HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/28/2004 - Regular
Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors
Agenda
September 28, 2004
Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for September 28, 2004. Regular
meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public
hearings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from
this schedule will be announced. The meetings are broadcast live on RVTV, Channel 3,
and will be rebroadcast on Thursdays at 7:00 p.m. and on Saturdays at 4:00 p.m. The
meetings are now closed-captioned. Individuals who require assistance or special
arrangements to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings should contact
the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772-2005 at least 48 hours in advance.
A.
OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 p.m.)
1. Roll Call
2. Invocation:
Reverend Bruce Tuttle
Cave Spring United Methodist Church
3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag
B.
REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
C.
1. Joint proclamation declaring October 2004 as Building Character Month in the
Roanoke Valley
2. Proclamation declaring October 3-9, 2004 as Fire Prevention Week in the
County of Roanoke
D.
BRIEFINGS
E.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding proposed amendments
to the fiscal year 2004-2005 budget in accordance with Section 15.2-2507,
Code of Virginia. (Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer)
1
F.
NEW BUSINESS
G.
REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING
ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of these items does not
indicate support for, or judge the merits o~ the requested zoning actions but
satisfies procedural requirements and schedules the Public Hearings which will
be held after recommendation by the Planning Commission.
1. First reading of an ordinance to rezone 2.37 acres from C1 C Office District
with conditions to C1 C Office District with amended conditions and rezone .28
acres from R1 Low Density Residential to C1C Office District with conditions
in order to construct a general office located at 3640 Colonial Avenue and a
portion of 3612 Parkwood Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the
petition of Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc.
2. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to operate a
commercial indoor sports and recreation facility located at 5205 Starkey
Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Roanoke
Cheerleading Academy.
H.
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
I.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Second reading of an ordinance amending ordinance 52488-12
authorizing an amendment to the lease with Ingersoll-Rand (Bogar, LLC)
to provide for an early termination of a recreational lease. (Jill Loope,
Assistant Director of Economic Development; Pete Haislip, Director of
Parks, Recreation & Tourism)
J.
APPOINTMENTS
1. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee (Appointed by
District)
2. Grievance Panel
3. Library Board (Appointed by District)
4. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (Appointed by District)
5. Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Community
Advisory Committee (CAC)
2
O.
K.
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 - September 14, 2004
2. Confirmation of committee appointment to the Roanoke Valley Resource
Authority
3. Resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Philip J. Patrone, Police
Department, following twenty-five years of service
4. Request from Unified Human Transportation Services (RADAR) to accept and
appropriate a grant in the amount of $208,000 for the purchase of vans and to
appropriate Section 5311 monies in the amount of $28,351 for operating
costs
5. Request from schools to appropriate a grant in the amount of $1,275 from the
Virginia Commission for the Arts
6. Request from schools to appropriate dual enrollment revenues in the amount
of $679.06
7. Request to appropriate funds in an amount not to exceed $9,000 from the
Board contingency account to Chandler Planning
8. Request to approve resolution authorizing the County of Roanoke to enter
into a commercial credit card relationship with SunTrust Bank Card
L.
REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS
REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
M.
N.
CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
REPORTS
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance
3. Board Contingency Fund
3
4. Future Capital Projects
5. Accounts Paid - August 2004
6. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for the month
ended August 31 , 2004
7. Proclamation signed by the Chairman
P.
CLOSED MEETING pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (30)
discussion of the award of public contracts involving the expenditure of public
funds, and discussion of the terms or scope of such contracts where discussion
in an open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating
strategy of the public body, namely public safety center.
NOTE: The Fire and Rescue Department will demonstrate mass casualty and
structural collapse equipment acquired through Homeland Security grants prior
to the work sessions.
Q.
WORK SESSIONS (4th Floor Conference Room)
1. Work session to brief the Board on Virginia's Explore Park. (Debbie Pitts,
Executive Director)
2. Work session to brief the Board on the joint funding of Capital Improvement
Programs (CIP) with Roanoke County schools. (Diane D. Hyatt, Chief
Financial Officer; Penny A. Hodge, Director of Budget and Finance)
3. Work session to discuss proposed spot blight abatement program. (Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney)
EVENING SESSION
R.
CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
S.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of a comprehensive
agreement pursuant to the Public-Private Education Facilities and
Infrastructure Act of 2002 to design, develop and construct a new public
safety facility and certain radio system upgrades, to amend a contract with
Construction Dynamics Group for construction management and value
engineering, and to appropriate funds for these purposes. (Dan R. O'Donnell,
Assistant County Administrator)
4
2. Request to adopt a resolution establishing a program for spot blight
abatement. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
T.
FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING OF ORDINANCE
1. First reading of an ordinance to amend the Roanoke County Code Section
21-73, General Prerequisites to Grant of Division 3. Exemption for Elderly
and Disabled Persons of Chapter 21. Taxation to increase the various asset
threshold amount provisions for real estate tax exemption for the elderly and
handicapped. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney)
U.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. This item was oriainally scheduled to be heard by the Board of
Supervisors on September 28. It has been continued at the reQuest of
the Plannina Commission until October 26. 2004. Public hearing to
receive public comments on a proposal to adopt a revised Community
(Comprehensive) Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia. The proposed
Community Plan is comprised of both text and maps. Once recommended by
the Planning Commission and adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the plan
will serve as a general guide for long-range use and development of all land
within Roanoke County. The proposed plan has been prepared in
accordance with guidelines contained in Sections 15.2-2223 and 2224 of the
Code of Virginia, and Section 30-8-1 of the Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance.
2. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 6.15 acres from R 1 Low Density
Residential District to R3 Medium Density Multi Family District with conditions
in order to construct townhouses located at the northerly end of Byron Road,
Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Pinkerton Properties, LLC.
(Janet Scheid, Chief Planner)
3. Second reading of an ordinance amending Sections 7-71 Building Permit
Fees and 7-72 Trade Permit Fees, and establishing a new Section 7-73
Miscellaneous Fees of Article 5, Chapter 7, Building Regulations of the
Roanoke County Code, and providing for an effective date. (Arnold
Covey, Director of Community Development)
V.
CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
5
w.
REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
1. Joseph B. "Butch" Church
2. Michael A. Wray
3. Michael W. Altizer
4. Joseph P. McNamara
5. Richard C. Flora
x.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board will adjourn to Saturday, October 2, 2004 at 8:00 a.m. for the annual
Board of Supervisors Retreat, Bernard's Landing Resort and Conference Center,
775 Ashmeade Road, Moneta, Virginia.
At the close of the October 2 Retreat, the Board will adjourn to Monday, October
4 at 5:30 p.m. for the purpose of a work session to discuss the community plan,
Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, 4th Floor Training
Room, Roanoke, Virginia.
6
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
c -\
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 28, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Joint proclamation declaring October 2004 as Building
Character Month in the Roanoke Valley
SUBMITTED BY:
Diane S. Childers
Clerk to the Board
APPROVED BY:
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Mr. Stuart Harris, founder of the Greater Roanoke Valley Character Coalition (GRVCC),
has requested that Roanoke County participate in the attached joint proclamation for
endorsement by the Counties of Roanoke and Franklin, Cities of Roanoke and Salem, and
the Town of Vinton.
Mr. Harris has invited Chairman Flora; Mayor Nelson, City of Roanoke; Mayor Tarpley, City
of Salem; Mayor Grose, Town of Vinton; and Chairman Angell, Franklin County, to attend a
meeting on October 1,2004, to formally sign the proclamation.
C-1
~ oínt ¡ttOMmatÍQq
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
DECLARING OCTOBER 2004
AS BUILDING CHARACTER MONTH
IN THE ROANOKE VALLEY
the parents, citizens and leaders of the Roanoke Valley realize our next
generation can create a community with an ever-improving quality of living and
set an example for the region and the world as we head into a crucial time for
humankind; and
the extraordinary nature and demands of these times will challenge members of
our community to be extraordinary citizens with strong moral character and a
clear understanding of what it means to be an involved and compassionate
human being; and
our schools in the Roanoke Valley are working to instill these six character traits,
also cited by Virginia Law, into the young persons of our community:
RESPONSIBILITY, RESPECT, CARING, TRUSTWORTHINESS, FAIRNESS,
and CITIZENSHIP; and
these six traits of character are fundamental to all human beings regardless of
cultural, religious, or socio-economic differences; and
it is the duty of all parents and families and also of all responsible community
members to set good examples and to provide young persons with opportunities
of service and to develop high moral standards and create value systems that will
serve them well in living their lives and reaching their full potential; and
the Greater Roanoke Valley Character Coalition (Valley Character.org) is working
to improve life in our community by supporting the building of character and
supporting those working for improvement of our neighborhoods and to ease
suffering and injustice for our citizens.
NOW THEREFORE, WE, the undersigned, do hereby proclaim October 2004, as BUILDING
CHARACTER MONTH in the Roanoke Valley.
FURTHER,
We call upon parents, families, leaders, citizens, schools, youth organizations,
faith-based groups, businesses, community groups, government agencies and all
others to model good practices; engage in discussions about people of
extraordinary character; acknowledge local individuals who exemplify such
character; encourage young persons to be active in serving their community
through volunteerism and provide opportunities for young persons to cultivate
their character and their futures through education, public-service, and
community involvement
Richard C. Flora, Chair
Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors
C. Nelson Harris, Mayor
City of Roanoke
Carl E. Tarpley, Mayor
City of Salem
Bradley E. Grose, Mayor
Town of Vinton
W. Wayne Angell, Chair
Franklin County Board of
Supervisors
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
c-~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 28,2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Proclamation declaring October 3-9,2004 as Fire Prevention
Week in the County of Roanoke
SUBMITTED BY:
Richard E. Burch, Jr.
Chief of Fire and Rescue
APPROVED BY:
Elmer C. Hodge é'1I
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
National Fire Prevention Week is October 3-9, 2004 and commemorates the Great Chicago
Fire of 1871, which killed more than 250 persons, left 100,000 homeless, and destroyed
more than 17,400 buildings.
We would like to proclaim October 3-9, 2004 as Roanoke County Fire Prevention week and
encourage citizens to participate in fire prevention activities at home, work, and school. In
keeping with this year's theme "Test Your Smoke Alarms", we would also like to encourage
all Roanoke County citizens to test their smoke alarms to make sure they are in proper
working order.
c-~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2004
PROCLAMATION DECLARING OCTOBER 3-9, 2004 AS
FIRE PREVENTION WEEK IN THE COUNTY OF
ROANOKE
WHEREAS, cooking, heating, and electrical fires represent three of the nation's
leading causes of home fires and are collectively responsible for nearly half of all home
fires and almost one-third of the associated fire deaths; and
WHEREAS, the vast majority of home cooking, heating, and electrical fires can
be prevented by taking simple safety precautions; and
WHEREAS, developing a home fire escape plan and practicing it at least twice a
year are critical to escaping a fire safely; and
WHEREAS, developing a home fire escape plan and practicing it at least twice a
year are critical to escaping a fire safely; and
WHEREAS, proper installation, testing, and maintenance of smoke alarms are
part of a thorough home fire escape plan; and
WHEREAS, by preventing the leading causes of home fires, and by developing
and practicing a thorough home fire escape plan, people can greatly reduce their risk to
fire; and
WHEREAS, the Fire Prevention Week 2004 theme, "Test Your Smoke Alarms,"
teaches the public to properly maintain their smoke alarms and encourages people to
develop a home fire escape plan, and
WHEREAS, the fire service of Roanoke County is dedicated to the safety of life
and property from the devastating effects of fire; and
WHEREAS, the members of the fire service are joined by other concerned
c-~
citizens of Roanoke County, as well as other emergency service providers and safety
advocates, businesses, schools, service clubs, and organizations in their fire safety
efforts;
NOW, THEREFORE, WE, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
do hereby proclaim the week of October 3 through October 9, 2004, as FIRE
PREVENTION WEEK in Roanoke County and recognize this week in commemoration
of the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, which killed more than 250 persons, left 100,000
homeless, and destroyed more than 17,400 buildings; and
FURTHER, we call upon the citizens of Roanoke County to participate in fire
prevention activities at home, work, and school, and to take the steps needed to make
their homes and families safe in the event of a fire and remember this year's Fire
Prevention Week slogan "Test Your Smoke Alarms".
ACTION NO.
E-I
ITEM NO.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 28, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding proposed
amendments to the fiscal year 2004-2005 budget in
accordance with Section 15.2-2507, Code of Virginia
SUBMITTED BY:
Diane D. Hyatt
Chief Financial Officer
Elmer C. Hodge ê If
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This is a public hearing to secure citizen's comments concerning amending the FY 2004-05
budget by adjusting the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year.
Section 15.2-2507 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, provides that whenever such
amendment exceeds 1 % of the total expenditures shown in the adopted budget or
$500,000, whichever is lesser, 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. This notice was published on September 21,
2004.
1. Appropriation of an amount not to exceed $30 million for the construction and equipping
of a Public Safety Facility
2. Appropriation of an amount not to exceed $236,000 in grants for the CORTRAN
program
3. Appropriation of an amount not to exceed $679.06 for dual enrollment revenues for
schools
4. Appropriation of an amount not to exceed $1,275 for grant from the Virginia
Commission for the Arts for schools
Ë-l
FISCAL IMPACT:
None, as a result of the public hearing. Requests for appropriations 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.
ACTION NO.
GLB
ITEM NO.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 28,2004
Requests for public hearings and first reading for rezoning
ordinances - consent agenda
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
Janet Scheid
Chief Planner
Elmer C. Hodge ~J/
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
The first reading on these ordinances is accomplished by adoption of these ordinances in
the manner of consent agenda items. The adoption of these items does not imply approval
of the substantive content of the requested zoning actions; rather, approval satisfies the
procedural requirements of the County Charter and schedules the required public hearing
and second reading of these ordinances. The second reading and public hearing on these
ordinances is scheduled for October 26.2004.
The titles of these ordinances are as follows:
1.
The petition of Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc. to rezone 2.37 acres from
C1 C Office District with conditions to C1 C Office District with amended conditions
and rezone .28 acres from R 1 Low Density Residential to C 1 C Office District with
conditions in order to construct a general office located at 3640 Colonial Avenue and
a portion of 3612 Parkwood Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District.
The petition of Roanoke Cheerleading Academy to obtain a special use permit to
operate a commercial indoor sports and recreation facility located at 5205 Starkey
Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District.
2.
Maps are attached. More detailed information is available in the Clerk's Office.
1
GI-~
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends as follows:
1. That the Board approve and adopt the first reading of these rezoning ordinances for the
purpose of scheduling the second reading and public hearing for October 26. 2004.
2. That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to
each item separately set forth as Items 1-2, and that the Clerk is authorized and
directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote
tabulation for any such item pursuant to this action.
2
, '.
County of Roanoke
Community Development
Planning & Zoning
For Staff Use OnI
5204 Bernard Dri'\le
POBox 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
(540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155
'¡iljf~~4j,š '
Check type of application fùed (check all that apply)
OJ Rezomng CJ Special Use 0 Variance
A.£QNTACT: Samuel L. Lionber ger, Jr.
"'t'~licaIi.tS name/ãaaress w tZlp ,
Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc.
3201 Brandon Ave. SW - Suite 2
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
. "". """'", ,'" , ,.',',
" ,
, "", ,,'"
G-I
R!:.CeøCd by:
PCIBZA date:"
/0 0
'...' , ,," '
.. .... '-'.' ..'
0 Waiver CJ Administratjve Appe.al
5903 Starkey ÏtHOIrC¥ Roa~~~:~~Xéf.' 24014
Work:
Cell #:
Fax No.:
Owner's name/address whip
Sterling M and Rochelle R. Wardell
3612 Parkwood Drive SW
Phone #:
Work:
Fax No. #:
Property Location
~~g1
989-5426
725-2114
Magisterial District: Cave Spring
Community Planning area: Cave Spring/Colonial Ave.
Tax Map No.: 77. 18-03-i5
77 . 18-03-03
Size of parcel(s): Acres: 2.37 Existing Land Use: vacant
,-iij~;~f.~.~#f t1$Þ;'tfl.![IfttAjj,'~:!f~1£~f~i~t'.:~§{m. .,,_:~~'-,--" ..,,_:.~.~:...,- -.'_._~_.~-,.._.~-~_.,.._.._.. -..'
Existing ZoDing: C-IC, R-1
Proposed Zoning:
Proposed Land Use:
C-1C Amend conditions on 3640 Colonial Ave SW
Re-Zone rear portion of 3612 Parkwood Drive SW
Does the parce1 meet the miWmum lot area, width, and frontage requiremcn:ts of the requested district?
Yes X No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST.
Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type?
IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST
If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes X No
;/~; ::~;.':f~~~ ~,@«i?/íiif~M~~:ikjl_iiihÝ(j,l.:~~'...~,.., .,:,~~,.:.:~:~, ,..':..;.~~,.= ,.._~:,,-=...~.'...~:
Yes X
Vari.ancelWaiver of Section(s)
No
of the Roanoke County ZoIÚng Ordina:nce in order to:
Appeal of Zoning AdmiDistrator's decision to
Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s):
Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to
of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinmce
APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF A:NY OF THESE
RJSfW V/AA
Application fee
Proffers, if applicable
Adjoining property oWDers
er and am acting with the Jœowledge and'
..,
G-I
t~~¥~\.~.~~¥iON FOR 'JŒid~G'...~~~~~'Þ~~:~~~~:.9:#:'~~~~~~~"~..:"_:_: .'~..-. ~-.~. :'.:~'.'~:-.:'.': .._'~:'-:'.:......
Applicant
Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc.
The Planning Commission will study ~ezoning, special use permit or waiver requests to determine the need 'änd justification for
the change in tenns of public health, safety;'and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as tl;1oroughly as possible.
Use additiona1 space if necessary. I, II
Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the RoaDoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the
beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning OrdiDmce.
Amend Conditions # 1 and #6 of Ordinance # 022404-6 to ref!eèt new concept plan
with 77 parking. spaces. Apply all amended proffers to new portion to be acquired
containing .28 acres.
This Request will provide a uniform C-IC zoning and proffers to the total property
to be owned by the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc.
Please explain bow the proj~t confOrmB to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community
Plm.
