROTECTION 1. The Transfer Station Operating Agency will take all necessary action as required ,by federal, state or local laws or regulations, including permit conditions, to assure residents surrounding the transfer station site that their property values will not be adversely impacted by the facility. 2. Any resident owning property within 1,0(}0 feet of the transfer station site border on the day the site becomes operational may be eligible for 25 0 TRANSFER STATION OPERATING POLICIES compensation if they can prove their property was devalued as a result of the transfer station. 3. The resident must establish the value of the affected property just prior to the sale date (Appraised Value) by either obtaining an appraisal by a "Professionally Certified Appraiser" or by use of the current Roanoke City tax assessments. Tax assessments must reflect 100% of fair market, value. The responsible Transfer Station Operating Agency will pay 50% of the cost of the initial appraisal up to a total of $150; appraisals to be made as if the transfer station was not existing. 4. Any resident who sells their property for an amount (Sale Value) which is less than the Appraised Value, determined under paragraph C, will be eligible for compensation from the responsible Agency for the amount of this difference, subject to the following conditions: a. The responsible Transfer Station Operating Agency must be given the "Right of First Refusal" to buy any property for which a bona fide offer to purchase has been feceived in an amount below the Appraised Value. b. The responsible Transfer Station Operating Agency must exercise their rights under paragraph D within 30 days of the date they are notified by the resident of a bona fide purchase offer. C. Appraisal shall take into account condition of property and whether the loss of property value would occur for any other permitted use under current zoning designation. d. The foregoing agreement to compensate residents for loss in property. values will only apply to properties sold before the termination date, which is defined as 5 year after the date the transfer station is operational. Heirs of residents qualifying under paragraph 2 will be eligible for compensation under the terms of this agreement. e. Eligibility for compensation will be extended under the same terms to include any Roanoke City resident owning residential property adjoining any road used as the main access road to the transfer station Site. 5. Any resident who is eligible for compensation for property devaluation TRANSFER STATION 26' OPERATING POLICIES under the foregoing terms of this agreement will also qualify for reimbursement for the Interest Differential between their existing mortgage loan and any new loan assumed on any replacement property within the boundaries of Roanoke.City. This reimbursement will be defined as the present value of .the remaining principal payments, discounted at the difference between the interest rates on the original loan and on the replacement loan. 6. It shall be the responsibility of the resident to carry adequate property insurance to cover any loss hazards. In the event that a total loss does occur, the Transfer Station Operating Agency will compensate the resident (who qualifies under the preceding terms of agreement) for the difference between the Assessed Value and the Insurance Settlement. However, if the Insurance Settlement is for any amount less than the Sale Value, the amount of compensations will be the difference between the Assessed Value and the Sale Value. For purposes of this provision, the Sale Value is understood to be the Replacement Value of the property on the date of the insurance loss. TRANSFER STATION 27 OPERATING POLICIES t r 5 J AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOXE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOXE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 25, 1993 ORDINANCE 52593-12 AMENDING RESOLUTION 62789-12 GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOXE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, TO PUBLICLY OWN AND OPERATE A SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY ON WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE "SMITH GAP SITE:" SAID AMENDMENT TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL SURVEYED ACREAGE AND TO INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL LANDS WHEREAS, on June 27, 1989, the Board of Supervisors granted a Special Exception Permit for the location and operation of a solid waste facility on what is known as the "Smith Gap Site" located on 640.39 acres on the northwest side of Fort Lewis Mountain between Smith Gap and Bradshaw Road in the Catawba Magisterial District: and WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority has petitioned for an amendment to the Special Exception Permit to reflect the actual surveyed acreage of the area originally permitted and to incorporate lands acquired for the entrance, tipper building and rail yard associated with the regional landfill at Smith Gap: and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on May 4, 1993; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on April 27, 1993; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on May 25, 1993. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of the petition of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority to amend the Special Exception Permit granted by Resolution 62789-12 to include the 1 actual surveyed acreage of 752.01 acres be, and hereby is, approved: and 2, That the Special Exception Permit be expanded to allow the location and operation of a solid waste facility on additional land acquisitions (for the entrance, tipper building, and rail yard associated with the regional landfill), said additional land acquisitions totaling 126.74 acres, making the total acreage covered by this Special Exception Permit to be 878.75, said 878.75 acres outlined in pink on the attached plat entitled *'Composite Plat for Roanoke Valley Resource Authority showing 6 parcels of land containing 1241.355 Pc. Situate off Va. Sec. Rte., 622, Catawba Magisterial District, Roanoke County, Virginia" dated February 23, 1992 and revised April 29, 1993 and prepared by T. P. Parker & Son, Engineers, Surveyors, Planners, said plat attached hereto and made a part hereof. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE : Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File John R. Hubbard, Executive Director, RVRA Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Mary F. Parker, Clerk, Roanoke City Council Carolyn S. Ross, Clerk, Vinton Town Council Jeffrey Cromer, Roanoke Valley Reg. Solid Waste Mgt Board 2 Community Meeting Masons Cove Elementary School Thursday, October 17, 2019 — 6:00pm Questions and comments raised by those in attendance: 1) Mason's creek sits on a fault line. Concern with endangered clam species and potential hazardous waste. How was this landfill site chosen in the first place? This is a watershed. Concern with crawdads. Concern with creeks drying out. Trailers are travelling the roads and leaking liquids onto the road. Has complained to DEQ and VDGIF. 2) What body will approve or deny this request? 3) 1 witnessed liquids coming out of a back corner of a trailer near Orange Market. There is no way this trailer had the required bladder. It was pouring out of the back like a hose. 4) Why do you need trailers if you have a train? Which is cheaper to operate? How much money has been spent on trailers? If there is a train, trailers should not be allowed. 5) Bradshaw Road was not designed to be used by trailers. The road is being destroyed. 6) The trailer drivers speed down the road and it is dangerous. They do not drive carefully. 7) If the Authority continues business as they are now, is this permit even needed? Why can't they keep doing what they are doing? 8) How many localities do you bring in trash for? Wasn't this meant to be only for Roanoke County and Roanoke City? 9) 1 know you all have been using the railroad since 2005. Why does it have to be changed? Concerns mentioned with asbestos storage. Mentions they have a very powerful telescope and have seen asbestos warning signs up the road to the landfill. The smell is very strong at his property. Some of the methane taps have helped but not enough. 10) Have there been any air quality studies done for where we live? Requesting they be done. 11) How many wells were drilled for testing? I drilled all of them. 12) How much does it cost per ton to transport? You said it was more economical to take the train, how? 13) Will you put in writing that if the rail is put in, trailers will be off the road? Understands there may be clauses for use during emergency situations, but then concerned they will make up emergencies. 14) Map question- is this red area the area of interest? Are trucks going to be on the road by the railroad track? Where will the road go? 15) Can we put "stop using Bradshaw Road" on the SUP? 16) In '91 we were told they could go through the railroad property in case of emergency and would not need to use Bradshaw Road at all. 17) In SUP- there is mention of a 3hr delay with a wreck on the interstate. Will the trucks come on Bradshaw then? 18) Bradshaw Road is not good for tractor trailers. It is not wide enough and dangerous if one breaks down or has to stop. In 6 months this road has been destroyed. The railroad will save money and time. 19) How long will road construction take? How will that be done? 20) (Speaker 8 again) How much did the tipper cost? Why don't you put in a new tipper if that will solve the problems? Did you say you estimate 50 trucks a day? 21) (Speaker 14 again) Is there construction already going on at the railroad near Williby Rd? Will there be more trucks than we see now in the future? 