Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12/17/2024 - Regular
Page 1 of 6 PLEASE NOTE: There is no 7:00 p.m. evening session as there are no public hearings scheduled. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES FLAG Disclaimer: “Any invocation that may be offered before the official start of the Board meeting shall be the voluntary offering of a private citizen, to and for the benefit of the Board. The views or beliefs expressed by the invocation speaker have not been previously reviewed or approved by the Board and do not necessarily represent the religious beliefs or views of the Board in part or as a whole. No member of the community is required to attend or participate in the invocation and such decision will have no impact on their right to actively participate in the business of the Board.” Roanoke County Board of Supervisors December 17, 2024 Page 2 of 6 Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for December 17, 2024. Regular meetings are held on the second and fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. The meetings are broadcast live on RVTV, Channel 3, and will be rebroadcast on Friday at 7:00 p.m. and on Sunday from 10:00 a.m. until 5 p.m. Board of Supervisors meetings can also be viewed online through Roanoke County’s website at www.RoanokeCountyVA.gov. 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. Please turn all cell phones off or place them on silent. A. OPENING CEREMONIES 1. Roll Call B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Resolution congratulating the Cave Spring High School Competition Cheer Team for winning the Virginia High School League (VHSL) Class 3A Championship. (Paul M. Mahoney, Supervisor for the Cave Spring Magisterial District) 2. Recognition of the Finance and Management Services Staff for developing and producing reports for which the County of Roanoke has been recognized by the Government Finance Officer's Association (GFOA) as a “Triple Crown Winner.” (Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services) D. BRIEFING 1. Briefing to provide an update regarding Roanoke County Department of Social Services Annual Foster Care Christmas. (Kaelyn Spickler, Executive Assistant; Sue Goad, Director of Social Services; and Crissy Brake, Assistant Director of Social Services) Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Agenda December 17, 2024 Page 3 of 6 E.NEW BUSINESS 1.Approval of minutes – November 6, 2019, November 19, 2019, December 3, 2019, and December 17, 2019 2.Approval of minutes- August 11, 2020, September 8, 2020, November 15, 2023, and December 12, 2023 3.Presentation of year-end financial results for June 30, 2024, acceptance of audit report and allocation of year-end funds. (Jessica Beemer, Assistant Director of Finance and Management Services) 4.Resolution authorizing the County Administrator or his delegate to enter into the Roanoke Valley Crisis Intervention Team Assessment Center Memorandum of Understanding with Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, Inc., the City of Roanoke, the City of Salem, the Town of Vinton, the County of Botetourt, and the County of Craig. (Doug Barber, Sr. County Attorney) F.PUBLIC HEARING 1.Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding proposed amendments to the fiscal year 2024-2025 budget in accordance with Code of Virginia Section 15.2-2507. (Steve Elliott, Budget Administrator) G.FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1.Emergency Ordinance appropriating $60,637,123.77 from the Roanoke County Public Schools' fiscal year 2023-2024 year-end funds to the fiscal year 2024-2025 Roanoke County Public Schools Budget. (Susan Peterson, Director of Finance, Roanoke County Public Schools) (Due to time constraints for the project, it is requested that the second reading be dispensed with upon an affirmative vote of 4/5ths of the members of the Board, and that this matter be deemed an emergency measure pursuant to Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter) 2.Ordinance authorizing the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to enter into and execute an amended and restated Extraterritorial Arrest Agreement with the City of Roanoke, the City of Salem, the Town of Vinton, the County of Botetourt, and the County of Craig. (Doug Barber, Sr. Assistant County Attorney and Michael Poindexter, Chief of Police) (First Reading and Request for Second Reading) 3.Ordinance Amending Chapter 14 of the Roanoke County Code: Parades. (Peter Lubeck, County Attorney) (First Reading and Request for Second Reading) Page 4 of 6 H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING 1. The petition of Tracy Etayo to obtain a special use permit to operate a short -term rental on approximately 0.1803 acre of land zoned R-1, Low intensity Residential District, located at 5445 Endicott Street, Hollins Magisterial District. (Second Reading and Public Hearing) I. APPOINTMENTS 1. South Peak Community Development Authority (CDA)(At-Large): Doug Blount - term expires December 31, 2025 2. Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors Sue Goad - Roanoke County Representative; term expires December 31, 2027 Bobby Russell – At-large member; term expires - December 31, 2027 3. Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority Paul M. Mahoney, Martha B. Hooker, Rebecca Owens, Laurie Gearheart, Eric Orange, Brent Hudson, and Chad Beheler – term expirations 12-31-2025 J. 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 – November 19, 2024 2. Ordinance authorizing the approval of new public drainage easements for the purpose of constructing drainage improvements on property owned by Shatenita Horton and Erskine Horton, Jr. (Tax Map #095.01 -01-23.00- 0000) located at 7062 Crown Road and John A. Leonard and Colleen R. Leonard (Tax Map #095.01-01-11.00-0000) located at 7041 Crown Road, in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading) 3. Request to accept and allocate grant funds of $21,282 from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) for an Emergency Management Performance Grant along with a local match of $21,282 for a total of $42,564. Page 5 of 6 4. Ordinance accepting and appropriating proceeds from the sale of the Poage's Mill property in the amount of $845,465. (Second Reading) 5. Resolution approving an Amendment to the Comprehensive Agreement between the County and G&H Contracting, Inc. regarding construction services for the Bonsack Fire Station. 6. Joint Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Bedford County, Virginia and the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, Expressing Support for Legislation Authorizing the Dissolution of the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority and Authorizing the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, to Acquire Parcels in Roanoke County, Virginia and Bedford County, Virginia Known as “Explore Park.” 7. Ordinance accepting and appropriating funds in the amount of $50,000 from the Virginia Brownfields Restoration and Economic Redevelopment Assistance Fund Program and granting signatory authority to the County Administrator or his designee to execute a Performance Agreement with the Virginia Economic Development Partnership for Professional Park, located in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading) 8. The Acceptance and Allocation of $120,000 from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management 2024-SHSP (State Homeland Security Grant Program). K. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS L. REPORTS 1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report 2. Outstanding Debt Report 3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of November 30, 2024 4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances as of November 30, 2024 5. Accounts Paid – November 2024 6. Statement of the Treasurer’s Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy, as of October 31, 2024 M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 1. Martha B. Hooker Page 6 of 6 2. Paul M. Mahoney 3. Tammy E. Shepherd 4. David F. Radford 5. Phil C. North N. WORK SESSION 1. Work Session to review progress on the Safe Streets and Roads For All Comprehensive Safety Action Plan. (Megan Cronise, Assistant Director of Planning) O. CLOSED MEETING, pursuant to the Code of Virginia as follows: 1. Section 2.2-3711(A)(29) of the Code of Virginia, for discussion of the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds, where discussion in an open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body. Specifically, the Board will consider whether to accept an unsolicited proposal submitted pursuant to the Virginia Public Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructure Act (and, upon acceptance, to solicit competing proposals) for the renovation of a county-owned facility. P. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION Q. ADJOURNMENT Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 17, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution congratulating the Cave Spring High School Competition Cheer team for winning the 2024 Virginia High School League (VHSL) Class 3A Championship SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney Board Member-Cave Spring APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: The time has been set aside to recognize and congratulate the Cave Spring High School Competition Cheer Team for winning the 2024 Virginia High School League (VHSL) Class 3A Championship. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the resolution. Page 1 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2024 RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING THE CAVE SPRING HIGH SCHOOL COMPETITION CHEER TEAM FOR WINNING THE 2024 VIRGINIA HIGH SCHOOL LEAGUE (VHSL) STATE CHAMPIONSHIP WHEREAS, athletic competitions are an important and integral part of the team curriculum at schools in Roanoke County; teaching cooperation, sportsmanship, teamwork and athletic skill; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2024, the Cave Spring High School Cheer Team won the State championship at the VCU Siegel Center in Richmond, Virginia with score of 280.25; and WHEREAS, the team was in first place after both rounds of competition; having both the highest state score and largest point spread resulting in a win in the history of the program; and WHEREAS, this team was driven, focused on themselves, respected themselves and those they competed against, the overall skill and versatility of its team as well as overall athletic ability was highly impressive; and WHEREAS, Brooke Majors was names 3A State Cheerleader of the Year and Hannah Conner was named 3A First Team All State; and WHEREAS, Brooke Majors, Hannah Conner, and Emery Weld are the first athletes in the program to have three (3) state titles; and WHEREAS, Knights Coach, Jen Koll was selected as 3A Coach of the Year; and WHEREAS, the team represented their school and community with great character, poise and sportsmanship. They are a true asset to Roanoke County. Page 2 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia does hereby extend its sincere congratulations to the members of the CAVE SPRING HIGH SCHOOL COMPETITION CHEER TEAM: LUCIA BIRD, ASHTYNN BORGMAN, HANNAH CONNER, ANNABELLE CROY, PYPER DICKENSON, RILEY DUFF, ISABELLA DURICA, EMMA FARISS, MORGAN FRALIN, ISABELLE JAMES, KAYDIE LEFTWICH, AVA LIVINGSTON, BROOKE MAJORS, REAGAN NASH, CAMERON NOELL, ALIJAH REEVES, KAELYN ROGERS, BIANCA SHELTON, ALEXIS SWARTZ, KINSLEY TRIVETT, EMERY WELD, ABBEY WOHLFORD, AND BRAYLAN WOOD. Coaches Jen Koll, Terin Mabry, Katie Weeks, and Abby Holbrook. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors extends its best wis hes to the members of the team, the c oaches and the school in their future endeavors. CONGRATULATING THE CAVE SPRING HIGH SCHOOL COMPETITION CHEER TEAM FOR WINNING THE 2024 VIRGINIA HIGH SCHOOL LEAGUE (VHSL) STATE CHAMPIONSHIP WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, athletic competitions are an important and integral part of the team curriculum at schools in Roanoke County; teaching cooperation, sportsmanship, teamwork and athletic skill; and on November 9, 2024, the Cave Spring High School Cheer Team won the State championship at the VCU Siegel Center in Richmond, Virginia with score of 280.25; and the team was in first place after both rounds of competition; having both the highest state score and largest point spread resulting in a win in the history of the program; and this team was driven, focused on themselves, respected themselves and those they competed against, the overall skill and versatility of its team as well as overall athletic ability was highly impressive; and Brooke Majors was names 3A State Cheerleader of the Year and Hannah Conner was named 3A First Team All State; and Brooke Majors, Hannah Conner, and Emery Weld are the first athletes in the program to have three (3) state titles; and Knights Coach, Jen Koll was selected as 3A Coach of the Year; and the team represented their school and community with great character, poise and sportsmanship. They are a true asset to Roanoke County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia does hereby extend its sincere congratulations to the members of the CAVE SPRING HIGH SCHOOL COMPETITION CHEER TEAM: LUCIA BIRD, ASHTYNN BORGMAN, HANNAH CONNER, ANNABELLE CROY, PYPER DICKENSON, RILEY DUFF, !SABELLA DURICA, EMMA FARISS, MORGAN FRALIN, ISABELLE JAMES, KAYDIE LEFTWICH, AVA LIVINGSTON, BROOKE MAJORS, REAGAN NASH, CAMERON NOELL, ALIJAH REEVES, KAEL YN ROGERS, BIANCA SHEL TON, ALEXIS SWARTZ, KINSLEY TRIVETT, EMERY WELD, ABBEY WOHLFORD, AND BRAYLAN WOOD. Coaches Jen Koll, Terin Mabry, Katie Weeks, and Abby Holbrook. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors extends its best wishes to the members of the team, the coaches and the school in their future endeavors. Presented this 17TH day of December 2024 Phil C. North Martha B. Hooker David F. Radford Paul M. Mahoney Tammy E. Shepherd Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C.2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 17, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Recognition of the Finance and Management Services Staff for developing and producing reports for which the County of Roanoke has been recognized by the Government Finance Officer's Association (GFOA) as a “Triple Crown Winner.” SUBMITTED BY: Laurie Gearheart Director of Finance and Management Services APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator BACKGROUND: The County of Roanoke has received the GFOA Triple Crown Winner status for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2023. This title is received by governments who have received the GFOA's Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting, the Popular Annual Financial Reporting Award, and the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. This is the first year the County has received this status and it could not be accomplished without the outstanding staff we have within our Finance and Management Services department. DISCUSSION: These are national awards which recognizes the County of Roanoke publishes an easily readable and efficiently organized annual comprehensive financial report that satisfies both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements. It also recognizes our budget document has been judged as proficient as a policy document, a financial plan, an operations guide, and a communications device. Page 2 of 2 The County published the first Popular Annual Financial Report for fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. This report is a condensed version of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. This report is reviewed by the GFOA for its reader appeal, understandability, distribution methods, and creativity. These nationally recognized reports could not be developed and published without the dedication of the entire staff within the Finance and Management Services team. Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. D.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 17, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Briefing to provide an update regarding Roanoke County Department of Social Services Annual Foster Care Christmas. SUBMITTED BY: Kaelyn Spickler Executive Assistant APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: This time has been set aside for Kaelyn Spickler, Executive Assistant; Sue Goad, Director of Social Services; and Crissy Brake, Assistant Director of Social Services to provide an update on our 2024 Foster Care Christmas initiative and how the program continues to grow. Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. E.3 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: BACKGROUND: met on December 17, 2024, to review the results of the year’s operations. The County DISCUSSION: Page 2 of 2 assessed personal property values. - Business License Tax was $303,735 above budget due to increased consumer spending and inflationary impacts which led to continued high gross receipts. - Meals Tax was $261,833 above budget due to several new restaurants, most notably in the Tanglewood area, combined with inflationary impacts on higher meal prices. - Hotel/Motel Tax was $272,299 above budget due to inflationary impacts along with increased business travel and regional events. Expenditures savings were recognized as a result of: - Personnel and benefit costs were over budget by $1.4 million due to lower-than- expected vacancy savings from decreased turnover in budgeted positions, along with higher overtime and part-time costs. - Operating expenses were under budget by $354,159, but the County again saw increased costs for fuel and higher costs for contractual services such as fleet repairs. - Transfers and other expenditures were under budget by $1.4 million which includes the expenditure contingency set aside for inflationary costs. FISCAL IMPACT: Budget Ordinance 052323-1 for the fiscal year 2023-2024 fiscal year Operations Budget provides that all unexpended general government expenditures and revenues collected in excess of budget shall not lapse but be re-appropriated and presented to the Board for recommendations of allocations and designations based on the Comprehensive Financial Policy. General Government surplus revenue and expenditure savings are shown on Attachment 1 and reflects the recommendations reviewed at the September 24, 2024 work session for the recommended allocation for fiscal year end June 30, 2024 available funds. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends accepting the audited financial results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, allocating $210,462 for encumbrances from year-end savings and allocating the available funds as presented in Attachment 1. Attachment 1: Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Year End Financial Results Allocation of Year End Funds December 17, 2024 Revenues Amended Revenue Budget – General Fund 252,432,667$ Actual Revenues 253,544,458 Revenues above Budget 1,111,791$ % of Amended Budget 0.44% Expenditures Amended Expenditure Budget – General Fund 252,432,667$ Actual/Projected Expenditures 251,920,745 Encumbrances Carried Forward 210,462 Expenditure Savings 301,460$ % of Amended Budget 99.88% FY 2024 Year-End Balance Revenues above Amended Budget 1,111,791$ Expenditure Savings, Net Encumbrances 301,460 Total 2024 Year End 1,413,251$ Recommended Allocation of FY 2024 Year-End Board Commitments: Funding for FY25 GoFest and New Community Events 40,000$ Funding for Sheriff School Resource Officers (FY25) 365,000 Funding for Fire & Rescue Changes in Pharmacy Regulations 380,000 Operating Expenditure Contingency 628,251 Total Recommended Allocation of FY 2024 Year-End 1,413,251$ www.becpas.com Required Communication with Those Charged with Governance Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors County of Roanoke, Virginia Roanoke, Virginia We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities,the aggregate discretely presented component units, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the County of Roanoke, Virginia collectively hereafter referred to as the “County” for the year ended June 30, 2024. Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards ,Government Auditing Standards,and the Uniform Guidance, as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our aud it. We have communicated such information in our letter to you dated April, 9 2024. Professional standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit. Significant Audit Matters Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the County are described in Note 1 to the financial statements. No new accounting policies were adopted and the application of existing policies was not changed during 2024. We noted no transactions entered into by the County during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus . All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period. Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particul arly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. The most sensitive estimates affecting the financial statements were: The useful lives of capital assets and the allowance for uncollectible accounts are based on management’s knowledge and judgment, which is based on history. The other post-employment benefits liability is based on an actuarial study provided by the County’s external actuarial firm. The self-insurance liability is based on information from an external third -party consultant and subsequent claims information provided by the insurance carrier. The net pension liability and the net OPEB liability for state administered plans are based on an actuarial study performed by an actuary engaged by the Virginia Retirement System. We evaluated the methods, assumptions, and data used to develop these estimates in determining that it is reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. 2 Certain financial statement disclosures are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users. The most sensitive disclosure(s) affecting the financial statements include those related to: Capital assets, long-term debt, commitments and contingencies,pension, and other post- employment liabilities. The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear. Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit. Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are clearly trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. There were no corrected or uncorrected misstatements. Disagreements with Management For purposes of this letter, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor’s report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit. Management Representations We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated December 2, 2024, a copy of which is attached. Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the governmental unit’s financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevan t facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants. Other Audit Findings or Issues We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the County’s auditors. However, these 3 discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention. Other Matters We applied certain limited procedures to the management’s discussion and analysis, the General Fund budget to actual schedules, and the required pension and OPEB schedules which are required supplementary information (RSI) that supplements the basic financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with m anagement’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI. We were engaged to report on the additional budget to actual statements, the combining statements of internal service and custodial fund financial statements, the financial statements of the discretely presented component units, and the schedule of expenditure of federal awards , which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. With respect to this supplementary information, we made certain inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves. We were not engaged to report on the introductory or statistical sections, which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. Such information has not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it. Restriction on Use This information is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Supervisors and management of Roanoke County, Virginia and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Roanoke, Virginia December 2, 2024 Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. E.4 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: Page 2 of 2 FISCAL IMPACT: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. Roanoke Valley Crisis Intervention Team Assessment Center (CITAC) A Program of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Memorandum of Agreement- Transfer of Custody Protocol Between: Botetourt County Sheriff’s Office Craig County Sheriff’s Office Roanoke County Police Department Roanoke County Sheriff’s Office Roanoke City Police Department Roanoke City Sheriff’s Office Salem Police Department Salem Sheriff’s Office Vinton Police Department PURPOSE: To establish the understanding of protocols and procedures as necessary for the transfer of custody for individuals held under an Emergency Custody Order (“ECO”) by participating law enforcement agencies of the Roanoke Valley Crisis Intervention Team Assessment Center (“CITAC”), currently operating out of LewisGale Medical Center, but soon will be located at 3003 Hollins Road NE, Roanoke, Virginia 24012. STATUTORY BASES: The Code of Virginia establishes Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare (“BRBH”) as the local public behavioral health authority and establishes the powers and authority of Community Service Boards (Sections 37.2-500, et seq.) These include the responsibility to coordinate services related to the involuntary commitment process. Sections 15.2-1600 et seq. and 15.2-1700 et seq., and Title 52 of The Code of Virginia has established: Botetourt County Sheriff’s Office Craig County Sheriff’s Office Roanoke County Police Department Roanoke County Sheriff’s Office Roanoke City Police Department Roanoke City Sheriff’s Office Salem Police Department Salem Sheriff’s Office Vinton Police Department as law-enforcement agencies. The duties of these law enforcement agencies include authorization to initiate ECOs based on probable cause or to serve and execute such orders issued by the Office of the Magistrate, and to transport individuals subject to such orders (“respondents”) to a location appropriate for the completion of an evaluation as required by Code of Virginia Section 37.2-808. The Code of Virginia, Section 37.2-808 subsection E, permits the law enforcement agency providing such transportation to transfer custody of such individual to the facility in which the required evaluation will be completed. This subsection requires that the facility be licensed for, and capable of providing, the requisite level of security to protect the person and others from harm. The subsection also requires the facility to enter into an agreement with law-enforcement agencies, setting forth the terms and conditions under which it will accept a transfer of custody. The Roanoke Valley Crisis Intervention Team CIT Assessment Center Memorandum of Agreement between the Roanoke Valley law-enforcement agencies was originally entered into on February 3, 2016. A subsequent Roanoke Valley Regional Crisis Intervention Team Pilot Transportation Project Memorandum of Agreement between the same agencies was subsequently entered into on August 31, 2017. The Roanoke Valley CITAC will soon be located at 3003 Hollins Rd, NE, Roanoke, VA 24012. The CITAC will serve as one of the area’s regional evaluation centers for individuals requiring evaluation for involuntary hospitalization during its hours of operation. Medical clearances, if required, will be provided by Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare staff prior to admission to State or Private psychiatric facilities. If additional medical clearance is needed, transport will be provided to an appropriate medical facility. THE CITAC STEERING COMMITTEE: Pursuant to the stated purpose of this agreement, the agencies entering into this agreement shall establish a CITAC Steering Committee for the purpose of establishing policies and procedures for: ● Transfer of custody ● Medical clearance protocols ● Transportation to medical facilities, if necessary ● Staffing procedures ● Restraint usage ● Required paperwork and data collection ● Complaint procedures ● Standards of Conduct The CITAC Steering Committee will meet quarterly, or more frequently if necessary, to discuss operations and any challenges. The CITAC Steering Committee will review and/or update the CITAC Policies and Procedures (Attachment A) as needed. SERVICE OF PROCESS: The Code of Virginia, Section 8.01-293 subsection 2, authorizes the execution of civil process by “any person of age 18 or older and who is not party or otherwise interested in the subject matter in controversy.” This Section further states that the terms “officer” or “sheriff,” in any section of the Code referencing “persons authorized to make, return or do any other act relating to service of process, such term shall be deemed to refer to any person authorized by this section to serve process.” This authorization is further addressed in Section 8.01-295. UTILIZATION OF OFF DUTY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND DEPUTY SHERIFFS. The CITAC will employee member jurisdiction officers and/or deputy sheriffs in an “off duty” capacity to maintain custody of respondents received via transfer of custody pursuant to this MOU and potentially to transport respondents to medical facilities for additional medical clearance. A police officer or deputy sheriff employed by CITAC in an “off duty” capacity will be referred in this MOU and all associated documents as a “CITAC officer” with duties and responsibilities more specifically identified in Attachment A. REFERENCE TO EXTRATERRITORIAL AGREEMENT: All parties to this agreement have signed an Extraterritorial Arrest Agreement extending extraterritorial arrest powers to their officers and deputies if exercising police powers while working in an “off duty” capacity at the Roanoke Valley CITAC. RESPONSIBILITIES DURING THE TEMPORARY DETENTION ORDER “TDO” PROCESS: The appropriate law enforcement agency will, upon receipt of the TDO paperwork issued pursuant to Code of Virginia 37.2-809, from the Magistrate, serve the TDO and transport the respondent to the accepting facility of temporary detention as identified on the TDO order. In the event that a TDO has been issued but is awaiting medical clearance until it can be served and executed, the originating jurisdiction will return to resume custody upon the request of staff of the CITAC. CONFIDENTIALITY AND SHARING OF INFORMATION: All personnel assigned to the CITAC shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations in the performance of this agreement. Any information shared by BRBH will be in compliance with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations (42 C.F.R. §§ 2.1-2556), including information that may be shared during emergency situations in accordance with 45 C.F.R. § 164.512, as amended. ● Specifically, the mental health history of an individual in crisis (respondent) will be accessed only by BRBH clinical staff and is made available to law enforcement only as needed during critical incidents. ● BRBH clinical staff may disclose protected mental health information to other specialized units with designated law enforcement partners identified herein in the following circumstances: ○ In response to a court order or court-ordered warrant, or a subpoena or summons issued by a judicial officer, and ○ If BRBH clinical staff believes that the respondent presents a serious and imminent danger of violence to themselves or another person. FEES OR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ECO/TDO and CUSTODY PROCESSES: Nothing herein shall be construed to obligate any law enforcement agency for the payment of any fees, expenses, or damages incurred by BRBH or CITAC during the ECO/TDO or Transfer of Custody processes. CIT DATA COLLECTION: The Virginia Crisis Intervention Team model calls for CIT programs to collect and report the following minimum field data for CIT calls: call type, injuries, start date and time, end date and time, elapsed time, and primary field disposition and location. The law enforcement agencies who are signatories to this MOA agree to collect this data and to report it to BRBH in the format requested, and within the time frame requested. Law enforcement, CITAC officers, and CIT Assessment Center prescreeners will also complete and sign each Transfer of Custody form (Attachment B). BRBH will collect the data that is specific to CIT Assessment Sites. All data will be transmitted to BRBH, who will be responsible for reporting this data, according to the required schedule and in the required format, to the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services. COMPENSATION: Compensation for law-enforcement personnel and vehicle costs associated with services provided pursuant to this agreement: Personnel providing scheduled off-duty employment services under this agreement will be compensated for the duration of the assigned transfer of custody (“TOC”) duty shift and/or the duration of any TDO transport. ● Wage standards for “off-duty” employment will be determined by the respective agency’s finance department at their standard hourly rate,. ● Employee compensation will be administered through the respective agency’s payroll department. ● Officers assigned to “off duty” employment must complete their respective agency’s outside employment invoice and submit it through the appropriate chain of command. ● Vehicle expenses will be the responsibility of the agency providing the vehicle for use in providing services under this agreement and are not reimbursable under this agreement. ● Each signatory agency will be reimbursed for “off duty” personnel expenses pursuant to this agreement on an ongoing basis. Reimbursement shall be requested by submission of an invoice and copies of personnel timesheets, showing hours worked “off duty” for CITAC, to the Roanoke Valley Regional CIT Program Director. Invoices will then be submitted for reimbursement by Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare out of funds awarded/allocated for this purpose. MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION OF THIS AGREEMENT: This agreement will become effective immediately following the signature of all parties, and will remain in effect through June 30, 2025, be reviewed annually and renewed or modified as required. With the exception of (a) changes required to comply with changes in Code or statute (b) based on funding available to continue CITAC operations, or (c) changes made to Attachment A by the CITAC Steering Committee noted above, this agreement shall not be modified without unanimous agreement from all partner agencies or 90 days written notice to all other parties prior to a party terminating its participation. Any modifications must maintain compliance with the Code of Virginia and governing regulations of the partner agencies. This agreement shall be construed and interpreted pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, without regard to its conflicts of law’s provisions. Any disputes arising under this agreement shall only be brought in a Court of the Commonwealth. Nothing herein waives the sovereign immunity of any party, state agencies or the Commonwealth of Virginia. Each party hereby agrees to be responsible for its own negligence arising pursuant to this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed by duly authorized representatives of the Parties as indicated by signatures below. Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Signature: ____________________________ By: __________________________________ Title: Executive Director City of Roanoke Approved as to Form Signature: ____________________________ Signature: ____________________________ By: By: __________________________________ Title: City Manager Title: City Attorney Sheriff, City of Roanoke, in his official capacity Signature: ____________________________ By: Antonio D. Hash Title: Sheriff County of Roanoke Approved as to Form Signature: ____________________________ Signature: ____________________________ By: Richard L. Caywood, P.E. By: __________________________________ Title: County Administrator Title: County Attorney Sheriff, County of Roanoke, in his official capacity Signature: ____________________________ By: J. Eric Orange Title: Sheriff Town of Vinton Approved as to Form Signature: ____________________________ Signature: ____________________________ By: Richard Peters By: __________________________________ Title: Town Manager Title: County Attorney City of Salem Approved as to Form Signature: ____________________________ Signature: ____________________________ By: James E. Taliaferro, II By: __________________________________ Title: City Manager Title: County Attorney Sheriff, City of Salem, in her official capacity Signature: ____________________________ By: April M. Staton Title: Sheriff County of Botetourt Approved as to Form Signature: ____________________________ Signature: ____________________________ By: Gary Larrowe By: __________________________________ Title: County Administrator Title: County Attorney Sheriff, County of Botetourt, in his official capacity Signature: ____________________________ By: Matthew T. Ward Title: Sheriff County of Craig Approved as to Form Signature: ____________________________ Signature: ____________________________ By: Robert R. “Dan” Collins By: __________________________________ Title: County Administrator Title: County Attorney Sheriff, County of Craig, in his official capacity Signature: ____________________________ By: Trevor Craddock Title: Sheriff Roanoke Valley Crisis Intervention Team Assessment Center (CITAC) Attachment A: Policies and Procedures Pursuant to the stated purpose of this agreement, the agencies entering into this agreement shall fulfill the following responsibilities and procedures: RESPONSIBILITIES OF EACH PARTY: In the event of a law-enforcement officer initiated Emergency Custody Order (ECO) or Magistrate issued ECO which is executed by a Law Enforcement Officer: 1. The initiating/executing law enforcement agency will contact BRBH at (number to be provided) to determine availability at the CITAC site to accept or transfer custody. Law enforcement will provide, to the greatest extent possible, the name, date of birth, and other available information regarding the individual in custody. BRBH Clinical Staff will, based on information obtained from law enforcement, evaluate their ability to accept a transfer of custody for the individual (“respondent”). If a respondent is deemed not appropriate for CITAC or if CITAC has reached full capacity, an on duty law enforcement officer (“law enforcement officer”) will transport the respondent to a local hospital for evaluation. 