The development of this parcel to be acquired will provide for the extension of
the agreed upon buffer between the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs property and
existing single family residences and permit additional parking on the initial
parcel acquired.
Please descn"be the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjommg properties, and the SUITounding area, as well
as the impacts on public services and facilities, mclucfu1g water/sewer, roads, schools. parks/recreation and fire and r~cue.
The development and inclusion of this additional parcel (.28 ac) should have
no additional impact on adjacent properties than that already approved in the
referenced ordinance.
":I.
. '-.
" .
ihur&day, June 03, 2004 12:30 PM
Sterling Wardell 5(1).125-21 14
p.O2
G- ~
I") .
¡... ~
:J~ at
~..- . 12' P.u.!. 8 .ø:!!oo .W~,. ~
. LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 8 I LOT 9 I I LOT 10~
SEC 04 . . f1.;. I
,. ~Q't C\I
IIOHUIAENT ON GREEN ~
UHE I.IIK' HOft~ VALLEYS 3D' M. Z
OF' ÇQIINiR aaølNoIL
. LQT UNt
-'
90'. TO
1HOMP~Nt;
v.NE
NOTES:
1. THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF A TIM REPORT AND
IS SUBJECT THERETO. THEREFORE, "THERE MAY EXIST ENCUMBRANCES
VttIICH AFFECT THE PROPER\,( NOT SHO'NN HEREON.
2, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN "THE UMITS OF ZONE
.x' AS SHOWN ON'THE FEMAFtOOD INSURANCE
RATE MAP. 'THIS DETERMINATION IS BASED ON SAID MAP AND
HAS HOT BEEN "IERIFlED BY ~C7\JAL FIELD El.EVAl1ONS.
3. lHlS PLAT WAS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS
SET rORTH BY 'Tr E COM"ONWEALTH OF ViRGINIA FOR PHYSICAl..
IMPROVEMENT SURVEYS. I.tÇEN~¡
IiI.S.L- MINJI.4UIoI BUILDINa LINE W\.. 'fI11H
I".U.£.- PUIJUC unuTY E~ENT No'\"- APM1MEHT
SSNH.. SAAITAAY SE\'£R I./ANHOI.£
ClHw. O'ÆRHEAD WIRE
OONo- CONCRETE:
1)- DECI(
0- CI$1IRH
tOP- to<;E Of' P¡l,~tNT
\r- NOW OR FOR...li:RL Y
e~ÃrJOv::.é.. ,p:
cou ~Cl L- a
GAWç;¡,..\ CL-úr=><S
N F PROPERTY
N\F' PROPERTY OF
WALTER C. HAMILTON
JR I ET UX
TAX NO 77.18-03-19'
"~9'DO. E .'
&87.55' ~.
I ~r.¡
N\F PROPERTY OF
PEGGY -JOHNSON
. TAX NO 77.18-03-17
:. lRACT -S- .
~~
. -A~'2.J.
50' WIDE
CURVE DAT~
II- 2a2.17'
t.- u.or
CIoI- C .JI:a!1r w
84.7"
PARK WOOD DRIVE
2 STORY
ClNDERSLOa<
GARAGE W/M'T
BRla< BH.E'Æ1.
7.
,
I GM.8,
-BUILDING DETAIL.
. NO SCAl.E
~ .. ..
IoIAP REÆREHŒS:
1 SURVEY Fœ'aAUD~ D. a
P,l.WNE CAR1ER BY ToP. P,¡.RKER
O,l.TED OCT 10, ,.55
2. PLAT FOR HOWARD W. ~
E\IEl.. 'I'lol L. dJ. VTOII 8Y ~.B. .
IoIALOOUoI .. !ON o,,-m
OCT \1, 1"2, D.B. 7'-& PC. '05
3. 9JR~ f'OR .ar:m M. LlJCAS
~ T.P. P^,~KtR I: SON
DATED HOV 3. 1977
'" Pl-"T FOft Q..AUDE þ. II
P/'I\.IUHE: CAA'li1\ 8'r DA""D
DICK 6; KMRT W"L1
DATED DEC 8. 1904-. 0.8. 774, PG 49Z .
ñ
SURVEY fOR.
OLGA WARDELL
HOTEl 'I'RACT". HÞ.S
ERROR OF CLO$U~t
Π~22' . I5URYrnlR
MADE NO ATTEMFIT
TO OORAECT MS
ERROR
LEGAL REFERÐlŒ:
Þ.B. 1:s3! PO. 1211
SHOWING iRACT "B", l..3S8 ACRES
SITUATE ON PARKWOOO DRIVE .
ROANOI<E COUNTY. VIRGIN""
TAX' ]7.18-03-03 TPP&S T. P. fARm ~ SON
N.B JR 217 DRAWNJO4J5 fI1!iþ It~OII'lCIlt,.. 818"~
CAIC- CHK'D_LRD 8IJ"VSyg"8 Poft. omoe ~ 18
-- . lID .. 1..""" N :,.. ~ 1\r¡I»Ja lUll
SCALEI ,". 1 00
DAre e DEC ,2002 .
D- !5184D
0.: 02-08115
"EXHIBIT An
G- t
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL TO BE RE-ZONED.. . .
Beginning at a point 1.84' north of concrete monument at the northwest comer of Lot 6,
Section 4, Green vaUeys Subdivision Plat and continuing N 30° 42' 00" W for 49.48' to
a new iron pin, thence N 44° 49' 00" E for 245' to a new pin, thence S 30° 42' 00' E for
49.48' and thence S 45° OS' 00" W for 245' being a common property line with the rear
property line of a portion of Lot 9, and Lots 8, 7, and 6 of Section 4, Green Valleys
Subdivision to, the point of beginning and containing .2783 acres and being a portion of
Tract "D", Section 4 of Green Valleys Subdivision.
Post-it- Fax Note 7672
To 1\ ~ ßead
= ~~ f'blfltJt1j
77'2.- 2102>
. 0 NcI.c!Pag!5 \ T:xIa(5Da1e J. 22' o~r"lè
from cleW ÁJtmA
~." Ilf fA)
G-'
lDcaI'aII
~ Cnæge
Faz8
T e'e ñn .
Fad ~. :?4Lt.6T{8'l.T,fep/ølel
=è"o D~ DiIeUr.
DCalII <¡:Dup
c~
tw,u( ~ G~ Clubs
~(fe ~fP1A1 - N!ùlU4 J -1~.D4.
.....- 0'
t -~:, ~ ". t! So tUfl~SInt!2.
~ - 'f. ~ . - '!CJ'RAP!LI' AI'
\... a IJ. , Þc \.. $1\b{ Der4
¡:,O
~ 'rI4I!I£
DI!I1iJ[U)U EÐC«7
~ 611£/SJW!f.
UK PE:r'E:D,úJØl)
l
'1",1 rRNPtIJ{
tIA\'IØ 5 8ItJO i. DP5
~ fJJII»JUL .
. (tJWA1..~)
. I
- ,
.
Ii>
.D
:::II
Ü
=
...
'E 3<
. '">
~~þ
.... Ii
.:=jð
-g 'U
~~!
ð~~
u
.¥
0
=
CII
c
=
T...I SplICeS
60
P.utKJl\¡Ç TOT.u.s
ADA ; ~ s,..a 2
SUøcbIt Spoca .. .ä
----
"'d'" ::
O~ ~
au g
~:~
+; i'
~U~
.~ oC 1
. ---.~ "'" 0# !
"".........-- ~ -" -
. ~ --~
," ------\---\- ." --- --- -=
I~ . \ ~E"$E~Tl7L.4J~¿'
CONCEPT SITE PLAN-
-'-1"_. Iou I;.
.--
--
.......... CoIIMII or CanIoo 0..-
3640 o.lDlIÍIII ".......
aa-BCøIllØ)'. VA
Tu....,-rm.IUHJ-CO
~ Fax Note 7672 . @ .......,. t ~ I" 22 0r-
=- 'Ti~ =.. úf,,~ -
... 77f'J", 2.10& "-' ... ~ ~8f8t.,.,..,
""'.. ~- 0"'" Or--
~I ,¡ &dut 1'Jø's
~úe - (J/Mt - 'fðlÚt/ I" 1~.oC\ .
-
L--~~.. ~ rJ. 11 e..
- ... -"'" ~ æ~~.
¿;D",øA11A ~
.
~
r.:=
lJMl8I1f81f J. }
J
--- ....
:;..- -. ..... .A
~ .
.-"
.~
--
......~
~f Ut-A.
~ "-_WA
........". fir., IHI
~.-=--.-.
----
G -, .
0"'"
-
. .
..
ð
5
1!J
S ~
'8.1
IS)
BI
I.
a
--d" :!
0" J
Qui
~:~
+;1'
~u~
-PI. J
Ø::;..;
~DP~Ë D ~A_~
ç' - ~
Zoning
\
_AG3
'\ _Ej3
416 _AGI
/' AR
.AV
CI
.C2
- C2CVOO
11
.12
.PCD
PRO
.PTD
RI
R2
R3
R4
~~..
Roanoke County
Department of
Community Development
N
Á
Applicants Name: Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc.
Existing Zoning: C-1C/R-1
Proposed Zoning: C-1 C
Tax Map Number: 77.18-3-15
Magisterial District: Cave Spring
77.18-3-3 (Porlion)
Acreage: +/- 2.6 Acres
September 7, 2004 No Scale
G-Q
County of Roanoke
Community Developmént
Planning & Zoning
For Staff Use Only
5204 Bernard Drive
POBox 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
(540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155
" .. .,., ",.", ..
:\~iJ!~~1~if!J1~
Check type of appli7a 'on filed (check all that apply)
0 Rezoning Special Use 0 Variance
0 Waiver
0 Administrative Appeal
Phone: 0;-40 ~ïì<.o- 1523
Work: ~~ i,~&J - iS2-3
Cell #: -- , ~ \rlð'L
Fax No.: 540 ~ l. G, ~ " 62.
Owner's name/address wlzip
~ '-'\I.dJ - -y ~Z' .J DV'- L- L. L
l<?c)---t tJ ov"~"ots ~
). .t~ VA :2-'1 J ç 3
Property Location
5205 St-O-fl<-C: Y J'2oO-d.
Phone #:
Work:
Fax No. #:
Magisterial District: C 0.. \f e.
Community Planning area: C.
Tax Map No.: Bl. \ 5 - 2- -, Existing Zoning: 2-
Size of parcel(s): Acres: \ .2- 3 Existing Land Use: W O-'r t:-ho US 'C....
,~fi~~ti{~~~ffß..i#. U$1f'f~tl#iT.~f~~,~~!¥J{~~:\W~(w} .. "'~--""""""_:Á""'-"_""__'__'-'~-'~""';'-
Proposed Zoning: r 2- I 5 pc c.. \ 0- \ L~ <; c.. P <:.. y'(Y'\. ì +
Proposed Land Use: \
e parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district?
es No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST.
es the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type?
IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST
If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes
Yes
No
No
. ",- -"""~.~,'~¡-~,ï~,..~m~J{ pØ"@~tÏi!iiif¡~~miif,ij:j,íii~~~_~Æ(äi,.;':...:",,-¡._,._,--~,.-:. '::". -,'.",~", ,--.. ",,-,.,...;~.,:,', ,,',,",.:.-.
VariancelWaiver of Section(s) N I A of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to:
.
Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to
Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s):
Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to
of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance
Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE
ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE.
RlSfW V/AA RlSIW V/AA , RlSIW V/AA
rn Consultation n 8112" x 11" concept plan §B Application fee
Application ,A: Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable
Justification ~ Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners
I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner's age t or contract urchaser and am acting with the knowledge aDd
co f the wner.
4Z-
,
"""""""" " , .. ' , """.. """" """"" ",...." ,', .."',"," .' ",'" '
~ro$1t)FJ;CNrtON FOR REZd~G; SP.E;,ëI@. U$..j>.$~T. dg; W~)I MqWt?r
'-'~'-""""""'-""" ',',--"""-"'", """"."""."""".-."""""""..",«..,.."..".............,..',...., ""....,....,..,
Applicant
~ðO-("\O\¿é:- ('
The Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use permit or waiver requests to determine th eed 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 wen as the purpose found at the
beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance.
/> ,,\'_.....
~ ì:.~\j~<~.',.j
ì . //,,-
Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community
Plan.
Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoÏIÙDgproperties, 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.
3
f~:~i':~¡ïf:î~A:TION FOR "A1{JANêJt ~~~~:~1'" .' " .
Applicant
C?-~
Th of Zoning Appeals is required by Section 15.2-2309 of Ù1e Code of Virginia to consider the following factors before a
varian- e can 'be granted. Please read the factors listed below carefully and in your own words, describe how the request meets
each fae r. If additional space is needed, use additional sheets of paper.
shall not be contrary to the public interest and shall be in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of the
e.
2. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would produce undue hardship; a hardship that approaches confiscation (as
distinguished from a special privilege or co enience) and would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property .
3. The hardship is not shared by other properties in the same zoning distri or vicinity. Such hardships should be addressed
by the Board of Supervisors as amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
~
'\.
"\
\.
4. The variance will Dot be of a substantial detriment to the adjacent properties or the character of the dist:rlbt,~
.4
G-~
.:,~- "-"'- J
It~~f~?~TIÖN FOR ADM)Ní~~~~.'~'~#e:,~~~~.~' .-W'..".-....' m "'--"
~licant .
Pleas~nd to t!re following" thoroughly" possible. If addiriow 'pace ~ needed. use addirionaI Weets of pap",
1. Reasons 'for appeal:
\
\
\
2. Evidence supporting claim:
"
\
\.
5
G--~
. "..",,_..
I
1[~~~~~~#,-~LANcaiCKL~ST~- .~.._------_..,-- "",-_._,- . --...'-'-.
"""'-"""""-.""" --"" ",..,"...... ."","""'., .......,. ,. .. .',,'
A concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan sball 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 rezonings, 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 IruiY
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 peimit, waiver and varÍa.Ilce applications. The plan should be
prepared by a professional site plaDDer. 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 hems, but the following are considered
minimum:
ALL APPUCANTS
a. Applicant name and name of development
b. Date, scale and north arrow
c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions
d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties
e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc.
f. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties
- g. All property line$ and easements
h. All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area ~d heights
i. Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development
- j. Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces
Additional informatŽon requlredfor REZONING and SPECL4L USE PERMIT APPLICANTS
k- Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site
1.
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
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 that all items required in the checklist above are complete.
'771anæ -7~\)
Signature of applicant
8- :25--04
Date
6
G-'~
August 25. 2004
Roanoke Cheerleading Academis all star team, the Star City Spirit, got its
start 3 years ago when owner Mandi St.John saw a need to take cheerleading in
the Roanoke Valley to a whole new level. The all-star progÍ'am started out with 16
cheerleaders and in only three short seasons has grown to over 65 cheerleaders
from Roanoke, Salem, Botetourt, Franklin County, PuIaski,and Blacksburg. In
Star City Spirit's first year they were regional and local champions. Their high
scores at competitions obtained them a bid to represent the Star City and
compete at the Natiònallevel. Proud just to have made it that far Roanoke
Cheerleading Academy competed at the National competition and won 1st plaèe
being named "National Champions" something no cheerleading team in Roanoke
or the surrounding areas have accomplished.
Currently the property located at 5205 Starkey Road lies within the
Industrial District of Roanoke County. Roanoke Cheerleading Academy is
requesting to obtain a special use permit that falls within the commercial uses
and continue our operation as an Indoor Sports and Recreation Facility. In the
Community plan this property is designated Transition. According to the
Roanoke County Community Plan Land Use Guide; "[t]ransition areas generally
serve as developed buffers between highways and nearby or adjacent lower
intensity development". Roanoke Cheerleading Academy falls within the future
. land uses which is "suitable for office, institutional and small-scale coordinated
retail uses". In addition to our all-star program, Roanoke Cheerleading Academy
will continue to offer advanced stunt and tumbling classes to local high school
teams who don't have the equÏpment or the certified coaching staff to teach these
skills. RCA will also incorporate beginner to advanced classes that will be offered
to the local recreation programs and the general public. This facility will be used
for training purposes only, no competitions will be held at this site. Due to the
athletic training we offer certain requirements and building accommodations
have to be in place to carry out our activities and practices. For the past two years
Roanoke Cheerleading Academy
4005 Chaparral Drivè Roanoke, VA 24018 . Phone Number 540-776-1523
G--~
RCA has looked allover the Roanoke and Salem area to find a building to house
our athletes who deserve a nice facility to train in. However, the three buildings
that we found to accommodate us because of their high ceilings and large open
areas were either too expensive, had no bathroom facilities, or were in a location
that we felt would be unsafe for our athletes. The building on Starkey Road is the
perfect fit we've been searching for; it has over 25 foot ceiHng height, a large open
space for our 54 X42 mats, and is in a location and price range that are suitable.
Changes that will be made to the interior of the building include:
.1. Sodium Vapor lighting throughout the facility
2. Tile floor in entrance and lobby
3. Carpet in office
4. Upgrade to heating and air conditioning unit
5. Painting throughout
6. An attractive outside entrance wm be put in
The building located on 5205 Starkey Road currently has 45 parking paces
around the building which Roanoke Cheerleading Academy will have total access
to, as the majority of our classes are held in the evening which does not interfere
with Hartwell Design's hours of operation. The maximum number of people that
would occupy Roanoke Cheerleading Academy at one time would be
approximately fifty. There are currently five people employed by Roanoke
. Cheerleading Academy. The majority of our students are dropped off then picked
up at various hours through the evening.
In summary, Roanoke Cheerleading Academy would like to ask for your
approval of a Special Use permit for Indoor Sports and Recreation Facility to
operate out of 5205 Starkey Road zoned 1-2.
Roanoke Cheerleading Academy
4005 Chaparral Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 . Phone Number 540-776-1523
PLA T SHOWING PROPERTY OF
HENRY R. STECKER
BEING
1.231 ACRE PARCEL (TAX #87.15-02-07)
(DEED BOOK 1313, PAGE 183)
TO BE CONVEYED TO
LEWIS C. JAMISON
SITUA T£D ALONG STARKEY ROAD
CA VE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
RQANOKE_CO_UNTY. VIRGINIA
OCTOBER 28. 2003
BEARING
N 87"46'43-
S J7"58'35- E:
~
-
~
\.