22) You don't want to fix the tipper because it's expensive, but you've bought ... (speaker goes on to summarize different properties / projects the Authority has done recently.) How much money has been spent in anticipation of going into a trucking enterprise? Why not just use that money to fix the tipper? We have to be careful and ask these questions because the language in this SUP is what we are going to have to live with. 23) Has a decision been made on trucks vs railroad? County has used our money to buy trailers and trucks, so this doesn't add up. The decision has already been made and we are being lied to. 24) What is the longevity of the landfill? How much longer will it be able to function? 25) $18.5 million has been spent preparing to switch to trucks, but that decision hasn't been made, while you said the tipper cost $9 million. You've been using our money and it doesn't make sense. - what would it have cost to use the train instead? How long would that money have lasted on train transit? 26) (Speaker 22 again)Do you have proposals for fixing Bradshaw? Due to all of the damage your trucks have caused? 27) (Speaker 14 again) Is there a timeframe on finishing the road and converting to that from the railroad? 28) Timeline? Will Bradshaw be used during the switchover? Is the track even wide enough to hold roads for tractor trailers? 29) So is this meeting really about the SUP for the property indicated? Isn't this property currently being used now? So this SUP is just to continue the use? 30) When the road is built, will you still be using the tipper? 31) (Speaker 1 again) One lane bridges are very dangerous. Describes being trapped on one recently. The road is not in good condition 32) If this SUP is not approved, what happens next? AG -3 District Regulations SEC. 30-32. AG -3 AGRICULTURAL/RURAL PRESERVE DISTRICT. See. 30-32-1. Purpose. (A) The AG -3, agricultural/rural preserve district consists of land primarily used as farmland, woodlands, and widely scattered residential development located within the rural service area. Also found in these areas are lands with steep slopes, and groundwater recharge areas. Many of the county's unique natural and scenic resources are found in this district. The purpose of this district is to maintain these areas essentially in their rural state, and attempt to protect sensitive and unique land resources from degradation as recommended in the rural preserve land use category of the comprehensive plan. This may be accomplished by maintaining the existing agricultural lands and preventing the encroachment of incompatible land uses. Non-farm residents should recognize that they are located in an agricultural environment where the right -to -farm has been established as county policy. This district is also intended to minimize the demand for unanticipated public improvements and services, such as public sewer and water, by reducing development densities and discouraging large scale development. (Ord. No. 042799-11, § If., 4-27-99; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08) Sec. 30-32-2. Permitted Uses. (A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 1. Agricultural and Forestry Uses Agriculture Agritourism * Farm Brewery * Farm Distillery * Farm Employee Housing * Farm Winery * Forestry Operations * Stable, Commercial * Stable, Private * Wayside Stand * 2. Residential Uses Accessory Apartment * Home Beauty/Barber Salon * Home Occupation, Type II Manufactured Home * Manufactured Home, Accessory * Manufactured Home, Emergency * Multiple Dog Permit * Residential Human Care Facility Single -Family Dwelling, Detached 3. Civic Uses Community Recreation * Family Day Care Home Park and Ride Facility * Public Parks and Recreational Areas * Safety Services * Utility Services, Minor 4. Commercial Uses Agricultural Services * Bed and Breakfast * Kennel, Commercial * Veterinary Hospital/Clinic 2 AG -3 District Regulations AG -3 District Regulations 5. Industrial Uses Custom Manufacturing 6. Miscellaneous Uses Amateur Radio Tower Wind Energy System, Small* (B) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to section 30-19. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 1. Agricultural and Forestry Uses Commercial Feedlots 2. Residential Uses Alternative Discharging Sewage Systems 3. Civic Uses Camps * Cemetery Correctional Facilities Day Care Center * Religious Assembly Utility Services, Major 4. Commercial Uses Antique Shops * Bed and Breakfast Inn Campgrounds Country Inn * 3 AG -3 District Regulations Golf Course * Special Events Facility * Studio, Fine Arts 5. Industrial Uses Composting * Landfill, Construction Debris * Landfill, Rubble * Landfill, Sanitary * Resource Extraction * 6. Miscellaneous Uses Aviation Facilities, Private * Broadcasting Tower * Outdoor Gatherings * Shooting Range, Outdoor * Wind Energy System, Large* Wind Energy System, Utility* (Ord. No. 42793-20, § II, 4-27-93; Ord. No. 62293-12, § 8, 6-22-93; Ord. No. 82493-8, § 2, 8- 24-93; Ord. No. 42694-12, § 7, 4-26-94; Ord. No. 62795-10, 6-27-95; Ord. No. 042799-11, § 2, 4-27-99; Ord. No. 072605-7, § 1, 7-26-05; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08; Ord. No. 