2. Once deemed appropriate for CITAC: A. The law enforcement officer shall transport the respondent to the CITAC. The law enforcement officers will enter the CITAC through the designated entrance and inform the police officer or deputy sheriff working “off-duty” for CITAC (“CITAC officer”) of their arrival. The CITAC will be open daily 24/7, as staffing permits. For the purposes of the safety of the CITAC officer and the respondent, each CITAC officer will hold custody of only one individual at a time. B. If staffing permits, the CITAC officer will accept the transfer of custody, by signatures of the authorized CITAC officer and the law enforcement officer on a transfer of custody form designated for this purpose. This form shall include the date and time of execution for any law-enforcement officer initiated ECO, or shall be attached to the ECO paperwork if issued by the Magistrate. See Attachment B. C. If all CITAC Officers are occupied and space permits, the law enforcement officer may utilize the CITAC space to maintain custody of the individual until a CITAC officer is available or until the evaluation process is complete. D. Depending on who has custody within the CITAC, either a law enforcement officer or a CITAC officer herein referred to as the “responsible officer”, will secure individuals’ personal belongings and document details and any observed damage of personal property secured. The responsible officer and witness signature will be required on the property log form. If any illegal contraband is discovered while in CITAC custody, the initiating agency will be called to return for collection of item and follow-up investigation. E. A Virginia Certified Pre-Admission Screener from BRBH will be available at the CITAC to conduct the evaluation and any other necessary services pursuant to the relevant sections of Virginia Code and policies of BRBH. F. BRBH staff will facilitate appropriate basic components of medical clearance for individuals. If additional medical clearance is deemed necessary, the initiating agency will send a law enforcement officer to facilitate transport to a medical facility. G. If a medical emergency occurs while in CITAC custody, EMS will be called for transport and the CITAC officer will maintain custody while BRBH clinical staff contacts the initiating agency to request that they meet the CITAC officer at the medical facility to resume custody. 3. Upon completion of a transfer of custody, the law enforcement officer is released to return to service. However, the Director of CITAC reserves the right to request the return of the law enforcement officer at any time during the duration of the ECO/TDO process when the Director of CITAC determines that changes in the overall situation have occurred which warrant such return. RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE EVENT THAT THE RESPONDENT IS RELEASED FROM THE ECO: Once an ECO has been initiated and the respondent is transferred to the CITAC, regardless of its initiation by law enforcement or Magistrate issue, prior to its expiration, it may only be released by the CSB ES Certified Pre-Admission Screener, following their evaluation, and upon finding that the individual does not meet the criteria for recommendation of a Temporary Detention Order (TDO). In the event that the BRBH ES Clinician determines the respondent of the ECO should be released: 1. The BRBH ES Clinician will release the ECO. This also releases the CITAC officer and/or law enforcement officer then maintaining custody of respondent. The law enforcement officer must sign the ECO or transfer of custody paperwork as appropriate. a. When other transportation options are not available, the law enforcement agency that initiated the ECO or initiated transportation may facilitate transportation for the individual back to their home or the location where the respondent was taken into custody. RESPONSIBILITIES DURING THE TDO PROCESS: If alternative transportation is not available or appropriate, the responsible law enforcement agency will, upon receipt of the TDO paperwork from the Magistrate, serve the TDO and transport the respondent when accepted to the facility of temporary detention as identified on the TDO order. STAFFING PROCEDURES: A CITAC schedule will be released on the first day of every other month to include two months’ worth of shifts. Each shift will be six hours long. Each law enforcement officer may sign up for two shifts per month. On the 15th day of the month when the schedule is released, law enforcement officers may sign up for two more shifts if there are open shifts remaining. RESTRAINT USAGE: Law enforcement officers utilizing the CITAC space, and CITAC officers working “off duty” for CITAC, will follow their respective jurisdiction’s restraint and use of force policies. BRBH advises that OC spray is not recommended due to lack of ventilation in the facility and strongly encourages the use of other less lethal means if the officer deems them necessary. COMPLAINT PROCEDURES: For any complaints regarding BRBH staff, complainant may contact the Office of Consumer Affairs at BRBH by calling (540)266-9200 ext 3220. For any complaints regarding law enforcement officers, complainant may contact an available supervisor at the law enforcement agency. AMENDMENTS TO THESE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES: As noted in the Governance section of the underlying MOU, the CITAC Steering Committee is authorized to review and/or update the CITAC Policies and Procedures included in this document (Attachment A), as needed. For CIT Admin Use Only- Date/time individual physically left CITAC:____________________________________ Roanoke Valley Regional CIT Assessment Center Transfer of Custody Form ______________________________________________________________ ______________________ _______________________________ _________________ NAME OF RESPONDENT DATE OF BIRTH SSN GENDER ____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ RESIDENCE ADDRESS MAILING ADDRESS IF DIFFERENT ____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ CITY STATE ZIP CODE CITY STATE ZIP CODE Is individual homeless (circle one) YES NO RESPONDENT TELEPHONE: __________________________________________ Individual was taken into Emergency Custody Pursuant to: [] § 37.2-808: Initiated by an order issued by the Office of the Magistrate, which is attached; Emergency Custody will Expire at ___________________________ OR [] § 37.2-808 G: Initiated by a Law Enforcement Officer; Emergency Custody was executed at _____________________ based upon observation or reliable reports. Emergency Custody will Expire at ___________________ Could a discretionary arrest have been made, if so for what? _____________________ Type of Call (domestic, trespassing, etc):_____________________________ Any Injury after Officer arrival on scene: YES NO ____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Name of Law Enforcement Officer Agency and Badge # CIT OFFICER? Y/N ____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Signature of Law Enforcement Officer Date and Time of Arrival at PAC [] CITAC accepts a Transfer of Custody for this individual pursuant to § 37.2-808 E, and in accordance with the Memo of Agreement establishing the policies and procedures for such transfer. ____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Name of CITAC Officer in Charge Agency Badge # Date and Time of Transfer ____________________________________________________________ Search Completed:_____________________ Belongings Secured:________________ Signature of CITAC Officer in Charge Time Yes/No ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Additional Transfer while at CITAC CITAC Officer NAME & Signature Date and Time of additional CITAC Transfer ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Additional Transfer while at CITAC CITAC Officer NAME & Signature Date and Time of additional CITAC Transfer _____________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ ____________________________ Name of Certified Prescreener Signature of Certified Prescreener Date and Time CITAC requested law enforcement officers to respond/return to resume/take custody of this individual as: Belongings Returned:________ [] A change has occurred and the CITAC Officer can no longer provide for the security of the individual or others; OR [] A TDO has been issued and law enforcement officers will be required to transport the indiv idual to the accepting facility, OR [] OTHER (CITAC closing, medical admit, voluntary, no TDO Criteria, safety plan, etc) _______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Date and Time request made/TDO Issued Date and Time of Transfe r to Law Enforcement/Transporting Provider ____________________________________________ _________ __________________________________________________________ Name of CITAC Officer in Charge Badge # Name of Law Enforcement Officer – Agency and Badge # _________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Signature of CITAC Officer in Charge Signature of Law Enforcement Officer – Agency and Badge # AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2024 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE ROANOKE VALLEY CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM ASSESSMENT CENTER MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH BLUE RIDGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE, INC., THE CITY OF ROANOKE, THE CITY OF SALEM, THE TOWN OF VINTON, THE COUNTY OF BOTETOURT, AND THE COUNTY OF CRAIG WHEREAS, Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, Inc. (“BRBH”) is the Community Service Board (“CSB”) for the Roanoke Valley and has been given the statutory responsibility to coordinate services related to involuntary commitment processes; and WHEREAS, BRBH operates the Roanoke Valley Crisis Intervention Team Assessment Center (“CITAC”) which currently operates out of LewisGale Medical Center but will soon be located at 3003 Hollins Road N.E., Roanoke, Virginia 24012; and WHEREAS, CITAC is a facility in which Roanoke County law enforcement officers can transfer custody of individuals who need to be evaluated and/or transported for mental health treatment; specifically, individuals subject to an Emergency Custody Order (“ECO”) or Temporary Detention Order (“TDO”) pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 37.2 – 808 through 810; and WHEREAS, normally, the Roanoke County law enforcement officer would have to maintain custody throughout the ECO/TDO process which can be extremely time consuming; however, CITAC employs off duty law enforcement officers and/or deputies from participating jurisdictions to accept and maintain custody during the process allowing the law enforcement officer to return to duty; and WHEREAS, CITAC has been operating since 2016 via the Roanoke Valley Crisis Intervention Team Crisis Intervention Team Assessment Center Memorandum of Agreement between the Roanoke Valley law-enforcement agencies dated February 3, 2016, and a subsequent Roanoke Valley Regional Crisis Intervention Team Pilot Transportation Project Memorandum of Agreement between the same law enforcement agencies dated August 31, 2017. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, as follows: 1. The Memorandum of Understanding attached to this resolution as Attachment A is hereby approved, and 2. The County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator, or Assistant County Administrator, any of whom may act, are authorized to execute the Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the Board. Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. F.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 17, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding proposed amendments to the fiscal year 2024-2025 budget in accordance with Code of Virginia Section 15.2-2507 SUBMITTED BY: Laurie Gearheart Director of Finance and Management Services APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Public hearing for budget amendments BACKGROUND: This is a public hearing to secure citizen’s comments concerning amending the fiscal year 2024-2025 budget by appropriating $60,637,123.77 from the Roanoke County Public Schools' fiscal year 2023-2024 year-end funds to the fiscal year 2024-2025 Roanoke County Public Schools Budget and Accepting and appropriating proceeds from the sale of the Poage's Mill property in the amount of $845,465. Page 2 of 2 DISCUSSION: Section 15.2-2507 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, provides that whenever such amendment exceeds one (1) percent of the total expenditures shown in the adopted budget, the County must publish notice of a meeting and public hearing. The notice must state the County’s intent to amend the budget and include a brief synopsis of the proposed budget amendment(s). This notice was published on December 10, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact as a result of the public hearing. Requests for the appropriations will occur later on in this agenda. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board hold the required public hearing. Board action appropriating funds, as provided in this notice, will occur later during this meeting. Conducting the public hearing does not guarantee the requested appropriations will be approved. Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 17, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Emergency Ordinance appropriating $60,637,123.77 from the Roanoke County Public Schools' fiscal year 2023-2024 year-end funds to the fiscal year 2024-2025 Roanoke County Public Schools Budget SUBMITTED BY: Laurie Gearheart Director of Finance and Management Services APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Appropriate $60,637,123.77 available year-end funds from Roanoke County Public Schools' fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, to the fiscal year 2024 -2025 Roanoke County Public Schools' Budget. BACKGROUND: In accordance with the Code of Virginia Section 22.1-100, at the end of each fiscal year, all Roanoke County Public Schools' unexpended funds (derived from the Board of Supervisors) reverts to the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors may then re-appropriate such funds back to the Schools' budget for use in the next year. The County Board of Supervisors' Comprehensive Financial Policy sets forth expenditures for which such funds may be re-appropriated. DISCUSSION: The Roanoke County School Board proposed the following uses of such year -end funds at their November 14, 2024 meeting, and requests that the Board of Supervisors reappropriate the funds for such purposes as outlined and highlighted in Attachment A. Page 2 of 2 During the presentation to the school board, the Roanoke County Public Schools Director of Finance, Susan Peterson, stated their year-end carryover would be presented to the County Board of Supervisors on November 19, 2024 for the first reading of a requested ordinance and on December 17, 2024 for the second reading and final approval. However, since our agenda packet came out on November 14, 2024 for our November 19, 2024 board meeting, we could not accommodate this request. Due to time constraints for the Schools to access their funds, it is requested that the second reading be dispensed with upon an affirmative vote of 4/5ths of the members of the Board, and that this matter be deemed an emergency measure pursuant to Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter. This proposal follows the County Board of Supervisors' Comprehensive Financial Policy, dated July 11, 2023. (See Section 10 - Reserves, item 6 (Roanoke County Public Schools Reserves and Year End Allocation)). FISCAL IMPACT: The appropriation of the funds to Roanoke County Public Schools will increase their total funds by $60,637,123.77; the funds will then be transferred out as outlined in Attachment A to the appropriate areas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the first reading of this ordinance, and dispensing with the second reading upon an affirmative vote of 4/5ths of the members of the Board due to timing of Attachment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`!J9)&7K % '8'%# *0)* %&'09) K"*72 99)9) *G)J)%#%%# *%"J2) %7&G&)J 2 ' % ''% *a b 9 '9)3%7 *&)J J #2 ''% *G)J)% 9 '9)3%7% 9 'J %9)) J7%&'7 G# *7%")#J7%&'#)9' %J7)!J9)&7$)%7-%)7)7, !"#8"2'%$%&'`78'%#,c6 ) 1*! ))#&!"#`7!J9)&7K % '8'%#, %&*)9)G&# ) *2 ' %7G''H7&79'%#,-*) GG&7)9)H 79)7*&$%&'( )*0%2)5 ,& 2%& 7,d"77&$%&'( )* 99)&G''HJ72 7*&G)J &9)7 e%%9& "**4"5 -" '!J9)&7K % ' 9) 77"2J*, !" #$ %%&'()%*+%,-./0 .1 0.. 2. !3 $ +++'4%+*%)5 678979: ;< !" #$ =4'&&)*4%;< !3 $ +&>')((*(?@ A " !%B'44)*(&$, < A A C %='?&&*&&D # A " (='&(&*%( E"F C !G3 $ )4?'>+>*B>B(%'B4(*(( E"F C !JK@$ %&&'&&&*&&" " 44)'((4*)=, E"F C !LGK$ ))&'&&&*&&" "FC >>'4%4*)4!)>%*B>$, N #33 +>'++>*=))='?(?*B( OPQRSTSRUVWXYZ[Q\][Q\^_`_QWV =='&B(*=? )&)>d)&)+NeHa@ " baf"C D # >4')4B*%) g. .h i 0.. 2.p B('B>?*(4=='>+%*)4 !" #$ )?B'%%%*)(, %B%'=+4*44 G" #3 " !q;;E;$ >'?)+'??=*B(3 >='+>?*(= G" #3 A !J;a$ ?=+'&>B*() A )'%4&*>+ G" #3 A !La;$ B)%'&)&*(( %+4'&4%*?+ KNM; C # !LGK$ %&?'=4&*)++4'=+)*>> J r b b C (%'(?&*&& a#" )>B*)) gh. .h i 0.. 2.p# >('>(B*?&A3 4+='B=4*(? G" #3 " !q;;E;$ )%'B%+'+&)*?&,3 !%*%>sF # r"#3 $ %'4&?'+=)*B% G" #3 A !J;a$ +&+'>??*?& A b >'))4'%B4*=+ G" #3 A !La;$ +4)'&>+*&& 3 b 3 b )'&&&'&&&*&& t0 .h i 0.. 2.p0.. 2. o899l8jmlnk:pi 1w i 0.. 2.p+)4'B=&*4(, x . .i 0.. 2. %'>(('4+>*?) yz 1w i 0.. 2. %'>(('4+>*?> { . i 0.. 2.3 b 3 b )'&&&'&&&*&& 0 | 2 i 0.. 2. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2024 EMERGENCY ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING $60,637,123.77 FROM THE ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 YEAR-END FUNDS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ BUDGET WHEREAS, in accordance with § 22.1-100 of the Code of Virginia, at the end of each fiscal year, all unexpended public school funds that were derived from the funds of the local governing body shall revert back to the governing body, and that it is within the local governing body’s discretion to then reappropriate such funds back to the school budget for the next year; and WHEREAS, Section 10, paragraph 6 of the County Board of Supervisors’ Comprehensive Financial Policy (dated July 11, 2023) sets forth purposes for which such unexpended year-end funds may be re-appropriated; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County School Board proposed the uses of such year - end funds at their November 14, 2024, meeting and requests that the Board of Supervisors reappropriate the funds for such purposes as outlined on the document entitled Roanoke County Public Schools Year End Surplus and Carryover Ordinance Calculation dated June 30, 2024, and attached hereto as Attachment A; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be appropriated by ordinance; and WHEREAS, due to time constraints for the Schools to access their funds, it is requested that this matter be deemed an emergency measure and that the second reading be dispensed with upon an affirmative vote of 4/5ths of the members of the Board pursuant to Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Roanoke County School Board’s unexpended fiscal year 2023- 2024 year-end funds in the amount of $60,637,123.77 are appropriated to the School Board’s fiscal year 2024-2025 budget to be used within the following categories (as set forth in Section 22.1-115 of the Code of Virginia): a. $7,233,253.26 is appropriated to the “instruction” category, b. $1,698.00 is appropriated to the “Administration, attendance, and health” category, c. $457,698.68 is appropriated to the “pupil transportation” category, d. $1,860,190.08 is appropriated to the “operation and maintenance” category, e. $4,895,327.13 is appropriated to the “school food services” category, f. $31,270,330.84 is appropriated to the “facilities” category, g. $2,799,487.05 is appropriated to the “debt and transfers” category, h. $1,707,536.47 is appropriated to the “technology” category, i. $2,000,000.00 is appropriated to the “contingency reserves: category, j. $8,411,602.26 is appropriated to the Schools in a lump sum, because the proposed use does not fall distinctly within one of the statutorily enumerated categories; the Schools propose to use such funds as follows: i. $2,805,826.07 for “student activity,” ii. $2,813,637.97 for “health insurance,” iii. $121,970.25 for “dental insurance,” iv. $753,851.39 for “risk management,” and v. $1,916,316.58 for “other post-employment benefits (OPEB) trust.” 2. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption. Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G.2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 17, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO ENTER INTO AND EXECUTE AN AMENDED AND RESTATED EXTRATERRITORIAL ARREST AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF ROANOKE, THE CITY OF SALEM, THE TOWN OF VINTON, THE COUNTY OF BOTETOURT, AND THE COUNTY OF CRAIG SUBMITTED BY: Peter S. Lubeck County Attorney APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Ordinance amending the Roanoke Valley Extraterritorial Arrest Agreement BACKGROUND: Roanoke County has been a signatory of the Roanoke Valley Extraterritorial Arrest Agreement since 1985, which enables officers and deputies from participating jurisdictions to exercise police powers in other participating jurisdictions. The purpose of this amendment is to (1) add the County of Botetourt and the County of Craig to the list of participating jurisdictions, and (2) authorize all participating jurisdiction law enforcement officers and deputies who are working off duty for the Crisis Intervention Team Assessment Center (CITAC) to exercise extraterritorial arrest powers. DISCUSSION: This amendment adds two additional jurisdictions and authorizes police officers and deputies, working off duty at CITAC, to exercise law enforcement powers even if they Page 2 of 2 are outside their employing jurisdictions. FISCAL IMPACT: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the first reading and scheduling the second reading for January 14, 2025. AMENDED AND RESTATED EXTRATERRITORIAL ARREST AGREEMENT THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED EXTRATERRITORIAL ARREST AGREEMENT (“Agreement”), made and entered into this day of October, 2024, by and between the CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, (“Roanoke City”), the COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, (“Roanoke County”), the TOWN OF VINTON, VIRGINIA (“Vinton”), the CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA (“Salem”), ANTONIO D. HASH, SHERIFF OF CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA (“Sheriff of Roanoke City”), J. ERIC ORANGE, SHERIFF OF COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA (“Sheriff of Roanoke County”), JONATHAN BRANSON, SHERIFF OF CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, (“Sheriff of Salem City”), MATTHEW T WARD, SHERIFF OF BOTETOURT COUNTY, VIRGINIA (“Sheriff of Botetourt County”), and TREVOR CRADDOCK, SHERIFF OF CRAIG COUNTY, VIRGINIA (“Sheriff of Craig County”). RECITALS WHEREAS, Section 15.2-1736 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, provides that the governing bodies of localities with police forces or the sheriffs of counties that do not may, by proper ordinance, resolution, or approval, enter in and become a party to contracts or mutual aid agreement for the use of their joint forces, both regular and auxiliary, their equipment, and materials to maintain peace and good order; and WHEREAS, Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Vinton and Salem entered into an Extraterritorial Arrest Agreement dated April 18, 2013 (“Original Contract”) and amended same on November 13, 2017 (“Amendment”); and WHEREAS, the Sheriffs of Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Botetourt County and Craig County wish to participate in this Agreement; and WHEREAS, officers of the Roanoke City, Salem, and Roanoke County Police Departments and Sheriff’s Offices, the Vinton Police Department, and the Botetourt County and Craig County Sheriff’s Offices, have occasion during the course of their employment as Town, County, and City Police Officers and Sheriff’s Deputies to be on duty outside the corporate boundaries of the political subdivision which employs them; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Vinton, Salem, Botetourt County, and Craig County to bestow extraterritorial arrest powers upon such officers who, while on duty outside the corporate boundaries of the political subdivision which employs them, observe certain offenses committed in their presence, without the creation of any additional liability for the political subdivision where the arrest occurs or its officers and employees; and WHEREAS, the governing bodies of Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Vinton, and Salem, and the Sheriffs of Botetourt County and Craig County, have authorized by the appropriate resolution or ordinance this Agreement which allows Botetourt County and Craig County to join this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend and restate the Original Contract in its entirety, together with all amendments, as set forth below. NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual covenants, agreements, obligations, and undertakings herein contained, Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Vinton, and Salem, and the Sheriffs of Botetourt County and Craig County, hereby covenant and agree, each with the other, as follows: 1. Definitions. As used in this Agreement, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section. • Roanoke City – shall mean the City of Roanoke, Virginia • Salem – shall mean the City of Salem, Virginia • Roanoke County – shall mean the County of Roanoke, Virginia • Vinton – shall mean the Town of Vinton • Botetourt County - shall mean the County of Botetourt, Virginia • Craig County – shall mean the County of Craig, Virginia • CITAC – shall mean the Roanoke Valley Crisis Intervention Team Assessment Center • Extraterritorial Arrest Power – shall mean the right, power, and authority of an officer of Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Vinton, Salem, Botetourt County, and Craig County Police Departments and/or Sheriff’s Offices, while in Craig County, Botetourt County, Salem, Vinton, Roanoke County, and Roanoke City, to stop and effect arrests and otherwise enforce the law with respect to any violation of state law which an officer would be required to act upon if working a regular tour of duty in their jurisdiction of employment. This definition does not apply to, or include, officers or deputies working in any “off duty” capacity, otherwise referred to as secondary police related employment, except that this definition does apply to officers or deputies if they are exercising police powers while working “off duty” for the CITAC • Officer – shall mean any sworn officer or deputy of the respective Police or Sheriff’s Departments of Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Vinton, Salem, Botetourt County and Craig County • On Duty – shall mean working an assigned tour with the employing law enforcement agency • Off Duty – shall mean a period of time during which an employee would not normally be scheduled or required to engage actively in the performance of police duties • Secondary Police Related Employment – shall mean any secondary employment that is conditioned on the actual or potential use of law enforcement authority by a sworn employee • State Code – shall mean the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. 2. Extraterritorial Arrest Power. An officer or deputy in Roanoke City, Salem, Roanoke County, Vinton, Botetourt County, or Craig County shall possess extraterritorial arrest power while “on duty,” or if they are exercising police powers while working “off duty” for the CITAC, when any violation of state law becomes known to the officer, or probable cause exists to effect an arrest. This section is not inclusive of any individual City, County, or Town codes which reciprocal agreements do not cover. Any officer effecting or attempting to effect an extraterritorial arrest under or pursuant to this Agreement shall have the same rights, powers, immunities, and benefits, and authorities as the officer would possess in making or attempting to make an arrest in the political subdivision employing the officer under similar circumstances. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring an officer to effect an extraterritorial arrest. 3. Responsibility of the Parties. Roanoke City, Salem, Roanoke County, Vinton, and the Sheriffs of Botetourt County and Craig County agree that to the extent permitted by applicable law, each party to this Agreement will be responsible for the actions, inactions, or violations for its officers, employees, and agents in connection with any extraterritorial police activity contemplated under this Agreement; provided, however, that nothing contained herein shall be construed as a waiver of the sovereign immunity of any locality identified in this Agreement or a waiver of any immunities applicable by law to any party to this Agreement and their officers, deputies, and agents. 4. Operational Policies. Any officer effecting an extra territorial arrest shall comply with the operational policies of his own department or Sheriff’s Office. Roanoke City, Salem, Roanoke County, Vinton, and the Sheriffs of Botetourt County and Craig County agree to hold their own officers or deputies, respectively, responsible and accountable for compliance with operational policies of the employing department. 5. Cooperative Joint Operations. Pursuant to this Agreement, a law enforcement officer from any of the participating localities who has the rank of lieutenant or higher may coordinate with a law enforcement officer of another participating locality of the rank of lieutenant or higher to coordinate a joint law enforcement operation that they believe will serve to better protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of their respective locality and the Roanoke Valley. 6. No Effect on Existing Powers. This Agreement shall not supersede, restrict, limit, or otherwise impair or effect extraterritorial arrest powers already existing including the following: • Virginia Code §15.2-1724. Police and other officers may be sent beyond territorial limits • Virginia Code §15.2-1727. Reciprocal agreements with localities outside the Commonwealth • Virginia Code §15.2-1728. Mutual aid agreements between police departments and federal authorities • Virginia Code §15.2-1729. Agreements for enforcement of state and county laws by federal officers on federal property • Virginia Code §15.2-1730. Calling upon law-enforcement officers of counties, cities, or towns for assistance • Virginia Code §19.2-77. Escape, flight, and pursuit; arrest anywhere in the Commonwealth • Virginia Code §19.2-249. Offenses committed on boundary of two counties, two cities, or county and city, etc.; where prosecuted • Virginia Code §19.2-249.1. Offenses committed within towns situated in two or more counties; where prosecuted • Virginia Code §19.2-250. How far jurisdiction of corporate authorities extends • Any other sections of the State Code or any authority or power existing under the City of Roanoke Charter of 1952 or the City of Salem under the City of Salem Charter. 7. Rights of Officers. Any officer or deputy while exercising extraterritorial arrest or other powers provided herein within the jurisdictions represented by the parties to this Agreement shall have all the same immunities from liabilities and exemptions from laws, ordinances, and regulations and shall have all the same pension, relief, disability, Workers’ Compensation, and other benefits enjoyed by the officer while performing their respective duties within the territorial limits of the political subdivision in which they are employed or serve. 8. No Backup. This Agreement shall not be construed as requiring any City officer to act in the County or Town, any Town officer to act in the City or County, or a County officer to act in the City or Town upon request to supplement or replace routine patrol or enforcement activities. 9. Loss or Damage to Equipment. The localities shall have no liability for any destruction, loss, or damage of any motor vehicle, equipment, or personal property owned and operated by the other localities in the exercise of extraterritorial arrest power under or pursuant to this Agreement. 10. Immunities. This Agreement shall not be construed to impair or affect any sovereign or governmental immunity or official immunity that may otherwise be available to the localities, any officer, agent, or employee of the localities, or of any deputy or Sheriff. 11. Termination. Any party to this Agreement shall have the right to terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving written notice to the Chief Administrative Officer of the other parties by certified mail, return receipt requested. Any termination shall be effective 10 days after receipt of notice of termination. 12. Completeness of Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between Roanoke City, Salem, Roanoke County, Vinton, and the Sheriffs of Botetourt County and Craig County, and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either oral or written. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by authorized representatives of Roanoke City, Salem, Roanoke County, Vinton, and the Sheriffs of Botetourt County and Craig County. 13. Gender. Any word importing the masculine gender used in this Agreement may extend to and be applied to females as well as males. 14. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective immediately upon its execution by all of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, each duly authorized have hereunto affixed their signatures and seals to this Amended and Restated Extraterritorial Arrest Agreement, executed in sextuplicate as of the date set forth above. SIGNATURE PAGES TO FOLLOW City of Roanoke Approved as to Form Signature: ____________________________ Signature: ____________________________ By: Dr. Lydia Pettis Patton By: Jennifer L. Crook Title: Interim City Manager Title: Assistant City Attorney Chief of Police, City of Roanoke, in his official capacity Signature: ____________________________ By: Scott C. Booth Title: Chief of Police Sheriff, City of Roanoke, in his official capacity Signature: ____________________________ By: Antonio D. Hash Title: Sheriff County of Roanoke Approved as to Form Signature: ____________________________ Signature: ____________________________ By: Richard L. Caywood, P.E. By: __________________________________ Title: County Administrator Title: County Attorney Chief of Police, County of Roanoke, in his official capacity Signature: ____________________________ By: R.M. Poindexter Title: Chief of Police Sheriff, County of Roanoke, in his official capacity Signature: ____________________________ By: J. Eric Orange Title: Sheriff Town of Vinton Approved as to Form Signature: ____________________________ Signature: ____________________________ By: Richard Peters By: __________________________________ Title: Town Manager Title: Town Attorney Chief of Police, Town of Vinton, in his official capacity Signature: ____________________________ By: Fabricio Drumond Title: Chief of Police City of Salem Approved as to Form Signature: ____________________________ Signature: ____________________________ By: James E. Taliaferro, II By: __________________________________ Title: City Manager Title: City Attorney Chief of Police, City of Salem, in his official capacity Signature: ____________________________ By: Derek Weeks Title: Chief of Police Sheriff, City of Salem, in his official capacity Signature: ____________________________ By: Jonathan Branson Title: Sheriff County of Botetourt Approved as to Form Signature: ____________________________ Signature: ____________________________ By: Gary Larrowe By: __________________________________ Title: County Administrator Title: County Attorney Sheriff, County of Botetourt, in his official capacity Signature: ____________________________ By: Matthew T. Ward Title: Sheriff County of Craig Approved as to Form Signature: ____________________________ Signature: ____________________________ By: Robert R. “Dan” Collins By: __________________________________ Title: County Administrator Title: County Attorney Sheriff, County of Craig, in his official capacity Signature: ____________________________ By: Trevor Craddock Title: Sheriff AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2025 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO ENTER INTO AND EXECUTE AN AMENDED AND RESTATED EXTRATERRITORIAL ARREST AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF ROANOKE, THE CITY OF SALEM, THE TOWN OF VINTON, THE COUNTY OF BOTETOURT, AND THE COUNTY OF CRAIG WHEREAS, in October of 1985, the County of Roanoke and the City of Roanoke entered into an extraterritorial agreement which granted arrest powers to the County Sheriff’s deputies and the City’s police officers for certain traffic related offenses; and WHEREAS, in April of 1991, an amended extraterritorial agreement was executed by the County of Roanoke and the City of Roanoke to reflect the establishment of the Roanoke County Police Department and certain technical amendments to the Virginia Motor Vehicle Code; and WHEREAS, in April of 2013, an amended extraterritorial agreement was executed by the County of Roanoke, the City of Roanoke, the City of Salem, and the Town of Vinton expanding the arrest powers of officers in those jurisdictions to any violation of state law; and WHEREAS, in July of 2017, the notification provisions of this agreement were removed because the police departments in the Roanoke Valley were all using the state-wide LINX system thus removing the need for manual notifications; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley Crisis Intervention Team Assessment Center (“CITAC”) is operated by Roanoke Valley Community Services Board, Blue Ridge Behavioral Health, Inc., and this amended and restated agreement now expands extraterritorial arrest powers to cover all participating jurisdiction officers and deputies working off duty at CITAC if they are required to exercise police powers; and WHEREAS, the County of Botetourt and the County of Craig have requested to participate in CITAC which initiated a new proposed CITAC Memorandum of Understanding and the present proposed Amended and Restated Agreement expanding the grant of reciprocal arrest powers to include said Counties; and WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 15.2-1736 provides that the governing bodies of localities may enter in and become a party to contracts or mutual aid agreements for the use of their joint forces, both regular and auxiliary, their equipment and materials to maintain peace and good order; and WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 15.2-1300 provides for the joint exercise of powers by political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia which must be adopted by ordinance; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 17, 2024, and the second reading and public hearing was held on January 14, 2025. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County as follows: 1. That the County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator, or Assistant County Administrator, any of whom may act, are hereby authorized, by and on behalf of the County of Roanoke, to enter into and execute an Amended and Restated Extraterritorial Arrest Agreement between the County of Roanoke, the City of Roanoke, the City of Salem, the Town of Vinton, the County of Botetourt, and the County of Craig, in substantially the same form as the agreement attached here to. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G.3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 17, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AMENDING ROANOKE COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 14: PARADES SUBMITTED BY: Peter S. Lubeck County Attorney APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Amendment of Chapter 14 of the Roanoke County Code BACKGROUND: In 2021, the County Amended its Parks ordinance (Chapter 15 of the County Code). Part of these revisions involved removing some provisions pertaining to the issuance of permits for public gatherings. Prior to this time, the Director of Parks was charged with issuing permits for such gatherings. It was determined that, at some point in the future, it would be desirable to vest such authority with the Chief of Police; the Chief of Police would have the resources to ensure that any such gatherings could be conducted in an orderly and safe manner. DISCUSSION: It is proposed that Chapter 14 of the Roanoke County Code be amended, as set forth in the attached ordinance, to grant the Chief of Police authority to issue permits for certain public gatherings that take place as parades, assemblies, and demonstrations. These amendments are consistent with the recommendations of the Governor's Task Force on Public Safety Preparedness, as promulgated December 2017, and are designed to facilitate free assembly and speech by ensuring, through a permitting process (which will enable the County to have advance notice of such events, and to Page 2 of 2 facilitate safe and orderly planning), that any such gatherings do not become violent. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the first reading and scheduling the second reading for January 14, 2025. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, _____________, 2025 ORDINANCE AMENDING ROANOKE COUNTY CODE – CHAPTER 14 PARADES WHEREAS, in order to ensure that the County is prepared to deal with significant public assemblies and demonstrations, the following proposed amendments are provided; WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on _____________ and the second reading was held on ________________. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the Roanoke County Code is hereby amended to read and provide as follows: Chapter 14 ASSEMBLIES, DEMONSTRATIONS, AND PARADES1 ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 14-1. Short title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Assembly, Demonstration, and Parade Ordinance of the County of Roanoke." (Code 1971, § 11A-1; Ord. No. 2993-4, § 1, 2-9-93) Sec. 14-2. Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section: Chief of police: The chief of police of the Roanoke County Police Department or his designee. Parade: Any parade, march, ceremony, show, exhibition, pageant or procession of any kind, or any rally, demonstration or similar display, in or upon any street, park or other outdoor place owned or under the control of 1Cross reference(s)—Motor vehicles and traffic generally, Ch. 12; driving through parades, § 12-10; parking on parade route, § 12-53. the county. Legally permitted picketing or processions which do not block or impede a reasonable flow of traffic shall not be considered a parade subject to this chapter. Parade permit: A permit required by this chapter. Person: Any individual, corporation, partnership, association, organization or other entity. Street: Any public street, whether or not officially part of the state highway system maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation or its successor, sidewalk, or public place within the County of Roanoke. (Code 1971, § 11A-2; Ord. No. 2993-4, § 1, 2-9-93) Sec. 14-3. Violations of chapter. Unless otherwise specifically provided, a violation of any provision of this chapter shall constitute a Class 1 misdemeanor. (Code 1971, § 11A-4; Ord. No. 2993-4, § 1, 2-9-93) Cross reference(s)—Penalty for Class 1 misdemeanor, § 1-10. Sec. 14-4. Compliance with applicable laws and ordinances. Every person conducting or participating in a parade for which a permit is issued under this chapter shall comply with all applicable laws of the state and ordinances of the county. Violation of any such laws or ordinances by any individual participant in a parade or observing a parade shall subject such individual to arrest or other appropriate action. The chief of police shall retain the authority to cancel any parade permit and i mmediately halt any parade when in his opinion an accumulation of such violations shall substantially threaten the public safety or order. (Code 1971, § 11A-14; Ord. No. 2993-4, § 1, 2-9-93) Sec. 14-5. Indemnification of county. The applicant for a parade permit and any other person, organization, firm or corporation on whose behalf the application is made, by filing such application, thereby represent, stipulate, contract and agree that they will jointly and severally indemnify and hold the county harmless against liability for any and all claims for damage to property or injury to, or death of, persons arising out of the conduct of the parade by its participants. (Code 1971, § 11A-16; Ord. No. 2993-4, § 1, 2-9-93) Sec. 14-6. Obstructing, interfering with, etc. It shall be unlawful for any person to harass, obstruct, impede or interfere with any parade or parade assembly for which a permit has been granted under this chapter, or with any person, vehicle or animal participating or used in such parade. Likewise, it shall be unlawful for any participant in any parade to address or incite bystanders by using abusive or threatening language or actions which would tend to provoke such bystander or others to a breach of the peace. (Code 1971, § 11A-3; Ord. No. 2993-4, § 1, 2-9-93) Sec. 14-7. Carrying of dangerous weapons by participants. No person participating in any parade shall carry any weapon which if concealed would constitute a violation of section 18.2-308(A)(ii) through (iv) of the Code of Virginia, or any weapon of like kind as those enumerated in section 18.2-308(A)(ii) through (iv), or whose possession would otherwise constitute a violation of any section of title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The chief of police shall retain the authority to require that all participants in any parade submit to a pat-down search or other procedure, including passage through a metal detector, to ensure compliance with this section prior to any parade. This prohibition shall not apply to members of any color guard, drill team, military unit, lodge or any other persons by whom the display of weapons during a parade would not constitute a threat to the maintenance of law and order or the preservation of the public peace. (Ord. No. 2993-4, § 1, 2-9-93; Ord. No. 092419-7, § 1, 9-24-19) Sec. 14-8. Classes of parades; standards for classification. The chief of police may establish classes of parades for purposes of determining the ordinary costs of providing traffic control and other normal administrative costs to the county based strictly upon the time, place, and manner of the parade. Such classification of parades shall be in accordance with written standards previously adopted and publicized by the chief taking into consideration the following factors: a) time of day and day of the week (including holidays) of the parade; b) the expected duration of the parade; c) the expected number of participants in the parade; d) the anticipated parade route; e) the types of vehicles in the parade; f) any requirements imposed by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) directly related to use or restri ctions upon the use of public streets or highways; and g) other factors reasonably related to the smooth progress of the parade. (Ord. No. 2993-4, § 1, 2-9-93) Sec. 14-9. Applicability of article to the Town of Vinton. The provisions of this article shall not be applicable within the limits of the Town of Vinton. (Ord. No. 2993-4, § 1, 2-9-93) Secs. 14-10—14-20. Reserved. ARTICLE II. PERMIT Sec. 14-21. Required; exceptions. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to stage, present, conduct, participate in, form or start a parade, unless a permit has been issued for such parade pursuant to the provisions of this article. (b) This section shall not apply to: (1) Funeral processions. (2) Lawful picketing or other orderly processions on the sidewalks that do not violate any state laws or county ordinances. (3) A governmental agency acting within the scope of its functions. (4) Convoys of troops or equipment pursuant to proper military orders. (5) Any procession which is restricted to one lane of traffic or less and complies with all traffic signals and laws and does not unreasonably restrict the flow of traffic upon any street. (Code 1971, §§ 11A-4, 11A-6; Ord. No. 2993-4, § 1, 2-9-93) Sec. 14-22. Application—Generally. A person seeking the issuance of a parade permit shall file an application with the chief of police on forms provided by the chief of police. Such application shall be filed not less than fifteen (15) days before the date on which it is proposed to conduct the parade. The application shall be signed by the applicant and notarized and shall contain the following information: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the person seeking to conduct the parade. (2) If the parade is proposed to be conducted for, on behalf of or by an organization, the name, address and telephone number of the headquarters of the organization and of the authorized and responsible heads of such organization. (3) The name, address and telephone number of the person who will be the parade chairman and who will be responsible for its conduct. (4) The date when the parade is to be conducted. (5) The route to be traveled, the starting point and the termination point. (6) The approximate number of persons who, and animals and vehicles which, will constitute the parade and the type of animals and a description of the vehicles. (7) The hours when such parade will start and terminate. (8) A statement as to whether the parade will occupy all or only a portion of the width of the streets proposed to be traversed. (9) The location, by streets, of any assembly areas for the parade. (10) The time at which units of the parade will begin to assemble at any such assembly area or areas. (11) The purpose of the parade. (12) Any additional information which the chief of police finds reasonably necessary to make a fair determination as to whether the permit should be issued. If the parade is designed to be held by, and on behalf of or for, any person other than the applicant, the applicant for such permit shall file with the application a communication in writing from the person proposing to hold the parade, authorizing the applicant to apply for the permit on his behalf. (Code 1971, § 11A-7; Ord. No. 62690-8, § 7, 6-26-90; Ord. No. 2993-4, § 1, 2-9-93) Sec. 14-23. Same—Processing fee; administrative fee. (a) A fee in the amount of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) to cover the expenses incident to processing an application for a parade permit shall be paid by the person applying for the permit at the time of the filing of the application. The chief of police may, in specific cases, waive such fee, if the parade is to be conducted on behalf of a nonprofit or charitable organization. (b) A fee based upon the class of parade as determined in accordance with section 14 -8 shall be paid by the person applying for the permit at the time of issuance of the parade permit. This administrative fee shall be used to reimburse the County of Roanoke Police Department for the direct, anticipated costs of traffic control and shall be imposed based upon criteria developed by the chief of police which are objectively based upon the manpower and equipment needs documented by the police departme nt and other county agencies involved in any parade activity. (Code 1971, § 11A-7; Ord. No. 62690-8, § 7, 6-26-90; Ord. No. 2993-4, § 1, 2-9-93) Sec. 14-24. Issuance or denial. (a) The chief of police shall act upon an application for a parade permit, within seven (7) days after the filing thereof, by either issuing or denying the permit. If he denies the permit, the chief of police shall mail to the applicant, by certified mail, or have served upon the applicant, within seven (7) days after the date upon which the application was filed, a notice of his action stating the reasons for the denial of the permit. Any person aggrieved shall have the right to appeal such denial or granting of a parade permit to the circuit court of the county. The appeal shall be taken within eight (8) days after receipt of the notice of denial or granting of such permit. (b) The chief of police shall issue a parade permit when, from a consideration of the application and from such other information as may otherwise be obtained, he finds that: (1) The conduct of the parade will not substantially interrupt the safe and orderly movement of other traffic contiguous to its route. (2) The conduct of the parade will not require the diversion of so great a number of law -enforcement officers of the county, to properly police the line of movement and the areas contiguous thereto, as to prevent normal police protection to the county. (3) The conduct of the parade will not require the diversion of so great a number of ambulances as to prevent normal ambulance service to portions of the county other than that to be occupied by the proposed line of march and areas contiguous thereto. (4) The concentration of persons, animals and vehicles at assembly points of the parade will not unduly interfere with proper fire and police protection of, or ambulance service to, areas contiguous to such assembly areas. (5) The conduct of the parade will not interfere with the movement of fire -fighting or rescue squad equipment or vehicles en route to a fire, accident scene or other emergency. (6) The proposed conduct of the participants in the parade does not present a clear and present danger of violence. (7) The parade is scheduled to move from its point of origin to its point of termination expeditiously and without unreasonable delays en route. (8) The parade is not to be held for the sole purpose of advertising any product, goods or event and is not designed to be held purely for private profit. This provision shall not prohibit signs identifying organizations or sponsors furnishing or sponsoring floats or transportation for the parade. (9) The proposed parade route has been approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation where closure of all or a portion of a Virginia State Primary or Secondary Route is involved. (c) The chief of police, in denying an application for a parade permit, may authorize the conduct of the parade on a date, at a time or over a route different from that named by the applicant. An applicant desiring to accept an alternative permit shall, within two (2) days after notice of the action of the chief of police, file a written notice of acceptance with the chief of police. An alternative parade permit shall conform to the requirement of and shall have the effect of a parade permit under this chap ter. (Code 1971, §§ 11A-8—11A-11; Ord. No. 62690-8, § 7, 6-26-90; Ord. No. 2993-4, § 1, 2-9-93) Sec. 14-25. Contents. Each parade permit shall contain the following information: (1) Date of the parade. (2) Starting time and termination time of the parade. (3) The portions of the streets to be traversed that may be occupied by the parade. (4) The number of persons, animals and motor vehicles that will be in the parade. (5) Such other conditions as the chief of police shall find necessary for the enforcement of this chapter. (Code 1971, § 11A-13; Ord. No. 62690-8, § 7, 6-26-90; Ord. No. 2993-4, § 1, 2-9-93) Sec. 14-26. Copy to be sent to certain officials. Immediately upon the issuance of a parade permit, the chief of police shall send a copy thereof to the following: (1) The county administrator. (2) The chairman of the board of supervisors. (3) Each supervisor through whose district the parade route will travel. (4) The chief of the fire and rescue department. (Code 1971, § 11A-12; Ord. No. 62690-8, § 7, 6-26-90; Ord. No. 2993-4, § 1, 2-9-93) Sec. 14-27. To be carried by leader. The parade chairman or other person organizing or leading a parade shall carry the parade permit upon his person during the conduct of the parade. (Code 1971, § 11A-14; Ord. No. 2993-4, § 1, 2-9-93) Sec. 14-28. Compliance with directions and conditions. It shall be unlawful for any person to fail to comply with all directions and conditions of a parade permit. Any material failure to comply with the parade information set forth in the application including any deviation from the parade route or unjustified delay in starting or terminating the parade shall be grounds for immediate revocation of the parade permit by the chief of police and the prompt disbanding of the parade functions. (Code 1971, §§ 11A-4, 11A-14; Ord. No. 2993-4, § 1, 2-9-93) Sec. 14-29. Revocation. The chief of police shall have the authority to immediately revoke a parade permit upon any violation of the standards for issuance, as set forth in section 14-24(b). (Code 1971, § 11A-15; Ord. No. 62690-8, § 7, 6-26-90; Ord. No. 2993-4, § 1, 2-9-93) Sec. 14-2. Purpose. Pursuant to the authority granted to the county by the Code of Virginia2 and its general police powers, the county does hereby adopt the following sections in order to provide for the public health, safety and general welfare in the county, to ensure the free and safe passage of pedestrians and vehicles on the public rights -of-way, and to ensure the safe and unimpaired use and enjoyment of public property , including parks, in places open to the general public, and otherwise to regulate and control the time, place, and manner of activities that would otherwise threaten or impair the public health, safety, and welfare in the county while also encouraging the exercise of the rights to free speech and assembly in the county. Sec. 14-3. Violations of chapter. Unless otherwise specifically provided, a violation of any provision of this chapter shall constitute a Class 1 misdemeanor. Sec. 14-4. Dispersal of activity. Whenever the free passage of any street, sidewalk, shared use path, greenway or trail in the county shall be obstructed by a crowd, congregation, parade, meeting, assembly or procession, or the conduct of ten or more persons, except as authorized by any permit issued pursuant to this chapter, the persons comprising said group 2 See Virginia Code §§ 18.2-42 (Assault or battery by mob), 406 (What constitutes an unlawful assembly; punishment), 407 (Remaining at place of riot or unlawful assembly after warning to disperse),411 (dispersal of unlawful or riotous assemblies; duties of officers), and § 46.2-818 (Stopping vehicle of another; blocking access to premises, damaging or threating commercial vehicle or operator thereof; penalties). shall disperse or move when directed to do so by a police officer. It shall be unlawful for any person to refuse , and said refusal shall be a violation of this chapter. Sec. 14-5. Definitions. The following terms shall have the meanings set out herein: (a) “Parade” means any march, demonstration, procession, or motorcade consisting of people, animals, or vehicles, or a combination thereof, with a moving footprint, upon the streets, sidewalks, or other public areas, including parks, within the county with an intent or likely effect of attracting public attention that interferes with or has a tendency to interfere with the normal flow or regulation of pedestrian or vehicular traffic upon the streets, sidewalks, shared use paths, greenways, trails or other public property. (b) “Picket” means anyone who participates in a public assembly, demonstration, march, parade, picket line, procession, rally, or spontaneous event on the streets, sidewalks, shared use paths, greenways, trails parks, or other public areas of the county, either as an individual or as part of a group. (c) “Public assembly” means any meeting, demonstration, picket line, rally or gathering, with a generally stationary footprint, upon the streets, sidewalks, parks, or other public areas within the county, of more than ten people for a common purpose as a result of prior planning that interferes with or has a tendency to interfere with the normal flow or regulation of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or that interferes with or has a tendency to interfere with the normal use of any public property in a place open to the general public. (d) “Spontaneous event” means an unplanned or unannounced coming together of people, animals or vehicles in a parade or public assembly which was not contemplated beforehand by any participant therein and which is caused by or in response to unforeseen circumstances or events occasion ed by news or affairs first coming into public knowledge within five days of such parade or public assembly. Sec. 14-6. Classes of parades; standards for classification. The chief of police, or his or her designee, may establish classes of parades or public assemblies for purposes of determining the ordinary costs of providing traffic control and other normal administrative costs to the county based strictly upon the time, place, and manner of the parade. Such classification of parades shall be in accordance with written standards previously adopted and publicized by the chief taking into consideration the following factors: a) time of day and day of the week (including holidays); b) the expected duration; c) the expected number of participants; d) the anticipated route or location; e) the types of vehicles in a parade; f) any requirements imposed by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) directly related to use or restrictions upon the use of public streets or highways; and g) other factors reasonably related to the smooth progress of the parade or public assembly. Sec. 14-7. Permit required. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to conduct or participate in a public assembly, demonstration , or parade on the public streets, sidewalks, shared use paths, greenways, trails parks, or other public property of the county, in a place open to the general public, for which a written permit has not been issued in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. (b) This permit requirement shall not apply to: (1) Spontaneous events; (2) Recreational activities, including jogging or walking, that do not require closing public streets or other public rights-of-way and that do not interfere with or have a tendency to interfere with the normal use of any public property, including parks, in a place open to the general public; (3) Door-to-door advocacy, including canvassing, pamphleteering, religious or political proselytizing and the distribution of written materials, and similar activities that do not interfere with or have a tendency to interfere with the free passage of pedestrians and vehicles on the public rights-of-way or the normal use of any public property, including parks, in a place open to the general public; provided, however, that any persons or organizations engaging in such activities shall comply with any other applicable requirements of the county code; (4) Door-to-door sales of goods or services, and similar activities that do not interfere with or have a tendency to interfere with the free passage of pedestrians and vehicles on the public rights -of-way or the normal use of any public property, including parks, in a place open to the general public; provided, however, that any persons or organizations engaging in such activities shall comply with any other applicable requirements of the county code; (5) Funeral processions; (6) Students going to and from school classes or participating in educational activities, provided that such conduct is under the immediate direction and supervision of the proper school authorities; (7) The United States army, navy, air force, marines, and coast guard, the military forces of the state and the police and fire departments of the county; (8) A governmental agency/agencies acting within the scope of its functions; (9) Activities occurring on Carvins Cove Natural Reserve which is owned and regulated by the city of Roanoke; and (10) Any procession which is restricted to one lane of traffic or less and complies with all traffic signals and laws and does not unreasonably restrict the flow of traffic upon any street. (c) Permits may be granted if they are requested by individuals or organizations who desire to have a permit, even though the permit is not otherwise required under this chapter. Sec. 14-8. Application. (a) Any person desiring to conduct a parade or public assembly shall make written application to the chief of police, or his or her designee, at least five days prior to such parade or public assembly. Such application shall set forth the following information: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the person requesting the permit; (2) The name and address of any organization or group the applicant is representing; (3) The name, address and telephone number of the person who will act as the parade or public assembly leader or chairperson and who will be responsible for the conduct of the parade or public assembly; (4) The type of public assembly, including a description of the activities planned during the event; (5) The date and time (start and ending) of the parade or public assembly; (6) If an assembly, the specific location or locations of the assembly; (7) If a parade, the specific assembly and dispersal locations, the specific route, and the plans, if any, for assembly and dispersal; (8) The approximate number of people, animals, and vehicles which will constitute such parade or public assembly and the type of animals and a description of the vehicles; (9) A statement as to whether the parade or public assembly will occupy all or only a portion of the width of the streets, sidewalks, shared use paths, greenways, trails, other public rights-of-way, or park proposed to be traversed or used; (10) A description of any recording equipment, sound amplification equipment, banners, signs, or other attention-getting devices to be used in connection with the parade or public assembly; and (11) Such other information as the chief of police, or his or her designee, may deem reasonably necessary in order to properly provide for traffic control, street and property maintenance, administrative arrangements, police and fire protection, and for the protection of public health, safety , and welfare. (b) The chief of police, or his or her designee, shall not issue the permit if any information supplied by the applicant is intentionally false or misleading. (c) The chief of police, or his or her designee, shall have the authority to, and shall make reasonable efforts to consider an application hereunder which is filed less than five days before the date the parade or assembly is proposed to be conducted if, after due consideration of the date, time, place, and nature of the parade or public assembly, the anticipated number of participants , and the county services required in connection with the event, and where good cause is otherwise shown, the chief of police, or his or her designee, determines that a waiver of the permit application deadline will not present an undue hazard to public safety. Sec. 14-9. Indemnification of county. The applicant for a parade or public assembly permit and any other person, organization, firm , or corporation on whose behalf the application is made, by filing such application, thereby represent, stipulate, contract , and agree that they will jointly and severally indemnify and hold the county harmless against liability for any and all claims for damage to property or injury to, or death of, persons arising out of the conduct of the parade or public assembly by its participants. Sec. 14-10. Processing fee; administrative fee. (a) A fee in the amount of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) to cover the expenses incident to processing an application for a permit shall be paid by the person applying for the permit at the time of the filing of the application. (b) A fee based upon the class of parade or public assembly as determined in accordance with section 14 -6 (Classes of parades; standards for classification) of this chapter shall be paid by the person applying for the permit at the time of issuance of the parade permit. This administrative fee shall be used to reimburse the police department for the direct, anticipated costs of traffic control and shall be imposed based upon criteria developed by the chief of police, or his or her designee, which are objectively based upon the manpower and equipment needs documented by the police department and other county agencies involved in any parade activity. Sec. 14-11. Issuance or denial of permit. (a) The chief of police, or his or her designee, shall issue the permit within three days of receipt of the completed application and, in any event, prior to the scheduled parade or public assembly if the proposed parade or public assembly will not endanger the public health, welfare, or safety, applying the following criteria and finding that: (1) The time, duration, route, and size of parade or assembly will not unreasonably interrupt the safe and orderly movement of vehicular or pedestrian traffic or the normal use of public property , including parks, in a place open to the general public; (2) The parade or assembly is not of such a nature that it will require diversion of so great a number of police and fire personnel to properly police the line of movement in the areas contiguous thereto so as to impair the normal protection of the remainder of the county; (3) The applicant has, where appropriate, designated monitors sufficient to control the orderly conduct of the parade or assembly in conformity with such permit; (4) The conduct of the parade or assembly will not unduly interfere with the proper fire and police protection of, or ambulance service to, the remainder of the County, or unreasonably disrupt other public services and protection normally provided to the county; (5) The parade or assembly will not interfere with another parade or assembly for which a permit has already been granted; and (6) The parade or assembly proposed will not violate, and will conform with all applicable local, state, and/or federal regulations and laws governing the proposed event. (b) For parades or public assemblies held on a regular or recurring basis at the same location, an application for an annual permit covering all such parades or assemblies during the calendar year may be filed with the chief of police, or his or her designee, at least five and not more than 60 days before the date and time at which the first such parade or public assembly is proposed to commence. The chief of police, or his or her designee, shall make reasonable efforts to waive the minimum five -day period after due consideration of the factors specified in subsection (c) of section 14-8 (Application) of this chapter. (c) If the chief of police, or his or her designee, denies an application, they shall promptly attempt to call and will promptly mail to the applicant a notice of this action, stating the reasons for the denial of the permit and notifying the applicant of their right to appeal the denial pursuant to section 14-16 (Appeal) of this chapter. (d) If two or more applications are submitted requesting a permit under this article for a parade or assembly to be used at the same time and place, the application first filed shall be granted if it otherwise meets the requirements of this chapter. (e) If persons promoting different objectives, causes, actions, or policies desire to use a street, sidewalk, shared use path, greenway, trail or public area for which a permit has already been issued, the chief or police, or his or her designee, shall allot a number of pickets promoting each objective to use such street, sidewalk , or public area on an equitable basis, proportionate to the number of objectives being promoted. The chief of police, or his or her designee, may also physically separate groups of persons promoting different causes through the use of barricades or similar devices, or assign each group of persons designated areas in which to promote their different objectives, causes, actions, or policies in order to promote the public safety by keeping such groups apart from one another. (f) Nothing in this article shall permit the chief of police, or his or her designee, to deny a permit based upon political, social or religious grounds or reasons or based upon the content of the views expressed. Denial of a permit on such grounds is prohibited. Sec. 14-12. Alternative permit. The chief of police, or his or her designee, in denying a permit for a parade or public assembly, shall be empowered to authorize the conduct of the parade or assembly on a date, at a time, at a place, or over a route different from that proposed by the applicant. An applicant desiring to accept an alternate permit shall file a written notice of acceptance with the chief of police, or his or her designee. An alternate permit shall conform to the requirements of and shall have the effect of a permit under this article. Sec. 14-13. Notice to County and other officials. Immediately upon the issuance of a permit, the chief of police, or his or her designee, shall send a copy thereof to the following: (a) The chairman of the board of supervisors ; (b) Each supervisor through whose district the parade route will travel ; (c) The county administrator; (d) The county attorney; and (e) The chief of the fire and rescue department. Sec. 14-14. Compliance with directions and conditions. Every person to whom a permit is issued under this article shall substantially comply with all permit terms and conditions and with all applicable laws and ordinances. The parade or assembly chairperson or other person heading or leading the parade or assembly shall carry the permit upon their person during the conduct of the parade or assembly and show the permit when requested to do so. Sec. 14-15. Revocation of permit and authority to disperse crowds. (a) The chief of police, or his or her designee, shall have the authority to revoke any permit issued pursuant to this article if any information supplied by the applicant is discovered to be intentionally false or misleading, or if any term, condition, restriction or limitation of the permit has been substantially violated , or if there is any continued violation of the terms, conditions, restrictions, or limitations of the permit after the applicant or anyone acting in concert with him or her is notified of a violation of the permit by an appropriate law enforcement official. (b) County police officers may, in the event of an assemblage of persons who attempt to intimidate pickets pursuing their lawful permitted objective through conduct having a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person or persons at whom such conduct is directed, or through the use of violent abusive language in a manner reasonably calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, direct the dispersal3 of the persons so assembled and may arrest4 any person who fails to absent himself or herself from the place of assemblage when so directed by the police. Sec. 14-16. Appeal. (a) Any person aggrieved by the refusal of the chief of police, or his or her designee, to grant a permit, or by the revocation of a permit after one has been issued, may appeal the denial to the county administrator, or his or her designee, by filing with the county administrator’s office, within five working days after the date of denial or revocation, a written notice of the appeal setting forth the grounds therefor. The county administrator, or his or her designee, shall act upon the appeal within five working days after its receipt. (b) The decision of the chief of police, or his or her designee, or the county administrator, or his or her designee, may be appealed to the circuit court of Roanoke County, in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. (c) In any appeal under this section, the county shall have the burden of demonstrating that the denial of the permit was justified under section 14.11 (Issuance or denial of permit) of this chapter. (d) The county shall meet all deadlines set by the court and by applicable statutes and court rules and shall otherwise seek to assure that the appeal, including any motion for preliminary relief, is decided as expeditiously as possible. Sec. 14-17. Public conduct during parades, demonstrations, assemblies and spontaneous events. (a) Interference. No person shall unreasonably hamper, obstruct, impede, or interfere with any parade, demonstration, or assembly or with any person, vehicle, or animal participating or used in a parade, demonstration, or assembly for which a written permit has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. (b) Driving through parades. No driver of a vehicle shall drive between the vehicles, persons , or animals comprising a parade, demonstration, or assembly or funeral procession except when otherwise directed by a police officer. This shall not apply to authorized emergency vehicles. (c) Parking on parade, demonstration, or assembly route. The chief of police, or his or her designee, shall have the authority, when reasonably necessary, to prohibit or restrict the parking of vehicles along the public streets or public rights-of-way constituting a part of the route of a parade, demonstration, or assembly. The chief of police, or his or her designee, shall post signs to such effect, and it shall be unlawful for any person to 3 See Virginia Code § 18.2-411. 4 See Virginia Code § 18.2-407. park or leave unattended any vehicle in violation thereof. No person shall be liable for parking on a street unposted in violation of this article. (d) Prohibited items. No person who participates in an assembly, demonstration, march, parade, picket line, procession, rally, or spontaneous event on the streets, sidewalks, shared use paths, greenways, trails or other public areas, or parks within the county shall (i) carry bats, clubs, or similar items, (ii) wear masks as prohibited by § 18.2-422 of the Virginia Code, (iii) carry chemical irritant sprays or caustic substances, (iv) carry shields, (v) carry torches or any other burning substances attached to a stick or rod (candles are permitted), (vi) wear a helmet (unless riding a motorcycle, bicycle, or similar device in a parade or procession), (vii) carry aerosol containers that can be used as incendiary devices, or (viii) carry any item that can be used as a projectile. It is permissible to carry written or printed placards, signs, flags, banners, etc., but such items shall not be attached to poles or rods. Sec. 14-18. Severability. If any portion of this chapter is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the remaining portions of this chapter, and such invalid provisions or portions thereof shall be severable. Page 1 of 3 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. H.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 17, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: The petition of Tracy Etayo to obtain a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 0.1803 acre of land zoned R-1, Low intensity Residential District, located at 5445 Endicott Street, Hollins Magisterial District. SUBMITTED BY: Philip Thompson Director of Planning APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Agenda item for public hearing and second reading of ordinance for a special use permit for short-term rental in a residential district. BACKGROUND: · The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines a short-term rental as “the provision of a room or space that is suitable or intended for occupancy for dwelling, sleeping, or lodging purposes, for a period of fewer than 30 consecutive days, in exchange for a charge for the occupancy. This use does not include existing uses defined in this ordinance including bed and breakfast, bed and breakfast inn, boarding house, country inn, and hotel/motel/motor lodge.” · A short-term rental has several use and design standards. In the R -1 and R-2 zoning districts, a special use permit is required for a short-term rental on lots less than five (5) acres in size. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on December 3, 2024. No citizens spoke during the public hearing. The Planning Commission discussed: the number of bedrooms, that no complaints had been received regarding Page 2 of 3 the short-term rental, responsible party for resolving issues, neighbors having the responsible party's contact information, maintenance of the property, cameras present to monitor activities, platforms used (AirBnb and VRBO), average stay is 2 -3 days, and zoning permit requirements. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the special use permit for a short - term rental with the following conditions: 1. The short-term rental shall be limited to the finished area of the existing residential dwelling indicated by the applicant (approximately 1,900 square feet). 2. The number of overnight guests shall not exceed ten (10) people. 3. The number of vehicles allowed at the short-term rental shall be limited to the number of provided onsite parking spaces located in driveways and other designated approved parking areas, which is four (4) vehicles. 4. The property owner shall provide and maintain in good working order every smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector, and fire extinguisher required by law. Exits required by law shall not be obstructed. 5. The property must maintain a residential appearance. No signage shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 6. No events such as parties, banquets, weddings, receptions, meetings, or similar events shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 7. A business license shall be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue for the short-term rental use. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact on this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the second reading of an ordinance for a special use permit to operate a short -term rental on approximately 0.1803 acre on property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, with the following conditions: 1. The short-term rental shall be limited to the finished area of the existing residential dwelling indicated by the applicant (approximately 1,900 square feet). 2. The number of overnight guests shall not exceed ten (10) people. 3. The number of vehicles allowed at the short-term rental shall be limited to the number of provided onsite parking spaces located in driveways and other designated approved parking areas, which is four (4) vehicles. 4. The property owner shall provide and maintain in good working order every smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector, and fire extinguisher required by law. Page 3 of 3 Exits required by law shall not be obstructed. 5. The property must maintain a residential appearance. No signage shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 6. No events such as parties, banquets, weddings, receptions, meetings, or similar events shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 7. A business license shall be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue for the short-term rental use. STAFF REPORT Petitioner: Tracy Etayo Request: To obtain a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 0.1803 acre of land zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District Tax Parcel: #038.12-03-32.00-0000 dwelling indicated by the applicant (approximately 1,900 square feet). 2. The number of overnight guests shall not exceed ten (10) people. 3. The number of vehicles allowed at the short-term rental shall be limited to the number of provided onsite parking spaces located in driveways and other designated approved parking areas, which is four (4) vehicles. 4. The property owner shall provide and maintain in good working order every smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector, and fire extinguisher required by law. Exits required by law shall not be obstructed. 5. The property must maintain a residential appearance. No signage shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 6. No events such as parties, banquets, weddings, receptions, meetings, or similar events shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 7. A business license shall be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue for the short-term rental use. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Tracy Etayo is petitioning to obtain a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 0.1803 acre of land zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, located at 5445 Endicott Street in the Hollins Magisterial District. The short-term rental is proposed for the finished area of the existing residential dwelling, which is approximately 1,900 square feet. The 2005 Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan indicates the Future Land Use designation of this parcel as Neighborhood Conservation. Neighborhood Conservation is a future land use area where established single-family neighborhoods are delineated, and the conservation of the existing development pattern is encouraged. The proposed special use permit is consistent with the Neighborhood Conservation future land use designation. 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines a short-term rental as “the provision of a room or space that is suitable or intended for occupancy for dwelling, sleeping, or lodging purposes, for a period of fewer than 30 consecutive days, in exchange for a charge for the occupancy. This use does not include existing uses defined in this ordinance including bed and breakfast, bed and breakfast inn, boarding house, country inn, and hotel/motel/motor lodge.” Section 30-85-24.55 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance contains the following use and design standards for short-term rentals: (A) General Standards: 1. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit prior to the occupation of a room or dwelling for short-term rental. The zoning permit application shall include, but not be limited to, the following information: a. All relevant parcel information including tax map number, zoning district, address, and magisterial district. b. The applicant’s name, address, and personal contact information. c. The name, address, and personal contact information of the authorized party responsible for resolving complaints, if different from the applicant. 2. The County shall be notified within thirty (30) days of any change in the applicant’s address or personal contact information, or any change in the name, address or personal contact information of the authorized party responsible for resolving complaints. 3. A short-term rental zoning permit expires upon any change in ownership of the property. 4. A short-term rental zoning permit may be revoked by the Zoning Administrator due to the failure of the applicant to comply with all applicable regulations set forth in this section or elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance or County Code. (B) In the R-1 and R-2 zoning district, the following standard shall apply: 1. A special use permit shall be required on lots less than five (5) acres. Lots that are five (5) acres or greater in size, a short-term rental shall be considered a use permitted by right. Since the property for this proposed short-term rental is zoned R-1 and is not five (5) acres or greater, a special use 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Background – The existing site is approximately 0.1803 acre and contains a single-family residence. The Roanoke County assessment records have estimated that this residence was built in 1959. The applicant purchased the property in February of 1999. The property has been used as a short-term rental since 2016. An informational letter was sent to the applicant in January 2023 and the applicant reached out to staff, due to a miscommunication the communication ceased. An enforcement letter was sent to the applicant in August 2024 and the applicant reached out to staff upon receipt of the letter to initiate the special use permit process. The owner has continued to operate the short-term rental during this time. The applicant indicates that the home has five (5) bedrooms and two (2) full bathrooms. trees and two (2) large evergreen bushes that lie on either side of the concrete pathway to the door. There are several small plants that line the front of the home. The left side of the home has a tall evergreen tree but is otherwise flat and grassy. The fenced in back yard is sloped from east to west. The majority of the western property line is lined with medium sized bushes. There is another line of smaller bushes along a portion of the southern property line in the back yard. There are two (2) additional small bushes along the northern fence line of the back yard. Residential District. These areas consist entirely of single-family residences. Community Outreach – Approximately 15 letters were mailed out to adjoining property owners. The letters contained instructions on how to submit comments for the public hearings. Staff has not received any comments from citizens associated with this mailing. 3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout/Architecture – There are no proposed changes to the site. The applicant indicates the finished area of the home is approximately 1,900 square feet and has a living room, a kitchen, a living area, an eating area, a laundry area, an extra room, five (5) bedrooms, and two (2) full bathrooms. driveway which serves as the property’s entrance from Orlando Avenue. The driveway can serve up to four (4) vehicles. There is no parking permitted on the street. Agencies Comments Fire and Rescue – Fire and Rescue does not object to this project and it would not increase the services we provide. General Services – I have reviewed this request and do not see any issues, nor do I have comments, for General Services. VDOT – We have reviewed the above-mentioned special use request. It appears from the information provided that granting special use for a short-term rental at this property will not adversely impact the VDOT right-of-way. Any future expansions or redevelopment of the parcel or alteration to the existing drive may require VDOT review, approval, and permitting. The Office of Building Safety – No comments. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The 2005 Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan indicates the Future Land Use Designation of this parcel is Neighborhood Conservation. Neighborhood Conservation is a future land use area where established single-family neighborhoods are delineated, and the conservation of the existing development pattern is encouraged. The 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS Tracy Etayo is petitioning to obtain a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 0.1803 acre of property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, located at 5445 Endicott Street in the Hollins Magisterial District. The short-term rental is proposed for the finished area of 1,900 square feet of the existing residential dwelling. The 2005 Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan indicates the Future Land Use Designation of this parcel is Neighborhood Conservation. The proposed special use permit is consistent with the Neighborhood Conservation future land use designation. If the Planning Commission recommends approval, staff has suggested the following conditions: 1. The short-term rental shall be limited to the finished area of the existing residential dwelling indicated by the applicant (approximately 1,900 square feet). 3. The number of vehicles allowed at the short-term rental shall be limited to the number of provided onsite parking spaces located in driveways and other designated approved parking areas, which is four (4) vehicles. 4. The property owner shall provide and maintain in good working order every smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector, and fire extinguisher required by law. Exits required by law shall not be obstructed. 5. The property must maintain a residential appearance. No signage shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 6. No events such as parties, banquets, weddings, receptions, meetings, or similar events shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 7. A business license shall be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue for the short-term rental use. CASE NUMBER: #14-12/2024 PREPARED BY: Skylar Camerlinck HEARING DATES: PC: December 3, 2024 BOS: December 17, 2024 ATTACHMENTS: Application Materials Maps (Aerial, Zoning, Future Land Use) Photographs R-1 District Regulations Neighborhood Conservation Future Land Use Designation JlJSTfFICA TION FOR REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT W AIYER OR COMP PLAN (L5,2-ZZJZ) REVIEW REQUESTS Applicant ::s� G-\:o-�Q The Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use permit waiver or community plan (15.2-2232) review requests to detennine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroug)tly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request funhers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of tbc applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. We feel our house fully comp lys with Sec. 30-41-1. The average house in our neighborhood. The house is IOcated 2 housed off ofPlantatlon Or and abOut 3 miles from exit 146 on 1-81. we have been and would like to continue to use our home as a rental but In this case as a shOrt term rental. Our rental Is very safe for the guests and the neighbors. we have 3 security camefas outside to record any unusual behavior. As we have done for he past 8 years we will continue to maintain the Inside and outside of the house In an exefl1)1ary way. We provide outside lawn service regular ly and since cleaning Is done at checkouts there is alWays someone monitoring the situation and making sure everything Is the way it 's supposed to be. Since we don, live on the property we have twoproperty managers that are alWays avallable to attend to the guests, if needed. We have plurTilers, electricians and handyman available as wen to help with any problems that might arise. In summary we Intend to provide the highest degree of protection I n order to maintain the heatth, safety, appearance and overall quality or me or the neighborhood. We average about 3weeks out of the month renting the hOuse. .. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. 1) The electrie, connivance of access, congestion In the pub lic streets, put>llc safety, utilities, pub lie services will not be affected since Itcreates no more traffic than a normal slngle family home. 2) We will continue to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious comm1.111ty since the yard and house aremaintained regularly.3) I feel shOrt term rentals are necessary and contribute to the comrruntty by providing reasonable prices for famllles to come and visitRoanoke. Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. I don't feel that this will impact the neighbors since I've been doing this since 2016 and have had no problems or compl aints. In fact, since there are people there less days than a normal family (about 3 weeks out of the month) there Is less of am lmp l act on the publicutilities and services. Since no !amity lives there permanently there's no one using the school systme. I keep a strict 'No Party• policy with penalties and a negative review ll not followed. They are to clean up alter themselves Inside and outside maintaining the property in good condltiOn. They are to park In the driveway or In front of the house (which IS common on our street) but are instructed to not park In front or any then neighbors house. We have the yard maintenanced regularly and the hOuse stays in excellent repair. I evenhave a neighbor that notifies me of any potential problems. Below IS an example of the reviews l'Ve received. I also maintain a 4.91 star out of 5 rating. Attached are some pictures, as well, of the inside of the hOuse. A rough floor plan of main floor and basement are attached. Each floor is approximately 900-1000 square feet. Also attached Is the house rules that are posted when they book and are again sent to them when they check In. 3 ' I 4 Applicant The of Zoning Appeals is required by Section 15.2-2309 of the Code of Virginia to consider the following factors before a variance can be granted. Please read the factors listed below carefully and in your own words, describe how the request meets each factor. If additional space is needed, use additional sheets of paper. JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE REQUEST 1. The variance shall not be contrary to the public interest and shall be in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 2.The variance will not be of a substantial detriment to the adjacent properties or the character of the district. 3.Evidence supporting claim: Tracy Joyce Etayo 5 Applicant Please respond to the following as thoroughly as possible. If additional space is needed, use additional sheets of paper. JUSTIFICATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL REQUEST 1.Reasons for appeal: 2.Evidence supporting claim: Tracy Joyce Etayo 6 ALL APPLICANTS 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 lines and easements h.All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and 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 information required for REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS k.Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site l.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. Signature of applicant Date CONCEPT PLAN CHECKLIST A concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shall graphically depict the land use change, development or variance that is to be considered. Further, the plan shall address any potential land use or design issues arising from the request. In such cases involving 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 may require changes to the initial concept plan. Unless limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent permitted by the zoning district and other regulations. A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use permit, waiver, community plan (15.2-2232) review and variance applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may vary, depending on the nature of the request. The County Planning Division staff may exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items, but the following are considered minimum: X X X September 9, 2024 7 Community Development Planning & Zoning Division POTENTIAL OF NEED FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND/OR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY The following is a list of potentially high traffic-generating land uses and road network situations that could elicit a more detailed analysis of the existing and proposed traffic pertinent to your rezoning, subdivision waiver, public street waiver, or special use permit request. If your request involves one of the items on the ensuing list, we recommend that you meet with a County planner, the County traffic engineer, and/or Virginia Department of Transportation staff to discuss the potential additional traffic related information that may need to be submitted with the application in order to expedite your application process. (Note this list is not inclusive and the County staff and VDOT reserve the right to request a traffic study at any time, as deemed necessary.) High Traffic-Generating Land Uses: Single-family residential subdivisions, Multi-family residential units, or Apartments with more than 75 dwelling units Restaurant (with or without drive-through windows) Gas station/Convenience store/Car wash Retail shop/Shopping center Offices (including: financial institutions, general, medical, etc.) Regional public facilities Educational/Recreational facilities Religious assemblies Hotel/Motel Golf course Hospital/Nursing home/Clinic Industrial site/Factory Day care center Bank Non-specific use requests Road Network Situations: Development adjacent to/with access onto/within 500-ft of intersection of a roadway classified as an arterial road (e.g., Rte 11, 24, 115, 117, 460, 11/460, 220, 221, 419, etc) For new phases or changes to a development where a previously submitted traffic study is more than two (2) years old and/or roadway conditions have changed significantly When required to evaluate access issues Development with ingress/egress on roads planned or scheduled for expansion, widening, improvements, etc. (i.e. on Long Range Transportation Plan, Six-Yr Road Plan, etc.) Development in an area where there is a known existing traffic and/or safety problem Development would potentially negatively impact existing/planned traffic signal(s) Substantial departure from the Community Plan Any site that is expected to generate over one hundred (100) trips during the peak hour of the traffic generator or the peak hour on the adjacent streets, or over seven hundred fifty (750)trips in an average day Effective date: April 19, 2005 8 Community Development Planning & Zoning Division NOTICE TO APPLICANTS FOR REZONING, SUBDIVISION WAIVER, PUBLIC STREET WAIVER, OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITION PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE PROCEDURE The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver or Special Use Permit petition if new or additional information is presented at the public hearing. If it is the opinion of the majority of the Planning Commissioners present at the scheduled public hearing that sufficient time was not available for planning staff and/or an outside referral agency to adequately evaluate and provide written comments and suggestions on the new or additional information prior to the scheduled public hearing then the Planning Commission may vote to continue the petition. This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the new or additional information and provide written comments and suggestions to be included in a written memorandum by planning staff to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall consult with planning staff to determine if a continuance may be warranted. POTENTIAL OF NEED FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSES AND/OR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver, or Special Use Permit petition if the County Traffic Engineer or staff from the Virginia Department of Transportation requests further traffic analyses and/or a traffic impact study that would be beneficial in making a land use decision (Note: a list of potential land uses and situations that would necessitate further study is provided as part of this application package). This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the required traffic analyses and/or traffic impact study and to provide written comments and/or suggestions to the planning staff and the Planning Commission. If a continuance is warranted, the applicant will be notified of the continuance and the newly scheduled public hearing date. Effective date: April 19, 2005 Name of Petition Petitioner’s Signature Date Tracy Joyce Etayo 09-09-2024 House rules You'll be staying in someone's home, so please treat it with care and respect. Checking in and out Check-in: 4:00 PM - 11:00 PM Checkout before 11:00 AM Self check-in with smart lock During your stay 12 guests maximum Pets allowed Quiet hours 9:00 PM - 7:00 AM No parties or events Commercial photography allowed No smoking Additional rules -Children are welcome but please note that the house is not child friendly. For example the blinds have cords, the furniture is not bolted to walls, there are no outlet protectors, etc. -NO SMOKING ON PREMISES-INSIDE OR OUTSIDE OF HOME, If broken there is a $250 fine. -We do accept dogs but unfortunately not cats but there's an additional $15.00 per night per pet fee. There is a place to select that you're bringing a pet and how many (so please indicate the number of dogs coming) but the price won't show up there. I will send the pet fee separately after you book. Please be mindful that while pets are accepted they are NOT allowed on furniture or in the beds. For not following these instructions there will be a $150 fine. ***********Upon leaving put ONLY the TOWELS in the washer on a normal cycle using hot water.