~
-g
nPK~ ,-
';õ,
VI~
~~ <~
en_~~
CS ¡:;;.n
. VI ~
~-~
~
~
--
?;.
93fT'
0:><9-
U\Ç!.
t"1¡
~~
en
.....
TERMINAL ROAD - VA. SEC, RTE, #753
(50' R/W)
351.6Î
~/P-
,"'I
-I':)
-t">lk 5'
~/~~
")1 '0 I!:!'
~I ':C1
EX. IP
SIT PK
ASPHALT
UNOERGOUNo ElECTRIC FROM
POL£ TO BUILDING
~
46.9'
71.9'
217.2'
EX. SLOPE EASMENT
(0.8. -~4fj. PG. J54 .t o.B. 770, PG. 598)
EX. 1 STORY METAL
WARéHOUSE
15205 STARKEY ROAD
CONCRtTE:
TAX #87.15-02-07
. 1.231 AC,
335.8'
485.92'
N 7319'50. W
ASPHALT
TAX 187.15-02-08
KEMBILL CORPORA TlON
D.B. 1336, PC. 890
LOT 12. CRESCENT HEIGHTS MAP
P.B. 1. PG. 256
NOTES:
1. THIS PROPERTY IS NOr LOCATED WITHIN THE UMITS OF A 100 'l£AR FLOOD BOUNDARY AS DESJGNATED BY
FEMA. THIS OPINION IS BASED ON AN INSPECTION OF THE FLOOD INSURANCE: RA TE MAP AND HAS NOT
BEEN VERIRED BY ACTUAL REl.D ELEVATIONS. SEE COMMUNITY PANEl. 1510190 0062 D. ZONE X.
2. THIS PLA T WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENERT OF A CURRENT TlTl.E REPORT AND THERE MA Y EXIST
ENCUMBRANCES WHICH AFFECT THE PROPERTY NOT SHOWN HEREON.
J. THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH BY THE COMMONWtALTH OF
VIRGINIA FOR PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENT SURVEYS.
----._------~.""
-
~-
---- -----
= --~--=
----
-- -------
----
- "-- - --
- ---- -
- :¡=_":--§.---=
- -----
~~: ~~;¡~-~
DATE:
LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P.c.
ENG INEERS-SUR VEYORS-PLANNERS
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
4664 BRM1BlETON AVENUE PHONE: (540) 774-4411
P.O. BOX 20669 FAX: (540) 772-9445
ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018 E-MAil: MAll@lUMSDENPc.COM
COMM. NO.:
03-354
CADD FilE:
" "
I
'-.1
- I
LEGEND
Po8..' PLA T BOOK
D.8. . DEED BOOK
Pfl. PAGE-
At:: ACRES'
R/W RIGHT-OF-WA Y
EX. EXISlING
IP IRON PIN
Of} OVERHEAD lJlILlTY
:::\\:
co
0
~
SCALE,
1" = 50'
F:\2003\O3354\SUR\O3354BAS.DWG. i
~ 9-
~
G~~
~
5424 ,--
J(
'-----5120
(
5207
5215
5223
\
5231
\
5125
5145
0
5161
.AG3
.EP
.AG1
ÞR
15
0
0
.AV
Ct
.C2
- CæVOD
It
Crecent
_12
.PCD
PRD
.PTD
7
5320
R1
R2
R3
R4
5283
543:
~
Roanoke County
Department of
Community Development
N
Â
Applicants Name: Roanoke Cheerleading Academy
Existing Zoning: 12
Proposed Zoning: 12S
Tax Map Number: 87.15-2-7
Magisterial District: Cave Spring Acreage: +/- 1.27 Acres
September 7, 2004 No Scale
ACTION NO.
~-I
ITEM NO.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 28, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Second reading of an ordinance amending ordinance 52488-12
authorizing an amendment to the lease with Ingersoll Rand
(Bogar, LLC) to provide for an early termination of a
recreational lease
SUBMITTED BY:
Jill Loope, Assistant Director of Economic Development
Pete Haislip, Director of Parks Recreation and Tourism
Elmer C. Hodge é 1-/
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
~~
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Roanoke County has leased approximately 5 acres in the Hollins/Old Mountain Road area
(adjacent to the Ingersoll Rand facility) for recreational purposes since 1988. This lease
was established in agreement with Ingersoll Rand at a rate of $1.00 per year, and has been
used primarily as a baseball/soccer field for County residents. The Ingersoll Rand property
was sold to Bogar, LLC. in January 2004, and the new owners have requested that the
County amend the lease agreement to allow them flexibility with the marketing and eventual
sale of the property for industrial purposes. Specifically, they are requesting that the
County agree to vacate the property within 90 days upon receipt of a written notice by the
owners. It is understood that any notification will be predicated upon the pending sale of
the property to an appropriate industrial user.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost of relocating any related facilities or equipment that may be necessary to establish
a new location in the Hollins area. Cost will be determined following the development of a
master plan for the area including the Hollins Park/Mason property.
AL TERNATIVES:
1. Approve the amendment to the lease agreement.
- .
,~.. \
2. Maintain the current lease, which requires a written notice of termination by the owners
within 90 days of the expiration date of the agreement. The absence of a termination
notice results in an automatic renewal of the agreement for an additional 3 year term.
The current agreement is in effect until April of 2007.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative 1, approve the amendment of the lease.
:roO I
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28,2004
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 52488-12 AUTHORIZING
AN AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE WITH INGERSOLL-RAND (BOGAR,
LLC) TO PROVIDE FOR AN EARLY TERMINATION OF A
RECREATIONAL LEASE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That on February 9, 1988, the Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance
authorizing the lease of approximately 5 acres from Ingersoll-Rand for recreational
purposes (Ordinance No. 2988-6). The term of the lease was for a 25-year period.
2. That on May 24, 1988, the Board amended this lease to provide for a 3-
year renewable term (Ordinance No. 52488-12).
3. That Bogar, LLC purchased the Ingersoll-Rand property and is the
successor-in-interest to Ingersoll-Rand. It has requested an amendment to the lease to
provide for an early termination upon 90 days written notice.
4. That pursuant to the provisions of § 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke
County, a first reading of an ordinance amending the lease was held on September 14,
2004; a second reading on this matter was held on September 28,2004.
5. That the amendment to the lease by Roanoke County from Ingersoll-
Rand, now Bogar, LLC, of approximately 5 acres for recreational purposes to provide
for an early termination of said lease is hereby authorized and approved.
6. That the County Administrator, or Assistant County Administrator, is
authorized to execute such document and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke
County as are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon form
approved by the County Attorney.
ACTION NO.
3)-5
ITEM NO.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 28, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards
SUBMITTED BY:
Diane S. Childers
Clerk to the Board
APPROVED BY:
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
1. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee (Appointed by District)
The one-year term of Barbara Fasnacht, Catawba Magisterial District, expired on
August 31,2004.
2. Grievance Panel
The following three year terms will expire on October 10, 2004: Lee Blair, Alternate,
and Joanne Thompson, Alternate.
3. Library Board (Appointed by District)
Ms. Connie Goodman, who represents the Vinton Magisterial District, has resigned.
Her four-year term will expire December 31,2004.
4. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (Appointed by District)
The three-year term of Bobby G. Semones, Vinton Magisterial District, expired on June
30, 2004.
1
31-5
5. Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Community Advisory
Committee (CAC)
The late Lee B. Eddy served on this committee without a term limit. The County has
three representatives on this Committee and the Board is asked to appoint a citizen
and/or representative of the community, business, education, health care or civic
interests rather than staff members.
2
KI-ß
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28,2004
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED
AS ITEM K - CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for September
28, 2004, designated as Item K - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through
8, inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes - September 14, 2004
2. Confirmation of committee appointment to the Roanoke Valley Resource
Authority
3. Resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Philip J. Patrone, Police
Department, following twenty-five years of service
4. Request from Unified Human Transportation Services (RADAR) to accept and
appropriate a grant in the amount of $208,000 for the purchase of vans and to
appropriate Section 5311 monies in the amount of $28,351 for operating costs
5. Request from schools to appropriate a grant in the amount of $1 ,275 from the
Virginia Commission for the Arts
6. Request from schools to appropriate dual enrollment revenues in the amount of
$679.06
7. Request to appropriate funds in an amount not to exceed $9,000 from the Board
contingency account to Chandler Planning
8. Request to approve resolution authorizing the County of Roanoke to enter into a
commercial credit card relationship with SunTrust Bank Card
1
k \- <6
2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by
law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item
pursuant to this resolution.
2
ACTION NO.
K-Q
ITEM NO.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 28, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Confirmation of committee appointment to the Roanoke Valley
Resource Authority
Diane S. Childers
Clerk to the Board
Elmer C. Hodge £,~
County Administrator
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Roanoke Valley Resouce Authority
At the September 14, 2004 meeting, Supervisor Church nominated Keith Tenson to
complete the unexpired portion of the vacant four-year term which will expire on December
31, 2005.
Following a closed session discussion at the September 14 meeting, it was the consensus
of the Board to place this nomination on the September 28 consent agenda for
confirmation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the above appointment be confirmed.
1
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
K-3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 28, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Philip J.
Patrone, Police Department, after twenty-five years of service
SUBMITTED BY:
Brenda J. Holton
Deputy Clerk to the Board
Elmer C. Hodge E f'\
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Captain Patrone retired on September 1, 2004, after twenty-five years of service. He has
requested that his resolution be mailed since he will be unable to attend a Board meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board approve the attached resolution and direct the Deputy
Clerk to mail it to Mr. Patrone with the appreciation of the Board members for his many
years of service to the County.
)<-'3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28,2004
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY UPON THE RETIREMENT OF
PHILIP J. PATRONE, POLICE DEPARTMENT, AFTER TWENTY-FIVE
YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Philip J. Patrone was first employed by Roanoke County on May
1, 1979, as a Deputy Sheriff, and advanced to the rank of Captain; and
WHEREAS, Captain Patrone was one of the original members of the Police
Department which was established in 1990; and
WHEREAS, Captain Patrone spent most of his career as a detective in
investigations and became a polygraph examiner; and
WHEREAS, Captain Patrone was promoted to sergeant in 1998 and worked
in the Professional Standards Unit until 2002; and
WHEREAS, Captain Patrone managed the investigations function and the
Uniform Division prior to his retirement from Roanoke County on September 1, 2004, after
twenty-five years of service; and
WHEREAS, Captain Patrone, through his employment with Roanoke County,
has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the
K- 3
citizens of Roanoke County to PHILIP J. PATRONE for twenty-five years of capable, loyal
and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a
happy and productive retirement.
2
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
K-4
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 28, 2004
Request from Unified Human Transportation Services
(RADAR) to accept and appropriate a grant in the amount of
$208,000 for the purchase of vans and to appropriate Section
5311 monies in the amount of $28,351 for operating costs
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
John M. Chambliss, Jr.
Asst. County Administrator
Elmer C. Hodge £"
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
~~
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Unified Human Transportation Services (RADAR), who operates the CORTRAN program
on behalf of Roanoke County, has been advised by the Commonwealth of Virginia's
Department of Rail and Public Transportation that they have been awarded a capital grant
for the purchase offour replacement vans/lifts in the amount of $208,000. This represents
$197,600 in State monies and $10,400 local match which will be paid by RADAR. These
monies must pass through a local government entity and the application was approved in
the name of Roanoke County. No local monies are involved as this is simply a pass-
through grant.
RADAR has also been advised that they will receive $28,351 in Section 5311 operating
monies which is used to offset operating costs for the CORTRAN program in the rural
areas of Roanoke County. RADAR monitors the request for service and offsets our
operating expenses for qualified rides provided by the program.
\<-y
FISCAL IMPACT:
No new local monies are required for these grants. The grant for the purchase of the vans
uses state money and is matched by RADAR. The operating money for the CORTRAN
program serves as the match for the 5311 monies.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends acceptance and appropriation of a grant in the amount of $208,000 to
RADAR for the purchase of vans and appropriation of Section 5311 monies in the amount
of $28,351 for operating costs.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
K-~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 28, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Request from schools to appropriate a grant in the amount of
$1,275 from the Virginia Commission for the Arts
SUBMITTED BY:
Dr. Lorraine Lange
Assistant Superintendent of Instruction
APPROVED BY:
Elmer C. Hodge t).t
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Virginia Commission for the Arts provides grants for projects for the arts. Roanoke
County schools received a grant in the amount of $1,275 from the commission. The funds
will be used for the Center for Visual Arts curriculum writing and community resources.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ALTERNATIVES:
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends appropriation of Virginia Commission for the Arts grant in the amount of
$1,275 for the Center for Visual Arts curriculum writing and community resources.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
K-l()
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 28, 2004
Request from schools to appropriate dual enrollment revenues
in the amount of $679.06
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
Dr. Lorraine Lange
Assistant Superintendent of Instruction
Elmer C. Hodge t/l
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COU NTY AD MI N ISTRA TO~: ~
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Virginia Western Community College (VWCC) did not bill one class during the second
semester of the 2003-2004 school year. Roanoke County schools paid the bill and
received $679.06 from VWCC for teacher salary and use of the building.
Roanoke County schools requests that $679.06 be appropriated to the instructional
program, budget code 797530-6501.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ALTERNATIVES:
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends appropriation of dual enrollment revenues in the amount of $679.06 to
the instructional program.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
k-fl
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 28, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Request to appropriate funds in an amount not to
exceed $9,000 from the Board contingency account to
Chandler Planning
SUBMITTED BY:
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
~~
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Board previously authorized engaging Dr. Michael Chandler to assist in the
development of the revisions and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. This
action will appropriate funds from the Board's contingency account to pay for
these professional services.
Dr. Chandler has submitted an invoice dated September 13, 2004 in the amount
of $2,968.74, which covers his services through August 31, 2004. Staff
anticipates additional professional services from Dr. Chandler over the next
several months until this process is completed. Therefore staff is requesting
authority to pay future invoices from the Board contingency account in an amount
not to exceed $9,000.00.
FISCAL IMPACT:
$9,000.00 from the Board contingency account.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board authorize the expenditure of an amount not to
exceed $9,000.00 to Chandler Planning from the Board contingency account.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
1~~8
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 28, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Request to adopt a resolution authorizing the County of
Roanoke to enter into a commercial credit card relationship
with SunTrust Bank Card
SUBMITTED BY:
Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Elmer C. Hodge ~ j/~~
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
~~
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The County of Roanoke has participated in a purchase card program since August 1997.
The Purchase Card Program provides a service within our existing purchasing system to
better support the operating needs of our departments.
To ensure internal compliance with the purchasing card policies and procedures the
Finance Department has instituted a monthly audit procedure of the purchasing cards for
County and Schools departments. This procedure entails reviewing a random sample of
purchasing card logs for attributes such as appropriate authorizations, purchases, coding,
and documentation. The purchasing card policies and procedures and the audit procedures
have proven to safeguard against misuse of the Purchasing Cards.
The contract with our current provider of the purchasing cards, MBNA, expires November
30,2004.
In March 2004, the County of Roanoke issued a Request for Proposal to enter into a
contract with a qualified firm for the provision of purchasing card (credit card) services for
small purchases for Roanoke County, Virginia. Responses were received from First
Citizens Bank, National Bank of Commerce, J.P. Morgan Chase, MBNA, BB&T, SunTrust,
Bank One and Mellon. A committee comprised of both County and School staff evaluated
the proposals based on the qualification of the firm, depth of response to the requirements
1< -¥
section, depth of response to the preliminary work plan, details of the approach and
methodology of the program, availability of electronic billing capability and online cardholder
statements and other reports, training and customer support and reasonableness of cost of
the proposal.
As a result of the committee evaluation of the request for proposals based on the selection
criteria and interviews with the top vendors, SunTrust was selected to provide the
purchasing card service for the County.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution that authorizes the County
of Roanoke to enter into a commercial credit card account relationship with SunTrust Bank
Card, N.A.
\<-&
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28,2004
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE TO ENTER
INTO A COMMERCIAL CREDIT CARD ACCOUNT RELATIONSHIP
WITH SUNTRUST BANK CARD, N.A. ("BANK")
WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke desires to enter into a commercial credit
card account relationship with SunTrust Bank Card, N.A. (the "Bank") and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows:
1. That the County of Roanoke enters into a commercial credit card account
relationship with SunTrust Bank Card.
2. That the County Administrator or designee is authorized to enter into and
execute on behalf of the County any agreements or documents the Bank may require in
order to establish the commercial credit card account relationship upon form approved
by the County Attorney.
3. That the County shall be bound by the terms and conditions of the
agreements, all as now existing or as amended from time to time.
4. That the undersigned is authorized and directed to furnish said Bank a
certified copy of this resolution, which resolution shall continue in full force and effect
until written notice of modification or revocation of this resolution has been received by
the Bank and the Bank has had reasonable time to act on such notice, and to furnish
said Bank the names and specimen signature of the authorized person named herein,
and such persons from time to time holding above positions.
t<-<t
5.
That the appropriate officers are hereby authorized and directed to execute,
deliver and file all documents, certificates and instruments and to take all such further
action as may be necessary or desirable in connection with and that are in conformity
with the purposes and intent of this resolution.
2
GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
0- \
% of General
Amount Fund Revenues
$9,738,285 6.61 %
Unaudited Balance at June 30, 2004
July 1, 2004
Explore Park Loan Repayment
20,000
Balance at September 28, 2004
9,758,285
Changes below this line are for information and planning purposes only.