052609- 22, § 1, 5-26-09; Ord. No. 030811-1, § 1, 3-8-11; Ord. No. 091311-7, § 1, 9-13-11, Ord. No. 111213-15, § 1, 11-12-13, Ord. No. 062816-4, § 1, 6-28-16, Ord. No 082818-8, § 1, 8-28-18) Sec. 30-32-3. Site Development Regulations. General Standards. For additional, modified, or more stringent standards for specific uses, see Article IV, Use and Design Standards. (A) Minimum lot requirements. El AG -3 District Regulations 1. All lots, regardless of sewer and water provisions: a. Area: 3 acres (130,680 square feet). b. Frontage: 200 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. C. Maximum width to depth ratio: 1 to 5 (W to D) on streets in existence prior to the adoption of this ordinance. (B) Minimum setback requirements. 1. Front yard: a. Principal structures: 50 feet. b. Accessory structures: Behind the front building line. 2. Side yard: a. Principal structures: 25 feet. b. Accessory structures: 25 feet behind front building line or 10 feet behind rear building line. 3. Rear yard: a. Principal structures: 35 feet. b. Accessory structures: 10 feet. 4. Where a lot fronts on more than one street, front yard setbacks shall apply to all streets. 5. Where the principal structure is more than 150 feet from the street, accessory buildings may be located 150 feet from the street and 25 feet from any side property line. (C) Maximum height of structures. 1. All structures: 45 feet. (D) Maximum coverage. 1. Building coverage: 10 percent of the total lot area. 2. Lot coverage: 20 percent of the total lot area. E AG -3 District Regulations (Ord. No. 62293-12, § 10, 6-22-93, Ord. No. 111213-15, § 1, 11-12-13) Use & Design Standards — Industrial Uses Sec. 30-86-6. Landfill, Sanitary. (A) General standards: Minimum parcel size: Fifty (50) acres. 2. A Type E buffer yard shall be provided in accordance with section 30-92 The site development and operations shall be in accordance with all of the regulations of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, include special conditions of any landfill permit, for sanitary landfills. 4. In addition to the application requirements for a special use permit, a Master Plan of the proposed development and use of the site shall be submitted for consideration. This plan shall specify all physical changes and improvements to the property, areas proposed for landfilling activities including a phasing plan with time frames for the landfilling activities, methods for controlling drainage, run-off and leachate, erosion and sediment control measures to be employed during development of the site, an evaluation of the impact of the proposed activity on groundwater resources, methods for securing the site from illegal entry, proposed access routes and impacts on public roads, and proposed closure plan and eventual re -use of the site. In considering a special use permit, in addition to the above standards and the general standards contained in Section 30-19 of this ordinance, the board may consider and set standards for the following: a. The surface materials required for the access road, and length from the public road this surface treatment is required. b. Specific measures to control dust, odor and pests on the site. C. Specific levels of noise permitted on the site, as measured at adjacent property lines and acceptable noise levels as measured from adjoining residences. d. Limits on the hours of operation including the delivery of waste material and the operation of equipment on-site. e. Limitations on the types of materials to be landfilled. Measures to insure adequate security of the site. g. Additional requirements for screening and buffering. Use & Design Standards — Industrial Uses 6. No clearing or landfilling activities shall be undertaken until the appropriate permits are approved by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 7. During the operating life of the landfill, an annual environmental audit shall be prepared by a qualified independent contractor to determine compliance with all conditions of the special use permit and all other requirements for the operation of the landfill. Any violations shall be reported to the administrator and shall be made public information. (Ord. No. 42694-12, § 20, 4-26-94; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08) 2 Rural Preserve: A future land use area of mostly undeveloped, outlying lands. These rural regions are generally stable and require a high degree of protection to preserve agricultural, forestal, recreational, and remote rural residential areas. Land Use Types: Agricultural Production - The production of crops, plants, vines, trees, livestock, poultry and eggs. Agricultural Services - Services that support agricultural production such as soil and crop preparation, veterinary services and landscape and horticultural care. Forest and Wood Products - Tree farms, forest nurseries and reforestation services. Parks and Outdoor Recreation Facilities - Large regional parks and other recreation facilities that are