Balance from above $9,758,285
$9,758,285
6.63%
6.63%
Note: On December 18, 1990, the Board of Supervisors adopted a goal statement to maintain the
General Fund Unappropriated Balance at 6.25% of General Fund Revenues
2004 - 2005 General Fund Revenues $147,255,793
6.25% of General Fund Revenues $9,203,487
Submitted By
Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Approved By
Elmer C. Hodge t"
County Administrator
Submitted By
Approved By
CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGIN IA
O-Q
Unaudited Balance at June 30, 2004
Amount
$11,389,450.22
Balance at September 28, 2004
$11,389,450.22
Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Elmer C. Hodge t /1
County Administrator
0-3
RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Amount
From 2004-2005 Original Budget $100,000.00
Balance at September 28, 2004 $100,000.00
Submitted By
Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Approved By
Elmer C. Hodge £.11
County Administrator
O-L\
FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGIN IA
Savings from 1996-1997 debt budget
Transfer from County Capital Projects Fund
FY 1997 -1998 Original budget appropriation
Savings from 1997-1998 debt fund
FY1998-1999 Original budget appropriation
FY1999-2000 Original budget appropriation
Less increase in debt service
Savings from 1998-1999 debt fund
FY2000-2001 Original budget appropriation
Less increase in debt service
FY 2001-2002 Original budget appropriation
Less increase in debt service
Savings from 2001-02 debt fund
FY 2002-2003 Original budget appropriation
Less increase in debt service
FY 2003-2004 Original budget appropriation
Less increase in debt service
FY 2004-2005 Original budget appropriation
Less increase in debt service
Balance at September 28, 2004
$ 670,000
1,113,043
2,000,000
321,772
2,000,000
2,000,000
(1,219,855) 780,145
495,363
2,000,000
(1,801,579) 198,421
2,000,000
(465,400)
116,594 1,651,194
2,000,000
(2,592,125) (592,125)
2,000,000
(2,202,725) (202,725)
2,000,000
(4,192,701) (2,192,701)
$ 6,242,387
Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Approved By Elmer C. Hodge ê]l
County Administrator
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
0-5
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 28, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Accounts Paid - August 2004
SUBMITTED BY:
Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Elmer C. Hodge tfJ
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Payments to Vendors
Payroll 8/13/2004
Payroll 8/27/2004
Manual Checks
Voids
Grand Total
Direct Deposit Checks Total
$ $ $ 6,776,325.17
814,227.39 131,902.53 946,129.92
780,266.44 124,623.88 904,890.32
720.15 720.15
$ 8,628,065.56
A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
FIN162 County of Roanoke, Virginia Page
4:1 1:26PM Date 9/9/2004
Schedule of Expenditures, Encumbrances and Appropriations
For the 02 Month Period Ended 08/31/04 Year to Date
Expend
Expenditures & Encomb
Monthly Outstanding & Encumbrance Unencumbered asa%of
Fund 100 General Fund Budget Expenditures Eneumbrance Year to Date Balance Budget
0101 Legislative 336,720.00 31,179.71 4,359.50 81,692.59 255,027.41 24.26
0102 General & Financial Administra 9,007,642.00 974,980.45 45,819.17 1,828,087.40 7,179,554.60 20.30
0103 Electoral Board & Officials 272,397.00 12,102.70 0.00 25,366.79 247,030.21 9.31
0100 General Government Administrat 9,616,759.00 1,018,262.86 50,178.67 1,935,146.78 7,681,612.22 20.12
0201 Courts 1,126,363.00 71,205.87 0.00 159,606.83 966,756.17 14.17
0202 Other Judicial Support 729,685.00 60,825.08 0.00 118,617.27 611,067.73 16.26
0200 Judicial 1,856,048.00 132,030.95 0.00 278,224.10 1,577,823.90 14.99
0301 Law Enforcement & Traffic Cont 10,755,202.58 944,893.65 185,800.96 1,981,707.61 8,773,494.97 18.43
0302 Fire and Rescue 8,723,425.00 639,411.47 113,186.75 1,374,511.70 7,348,913.30 15.76
0303 Correction & Detention 5,804,127.00 414,776.92 8,135.06 781,311.89 5,022,815.11 13.46
0304 Animal Control 402,487.00 27,979.59 3,505.60 62,201.98 340,285.02 15.45
0300 Public Safety 25,685,241.58 2,027,061.63 310,628.37 4,199,733.18 21,485,508.40 16.35
0401 General Services 383,977.00 40,661.18 569.94 69,361.15 314,615.85 18.06
0402 Refuse Disposal 4,580,879.00 353,864.00 0.00 477,612.11 4,103,266.89 10.43
0403 Maint Buildings & Grounds 3,362,335.00 278,908.58 16,764.73 513,629.62 2,848,705.38 15.28
0404 Engineering 2,523,624.00 212,434.91 3.00 319,916.93 2,203,707.07 12.68
0405 Inspections 895,497.00 68,304.70 0.00 142,511.23 752,985.77 15.91
0406 Garage Complex 346,392.00 31,190.18 10,337.82 41,425.05 304,966.95 11.96
0400 Public Works 12,092,704.00 985,363.55 27,675.49 1,564,456.09 10,528,247.91 12.94
0501 Mental Health 0.00 7,330.44 0.00 16,410.79 16,410.79- .00
0503 Public Health 459,403.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 459,403.00 .00
0504 Social Services Administration 3,769,212.00 303,962.69 0.00 626,219.75 3,142,992.25 16.61
0505 Comprehensive Services Act 5,037,171.00 126,955.84 0.00 138,447.60 4,898,723.40 2.75
0506 Public Assistance 2,619,500.00 236,266.20 0.00 508,848.33 2,110,651.67 19.43
0507 Institutional Care 33,100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33,100.00 .00
0508 Social Services Organizations 168,585.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 168,585.00 .00
0500 Health and Welfare 12,086,971.00 674,515.17 0.00 1,289,926.47 10,797,044.53 10.67
0
I
b
FIN I 62 County of Roanoke, Virginia Page 2
4:1I:26PM Date 9/9/2004
Schedule of Expenditures, Encumbrances and Appropriations
For the 02 Month Period Ended 08/31/04 Year to Date
Expend
Expenditures & Eocumb
Moothly Outstanding & Encumbrance Unencumbered asa%of
Fund 100 ~neralFund Budget Expenditures Eocumbraoce Year to Date Balance Budget
0601 Parks & Recreation 3,479,027.00 278,053.63 1,424.85 688,696.77 2,790,330.23 19.80
0602 Library 2,221,454.00 186,957.97 1,600.00 349,162.59 1,872,291.41 15.72
0603 Cultural Enrichment 167,068.00 79,083.00 0.00 79,083.00 87,985.00 47.34
0600 Parks, Recreation & Cultural 5,867,549.00 544,094.60 3,024.85 1,116,942.36 4,750,606.64 19.04
0701 Planning & Zoning 597,487.00 30,106.14 0.00 63,387.15 534,099.85 10.61
0702 Cooperative Extension Program 94,129.00 19.02 0.00 835.39 93,293.61 .89
0703 Economic Development 602,226.00 34,965.09 0.00 74,076.60 528,149.40 12.30
0705 Contribution to Human Service 95,050.00 77,083.00 0.00 77,083.00 17,967.00 81.10
0700 Community Development 1,388,892.00 142,173.25 0.00 215,382.14 1,173,509.86 15.51
0801 Employee Benefits 2,256,237.00 17,256.55 0.00 48,728.60 2,207,508.40 2.16
0802 Dixie Caverns Landfill Cleanup 35,000.00 1,647.29 0.00 1,714.56 33,285.44 4.90
0803 Miscellaneous 2,744,267.00 232,371.07 0.00 450,076.79 2,294,190.21 16.40
0804 Tax Relief/ElderIy & Handicapp 600,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 600,000.00 .00
0806 Refuse Credit Vinton 240,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 240,000.00 .00
0807 Contingency Balance 100,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100,000.00 .00
0800 Non-Departmental 5,975,504.00 251,274.91 0.00 500,519.95 5,474,984.05 8.38
0901 Interfund Transfers Out 71,848,705.00 198,309.84 0.00 396,619.68 71,452,085.32 .55
0902 Intrafund Transfers Out 988,318.00 11,193.17 0.00 22,386.30 965,931. 70 2.27
0900 Transfers Out 72,837,023.00 209,503.01 0.00 419,005.98 72,418,017.02 .58
Grand Totals 147,406,691.58 5,984,279.93 391,507.38 11,519,337.05 135,887,354.53 7.82
0
¡
6'
FINO53 County of Roanoke, Virginia Page I
4:08:41PM Date 9/912004
Statement of Estimated and Actual Revenues
For the 02 Month Period Ended 08/31/04 Year to Date
Revenues
Monthly Year to Date Unrealized as a % of
Fund 100 General Fund Budget Revenues Revenues Balance Budget
010 Real Estate Taxes 64,475,000 1,920,496 2,312,520 62,162,480 3.59
011 Personal Property Taxes 25,464,846 52,136- 207,876 25,256,970 .82
012 Public Service Corp Base 2,530,000 2,530,000 .00
013 Penalities & Interest On Prope 600,000 4,578- 31,788 568,212 5.30
014 Payment In Lieu Of Taxes 120,000 120,000 .00
020 Local Sales Tax 7,400,000 619,811 619,811 6,780,189 8.38
021 Consumers Utility Tax 6,955,377 711,781 961,865 5,993,511 13.83
022 Business License Tax 5,050,000 75,445 122,378 4,927,622 2.42
023 Franchise Tax 1,240,000 26,927 467,904 772,096 37.73
024 Motor Vehicle License Fees 1,760,000 24,482 57,788 1,702,212 3.28
025 Taxes On Recordation & Wills 1,195,000 86,450 86,450 1,108,550 7.23
026 Utility License Tax 470,000 27,004 50,799 419,201 10.81
027 Hotel & Motel Room Taxes 625,000 57,311 79,434 545,566 12.71
028 Taxes - Prepared Foods 2,860,000 253,971 254,196 2,605,804 8.89
029 Other Taxes 110,000 14,157 14,163 95,837 12.88
030 Animal Control Fees 28,177 1,253 3,033 25,144 10.76
031 Land and Building Fees 293,700 23,924 46,134 247,566 15.71
032 Pennits 243,650 28,084 58,654 184,996 24.07
034 Fees 43,050 7,837 15,227 27,823 35.37
037 Clerk of Court Fees 41,735 4,270 4,270 37,465 10.23
038 Photocopy Charges 25,000 193 193 24,807 .77
039 Fines and Forfeitures 599,200 65,589 66,949 532,251 11.l7
040 Revenues from Use of Money 400,000 60,337- 460,337 15.08-
041 Revenues From Use of Property 11,833 1,760 3,520 8,313 29.75
042 Charges for Services 3,486,554 316,760 390,172 3,096,382 11.l9
048 Charges for Public Sevices 2,694,267 259,589 513,873 2,180,394 19.07
050 Reimb-Shared Programs Salem 319,000 143,865 319,000 .00
051 Miscellaneous Revenue 53,250 28,917 32,192 21,058 60.45
056 Recovered Costs 750,189 12,371 13,870 736,319 1.85
060 Non-Categorical Aid 233,000 2,682 233,244 244- 100.11
061 Shared Expenses 4,879,037 357,744 553,836 4,325,201 IU5
064 Welfare & Social Servies-Categ 1,960,000 562,081 884,040 1,075,960 45.10
073 Other State Categorical Aid 4,978,781 1,178,811- 1,103,776- 6,082,557 22.17-
080 Welfare & Social Services 2,678,250 321,960- 3,000,210 12.02-
086 Other Categorical Aid 179,843 75,205- 74,926- 254,769 41.66- C)
093 Transfers 2,652,953 24,358 48,717 2,604,237 1.84 )
()'
FINO53
4:08:4IPM
Fund 100
General Fund
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Statement of Estimated and Actual Revenues
For the
02 Month Period Ended
08/31/04
Year to Date
Revenues
Unrealized
Balance
Page
Date
2
9/9/2004
Grand Totals
ReDort Parameters
Fiscal Month Entered: 02
Report Date Entered: 08/31/04
Fiscal Year Ending Entered: 2,005
Budget
Monthly
Revenues
147,406,692
4,348,383
6,573,896
140,832,795
Year to Date
Revenues
as a % of
Budget
4.46
0
I
()'
Qll1unt~ nf ~n ann he
't~l.1(~~~~ntinll
I- . . ~
z. , (;')
? -
~ ~
0-1
DECLARING SEPTEMBER 13, 2004, AS VIC THOMAS DAY
IN THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE
WHEREAS, the Civitan Club of Roanoke, Inc., has set aside September 13, 2004, to
honor A. Victor "Vic" Thomas, a member of the Civitan Club for over 30
years; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Thomas was elected to the House of Delegates in 1974 and served
15 terms representing the 17th House District which includes portions of
the Counties of Roanoke and Botetourt, and the City of Roanoke; and
WHEREAS, as Delegate for the 17th District, Mr. Thomas supported Roanoke
County's legislative initiatives which included adoption of the Roanoke
County Charter and formation of the Roanoke Regional Airport
Commission as well as many of the highway projects that affect the
Roanoke Valley; and
WHEREAS, during his terms as Delegate, Mr. Thomas served his constituents on the
Agriculture Chesapeake and Natural Resources, Appropriations, and
Rules committees; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Thomas served his community through his membership in the
Chamber of Commerce, American Legion and Woodmen of the World, in
addition to the Civitan Club of Roanoke; and
WHEREAS, the County is very appreciative of Mr. Thomas' support and activities
through the years and wishes to recognize his service to the citizens of
Roanoke County and the Roanoke Valley as a leader, family man, and
supporter of the outdoors.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Richard C. Flora, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim and recognize September
13,2004, as VIC THOMAS DAY and call its significance to the attention
of all its citizens.
~~.~
Diane S. Childers, Clerk
~,~.S> Cø ~ ~....
Richard C. Flora, Chairman
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
Q-I
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 28,2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Work session to brief the Board on Virginia's Explore Park
SUBMITTED BY:
Debbie Pitts
Executive Director
APPROVED BY:
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
At the request of the Board, this time has been set aside to provide a briefing on the
operations of Virginia's Explore Park. Tom Brock, President of the River Foundation, will
provide information regarding the successful ventures at Explore Park, including the
Explore Now initiative, as well as future development plans. Stan Lanford, Past Vice-Chair
of the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority (VRFA), will brief the Board on the
significant accomplishments of Explore Park.
Debbie Pitts, Executive Director, and Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation and
Tourism, will also be present at the meeting.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
Q-J
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 28, 2004
Work session to brief the Board on the joint funding of Capital
Improvement Programs (CIP) with Roanoke County Schools
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
Diane D. Hyatt
Chief Financial Office
APPROVED BY:
Elmer C. Hodge tP
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Diane Hyatt and Penny Hodge, Director of Budget and Finance with Roanoke County
Schools, would like to present a method to fund the future capital improvement programs of
both the County and the Schools. This method was reviewed with the Chairs and Vice
Chairs of the County Board and School Board on September 3, 2004. The School Board
will be briefed on this concept in work session at their meeting on September 23, 2004.
Staff would like to receive input on their suggestions from the Board. The Board will have
time for further discussion at their Board Retreat on October 2, 2004.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
Q..3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 28,2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Work session to discuss proposed spot blight
abatement program
SUBMITTED BY:
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This time has been set aside for the Board to discuss implementation of a spot
blight abatement program. Please refer to Item S-2 in the agenda for
background information and an outline of the proposed process to be followed.
\~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28,2004
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a
closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance
with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the
Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements
by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution
applies, and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the
closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
5 -l
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 28, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Request to adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of a
comprehensive agreement pursuant to the Public-Private
Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 to design,
develop and construct a new Public Safety Facility and certain
radio system upgrades, to amend a contract with Construction
Dynamics Group for construction management and value
engineering, and to appropriate funds for these purposes
SUBMITTED BY:
Dan O'Donnell
Assistant County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board,
The staff and I want to thank you for your support of the new Public Safety Building. As
you know, this is a much needed facility that will house some of our most critical functions.
We also express great appreciation to the three teams that expressed interest in this
project and submitted proposals. Choosing among them has been difficult because of their
professionalism and thoroughness.
Our timing for construction is perfect. The nation is coming out of an economic slump and
construction costs are beginning to rise. The financing that you authorized through VRA
has been accomplished at very favorable rates. Departmental needs, now and for the
future, have been thoroughly reviewed and planned. This is probably our best work yet at
determining facility needs. Much of this is due to the new PPEA process which requires the
architect, the contractor, and the County to work together. We have made sure the
construction costs are favorable to the County and fair to the builder by including
competition in the process and by using an independent construction management firm.
Because of the complexity of the decision and because much of the information submitted
by the two finalists is proprietary, we will review this with you in closed session. Based on
the very detailed proposals, our recommendation will be based on three overall reasons:
1
s-}
1. One proposal has a decidedly better use of the available land. Less land is used for the
building, reserving space for future expansion.
2. One has a firmer maximum project cost with fewer allowances and undefined terms and
conditions.
3. One was more receptive to working in partnership with our independent contract
manager. This serves as a valuable cost management/quality control tool for us.
Again, I want to thank the Board and commend the staff. I especially want to recognize
Dan O'Donnell for the work that he has done.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Since July 2004 staff, along with the assistance of the consultant team of Construction
Dynamics and RCC Communications, have been involved in detailed design proposal
review and competitive negotiations with Northrop-Grumman Corporation and Public
Facility Consortium, LLC for the provision of a new Public Safety Building and Emergency
Communications Center and the relocation and upgrading of the current emergency radio
system. These negotiations are now nearing completion and we are prepared to
recommend an award of a comprehensive agreement for the project. As the details of the
proposals are proprietary under the PPEA legislation, we will be briefing the Board in
closed session on the confidential information in the proposals prior to the item being
considered for action by the Board.
After a detailed review of proposals, qualifications of proposers and proposed project
designs, in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Public Private Education Facilities
and Infrastructure Act of 2002, staff, in consultation with Construction Dynamics Group, has
determined that the proposal submitted and the comprehensive agreement currently being
negotiated with is the best proposal and will provide the best
value alternative for the citizens of Roanoke County. Representatives from Construction
Dynamics Group along with County staff will be in attendance at the meeting and will be
available to discuss the recommendation in detail.
The criteria upon which this recommendation will be made are found in the County's PPEA
guidelines entitled "Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 -
County of Roanoke Procedures". The selection criteria are attached to this board report
and are taken from section VI of the County's guidelines. This County policy will guide this
and any future selection of PPEA project proposals, as outlined in Attachment A.
PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING SCOPE
The need for the Public Safety Building has been well documented and accepted by the
Board as a top capital project priority. The scope of this project will meet the needs of the
public for a fully functional public safety communications center, and will provide for a
secure location for the County's public safety agencies.
2
5-\
The scope of the project is as follows:
1. A New Public Safety Building of approximately 80,000 square feet, housing the
following departments: Police, Fire and Rescue, Information Technology.
2. A New Emergency Communications Dispatch Center including 14 new completely
equipped dispatch stations, a new Computer Aided Dispatch System, and new 911
telephone equipment. The Center is designed in accordance with National Fire
Protection Association Section 1221 standards for emergency communications centers
ensuring security and stability in the provision of emergency communications services.
3. A New Emergency Operations Center which serves as the command and control center
for the management of major emergencies.
4. The relocation of the emergency radio system from the existing Public Safety Building,
with communications capabilities remaining functional during the transition. Please
note that the emergency radio system is not being upgraded to a digital system as part
of this project due to recommendations of both proposers and RCC Communications.
The current analog radio system functions well, but due to its nearing the end of its life
cycle in the next several years the transition to digital will need to be planned and
pursued in the very near future. As the radio system is shared by the City of Roanoke
and the Town of Vinton, this upcoming project will need to be pursued on a regional
cooperative basis.
5. An upgraded microwave system which will provide enhanced equipment compatible
with a migration path to a digital radio system in the future.
6. Secure parking for 120 employees and open parking for 100 visitors.
7. Security enhancements including closed circuit television systems, security fencing for
employee parking areas, a proximity reader card system for building access, bullet
resistant materials for crucial portions of the building and a structural design to
withstand natural disruptions including high winds and earthquakes.
8. Several out-buildings for storage of materials not suitable for storage in the main
structure.
9. The site work includes a graded pad for the construction of a school warehouse.
Subsequent funding will need to be identified for the construction of the warehouse and
renovation to the existing public safety building on Peter's Creek Road when it is
returned to the School Board as documented in the Memorandum of Understanding
between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board approved by the Board of
Supervisors at the July 27, 2004 Board meeting. Staff has received an informal
estimate of the cost of the warehouse project. The cost estimate is $534,000.
3
5-1
AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT WITH CONSTRUCTION DYNAMICS GROUP
In addition to the award of the Comprehensive Agreement, staff is recommending that the
current agreement with Construction Dynamics Group be amended to include construction
management and value engineering services. This amendment will be done in accordance
with the RFP issued for technical assistance for this project which allows for the inclusion of
these services. It is crucial that construction management and design review be included in
this project as the County needs to be able to ensure complete quality control on this vital
public safety facility and its technical systems.
APPROPRIATION OF PROJECT BUDGET
Finally, the resolution calls for the appropriation of the project budget. As the cost
proposals are confidential and proprietary until a comprehensive agreement is formally
considered by the Board, the proposed budget will be included in the resolution prior to the
recommendation of appropriation. Diane Hyatt will present the budget at the Board
meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The budget for the project will be handed out at the meeting. The known components will
be as follows:
Total Budget
$
799,874
157,507
11 ,467
$
Comprehensive Agreement (Not to Exceed)
Construction Management I Value Engineering
Contingency (10% of construction contract)
Issuance costs
Bond discount
The total project budget will not exceed $30,000,000 as advertised.
The sale of bonds through the Virginia Resources Authority (VRA) 2004 fall pool sale was
closed on June 30, 2004. The County issued $22,170,000 of bonds in this sale. The
balance that will be needed to complete this project is available in the Capital Fund
Unappropriated Balance.
The bonds sold through VRA were 30 year bonds, with coupons ranging from 2.9182% to
5.1377%. The True Interest Cost (TIC) of the bonds is 5.081 %. The debt service has been
increased by $1,200,000 in the 2004-05 fiscal year to pay for the debt service on these
bonds. An additional $248,980 will need to be added to the 2005-06 debt service to make
the second year payment. The debt service will be level for the remainder of the life of the
loan.
4
~~I
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the resolution which:
1. Authorizes the County Administrator to Execute the Comprehensive Agreement with
for the amount of upon completion of review of the draft
agreement by legal counsel.
Staff involved in reviewing the proposals in conjunction with Construction Dynamics
Group and RCC Communications has determined that this is the best proposal and will
provide the best long term value to the County based on the selection criteria attached.
We believe choosing this proposal is in the best interest of the County based on the
building design, the utilization of the site, facility security and the technological
components of this proposal.
2. Authorize the County Administrator to amend the existing contract with Construction
Dynamics Group for the provision of Construction Management and Value Engineering
Services for $799,874. In order to ensure the high quality of design, construction and
systems integration that this vital project calls for, we strongly recommend that
Construction Dynamics Group (CDG) be retained to perform these services. CDG has
been actively involved in proposal review and contract negotiations for this project and
has an excellent track record of providing construction management services for a wide
variety of public projects.
3. Appropriates the project budget in the amount of with revenue sources of
$22,170,000 lease-revenue bonds and the remaining project balance from the Capital
Fund Unappropriated Balance.
5
S-I
Attachment A
Below is the language taken directly from the County's PPEA selection criteria approved
by the Board of Supervisors in April 2003.
Proposal Evaluation and Selection Criteria
Some or all of the following items may be considered in the evaluation and selection of
PPEA proposals. In selecting proposals, all relevant information from both the
Conceptual Stage and the Detailed Stage should be considered. The County reserves
the right at all times to reject any proposal at anytime for any reason.
A. Qualifications and Experience
Factors to be considered in either phase of an agency or institution's review to
determine whether the proposer possesses the requisite qualifications and experience
may include, but are not necessarily limited to:
1. Experience, training and preparation with similar projects;
2. Demonstration of ability to perform work;
3. Demonstrated record of successful past performance, including timeliness of project
delivery, compliance with plans and specifications, quality of workmanship, cost~
control and project safety;
4. Demonstrated conformance with applicable laws, codes, standards, regulations, and
agreements on past projects;
5. Leadership structure;
6. Project manager's experience;
7. Management approach;
8. Project staffing plans, the skill levels of the proposed workforce, apprenticeship and
other training programs offered for the project, and the proposed safety plans for the
project;
9. Financial condition; and
10. Project ownership.
B. Project Characteristics
Factors to be considered in determining the project characteristics may include, but are
not limited to:
1. Project definition;
2. Proposed project schedule;
3. Operation of the project;
4. Technology, technical feasibility;
5. Conformity to laws, regulations, and standards;
1
~-I
Attachment A
6. Environmental impacts;
7. Condemnation impacts;
8. State and local permits; and
9. Maintenance of the project.
C. Project Financina
Factors to be considered in determining whether the proposed project financing allows
adequate access to the necessary capital to finance the project may include, but are not
limited to:
1. Cost and cost benefit to the County;
2. Financing and the impact on the debt or debt burden of the County;
3. Financial plan, including overall feasibility and reliability of plan; operator's past
performance with similar plans and similar projects; degree to which operator has
conducted due diligence investigation and analysis of proposed financial plan and
results of any such inquiries or studies.
4. Estimated cost; and
5. Life-cycle cost analysis; and
6. Identity of any third party that will provide financing for the project and the nature and
time of its commitment.
D. Project Benefit and Compatibility
Factors to be considered in determining the proposed project's compatibility with the
County's comprehensive or development plans and zoning ordinance include:
1. Community benefits, including the economic impact the project will have on the
County and local community in terms of amount of tax revenue to be generated for
the Commonwealth and the County, the number jobs generated for Virginia
residents and level of pay and fringe benefits of such jobs, the training opportunities
for apprenticeships and other training programs generated by the project and the
number and value of subcontracts generated for Virginia subcontractors.
2. Community support or opposition, or both;
3. Public involvement strategy;
4. Compatibility with existing and planned facilities; and
5. Compatibility with local, regional, and state economic development efforts.
2
5-)
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28,2004
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO THE PUBLIC.
PRIVATE EDUCATION FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF
2002 TO DESIGN, DEVELOP AND CONSTRUCT A NEW PUBLIC
SAFETY FACILITY AND CERTAIN RADIO SYSTEM UPGRADES, TO
AMEND A CONTRACT WITH CONSTRUCTION DYNAMICS GROUP
FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND VALUE ENGINEERING,
AND TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR THESE PURPOSES
WHEREAS, Roanoke County, Virginia, (the "County") has an urgent need for a
new public safety facility and radio system upgrades (the "Project"), and the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, (the "Board") has included in its Capital
Improvement Program plans for building such facilities;
WHEREAS, the means traditionally used to procure new facility design and
construction could result in limited flexibility in design and longer lead times for delivery
of these facilities than desirable;
WHEREAS, the General Assembly enacted the Public-Private Education
Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 ("PPEA"), which provides an alternative to
traditional methods for procurement of new design and construction services;
WHEREAS, the Board adopted its implementation procedures for the PPEA on
May 13, 2003;
WHEREAS, the Board subsequently received an unsolicited proposal pursuant to
the PPEA from Northrop-Grumman Corporation to construct an emergency
communications/public safety center and determined that it would be advantageous to
the public to proceed under the PPEA;
1
s-¡
WHEREAS, the Board determined that proceeding with the procurement under
the PPEA was likely to be advantageous to the public and that use of "competitive
negotiation" procedures under the PPEA for the procurement of these facilities was
likely to be more advantageous to the County and the public based upon (1) the
probable scope, complexity, or urgency of the project, or (2) risk sharing, added value,
economic benefit from the project that would not otherwise be available;
WHEREAS, the Board then accepted the unsolicited proposal and invited
competing proposals for the procurement of the emergency communications/public
safety center;
WHEREAS, the County received proposals from three offerors; Northrop-
Grumman Corporation, Public Facilities Consortium, LLC and SafetyFirst;
WHEREAS, The County engaged the services of qualified professionals not
employed by the County to provide to the County independent analysis regarding the
specifics, advantages, disadvantages, and long- and short-term costs of the proposals
for this Project;
WHEREAS, County staff has engaged in negotiation of a comprehensive
agreement with
, and a draft copy of the
negotiated comprehensive agreement has been provided to the members of the Board
of Supervisors;
WHEREAS, the negotiated comprehensive agreement is within the scope of the
procurement and the procurement's terms and conditions, is in the public interest, and
the qualifying project for which it provides serves the public purpose under the criteria of
Va. Code § 56-575.4.C.;
2
S~)
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
(1 )
The Board of Supervisors hereby finds that the qualifying Project to be
performed under the negotiated comprehensive agreement with
serves
the public purpose under the criteria of Va. Code § 56-575.4.C;
(2)
The Board hereby determines in writing that
is most
qualified to implement this Project, and that it has made the best proposal.
(3)
The County Administrator is authorized to execute the comprehensive
agreement on behalf of the County to build this Project, upon form approved by the
County Attorney, and to take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate to
implement the purposes of this resolution.
(4)
The Board recognizes that, given the length of the comprehensive
agreement and the schedule within which it was negotiated and drafted, further minor
revisions to it, primarily of a technical nature, may be necessary or desirable, and it
therefore authorizes the County Administrator to execute on its behalf the
comprehensive agreement with
, and, prior to execution, to make
any technical changes to it agreed upon by him and
that do not materially affect its terms and conditions, provided that the County Attorney
concurs with such technical changes.
(5)
The Board authorizes an amendment to the contract with Construction
Dynamics Group to provide construction management and value engineering services
for this Project.
(6)
The Board hereby appropriates the sum of
to the
Public Safety Building Project.
This project is funded from $22,170,000 of lease
3
s~ )
revenue bonds sold through Virginia Resources Authority on June 30, 2004, and
transferred from the Capital Unappropriated Balance.
4
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
5-Q
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 28, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Request to adopt a resolution establishing a program
for spot blight abatement
SUBMITTED BY:
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
~~
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Board of Supervisors has observed instances of blighted or deteriorated
areas developing in Roanoke County. These blighted or deteriorated areas are
defined as areas with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation,
obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement of design, lack of ventilation,
light, and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use or
obsolete layout, or any combination of these and other factors, are detrimental to
the safety, health, morals or welfare of the community.
Section 36-49.1: 1 of the Code of Virginia (see attached Exhibit A) grants any
locality the power to acquire or repair any blighted property by exercise of the
powers of eminent domain provided in Title 25.1 of the Code of Virginia. The
locality shall also have the power to hold, clear, repair, manage or dispose of the
property, and to recover the costs of repair or disposal from the owner.
An outline of the procedures required to exercise these powers is attached as
Exhibit B to this report.
These procedures include a preliminary determination of blight by the County
Administrator, 30 day notice to the property owner, and a public hearing after
publication of notices before the Planning Commission for findings and
recommendations. The Board may affirm, modify or reject the Planning
~-~
Commission's findings and recommendations, acquire the property by eminent
domain, and file liens for costs of improvements or disposal.
This program will allow the Board to consider exercising these powers on a case-
by-case basis, after satisfying all due process requirements to protect the
property rights of the owner. The Board would appropriate funds for each
individual blight abatement action under this program based upon the plan for
repair or disposition of the property.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Each property that is the subject of spot blight abatement shall be considered on
a case-by-case basis by the Board. Therefore the Board can determine and limit
any expenditure necessary for spot blight abatement as each situation develops
and a plan of repair or disposal is approved.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt the resolution establishing a program of spot blight abatement for
Roanoke County.
2. Decline to adopt the resolution, continue to address these situations thru
current procedures.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adoption of the attached
resolution.
Exhibit A
'S-~
§ 36-49.1: 1. Spot blight abatement authorized; procedure.
A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, an authority, or any locality,
shall have the power to acquire or repair any blighted property, as defined in §
36-49, whether inside or outside of a conservation or redevelopment area, by
exercise of the powers of eminent domain provided in Chapter 2 (§ 25.1-200 et
seq.) of Title 25.1, and, further, shall have the power to hold, clear, repair,
manage or dispose of such property for purposes consistent with this title. In
addition, the locality shall have the power to recover the costs of any repair or
disposal of such property from the owner. This power shall be exercised only in
accordance with the procedures set forth in this section.
B. The chief executive or designated agency or authority of the locality shall
make a preliminary determination that a property is blighted in accordance with
this article. It shall notify the owner, specifying the reasons why the property is
considered blighted. The owner shall have 30 days within which to respond with
a plan to cure the blight within a reasonable time.
C. If the owner fails to respond within the 30-day period with a plan that is
acceptable to the chief executive of the agency, authority or locality, the agency,
authority or locality (i) may request the local planning commission to conduct a
public hearing and make findings and recommendations that shall be reported to
the governing body of the locality concerning the repair or other disposition of the
property in question and (ii) in the event a public hearing is scheduled, shall
prepare a plan for the repair or other disposition of the property.
D. Not less than three weeks prior to the date of the public hearing before the
planning commission, the commission shall provide by regular and certified mail,
notice of such hearing to (i) the owner of the blighted property or the agent
designated by him for receipt of service of notices concerning the payment of real
estate taxes within the locality; (ii) the abutting property owners in each direction,
including those property owners immediately across the street or road from the
property; and (iii) the representative neighborhood association, if any, for the
immediate area. The notice shall include the plan for the intended repair or other
disposition of the property. The notice of the public hearing shall be published at
least twice, with not less than six days elapsing between the first and second
publication in a newspaper published or having general circulation in the locality
in which the property is located. The notice also shall be posted on the property.
The notice shall specify the time and place of the hearing at which persons
affected may appear and present their views, not less than six days nor more
than 21 days after the second publication.
E. The planning commission shall determine whether:
1. The owner has failed to cure the blight or present a reasonable plan to do so;
Exhibit A
S-à.
2. The property is blighted;
3. The plan for the repair or other disposition of the property is in accordance with
the locally adopted comprehensive plan, zoning ordinances, and other applicable
land use regulations; and
4. The property is located within an area listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. In such instances, the planning commission shall consult with the
locally established architectural review board, if any, regarding the proposed
repair or other disposition of the property by the authority or governing body.
F. The planning commission shall report its findings and recommendations
concerning the property to the governing body. The governing body, upon receipt
of such findings and recommendations, may, after an advertised public hearing,
affirm, modify, or reject the planning commission's findings and
recommendations. If the repair or other disposition of the property is approved,
the authority, agency or locality may carry out the approved plan to repair or
acquire and dispose of the property in accordance with the approved plan, the
provisions of this section, and applicable law. The locality shall have a lien on all
property so repaired or acquired under an approved plan to recover the cost of (i)
improvements made by such locality to bring the blighted property into
compliance with applicable building codes and (ii) disposal, if any. The lien
authorized by this subsection shall be filed in the circuit court where the property
is located and shall be subordinate to any prior liens of record. The governing
body may recover its costs of repair from the owner of record of the property
when the repairs were made at such time as the property is sold or disposed of
by such owner. If the property is acquired by the governing body through eminent
domain, the cost of repair may be recovered when the governing body sells or
disposes of the property. In either case, the costs of repair shall be recovered
from the proceeds of any such sale.
G. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, unless otherwise provided for in
Title 36, if the blighted property is occupied for personal residential purposes, the
governing body, in approving the plan, shall not allow for an acquisition of such
property if it would result in a displacement of the person or persons living in the
premises. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to acquisitions, under
an approved plan, by any locality of property which has been condemned for
human habitation for more than one year. In addition, such locality exercising the
powers of eminent domain in accordance with Title 25.1, may provide for
temporary relocation of any person living in the blighted property provided the
relocation is within the financial means of such person.
H. In lieu of the acquisition of blighted property by the exercise of the powers of
eminent domain as herein provided, and in lieu of the exercise of other powers
granted in subsections A through F, a locality may, by ordinance, declare any
blighted property as defined in § 36-49 to constitute a nuisance, and thereupon
Exhibit A
~-~
'"
abate the nuisance pursuant to § 15.2-900 or § 15.2-1115. Such ordinance shall
be adopted only after written notice by certified mail to the owner or owners at
the last known address of such owner as shown on the current real estate tax
assessment books or current real estate tax assessment records.
I. The provisions of this section shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to
any remedies for spot blight abatement that may be authorized by law.
(1994, 2nd Sp. Sess., cc. 5, 10; 1995, cc. 702, 827; 1996, c. 847; 1997, c. 572;
1998,cc.690, 898; 1999, cc.39,410,418;2001,c.482; 2003,c.940.)
Exhibit B
s-~
COUNTY OF ROANOKE
SPOT BLIGHT ABATEMENT PROCESS
PURSUANT TO VIRGINIA CODE Section 36-49.1:1
1. The Department of Community Development receives blighted property referrals
from Board members, community groups, other County agencies and citizens.
2. All referred properties are entered into a blight database. The Department of
Community Development investigates, begins a file on referred property and makes
a preliminary blight assessment.