designed to preserve environmentally sensitive lands and protect them from more intense land uses. Rural Residential - Single-family residential generally averaging a gross density of one unit per three acres. Cluster developments are encouraged. Rural Institutional - Limited intensity uses such as religious assembly facilities and clubs serving the local rural population base. Mining and Extraction Operations - Those uses that locate according to the availability of natural resources. There are strict limitations on these industries in the Rural Preserve designation due to potentially harmful effects on housing, farming and resource protection and conservation areas. Land Use Determinants: EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN - Locations where agricultural, recreational, and forestal uses are predominant and are encouraged to expand. EXISTING ZONING - Locations where agricultural zoning is in effect. RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL AREAS - Locations where limited, very low density residential and institutional uses are allowed. RESOURCE PROTECTION - Locations where valuable and irreplaceable resources such as open space, public water supply impoundments, rivers, streams, lakes, productive agricultural land, woodlands, critical slopes, ridgelines, historical and archeological sites and unique natural areas exist. ACCESS - Locations that are accessible by existing improved or unimproved rural roads and, to a lesser extent, rural arterial highways. RURAL SECTOR - Locations outside the urban service area. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2020 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY FOR A SANITARY LANDFILL ON APPROXIMATELY 8.05 ACRES ZONED AG -3 (AGRICULTURAL/ RURAL PRESERVE DISTRICT) LOCATED AT 8765 WILLIBY ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 052.00-01-02.08-0000), CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT AND AMENDING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS FORAN EXISTING SANITARY LANDFILL (SMITH GAP LANDFILL) ON APPROXIMATELY 878.75 ACRES ZONED AG -3S (AGRICULTURAL/RURAL PRESERVE DISTRICT WITH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT), AND INCORPORATING THE NEW 8.05 ACRES FOR A TOTAL ACREAGE OF 886.80 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF FORT LEWIS MOUNTAIN BETWEEN SMITH GAP AND BRADSHAW ROAD, CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority ("RVRA") operates a sanitary landfill at Smith Gap Landfill, under a special exception permit/special use permit ("SUP") granted by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors in 1989, amended in 1991, and amended in 1993; the SUP presently allows operation of the Smith Gap Landfill on the following parcels: TAX MAP NO. PROPERTY ADDRESS ACREAGE SUBJECT TO THE SUP 041.00-01-14.00-0000 0 Bradshaw Rd. 34.85 042.00-01-08.00-0000 0 Bradshaw Rd. 225.15 052.00-01-02.00-0000 8484 Bradshaw Rd. 91.89 053.00-01-08.00-0000 0 Dow Hollow Rd. 526.86 878.75 ACRES TOTAL WHEREAS, Norfolk Southern Railroad Corporation ("NSC') conveyed 8.05 acres Page 1 of 9 of land, located at 8765 Williby Road (Tax Map No. 052.00-01-02.08-0000) to the RVRA on February 13, 2019; and WHEREAS, RVRA has petitioned for an SUP for a sanitary landfill for these 8.05 acres; and WHEREAS, the RVRA has also petitioned to amend the existing SUP by deleting the reference to and incorporation of the "amended landfill permit conditions and operating policies" referenced in the 1991 Special Use Permit Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on November 4, 2019 and subsequently recommended approval of the petition; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 22, 2019, and the second reading and public hearing were held November 19, 2019. Following the public hearing, the Board continued the matter until March 24, 2020 for further consideration; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows.. 1. That the reference to the "amended landfill permit conditions and operating policies" referenced in the 1991 Special Use Permit Resolution is now HEREBY REMOVED; the "amended landfill permit conditions and operating policies" are no longer incorporated into the Smith Gap Landfill SUP by reference. 2. The Board finds that the RVRA operational priorities associated with the Smith Gap Landfill are as follows: protection of the environment of the Roanoke Valley Service Area; protection or extension of the useful life of the landfill; protection of the Page 2 of 9 interests of the residents of the landfill host community; protection of the interests of the residents along the Transportation Corridor; minimization of landfill operating costs; and minimization of landfill tipping fees. 3. The special use permit for a sanitary landfill on the 8.05 acre parcel located at 8765 Williby Road (Tax Map No. 052.00-01-02.08-0000) is granted, and the following conditions shall apply to the special use permit for 8.05 acre parcel and the 878.75 acres for the existing