A property can be considered blighted if it meets the standards set forth in Virqinia
Code Sections 36-49 and 36-49.1: 1 and if it meets any of the following criteria:
1. It has been vacant and/or boarded for at least one year.
2. It has been the subject of documented complaints.
3. It is no longer being maintained for useful occupancy
4. It is dilapidated or lacks normal maintenance and upkeep.
5. It has been the subject of nuisance abatement actions undertaken by the
County.
3. The Chief Building Official in coordination with the Blight Improvement Group
(Health, Fire, Police, County Planning, and County Attorney) reviews properties on
the referred blight list. Upon review of the property, a preliminary blight
determination is made if the property meets the criteria for the Determination of
Blighted Properties.
4. If condition of property is determined to be blighted by the Blight Improvement Group
(BIG), the County Administrator, or his designee, sends a certified letter to the owner
of record indicating a preliminary determination of blight and giving 30 days to cure
the blight.
5. The Chief Building Official follows up to assist the owner toward resolution through
compliance. Upon the owner's failure to eliminate the blight or failure to submit an
acceptable plan to cure the blight, the Chief Building Official and BIG prepares a
blight abatement plan and requests a hearing before the Planning Commission.
6. The Planning Commission schedules the matter for public hearing. Notice of the
hearing must be sent 3 weeks prior by regular and certified mail to:
Exhibit B
S-~
a. owner(s)
b. abutting owner(s)
c. civic league or association, if any for the immediate area
Notice must include plan for dealing with blight (Le., teardown, repair, etc.) Notice
must also be published twice (with not less than 6 days elapsing between first and
second publication). Notice shall also be posted on the property. Hearing must
occur within 21 days of 2nd application.
7. The Planning Commission holds a public hearing and determines whether (1)
property is blighted; (2) whether owner has failed to cure blight or develop a
reasonable plan; (3) whether plan is in accordance with applicable law and (4)
whether property is listed as historic.
8. The Planning Commission reports its findings to the Board of Supervisors.
9. Board of Supervisors holds advertised public hearing and affirms, modifies or rejects
the Planning Commission findings.
1 O.lf Board of Supervisors approves repair or demolition, the Department of Community
Development will solicit bids and will carry out a contract to abate the blight.
11. The owner of record is billed for the cost of blight abatement including administrative
costs. If the owner fails to pay for the abatement, the costs will be collected by any
manner provided by law for collection of state or local taxes. A lien shall be
recorded to recover the County's costs and expenses.
12. If Board of Supervisors determines that it is necessary to acquire property by
eminent domain in order to cure the blight, the matter is referred to the County
Attorney's Office for condemnation suit.
13. Throughout the entire process, the Department of Community Development
continues to work with the owner to gain voluntary compliance to eliminate blight.
2
~-~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28,2004
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PROGRAM FOR SPOT
BLIGHT ABATEMENT IN ROANOKE COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has
determined blighted or deteriorated areas and properties are developing in
Roanoke County, and,
WHEREAS, these blighted or deteriorated areas are defined as areas with
buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence,
overcrowding, faulty arrangement of design, lack of ventilation, light, and sanitary
facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or
any combination of these and other factors, are detrimental to the safety, health,
morals or welfare of the community; and,
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the establishment of a spot blight
abatement program in accordance with the provisions of Section 36-49.1: 1 of the
Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, is necessary and appropriate, and
WHEREAS, that certain blighted, deteriorated or deteriorating areas are
susceptible of conservation through appropriate public action and the elimination
or prevention of the spread or increase of blight or deterioration in such areas is
necessary for the public welfare and is a public purpose for which public money
may be spent and private property acquired by purchase or by the power of
eminent domain.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia,
c:::: ')
v-,
1 )
That there is hereby established a spot blight abatement program
for Roanoke County, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36-49.1: 1 of
the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
2)
That the County Administrator shall develop procedural guidelines
for the implementation of this program and the exercise of the spot blight
abatement powers authorized by the Code of Virginia, in substantial conformity
with Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The County
Administrator is authorized to delegate functions and activities as he deems
appropriate.
3)
That the County Administrator is granted the power and authority
as may be necessary to commence spot blight abatement in Roanoke County, as
provided in this Resolution and consistent with the provisions of law.
4)
That this Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its
adoption.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
T-I
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 28, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
First reading of an ordinance amending the Roanoke County
Code Section 21-73, General Prerequisites To Grant of
Division 3. Exemption For Elderly And Disabled Persons of
Chapter 21. Taxation to increase the various asset threshold
amount provisions for real estate tax exemption for the
elderly and handicapped
SUBMITTED BY:
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTSj
~~~
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This is the first reading of an ordinance amending Section 21-73 of the Roanoke County
Code to increase the various asset threshold amount provisions for the elderly and
disabled persons real estate tax exemptions. The 2004 session of the Virginia General
Assembly amended Section 58.1-3211 of the State Code which establishes the various
restrictions, limitations, and conditions on the authority of local governments to adopt
real estate exemptions for elderly and handicapped persons.
The General Assembly has authorized the governing bodies of counties, cities, and
towns to adopt an ordinance to provide for the exemption from, deferral of, or a
combination program of exemptions from and deferrals of real estate taxation for elderly
or disabled property owners subject to certain conditions and in such amounts as the
ordinance may allow and the enabling legislation may authorize. Roanoke County has
adopted the exemption instead of deferral program for local real estate taxes for eligible
citizens.
The Board has budgeted $600,000 for this exemption program in the current fiscal year.
There are 1,386 persons in this program; and 1,463 parcels of real estate.
T-\
This real estate property tax relief program is authorized by Article X, Section 6 (b) of
the Constitution of Virginia. The exemption is intended to provide relief to those elderly
or disabled persons whose real estate property tax burden is deemed to be excessive in
comparison with their income and financial worth.
There are three conditions in calculating eligibility for this exemption:
1.
2.
3.
Total combined income cannot exceed $50,000
Total combined net worth cannot exceed $100,000
The net worth amount shall not include the value of the sole dwelling house and
up to one acre of land.
Roanoke County excludes an amount up to $6,500 of income of each relative who is not
the spouse of an eligible owner living in the dwelling and who does not qualify for the
exemption.
The recent amendments by the General Assembly increased this amount ($6,500) to
$10,000; it increased the net combined financial worth to $200,000; and it allowed
excluding the value of the sole dwelling and land not to exceed 10 acres from this
calculation.
The draft ordinance recommends increasing from $6,500 to $10,000 of income of each
relative who is not the spouse of the owner living in the dwelling house and who does
not qualify for the exemption from the $50,000 total combined income limitation.
The ordinance does not recommend increasing the total combined net worth from
$100,000 to $200,000.
The ordinance does not recommend increasing the value of acreage from one acre to
ten acres in calculating the total combined net worth of the owner and spouse.
Finally the ordinance allows exempting the income of a relative or the relative's spouse
who moves in and provides care for an eligible person in order to avoid going into a
hospital, nursing home, convalescent home, or other similar facility.
The current total combined income and total combined net worth limitations appear to
be appropriate for Roanoke County based upon median family income statistical data.
The higher dollar limits are more appropriate for the more expensive Northern Virginia
and Tidewater areas of the Commonwealth. Roanoke County's program provides real
estate tax relief to elderly and handicapped citizens of modest means while assisting
them in alleviating an undue real estate tax burden. By excluding the value of the sole
dwelling house and up to one acre of land from the total combined net worth calculation,
the County helps these qualifying citizens to retain the family home. At the same time
this exemption program does not shift an undue tax burden to young families with
children.
2
T-I
The ordinance grants a tax exemption to eligible persons based upon financial need
and ability to pay, while balancing the tax burden among the generations.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The County has budgeted $600,000 in this fiscal year for this real estate exemption
program. Staff believes that these amendments can be accommodated within the
existing approved budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adoption of the proposed
ordinance. The first reading and public hearing is scheduled for September 28, 2004;
second reading would be scheduled for October 12, 2004. If adopted this ordinance
would become effective for the tax year beginning January 1, 2005.
3
T-
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2004
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY
AMENDING SECTION 21-73, GENERAL PREREQUISITES TO GRANT OF
DIVISION 3. EXEMPTION FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS OF
CHAPTER 21. TAXATION TO INCREASE THE VARIOUS ASSET
THRESHOLD AMOUNT PROVISIONS FOR REAL ESTATE TAX
EXEMPTION FOR THE ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED
WHEREAS, Section 21-73 of the Roanoke County Code establishes a restriction
upon the total combined income for the exemption from or deferral of real estate taxes for
certain elderly or permanently or totally disabled persons; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 84-232 adopted on December 18, 1984, increased this
financial restriction from $15,000 to $18,000, and Ordinance 22388-9 adopted February 23,
1988, increased this financial restriction from $18,000 to $22,000, and Ordinance 82791-10
adopted August 27, 1991, increased this financial restriction from $22,000 to $30,000;
Ordinance 052201-14 adopted May 22, 2001, increased this financial restriction from
$30,000 to $50,000; and
WHEREAS, the 2004 General Assembly for the Commonwealth of Virginia amended
Section 58.1-3211 of the 1950 Code of Virginia by increasing various asset threshold
amounts; and
WHEREAS, the first reading and public hearing on this ordinance was held on
September 28, 2004; and the second reading was held on October 14, 2004.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
T~I
1.
That Section 21-73, General prerequisites to arant of Division 3. Exemption
for elderly and disabled persons of Chapter 21, Taxation be amended to read and provide
as follows:
Sec. 21-73. General prerequisites to qrant.
Exemptions provided for in this division shall be granted only if the following
conditions are met:
(1 )
That the total combined income, during the immediately preceding calendar
year, from all sources, of the owner of the dwelling and his relatives living therein did not
exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000); provided, however, that the first sixty five hundred
dollars ($6,500) ten thousand dot!.êr§J$10,000) of income of each relative, other than the
spouse of the owner, who is living in the dwelling shall not be included in such total.
(2)
That the owner and his spouse did not have a total combined net worth,
including all equitable interests, exceeding one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) as
of December 31 of the immediately preceding calendar year. The amount of net worth
specified herein shall not include the value of the sole dwelling house and up to one (1)
acre of land.
(3)
~hstand¡nq sub-section (1) a~ a person qualifies for an exempt!9..0.
and if that person can prove by clear and convincina evidence that his or her physical or
mental health has deteriorated to the point that the only alternative to permanently residina
in a hospital, nursina home. convalescent home or other facility or physical or mental care
is to have a relative move in and provide care for that person. and if a relative does then
move in for that purpose. then none of the income of the relative or of the relatives spouse
shall be counted towards the income limit. provided the owner of the residence has not
2
T..-, (
transferred assets in excess of ten thousand dollars ($..:! 0,000) w!!.hout aqequate
consideration within a three year period prior to or after the relative moves into such
residence.
2.
That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after January 1,
2005, and it shall become effective for the 2005 real estate tax year.
3
U-\
PETITIONER:
CASE NUMBER:
Comprehensive Plan
7/2004
Planning Commission Hearing Date: October 5, 2004(Continued from July 6, 2004)
Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: October 26,2004 (Continued from July 27,2004)
A.
REQUEST
Public Hearing to receive public comments on a proposal to adopt a revised
Community (Comprehensive) Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia. The proposed
Community Plan is comprised of both text and maps. Once recommended by the
Planning Commission and adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the plan will serve as
a general guide for a long range use and development of all land within Roanoke
County. The proposed plan has been prepared in accordance with guidelines
contained in Sections 15.2-2223 and 2224 of the Code of Virginia, and Section 30-8-1
of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance.
B.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Eight citizens spoke. Concerns were expressed regarding the following: 1) rural
densities should be increased; 2) Section 2232 review should not be required; 3) need
more residential development; 4) need more specific information and more time to
review it; 5) need more citizen participation; 6) transportation section needs to be
more closely linked to growth management section; 7) rural areas need to be
preserved.
In addition, Mr. Bob Flynn spoke representing the Roanoke Regional Home Builders
Association. He expressed concern that the areas projected for growth will not be
areas where land is available for sale or that the land may not be developable. His
organization is concerned with any form of an urban service boundary.
C.
SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission expressed thanks to citizens for their continued participation in the
process.
D.
CONDITIONS
E.
COMMISSION ACTION(S)
Voted to continue this petition for 60 days.
F.
DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE
None.
G.
ATTACHMENTS:
- Concept Plan
- Staff Report
- Vicinity Map
- Other
Janet Scheid, Secretary
Roanoke County Planning Commission
2
PETITIONER:
CASE NUMBER:
Pinkerton Properties LLC (Rezoning)
20-8/2004
u-~
Planning Commission Hearing Date:
Board of Supervisors Hearing Date:
September 7,2004 (Continued from 8/3104)
September 28, 2004 (Continued from 8/24/04)
A.
REQUEST
The petition of Pinkerton Properties, LLC to rezone 6.15 acres from R1 Low Density
Residential District to R3 Medium Density Multi Family District with conditions in order
to construct townhouses, located at the northerly end of Byron Road, Catawba
Magisterial District.
B.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Tim Witt (2628 Embassy Drive) - Expressed concerns with water runoff and sewer
backups. Mr. Witt was also concerned with the speed of drivers in the area. Mr. Witt
expressed support of this project instead of a by right R-1 development.
Giles Gilley (2828 Emissary Drive) - Expressed concerns with water runoff and the
detention facility being so close to his backyard. Mr. Gilley also has a concern with
the structural integrity of the detention facility. Mr. Gilley felt more comfortable with
the project after talking extensively with the staff.
Craig Dickerson (2817 Emissary Drive) - Mr. Dickerson came opposed to the project
and had a signed petition against the project. Mr. Dickerson changed his mind but felt
that he had an obligation to the citizens who filled out the petition to read it before the
planning commission. Mr. Dickerson read the petition which expressed the concerns
of runoff and traffic. The petition also stated that though they did not support this
request they did not want to interfere with the best interests and wishes of their
neighbors who adjoin this property.
Tim Murphy (5628 Ambassador Drive) - Concerns with road and patio homes close to
the property line. Mr. Murphy is also concerned with buffering. Mr. Murphy believes
that with the proffers offered this plan would be less detrimental to his property than
something that can be done by right.
Darissa Thompson (4728 Diplomat Drive) - Expressed concerns with traffic.
Gerald Curtis - (2628 Embassy Drive) - Expressed concerns with traffic, stormwater
problems, speeding motorists, and how the patio homes fit in the neighborhood.
Heather Ashley (2608 Embassy Drive) - Requested approval for the rezoning
because she felt that traffic concerns would be less than a single family
neighborhood.
Diana Morehart (5719 Deputy Drive) - Felt that a study needed to take place to see if
the schools could handle the development. She also felt that traffic was horrible and
cars parked along the street.
C.
SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Mr. Chris Lowe presented the staff report.
D.
CONDITIONS
1. The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the "Revised
Townhouse Development August 20,2004, Proposed 28 Townhouses Proposed
Zoning R-3, 6.15 Acres", prepared by T.P. Parker & Son attached hereto.
2. Wherever possible, existing vegetation shall be preserved and incorporated into
the buffering requirements. Screening and buffering in that area of the
development adjoining Tax Map No. 036.19-01-12.00 shall utilize Type (A) Buffer,
1
E.
Option 2 with an eight (8) foot vinyl screening fence instead of the six (6) foot
screening required. U - à..,
COMMISSION ACTION(S)
Ms. Hooker made the motion to recommend approval of the rezoning with conditions.
Motion carried 4-0.
F.
DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE
G.
ATTACHMENTS:
- Concept Plan
- Staff Report
- Vicinity Map
- Other
Janet Scheid, Secretary
Roanoke County Planning Commission
2
Location:
Magisterial District:
STAFF REPORT
Pinkerton Properties LLC
Rezone Approximately 6.15 Acres of R-l Single Family Residential to R-3
Multi-Family Residential.
Northerly end of Byron Road, NW Roanoke County
Catawba
u~~
Petitioner:
Request:
Staff Suggestions:
Staff suggests the following proffers:
1. The site plan shall generally conform to the Master Development Plan
dated August 20,2004 developed by T.P. Parker & Son.
2. Wherever possible, existing vegetation shall be preserved and
incorporated into the buffering requirements. Screening and
buffering in that area of the development adjoining Tax Map No
036.19-01-12.00 (Murphy Property) shall utilize Type (A) Buffer,
Option 2 with an eight (8) foot vinyl screening fence instead of the six
(6) foot screening required.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This is a rezoning request to change approximately 6.15 acres of R-I, Low Density Single Family
Residential to R-3 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential. Currently R-I zoned property allows I lot
per 7200 square feet (approximately 6 lots per acre) which would be 37 lots by right for this property.
This is not taking into consideration the necessary acreage for public road, utilities, or stonnwater
management. The proposal is for a zoning change to R-3 to allow for a 28 unit, single story patio home
(townhouse) development. The site is designated as Neighborhood Conservation and Transition in the
1998 Roanoke County Community Plan.
1.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
I. Site Plan Review required.
2. VDOT approval required.
3. R-l Zoning, 1 lot per 7,200 square feet (37 units by right)
4. R-3 Zoning, 12 units per acre (73 units by right without proffers) and Use and Design
Standards, 30-82-14.
2.
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
Background -This site consists of two vacant lots. A portion of this site was a neighborhood
swim club that closed and was subsequently tom down. The property serves as a buffer between
existing vacant property along Rt. 419 zoned C-2C and existing R-I single family homes located
along Embassy, Emissary, Byron, Ambassador, and Deputy Drives. The C-2C and R-l zoning
are divided by AEP power lines. This petition has no effect on the C-2C property.
1
l\~~
Topography/Vegetation - The site slopes gently from east to west and has a dense concentration
of mature vegetation with the exception of an AEP right-of-way which borders the property and
the former swim club area.
Surrounding Neighborhood - The surrounding neighborhood consists of a mix of commercial and
residential properties. To the north, R-l established single family homes with access off of
Deputy Drive adjoin this property. To the east, R-l single family homes with access off of
Ambassador and Emissary Drives adjoin this property. To the south, R-l established single
family homes adjoin this property. The vacant property to the west is a portion of one of the
tracts subject to this rezoning action and is zoned C-2C. This portion of the property fronts on
Route 419 and is not part of the petition.
3.
ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Background - The property consists of two parcels surrounded by single family homes and a
vacant commercial property. A portion of the property use to be the site of a neighborhood
swimming pool. The applicant bought this property approximately 18 months ago with plans to
develop a housing development.
Site Layout/Architecture - The applicant intends to develop a 28 unit, single story patio home
(townhouse) development. Petitioner states that minimum starting price for a patio home will be
approximately $160,000. The patio homes will be 1 story, 2 bedroom units. There are eight (8)
different clusters of units ranging from 2 units to 4 units per cluster.
Conceptual layout plan shows that the limits of grading will leave some undisturbed areas. Those
areas are along the northern property line with the adjoining property owners along Deputy Drive
and 5 of the 6 property owners on Embassy Drive along the southern property line. Grading will
occur up the property lines of Mr. and Mrs. Murphy. This will take out a portion of mature
vegetation that currently provides a buffer between the Murphy's property and the petitioner's
property. The Murphy's have requested a proffer stating that the applicant will provide an 8'
opaque screening fence along their adjoining property lines. Section 30-92 of the Roanoke
County Zoning Ordinance, requires a Type (A) Buffer for R-3 Developments along R-l property
lines. There are two options available. Option 1 requires a twenty (20) foot buffer, consisting of
large trees, one (I) row of evergreen shrubs and one (I) row of deciduous shrubs. Option 2
requires a fifteen (15) foot buffer, consisting of one (1) large and three (3) small trees for every
seventy-five (75), six (6) foot screening (fence, etc.) and two (2) large shrubs for every ten (10)
feet. Staff has recommended as a proffer, Option 2, a fifteen (IS) foot buffer, but with an eight
(8) foot tall screening fence instead of six (6), and the required landscaping along the entire
adjoining property line of property 036.19-01-12.00-0000 (Mr. and Mrs. Murphy's Property).
Access/Traffic Circulation - Access to the development will be an extension of the existing
Byron Road which currently ends in a cul-de-sac. It has not been determined whether the
applicant will develop a private or public extension of Byron Drive. The Roanoke County Traffic
Engineer states that 28 residential townhouse units would generate approximately 218 trips per
day. This traffic calculation is less than a single-family detached housing development with 19
units which would generate 226 trips per day. Mr. Ford utilized the 6th edition ofthe ITE Trip
Generation Manual and Land Use Code (230), and utilized the "fitted curve equation".
V DOT had no significant concerns and will address any future concerns during site plan review.
2
lk- J.,
Fire & RescuelUtilities - Property is located approximately 5 miles from Hollins Fire Station. 6-
8 Minute response times expected for this site. There is no adverse impact on Fire and Rescue for
this development.
Water and sewer utilities are available to this development.
Department of Economic Development - Economic Development has no objections.
Community Meeting - On Thursday, July 29, a community meeting was held at the Kessler Mill
Training Center. Approximately 40 people were present to hear the proposed petition, ask
questions, and voice their concerns. The majority of the concerns addressed stOrn1water runoff
and traffic.
The past history of stOrn1water problems in this area fueled many of the concerns. Residents
were advised that stonnwater management procedures would have to be followed according to
Roanoke County Drainage Standards or site plans would not be approved. It was explained by
County staff that drainage conditions would actually improve if this site was developed compared
to existing conditions there now due to the construction of a stOrn1water management facility..
Traffic was a concern also with the residents. Residents felt that increased housing in the area
would cause a traffic increase and would create an unsafe environment for children in the area.
At the conclusion of the meeting, County staff requested that the petitioner provide a "by-right"
R-llayout so that County staff could estimate traffic counts, number of units, buffers, units'
proximity to adjoining residences and stOrn1water implications. A conceptual R-l by-right plan
was submitted the following week. Staff has analyzed this R-l conceptual plan and come to the
following conclusions:
1. The R-l conceptual plan shows 19 single-family homes compared to the 28 patio homes
requested by the petitioner.
2. Stonnwater management remains relatively the same between the R-l and the proposed R-3.
The R -1 conceptual plan would produce an insignificant amount of increase of impervious
surfaces which would then increase the size required for the drainage basin, but not by a
significant amount.
3. The traffic count for the proposed R-3 28 patio homes is estimated to be approximately 218
trips per day. The traffic count for the conceptual R-l plan is estimated to be approximately 226
trips per day. Again an increase for the conceptual R-1 plan but not a significant increase.
4. Distances from proposed units to adjoining property lines:
Adjacent Residence
Proposed R-3 Zoning
Conceptual R -1 Zoning
2817 Byron (Paxton)
2816 Byron (Lucas)
5628 Ambassador (Murphy)
5628 Ambassador (Murphy)
35'
26'
18.5' (Unit 24)
35' (Unit 25)
15'
10'
10' (Unit 24)
18' (Unit 3)
3
L\-~
5. Buffer yards - The proposed R-3 28 patio home development would require a Type (A) Buffer
along R-1 property lines. There are two options available. Option 1 requires a twenty (20) foot
buffer, consisting oflarge trees, one (1) row of evergreen shrubs and one (1) row of deciduous
shrubs. Option 2 requires a fifteen (15) foot buffer, consisting of one (1) large and three (3) small
trees for every seventy-five (75), six (6) foot screening (fence, etc.) and two (2) large shrubs for
every ten (10) feet. The conceptual R-l plan would require no buffering between the
development and the adjoining properties nor would it require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
4.
CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN
The site has two parcels and each parcel has a different land use designation. The 1.77 acre tract
(tax parcel # 036.19-01-12.01) which shows the stormwater management facility, units 25-28,
and units 1-3 is designated Neighborhood Conservation in the 1998 Community Plan. The 4.28
acre tract (portion of tax parcel # 036.19-01-40) which shows the remaining 21 units is
designated Transition in the 1998 Community Plan. Land designated Neighborhood
Conservation encourages single-family residential of attached and detached housing at a
reasonable density that is not significantly higher than the existing neighborhood. Infilllots
should be designed to be sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood but can be at reasonably
higher density. Land designated Transition generally serves as buffer between highways and
nearby or adjacent lower intensity residential development. Multi-family residential, single-
family attached residential, small scale retail and planned office parks are all encouraged in these
areas. This proposed rezoning meets the criteria of both land use designations, providing a buffer
between the existing low density neighborhood and the existing vacant commercial property
along Rt. 419.
5.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS
This is a rezoning request to change 6.15 acres ofR-l, low-density residential property to R-3,
medium density multi-family residential. The proposed rezoning involves 2 parcels located at the
end of the Byron Drive cul-de-sac. This petition conforms to the Roanoke County Community
Plan and the site has ample space to conform to all applicable development standards. Most
impacts can be alleviated with the addition of the above proffers recommended by staff.
CASE NUMBER:
PREP ARED BY:
HEARING
DATES:
20-8/2004
Chris Lowe
PC: September 7,2004
BOS: September 28, 2004
4
AUG-31-2004 09:25
u~ I t:r<HUULJ I r-'r< 1 LLHf'IHN NH I I
l::>41Q ( (41Q::;SOl
r.~<:::/~'-I
I ,
~-à
County of Roanoke
ComulUnity Development
Plannmg & Zoning
~l~~
5204 B~rnard Drive
POBox 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
(540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155
:f~~~f-~~fS '
Checlc type of application f1.1ed (check all that appJy)
KJ RezoIlÙJ.g 0 Special Us~ CJ Varia.c.ce
Cue Number
"'. ..... '", .'
, ;
, ",'.., ,..
" ."
0 WaiVtr
0 AdmiDlstrative Appt:.al
Applicwt.s name/address w/zip
Pinkerton Properties, l.L.C.
925 N. Electric Rd., Salam, VA 24153
CONTACT: Edward A. Natt 3912 Electric
Owner's na.me:ladd1ess whip
Pinkerton Properties, l.l.C.
925 N. Electric Rd., Salem, VA 24153
<IM"x:T: Edward A. Na
Property LocatioD
Northerly end of Byron Road
Phone:
Work: 725-8180
Cell K:
Fax No.: 772-,0126
Phone #:
Work: 725-81 80
Fax No. #:772-0126
Magisœrial District: Ca t avba
Commun.ity Pla.Il.!lÍ.tlg éU'ca:
HoII ins
Tax Map No.: all of 036.19-01-12.01 and
ExLstiDg ZoDing: R 1
Size of parccl(s): Aerts: te I 6. 15 ac ëLsrlng Land Use: vacant
:;~~'.~fg,~I# q~~~§~~'Jiw'#A~~~~:~.§W. ~,;,-,'.'..,.,'..,_..._.~',
Proposed Zoning: R=3 (Res ¡dent ia I Mll t i -Fami Iy) ,
Proposed Land Use: Construct i on of 28 to'Nrlhouses
, .. ", ..' ..
"""""'<-""""""""_',1,'-.-.
Does the parcel mr:et the rnIDimum lot area, width. aDd frontage requjreme.nts of the requested district?
Yes No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST.
Does the parcel meet the m.iDimum criteria for the requested Use Type?
IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST
If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with 1:bis request? Yes
;'~"~"c~':""-~,'~.:.:'.::",',." ':.'" '1Í,~;J~:::::~r'::~M,'~""":::-""'::;:~';~.~.l-,:',';:--:'~';';;;¡'>'~;;:,~'-",""" "'," ,,"""',"""
,',~t.1'~j<~j{jè-G:w.;4'hJ'i:"R:'ANVADLt2:.uv..liY.l~"J.J.y,.crARri'ð<'A'i'is.4J>kil;i";:W;¡.::1.I:,tti~!.ßA 1:, '
"~I...,F.),,.~f' ::':,...... "..""...~...._,- ".n,', ,..",4:~~. ,..._~r~:I_."{'ni....,:¡I<,,, ..,. """'.'
~-_._"~"" """""'" "'" , ',.. '" .,.._,~.'\I"""..,..~......,~.,."""" ...,.......,;:._~.;t.""_"_..-...__.,,,..;.¡.,,-,.,.....,,,.... .....,.---
Yes
No
Ntl
'..,", ,',,"'" ., ..
."...._...."~,,,,::..'
Varié!IlcelWa.iver of Section(s)
of the Roanoke COUll!)' ZoDing Ordina.ru:e in oId~ [0:
Appeal of ZoDÏDg Administrator's decision to
Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s):
Appeal of Interpretation of ZOIÛDg Map to
of in~ Remoke COUDty Zomng O¡dinmce
Is the !pplicatioD complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION wn..L NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE
ITEMS ARE M1SSING OR INCOMPLETE.
'RJSrw VIM FJSIW VIM RJSIW VIM
m Consultltion ê3i 8 1/2' x ll" concept p13.11 ~' Application fœ
Application M~Þ:s aDd bounds description Proffers, if applicable
1ustification Water aDd s~e:r application AdjoilliDg property owners
I bere:by certify tha.t I "-'tI either the c¡wner C1f the property or the: owu.r's agent or CDUtt'act purch..ase.r and am acting with the kDowl~ge wd
consent oime ownc:r.CMNER: ~ nker~o^, - Prltfl~t,,\es....d...J.h.L..£.. ~
PI: ~~I r"u. ~ Owner's SignatUre
HUb-~1-¿~~4 ~~;¿b
----0::'1 t::i'<HUUIJ I I""'i'< i LLHI'IHN NH I I
1::>41:::)( (41:::)~b1
1""'.1:::).)/1:::)4
u-- à.
~~'~:~ihÇJ\TION FOR REZO1';~G, S~i.ê~'P~'~~~~:ÒWW~~'ïiE~u;eS~
: - "",-""--""-,-""""":",,,,,'-"",-.......,,.--..,-------""-"'",--""-"",--",-,,..,..-,-'.,,-""
Applicant Pinkerton Properties, L.L.c.
Th~ PlanDing Commission will stUdy rezoning. specia1u.se permit or waiver requests to de[ennin~ the need andjusIificaúan for
the change in terms of public health, ¡¡af~ry I and general welfare. P1ease answer the following q'Jestions as thoroughly as possible.
Use additional space if necessary-
Pl~ase explain how the rtquest furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose fOUDd at the
begin.D..iDg of the applicable zoning distric! c1assifiC4tion in the Zoning Ordinance. The prope...,r ty Is presen t I y ,
zoned R-1 (036.19-01-12.01) and (036.19-01-40). The proposed rezoning to R3 with
proffers would allow for the development of twenty-eight (28) townhouses on' the parcel
of land. The R-3 District is to provide for high-density development within the urban
service area with between twelve (12) and twenty-four (24) units per acre. The propos I
for twenty-eight (28) townhouses within this parcel of land wi II fall within that crit rioo.
As stated in the purposes of the R-3, the proposal would serve as a buffer between les ."'
intensive (single-family residential) and !TOre intensIve (comœrcia,l) uses. Th~ propo at
wi II provide for the development of twenty-eight (28) units within eight (8) clusters,
ranging in size from two (2) to four (4) units.
Please explain bow we: project COnf0IID5 to the general guidelines and polic:ks contained in the Roanoke Count)' Community
Plan. .
e property, as designated in the Community Plan, falls along the border of transitio
and neighborhood conservation. Neighbofhood conservation allows for attached housing
at reasonable density that is not significantly higher than the existing neighborhood.
is, coupled with the buffer provision$, makes this a reasonable use. A significant
rtion of the property remains undisturbed. Transition district provrdes for single-
family attached residential with not more than six (6) units per acre. The proposal
falls within that criterion and, ,thus, is an appropriate use.
Please descrIbe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding a.rez., as well
as: the impactS on public services and facilities, includiDg water/sewer, roads. schools. parb/rec:reoa.tion a.nd roe and rescue.
Public uti Ii ties are available within the immediate area and no significant burden wi I
be placed upon the pub I ic fat::i I i ties of the County.
Address of Subject Property:
Tax Map No.:
Northerly end of Byron Drive
Part of 036.19-01-40; Part of 36.19-01-12-01
Applicant/Owner's Name:
Pinkerton Properties, L.L.C.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARCEL 1:
BEGINNING at a point at the northwest corner of Lot 12,
Block 18, Section 4, Montclair Estates (PB 10, PG 7); said
point being at the northeast corner of Byron Drive; thence S.
650 00' 30" W. 191.02 feet to a point; thence N. 240 55' 30" E.
180.31 feet to a point; N. 710 19' 24" E. 57.68 feet to a point;
thence with a curved line to the right having a chord, bearing
and distance of S. 660 48' 03" E. 200.26 feet, a distance of
219.26 feet to a point; thence S. 240 55' 30" E. 7.07 feet to the
point and place of BEGINNING.
PARCEL 2:
BEGINNING at a point at the northeast corner of Lot 1,
Block 5, Montclair Forest, as said point intersects with the line
of Section 4, Montclair Estates; thence with the line of
Montclair Forest S. 710 03' 00" W. 464.08 feet to a point;
thence with a new division line through the property of
Pinkerton Properties, LLC (Tax Map No. 36.19-01-40)
to a point; thence N. 710 03' 00" E. 364.22
feet to a point; thence S. 240 55' 30" E. 463.33 feet to the
point and place of BEGINNING.
\\JOLL Y\SYS\USERS\CBaumgardner\ZONING\Pinkerton REZONING LEGAL.doc
lA/~..
Page 1 of 1
\A--~
PROFFERS
Address of Subject Property:
Northerly end of Byron Drive
Tax Map No.:
Part of 036.19-01-40; All of 36.19-01-12.01
Applicant/Owner's Name:
Pinkerton Properties, L.L.C.
PROFFERS
The undersigned owner does hereby proffer the following conditions in conjunction
with the rezoning request:
1. The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the "Revised
Townhouse Development August 20,2004, Proposed 28 Townhouses Proposed Zoning
R-3, 6.15 Acres", prepared by T. P. Parker & Son attached hereto.
2. Wherever possible, existing vegetation shall be preserved and incorporated
into the buffering requirements. Screening and buffering in that area of the development
adjoining Tax Map No. 036.19-01-12.00 shall utilize Type (A) Buffer, Option 2 with an
eight (8) foot vinyl screening fence instead of the six (6) foot screening required.
OWNER/APPLICANT:
:~~.c.
ITS
\\JOll y\SYS\USERS\CBaumgzrdner\zONING\Pinkerton Prop REZONING PROFFERS.doc
September 8, 2004
Page 1 of 1
Lk-à-.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2004
ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 6.15-
ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY END
OF BYRON ROAD (TAX MAP NOS. 036.19-01-40 and part of 036.19-
12.01) IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF R1 LOW DENSITY TO THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF R3 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI FAMILY DISTRICT
WITH CONDITIONS IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT TOWNHOUSES UPON
THE APPLICATION OF PINKERTON PROPERTIES, LLC
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 24,2004, and the
second reading and public hearing were held September 28,2004; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
matter on September 7, 2004; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1.
That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 6.15
acres, as described herein in order to construct townhouses, and located at the northerly
end of Byron Road (Tax Map Numbers 036.19-01-40 and 036.19-01-12.01) in the Catawba
Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R 1, Low Density
District, to the zoning classification of R3, Medium Density Multi family District.
2.
That this action is taken upon the application of Pinkerton Properties, LLC.
3.
That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following
conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts:
LA~~
1.
The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the "Revised
Townhouse Development August 20,2004, Proposed 28 Townhouses Proposed Zoning
R-3, 6.15 Acres", prepared by T. P. Parker & Son attached hereto.
2.
Wherever possible, existing vegetation shall be preserved and incorporated
into the buffering requirements. Screening and buffering in that area of the development
adjoining Tax Map No. 036.19-01-12.00 shall utilize Type (A) Buffer, Option 2 with an eight
(8) foot vinyl screening fence instead of the six (6) foot screening required.
4.
That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
PARCEL 1:
BEGINNING at a point at the northwest corner of Lot 12, Block 18, Section 4,
Montclair Estates (PB 10, PG 7); said point being at the northeast corner of
Byron
Drive; thence S. 65000' 30" W 191.02 feet to a point; thence N. 24055' 30" E,
180.31
feet to a point; N. 71019' 24" E. 57.68 feet to a point; thence with a curved line
to the
right having a chord, bearing and distance of S. 66048' 03" E. 200.26 feet, a
distance of 219.26 feet to a point; thence S. 24055' 30" E. 7.07 feet to the point
and place of BEGINNING.
PARCEL 2:
BEGINNING at a point at the northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 5, Montclair
Forest, as said point intersects with the line of Section 4, Montclair Estates;
thence with the line of Montclair Forest S. 710 03' 00" W. 464.08 feet to a
point; thence with a new division line through the property of Pinkerton
Properties, LLC, (Tax Map No. 36.19-01-40) to a point; thence
N. 710 03' 00" E. 364.22 feet to a point; thence S. 240 55' 30" E. 463.33 feet
to the point and place of BEGINNING.
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
2
\,;~ ~.
amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by
this ordinance.
3
MtRIDIAIV
StCr¡OIV OF' MO
4. 'lyìC!A
Þ ,.,IR t:-
.8. '> <;SìA"'t:-
. Pc 'l.S
. 10
'ì!>.
REVISED TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT
AUGUST 20, 2004
PROPOSED 28 TOWNHOUSES
PROPOSED ZONING R3
6.15 ACRES
SCALE: 1" = 1 00' (SMALL)
SCALE: 1" = 50' (LARGE)
u~~
I
29' MIN.
t..
0
~!~
¡:::""!::
If) ~
x ~
w
w
If)
;:)
8
w H!t::
---{)~w-
--i)H
----
--
50' APCO -
EASEMENT
ZONED R1
ZONED c2=ë
- """--
--=
TRACT B
PROPERTY OF
PINKERTON
PROPERTIES. LLC
TAX NO. 36.19-01-41
D.S. 1521, PG. 1435
7.791 ACRES
ZONED C2-C
40'
PROPERTY OF
PINKERTON
PROPERTIES, LLC
TAX NO. 36.19-01-40
INST. NO. 200330458
7.83 ACRES
ZONED C2-C I R1
PROPERTY OF
PINKERTON
PROPERTIES, LLC
T, NO. 36.19-01-38
IN T. NO. 200330458
2.61 ACRES
x ZONED C2-C
.'-..-
North £ .ct.-Ic: ~ . . -
. . - oo.d~. .19
.. -
..-..-
¡.c-x-
X-X
~><-X_*,---,
~
~-----.
ffi PROPERTY OF PINKERTON PROPERTIES, LLC 1Jf
-h TAX NO 36.19-01-12.1, 1.773 ACRES, ZONED R1
M A ""ITER \\ ?oJ
%
~
~
'"
'à
"6
~
larn_g
Zoning
_AGJ
_EP
./' _AG1
AA
./' _AV
C1
_C2
- C2CVOO
11
_12
_PeO
PRO
_PTD
R1
R2
R3
R4
~t-d
'-
-2934-
2935
2928
2929
~
..
..>
<9
@
CJ)
<t
1i
N
Â
Applicants Name: Pinkerlon Properlies, LLC
Existing Zoning: R-1
Proposed Zoning: R-3C
Tax Map Number: 36.19-1-12.1
Magisterial District: Catawba
Roanoke County
Department of
Community Development
36.19-1-40 (Porlion)
Acreage: +/- 6.12 Acres
September 7, 2004 Scale: 1 "=200'
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
tA -,3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 28, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Second reading of an ordinance amending Sections 7-71
Building Permit Fees and 7-72 Trade Permit Fees, and
establishing a new Section 7-73 Miscellaneous Fees of Article
5, Chapter 7, Building Regulations of the Roanoke County
Code, and providing for an effective date
SUBMITTED BY:
Arnold Covey
Director of Community Development
Elmer C. Hodge ê If
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMI~~
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This is a request to update the building regulations ordinance and particularly, to update the
method used to estimate construction costs for the purpose of calculating permit fees.
Additionally, it will add certain fees that are not included in the current ordinance and modify
other existing fees. As directed by the Board of Supervisors, staff has prepared a
breakdown of estimated revenues from the current and proposed fees which are outlined in
Attachment 1.
The County is currently working with Novalis Technologies on an integrated land records
management solution. As Phase One of the HP migration project, the Information
Technology Department, through Novalis Technologies, is developing the new software
package for land development. Phase One includes Community Development, Real Estate
Valuation and Business Licenses. A part of this update involves reviewing our fees and
processes and having them programmed into the new software.
The Community Development Department is working with Information Technology
Department on a new software system which we hope will be implemented in the next few
months. One of the issues we hoped to address with the new system was the under-
l\-3
reporting of annual construction values in Roanoke County. Under our current fee
calculation method, standard residential construction is valued at $26.10 per sq. ft. This
value is obtained from a construction cost table published by BOCA International in 1991
and adopted by the county into the current ordinance. BOCA is now defunct and the table
is no longer published. A new method of calculating construction cost for the purpose of
determining permit fees as well as more accurate reporting is needed. After researching the
matter we discovered that we had an in-house method available that is updated annually
and is extremely accurate. This is the building construction value base rates as determined
annually by the county Real Estate Valuation office. Linking our permitting software to the
property assessment software will provide an accurate method to calculate cost that is
updated automatically on an annual basis. We propose to delete the 1991 BOCA table in
Section 7-71 and replace it with a reference to the cost values as adjusted on an annual
basis by the Real Estate Valuation office. Please refer to Attachment 3.
Obviously, this would result in a substantial increase in permits fees if no other adjustment
is made. To offset this effect, it is our intention to create a new permit type for construction
performed under the International Residential Code, specifically one and two family
dwellings. This permit will be called a "Residential Construction Permit" and will cover all
work necessary to complete the project as described on the application. No additional
permits or fees would be required from subcontractors working on the project who are
identified at the time of application.
This change will result in approximately 1500 fewer permits issued annually by the clerks.
We believe this will enhance office efficiency and provide the clerks a better opportunity to
serve our customers.
The commercial permit process will remain unchanged; however, commercial permit fees
will be affected. The effect varies because of the wide variation in commercial construction
costs. Most commercial permits will see a fee increase even though a few actually will
experience a decline in fees.
Sample comparisons for both residential and commercial are included in Attachment 2.
Fees to be modified:
Re-inspection Fee - $50.00 (applies on 3rd re-inspection of same item)
Increase minimum permit fees to $30.00 from $25.00
Fees to be added:
Existing Building CO - $35.00
Elevator Periodic Inspection $35.00
Amusement Devices:
Kiddie Rides - $15.00
Circular rides or flat rides that can be inspected from less than 20 feet above ground
- $25.00
All Other Types of Devices - $45.00
(Amusement Device Fees reduced 50% when a private inspector is used)
FISCAL IMPACT:
No impact to existing funding levels.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve changes to the ordinance.
2. Develop an alternate method of determining construction costs
3. Take no action
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative 1, approval of the changes to the ordinance.
lA- -3
Attachment 1
L\ -<3
Building Permit Fee Analysis
Roanoke County issued 5029 building permits in calendar year 2003. These
permits generated $472,562 in revenue.
Projected Revenue under proposed evaluation method
Permit Type Current Fees Proposed
Fees
BuildinQ 281,082 360,000
Electrical 78,980 46,500
Plumbing 53,372 40,000
Mechanical 54,623 40,000
Signs 3,755 4,000
Re-inspect fees 750 1,500
TOTALS $472,562 $492,000
Building Building Current Sq Ft Current Current Proposed Sq Ft Proposed Proposed
Type Details Const. Cost Valuation Permit Fee Const. Cost Valuation Fee
Single Family Residence Living Area 1276 sq ft $26.10 per sq ft $45,693 $250 bid. $59.00 per sq ft $97,273
Garage 435 sq ft $8.00 per sq ft $100 elec. $29.50 or 50% of base
Unfin. Basement 476 sq ft $6.00 per sq ft $75 plb. $11.80 or 30% of base
Deck 20 x 20 400 sq ft est. cost $6000 $75 mech. $8.85 or 15% of base
$500.00 $510.00
Duplex Living Area 2016 sq ft $26.10 per sq ft $54,619 $295 bid. $54.00 per sq ft $109,674
Deck (2)10 x 10 est. cost $2000 $85 elec. $8.10 or 15% of base
$60 plb.
$60 mech.
$500.00 $538.00
Manufactured Home Living Area 1000 sq ft NONE NONE $50 bId. $29.00 per sq ft $29,435
Deck 10 x 10 $25 elec $4.35 or 15% of base
$25 plb
$10 CO
$110.00 $170.00
Apartments 27041 sq ft $26.10 per sq ft $761,713 $1,582.00 $41.00 per sq ft $1,108,861 $1,874.00
Warehouse 137,280 sq ft $22.88 per sq ft $3,142,174 $2,891.50 $21.00 per sq ft $2,882,880 $2,823.00
Mini Storage 3750 sq ft $20.21 per sq ft $75,801 $400.00 $22.00 per sq ft $82,500 $435.00
Grocery 58,860 sq ft $26.04 per sq ft $1,533,185 $2,086 $49.00 per sq ft $2,884,140 $2,762.00
Private School 3000 sq ft $41.28 per sq ft $123,869 $568.00 $70.00 per sq ft $210,000 $740.00
5[
UJ
Attachment 2
Building Building Current Sq Ft Current Current Proposed Sq Ft Proposed Proposed
Type Details Const. Cost Valuation Fee Const. Cost Valuation Fee
Auto Dealership 6323 sq ft $22.88 per sq ft $144,726 $610.00 $30.00 per sq ft $189,690 $698.00
Church 40,000 sq ft $37.61 per sq ft $1,504,448 $2,072.00 $70.00 per sq ft $2,800,000 $3,170.00
Fast Food 782 sq ft $30.15 per sq ft $23,576 $140.00 $71.00 per sq ft $55,522 $300.00
Attachment 2
sr
()J
Building Type
Single Family Residence
Townhouse
Patio Home
Duplex
Unfinished Basement
Manufactured Home
Condominium Apartment
Condo High Rise
Triplex
Townhouse Apartment
High Rise Apartment
Garden Apartment
Industrial
Manufacturing
Lumber Yard
Packing Plant / Food
Bottler/Brewery
Warehouse
Cold Storage / Freezer
Truck Terminal
Service Garage
Heavy Manufacturing
Light Manufacturing
Warehouse Condo
Prefab Warehouse
Office-Warehouse
Petrol
Mining
Department Store
Super Market
Shop-Strip
Office-4 story
Medical Condo
Fast Food
Office Condo
Mini-Warehouse
Commercial
Convenience Store
Carwash
Shopping Mall/ Department Store
Office
Medical Office / Clinic
Restaurants
Banks
Attachment 3
\A-,3
2005 Base
Rate
59.00
63.00
62.00
54.00
48.00
29.00
62.00
62.00
54.00
40.00
41.00
38.00
21.00
26.00
17.00
43.00
46.00
21.00
31.00
29.00
32.00
26.00
24.00
23.00
21.00
27.00
30.00
30.00
38.00
49.00
47.00
52.00
60.00
71.00
53.00
22.00
51.00
51.00
30.00
45.00
55.00
60.00
66.00
75.00
Attachment 3
LA-]
Community Service
Service Station
Auto Sales
Parking Garage
Lab/Research
Day Care Center
Theaters
Lounge/Nightclub
Bowling Alley / Arena
Commercial Office Condos
Hotel/ Motel fewer than 3 stories
Hotel/ Motel higher than 3 stories
Furniture Showroom
Recreation/Clubs
Institutional - Single Family Residence
Churches- Single Family Residence
School/College -Single Family Residence
Homes Aged - Single Family Residence
Club/Lodges-Single Family Residence
Institutional
Churches
School/College
Hospital
Homes Aged
Orphanages
Mortuary/Cemetery
Clubs/Lodges
Airport
Utilities
Public School
Public College
Public Hospital
Other County
Other State
Other Federal
Other Municpal
38.00
45.00
30.00
22.00
68.00
52.00
52.00
42.00
39.00
51.00
44.00
48.00
42.00
44.00
54.00
70.00
70.00
60.00
43.00
54.00
70.00
70.00
88.00
62.00
45.00
56.00
44.00
57.00
38.00
80.00
80.00
88.00
60.00
60.00
60.00
60.00
l\-> 3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28,2004
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 7-71. BUILDING PERMIT FEES
AND 7-72. TRADE PERMIT FEES, ESTABLISHING A NEW SECTION 7-
73. MISCELLANOUS FEES, OF ARTICLE 5 OF CHAPTER 7. BUILDING
REGULATIONS OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, as part of the HP migration project the Department of Community
Development is implementing a new software system to track building permits and to
calculate permit fees; and
WHEREAS, Novalis Technologies, Inc. is developing an integrated land records
management solution for the County; and
WHEREAS, this new software system will address the problem of the under-
reporting of annual construction values in the County; and
WHEREAS, the new method of calculating these permit fees will be based upon
building construction values as determined by the County's Real Estate Valuation
Office; and
WHEREAS, the first reading was held on September 14, 2004; and the second
reading and public hearing was held on September 28,2004.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That Article V. Fees of Chapter 7. Building Regulations be amended to read
and provide as follows:
ARTICLE V.
FEES
Sec. 7-71. Building permit fees.
Permit fees are determined by calculating a value of construction. In order to derive this
valuation, the square footaqe of the structure is multiplied by the buildinq construction
value base rates as adjusted annually bY the County Real Estate Valuation Office.
An estimated cost of construction is obtained from the applicant and is used to
1
tA-3
determine the permit fees for applications that do not correspond to the square footage
construction value base rates as described above. This includes, but is not limited to,
interior and exterior alterations, roofing and siding construction, and demolitions.
There is hereby established the following schedule for fees for building and demolition
permits as set out on Attachment A.
Sec. 7-72. Trade permit fees.
There is hereby established the following schedule for fees for trade permits (trade
permits include permits for heating, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing). The following
schedule for trade permits is based upon the valuation as calculated pursuant to section
7-71 as modified by a percentage factor for the use groups and the type of trade permit,
as shown on Attachment B:
In excess of $5,000.00 the fee shall be $75.00 plus $4.00 for each additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof.
No trade permit shall be issued for less than $30.00.
Sec. 7-73. Miscellaneous fees.
There is hereby established the followina schedule of miscellaneous fees:
Amusement Devices:
Kiddie Rides - $15.00
Circular rides or flat rides that can be inspected from less than 20 feet above around
;:..$25.00
All Other T es of Devices - 45.00
(Amusement Dev~Fees reduced 50% w!1en a private inspector is used)
2. The Director of Community Development is aranted the authority to implement these
fees when the software packaae from Novalis Technoloaies. Inc. becomes operational.
2
Attachment A
§ 7-71. Building permit fees.
BUILDING AND FEE SCHEDULE
Valuation Fee Valuation Fee Valuation Fee
$ 0.00--5,000.00 $ 30.00 $41,000.00 $225.00 $ 84,000.00 $ 440.00
42,000.00 230.00 85,000.00 445.00
6,000.00 36.00 43,000.00 235.00 86,000.00 450.00
7,000.00 42.00 44,000.00 240.00 87,000.00 455.00
8,000.00 48.00 45,000.00 245.00 88,000.00 460.00
9,000.00 54.00 46,000.00 250.00 89,000.00 465.00
10,000.00 60.00 47,000.00 255.00 90,000.00 470.00
11,000.00 66.00 48,000.00 260.00 91,000.00 475.00
12,000.00 72.00 49,000.00 265.00 92,000.00 480.00
13,000.00 78.00 50,000.00 270.00 93,000.00 485.00
14,000.00 84.00 51,000.00 275.00 94,000.00 490.00
15,000.00 90.00 52,000.00 280.00 95,000.00 495.00
16,000.00 96.00 53,000.00 285.00 96,000.00 500.00
17,000.00 102.00 54,000.00 290.00 97,000.00 505.00
18,000.00 108.00 55,000.00 295.00 98,000.00 510.00
19,000.00 114.00 56,000.00 300.00 99,000.00 515.00
20,000.00 120.00 57,000.00 305.00 100,000.00 520.00
58,000.00 310.00
Over 20,000.00.00 equals 59,000.00 315.00 Over 100,000.00.00 equal
$120.00 plus $5.00 60,000.00 320.00 $520.00 plus $2.00
per M 61,000.00 325.00 per M
21,000.00 125.00 62,000.00 330.00
22,000.00 130.00 63,000.00 335.00
23,000.00 135.00 64,000.00 340.00 Fiç¡ure Fraction from
24,000.00 140.00 65,000.00 345.00 here
25,000.00 145.00 66,000.00 350.00 200,000.00 720.00
26,000.00 150.00 67,000.00 355.00 300,000.00 920.00
27,000.00 155.00 68,000.00 360.00 400,000.00 1,120.00
28,000.00 160.00 69,000.00 365.00 500,000.00 1,320.00
29,000.00 165.00 70,000.00 370.00
>F
w
30,000.00 170.00 71,000.00 375.00 Over $500,000.00 equals
31,000.00 175.00 72,000.00 380.00 $1 ,320 plus
32,000.00 180.00 73,000.00 385.00 $1.00 per M
33,000.00 185.00 74,000.00 390.00 600,000.00 1,420.00
34,000.00 190.00 75,000.00 395.00 700,000.00 1,520.00
35,000.00 195.00 76,000.00 400.00 800,000.00 1,620.00
36,000.00 200.00 77,000.00 405.00 900,000.00 1,720.00
37,000.00 205.00 78,000.00 410.00 1,000,000.00 1,820.00
38,000.00 210.00 79,000.00 415.00
39,000.00 215.00 80,000.00 420.00
40,000.00 220.00 81,000.00 425.00 Over 1,000,000.00
82,000.00 430.00 equals $1,820 plus
83,000.00 435.00 0.50 per M
5F
w
Attachment B
§ 7-72. Trade permit fees.
Percent Chart
Class Heating (percent) Mechanical Plumbing Electric (percent)
(percent (percent)
1. A1--A5 6 8 8 8
2.8 5 8 5 9
3.E 6 11 8 9
4. F1 & F2 4 5 5 5
5. H1--H4 4 5 5 5
6. 1-1 1-2 1-3 595 812 8 999 912 9
7. M 5 9 5 9
8. R-1 R-2 R-3 & 564 915 7 1015 7 815 7
R4
9. 81 & 82 4 9 4 7
Valuation Fee
$0.00 to $1,000 30.00
1,000.00 to 40.00
2,000.00
2,000.01 to 50.00
3,000.00
3,000.01 to 60.00
4,000.00
4,000.01 to 75.00
5,000.00
s=-
(
CN