sanitary landfill (886.80 total acres): a. Access: Primary access to the Smith Gap Landfill for the delivery of municipal solid waste shall be along the Transportation Corridor (previously known as the Rail Corridor). In the event the primary access is unavailable for two or more business days, the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (or subsequent owners) will make reasonable efforts to transport all municipal solid waste to one or more fully permitted third -party sanitary landfills until such time as the primary access can be resumed. In the event that the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (or subsequent owners) cannot through reasonable efforts contract for sufficient immediate transportation services to transport municipal solid waste to third party landfills, and until sufficient services can be obtained, Bradshaw Road will serve as the secondary access for the delivery of municipal solid waste to the landfill. b. Conversion: If the Transportation Corridor is converted from rail to a road, then all municipal solid waste will be transported to third party landfills during construction of this conversion. C. Types of Waste: Only properly approved waste may be accepted, with the main objective always being to safely dispose of materials and prolong the useful Page 3 of 9 life of the landfill. Wastes designated as "special wastes" shall be disposed of in accordance with current waste management regulations. No hazardous waste will be allowed at any time during the entire life of the landfill. d. Operating Hours: Normal working hours shall be as follows: Delivery of Waste by Authorized Vehicle — Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.; Delivery of Waste by Rail — Monday through Saturday from 10:00 a.m. — 12:00 a.m.; Operation of all equipment — Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. e. Emergency Operations: Emergency operations shall allow for extended hours on all days and Sundays whenever an emergency has been duly declared by the County Administrator of Roanoke County or his/her designee. Circumstances for Emergency Operations include, but are not limited to, natural disasters or short- term (less than 2 days), temporary operating interruptions resulting from equipment failure or contract service interruptions. Emergency operations may require use of third -party landfills or use of secondary access to the Smith Gap Landfill (Bradshaw Road). f. Noise: Noise levels may not exceed the following limits: 80 db (decibels) at landfill site borders; 65 db (decibels) at surrounding residences. g. Dust: Dust shall be controlled in accordance with the landfill's state solid waste facility permit. Problem areas arising during dry seasons will be controlled with water. Access roads should be cleaned and dust controlled with water if excessive amounts of dust are generated. h. Odors: Odors shall be controlled in accordance with the landfill's state solid Page 4 of 9 waste facility permit. If problem odors exist that adversely impact surrounding residents, deodorizing agents may be used. All holding tanks for leachate collection systems shall be in enclosed structures. L Lighting: Sufficient lighting must be maintained at all times to facilitate normal operations and to provide adequate security over the landfill site. All exterior lighting fixtures shall be designed, located and arranged so as not to direct glare on adjoining streets or residential properties. The intensity at adjoining streets or residential properties shall not exceed 0.5 foot candles. Lighting shall be limited to fixtures attached to buildings as necessary for security and operations and freestanding poles of not more than 16 feet in height. j. Pests. A bonded, licensed pest control company will be retained throughout the active life of the landfill to provide preventive inspections and treatments. Adjoining property owners who incur pest problems that are proven to be directly related to the landfill operation must be provided proper extermination at the landfill owner's expense. k. Citizen Complaints: A telephone number will be provided for use of surrounding residents including those in the Transportation Corridor to call in complaints (noise, dust, odor, pests, or other issues). These calls will be recorded/logged and corrective actions documented. The complaint log shall be open to public inspection. I. Active Fill Areas: The active fill areas of the landfill shall comply with the landfill's state solid waste facility permit. Fill areas should be designed as far as practical from adjoining properties to provide maximum buffering, and in no case Page 5 of 9 should extend within 100 feet of the landfill boundary line. M. Monitoring: The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality conducts inspections during the year to ensure compliance with the landfill's state solid waste facility permit. Any violations shall be reported and made public information. The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (or subsequent owner) shall take whatever steps are necessary to immediately correct any violation. n. Screening and Buffering: The following buffer yard and plantings shall be established around the perimeter of the landfill property, except adjacent to an existing residential property or private right-of-way. Trees shall be planted in three separate rows or in clusters, where natural land characteristics allow within the buffer yard. 50 -foot buffer yard with three large deciduous trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard, five large evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard, and seven small evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 15 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. ii. In areas adjacent to an existing residential property or public or private right-of-way, the following shall be established and maintained around the perimeter of the landfill property. Trees shall be planted in three separate rows or in clusters, where natural land characteristics allow with the buffer yard. 100 -foot buffer yard with six large deciduous trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 Page 6 of 9 linear feet of buffer yard, ten large evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard, and fifteen small evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 15 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. iii. Buffer yards may only be used for passive recreation, such as pedestrian, bike or equestrian trails, provided that the total width of the buffer is maintained and all other requirements and conditions are met. iv. Buildings, active landfill areas, equipment storage areas and other facilities shall be landscaped in such a manner as to enhance (but not necessarily screen) the visual appearance from adjoining properties. o. Site Security: All facilities shall be surrounded on all sides by natural barriers, fencing, or an equivalent means of controlling vehicles access and preventing illegal disposal. All access will be limited by gates, and such gates shall be securable and equipped with locks. All fencing utilized at the facility shall be adequate to control unauthorized access. Gates shall be at the main entrance as well as the entrance to additional service areas. Access to a solid waste disposal facility (landfill) shall be permitted only when an attendant is on duty and only during operating hours, unless otherwise specified in the facility permit, such as for rail delivery of waste. Each solid waste disposal facility should be provided with an adequately lighted and heated shelter where operating personnel can exercise site control and have access to essential sanitation facilities. Lighting, heat and sanitation facilities may be provided by portable equipment, as necessary. Dusk to Page 7 of 9 dawn lights may be placed around buildings and at each of the security gates. All sanitary landfills will be equipped with permanent or mobile telephone or radio communications. The main security gate should be able to communicate with all necessary areas of the landfill. The operator is responsible for safety hazards to operating personnel through an active safety program. Security rules and regulations shall be posted at each gate. Security guard of landfill personnel shall be on site 24 hours each day. All vehicle access points to the Transportation Corridor shall be properly gated, with lock, and shall be posted with "No Trespassing" signs. Signs will also be posted at intervals along the Transportation Corridor. P. Fire Protection and Public Water: Fire protection for the site shall be provided on site with adequate storage, distribution, and hydrants to properly extinguish fires. The system shall be designed as a potable water system. The system shall be designed to serve all on-site water needs as well as being capable of serving adjoining properties. Expansion of the water supply system, except when groundwater contamination has been documented, shall be prohibited without prior review for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. q. RVRA Policies: RVRA shall develop and maintain policies associated with the operation of the Smith Gap Landfill. Policies shall include, but not be limited to, the following: groundwater protection, property value protection, appeals, landfill ownership, landfill users, access, hazardous waste collection, and host community IN NMI 4. The Board finds that the granting of and amendments to the SUPs, as set forth in Page 8 of 9 this ordinance, are substantially in accord with the adopted 2005 Community Plan, as amended, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, that they shall have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood or community, and the Board further finds that it has given due consideration to the factors set forth in Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County Code. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. Page 9 of 9