************************* -Please strip ONLY the bed linen on the beds that you used . Leave the sheets in the laundry room on the floor. DON’T put comforters, mattress pads, or sheets in washer upon leaving. The bunk beds/trundle in the upstairs bedroom aren't recommended for adults. They are designed for children and so aren't very comfortable for adults. We are not responsible for any accidents resulting from the use of the bunk beds. There is a wood burning stove in the basement but it's NOT to be USED. It doesn't work properly. There will be a $500 fine if used and we are not responsible for any damages due to it being used. If you disconnect ANY cables on the TV or unplug ANYTHING please RECONNECT AS IT WAS. Please be aware that I have check-in time until 11:00 pm. You are welcome to check in as late as you want but I can't be responsible if you have problems getting in. I've never had a Before you leave Gather used towels Throw trash away Turn things off Lock up Additional requests -Please strip the beds that were used and put in laundry room. -Please remember check out is 11:00. -Hand wash dirty dishes or leave in dishwasher with dishwasher running. Show more Additional rules -Children are welcome but please note that the house is not child friendly. For example the blinds have cords, the furniture is not bolted to walls, there are no outlet protectors, etc. -NO SMOKING ON PREMISES-INSIDE OR OUTSIDE OF HOME, If broken there is a $250 fine. -We do accept dogs but unfortunately not cats but there's an additional $15.00 per night per pet fee. There is a place to select that you're bringing a pet and how many (so please indicate the number of dogs coming) but the price won't show up there. I will send the pet fee separately after you book. Please be mindful that while pets are accepted they are NOT allowed on furniture or in the beds. For not following these instructions there will be a $150 fine. ***********Upon leaving put ONLY the TOWELS in the washer on a normal cycle using hot water.************************* -Please strip ONLY the bed linen on the beds that you used . Leave the sheets in the laundry room on the floor. DON’T put comforters, mattress pads, or sheets in washer upon leaving. The bunk beds/trundle in the upstairs bedroom aren't recommended for adults. They are designed for children and so aren't very comfortable for adults. We are not responsible for any accidents resulting from the use of the bunk beds. There is a wood burning stove in the basement but it's NOT to be USED. It doesn't work properly. There will be a $500 fine if used and we are not responsible for any damages due to it being used. If you disconnect ANY cables on the TV or unplug ANYTHING please RECONNECT AS IT WAS. Please be aware that I have check-in time until 11:00 pm. You are welcome to check in as late as you want but I can't be responsible if you have problems getting in. I've never had a problem with someone getting in OK but in the event there's an issue I can't guarantee my availability. SUNDAY CHECK IN is 6:00 if we can have it available earlier we will let you know. The driveway is located on the side of the house. Please do not park in front of the neighbors house under any circumstances. Our driveway easily fits 3 -4 cars and in front of OUR house you can park another one in the road. ****Please remember CHECK OUT IS AT 11:00 AM****** If you check out prior to the check out date please notify us of your early departure. I need to know when the house is vacant. This is a NO PARTY house so please no loud music or other loud activities during QUIET HOURS which is from 10:00 pm - 7:00 am. �4.91) Guest favorite This home is a guest favorite based on ratings, reviews, and reliability Overall rating 3 • 2 ' Kylie Cleanliness 4.9 New Salem Borough, Pennsylvania ••••• • 3 days ago • Group trip Sheila 3 months on Airbnb ***** • 3 weeks ago • Group trip Accuracy 4.9 We were all amazed, it was just perfect for us. Very clean and eccessible. We give your airbnb an A+ rating ... � A, Richard W, 11 months on Airbnb ***** • August 2024 • Group trip This location is close to restaurants and shopping. Tracy, has everything you need for your stay. I highly recommend staying here. Check-in 5.0 Communication 5.0 0 Wes McDowell, Kentucky Location 4.9 O] ••••• • 2 weeks ago • Stayed a few nights Very clean and comfortable just what we needed! 0 Martin 2 years on Airbnb ••••• • 3 weeks ago • Stayed with a pet Value 4.8 Wonderful experience. Tracy quickly responded to inquiries. The patio and fenced yard was absolutely awesome for our large puppy. Planning on staying there again. � Grace 4 years on Airbnb ••••• • August 2024 • Group trip Great Airbnb. Perfect for a group of friends or a whole family. Roanoke Cou nty, Sou rce: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS UserCommu nity Roanoke Cou nty, Virginia2019 0 Subject Site $HULDO0DS 7UDF\(WD\R (QGLFRWW6W Lot Size: Acre Current Zoning: R-1 Proposed Zoning: R-1S Proposed SUP for Short-Term Rental Magisterial District: Hollins Roanoke Co. Planning (540) 772-2068 5204 Bernard Dr. Roanoke VA 24018 ² R1R1 Roanok e County, Virginia 2019 Roanok e County, Virginia2019 0 Zoning R1 ² Zoning Map Tracy Etayo 5445 Endicott St 038.12-03-32.00-0000 Lot Size: 0.1803 Acre Current Zoning: R-1 Proposed Zoning: R-1S Proposed SUP for Short-Term Rental Magisterial District: Hollins Roanoke Co. Planning (540) 772-2068 5204 Bernard Dr. Roanoke VA 24018 Subject Site NCNC Roanoke County, Virginia 2019 Roanoke County, Virginia2019 0 ² 1:564 Future Land Use Neighborhood Conserv ation Future Land Use Map Tracy Etayo 5445 Endicott St 038.12-03-32.00-0000 Lot Size: 0.1803 Acre Current Zoning: R-1 Proposed Zoning: R-1S Proposed SUP for Short-Term Rental Magisterial District: Hollins Roanoke Co. Planning (540) 772-2068 5204 Bernard Dr. Roanoke VA 24018 Subject Site (A) (A) 1. 2. SEC. 30-41. - R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Sec. 30-41-1. - Purpose. The R-1, low density residential district is established for areas of the county within the urban service area with existing low-middle density residential development, with an average density of from one (1) to three (3) units per acre, and land which appears appropriate for such development. These areas are generally consistent with the neighborhood conservation land use category as recommended in the comprehensive plan. In addition, where surrounding development and the level of public services warrant, these areas coincide with the development category recommended in the plan. This district is intended to provide the highest degree of protection from potentially incompatible uses and residential development of a significantly different density, size, or scale, in order to maintain the health, safety, appearance and overall quality of life of existing and future neighborhoods. In addition to single-family residences, only uses of a community nature which are generally deemed compatible are permitted in this district. This would include parks and playgrounds, schools and other similar neighborhood activities. (Ord. No. 042799-11, § 1f., 4-27-99; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08) Sec. 30-41-2. - Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. Agricultural and Forestry Uses Stable, Private* Residential Uses Accessory Apartment* Home Beauty/Barber Salon * Home Occupation, Type I * Manufactured Home * Manufactured Home, Emergency * Multiple Dog Permit* Residential Human Care Facility Single-Family Dwelling, Attached * 5/22/24, 3:36 PM Roanoke County, VA Code of Ordinances about:blank 1/4 3. 4. 5. (B) 1. 2. Single Family Dwelling, Attached (Cluster Subdivision Option) * Single Family Dwelling, Detached Single Family Dwelling, Detached (Cluster Subdivision Option) * Single Family Dwelling, Detached (Zero Lot Line Option) * Civic Uses Community Recreation * Family Day Care Home * Park and Ride Facility * Public Parks and Recreational Areas * Utility Services, Minor Commercial Uses Bed and Breakfast * Short-Term Rental * Miscellaneous Uses Amateur Radio Tower * Wind Energy System, Small* The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to section 30-19. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. Residential Uses Alternative Discharging Sewage System * Civic Uses Cemetery * Crisis Center Day Care Center * Educational Facilities, Primary/Secondary * Halfway House * 5/22/24, 3:36 PM Roanoke County, VA Code of Ordinances about:blank 2/4 3. 4. (A) 1. a. b. 2. a. b. 3. a. b. (B) 1. a. b. 2. a. b. Religious Assembly * Utility Services, Major * Commercial Uses Golf Course * Miscellaneous Uses Outdoor Gatherings * (Ord. No. 42793-20, § II, 4-27-93; Ord. No. 62293-12, §§ 3, 8, 6-22-93; Ord. No. 82493-8, § 2, 8-24-93; Ord. No. 62795-10, 6-27-95; Ord. No. 042799-11, § 2, 4-27-99; Ord. No. 042500-9, § II, 4-25-00; Ord. No. 072605-7, § 1, 7-26-05; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08; Ord. No. 052609-22 , § 1, 5-26-09; Ord. No. 030811-1 , § 1, 3-8-11; Ord. No. 052411-9 , § 1, 5-24-11; Ord. No. 111213-15 , § 1, 11-12-13; Ord. No. 020921-8 , § 1, 2-9-21; Ord. No. 011023-4 , § 1, 1-10-23) Sec. 30-41-3. - Site Development Regulations. General Standards. For additional, modified, or more stringent standards for specific uses, see Article IV, Use and Design Standards. Minimum lot requirements. All lots served by private well and sewage disposal systems: Area: 0.75 acre (32,670 square feet). Frontage: 90 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. Lots served by either public sewer or water: Area: 20,000 square feet. Frontage: 75 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. All lots served by both public sewer and water: Area: 7,200 square feet. Frontage: 60 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. Minimum setback requirements. Front yard: Principal structures: 30 feet. Accessory structures: Behind the front building line. Side yard: Principal structures: 10 feet. 5/22/24, 3:36 PM Roanoke County, VA Code of Ordinances about:blank 3/4 3. a. b. 4. (C) 1. a. b. (D) 1. 2. Accessory structures: 10 feet behind front building line or 3 feet behind rear building line. Rear yard: Principal structures: 25 feet. Accessory structures: 3 feet. Where a lot fronts on more than one street, front yard setbacks shall apply to all streets. Maximum height of structures. Height limitations: Principal structures: 45 feet. Accessory structures: 15 feet, or 25 feet provided they comply with the setback requirements for principal structures. Maximum coverage. Building coverage: 35 percent of the total lot area for all buildings and 7 percent for accessory buildings. Lot coverage: 50 percent of the total lot area. (Ord. No. 62293-12, § 10, 6-22-93; Ord. No. 42694-12, § 8, 4-26-94; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08; Ord. No. 111213-15 , § 1, 11-12-13) 5/22/24, 3:36 PM Roanoke County, VA Code of Ordinances about:blank 4/4 Neighborhood Conservation: A future land use area where established single-family neighborhoods are delineated and the conservation of the existing development pattern is encouraged. Land Use Types: Single-Family Residential - Attached and detached housing at a reasonable density that is not significantly higher than the existing neighborhood. Infill lots or community re-development should be designed to be sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood but can be at reasonably higher density. New single-family residential developments should incorporate greenways and bike and pedestrian trails. Cluster developments are encouraged. Neighborhood Institutional Centers - Uses that serve the neighborhood residents including parks, schools, religious assembly facilities, recreational and park facilities, community meeting areas and clubs. These facilities should be linked to the residential areas by greenways, bike trails and pedestrian paths. Neighborhood Commercial - Low impact services to serve the local neighborhood that are consistent with the Community Plan design guidelines. Land Use Determinants: EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN - Locations where limited density residential subdivisions have been platted and developed. EXISTING ZONING - Locations where limited density residential zoning has been established. EXPANSION AREAS - Locations where the expansion of the existing development pattern is logical. INFILL DEVELOPMENT - Locations where infill areas complement the surrounding development pattern. ACCESS - Locations served by a local street system. URBAN SECTOR - Locations served by urban services. Tracy Etayo Special Use Permit for a Short-term Rental Board of Supervisors Public Hearing December 17 –3:00 PM Location Map2 Project Site •5445 Endicott St •0.1803 Acre •Single Family Residence •Short-term Rental 3 Photographs4 5 Photographs Photographs6 Photographs7 Upper Floor Plan8 Lower Floor Plan9 Photographs10 Photographs11 Photographs12 Photographs13 Photographs14 Photographs15 16 Zoning Ordinance A short-term rental is defined as “the provision of a room or space that is suitable or intended for occupancy for dwelling, sleeping, or lodging purposes, for a period of fewer than 30 consecutive days, in exchange for a charge for the occupancy. This use does not include existing uses defined in this ordinance including bed and breakfast, bed and breakfast inn, boarding house, country inn, and hotel/motel/motor lodge.” 17 Zoning Ordinance (A) General Standards: 1. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit prior to the occupation of a room or dwelling for short-term rental. The zoning permit application shall include, but not be limited to, the following information: a. All relevant parcel information including tax map number, zoning district, address, and magisterial district. b. The applicant’s name, address, and personal contact information. c. The name, address, and personal contact information of the authorized party responsible for resolving complaints, if different from the applicant. 18 Zoning Ordinance 2. The County shall be notified within thirty (30) days of any change in the applicant’s address or personal contact information, or any change in the name, address or personal contact information of the authorized party responsible for resolving complaints. 3. A short-term rental zoning permit expires upon any change in ownership of the property. 4. A short-term rental zoning permit may be revoked by the Zoning Administrator due to the failure of the applicant to comply with all applicable regulations set forth in this section or elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance or County Code. 19 Zoning Ordinance (B) In the R-1 and R-2 zoning district, the following standard shall apply: 1. A special use permit shall be required on lots less than five (5) acres. Lots that are five (5) acres or greater in size, a short-term rental shall be considered a use permitted by right. Zoning Existing Zoning •R-1 – Low Density Residential 20 Surrounding Zoning •North – R-1 •East – R-1and R-2, Medium Density Residential •West – R-1 •South – R-1 Future Land Use21 Neighborhood Conservation •Established Single-Family Residential neighborhoods are delineated and the conservation of the existing development pattern is encouraged. •The proposed Special Use is in conformance with the Neighborhood Conservation future land use designation. Planning Commission Public Hearing – December 3, 2024 22 •No citizens spoke during the public hearing •Planning Commission discussed: •the number of bedrooms; •that no complaints had been received regarding the short-term rental; •responsible party for resolving issues; •neighbors having the responsible party's contact information; •maintenance of the property; •cameras present to monitor activities; •platforms used (AirBnb and VRBO); •average stay is 2-3 days; and •zoning permit requirements. Planning Commission Planning Commission recommends approval of the short-term rental with the following conditions: 1.The short-term rental shall be limited to the finished area of the existing residential dwelling indicated by the applicant (approximately 1,900 square feet). 2.The number of overnight guests shall not exceed ten (10) people. 3.The number of vehicles allowed at the short-term rental shall be limited to the number of provided onsite parking spaces located in driveways and other designated approved parking areas, which is four (4) vehicles. 23 Planning Commission 4.The property owner shall provide and maintain in good working order every smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector, and fire extinguisher required by law. Exits required by law shall not be obstructed. 5.The property must maintain a residential appearance. No signage shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 6.No events such as parties, banquets, weddings, receptions, meetings, or similar events shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 7.A business license shall be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue for the short-term rental use. 24 Questions? 25 ROANOKE COUNTY OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY 5204 Bernard Drive, P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 TEL: (540) 772-2071 FAX: (540) 772-2089 Peter S. Lubeck COUNTY ATTORNEY Rachel W. Lower DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY Marta J. Anderson Douglas P. Barber, Jr. SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEYS SAMPLE MOTIONS The petition of Tracy Etayo to obtain a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 0.1803 acre of land zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) District. MOTION TO APPROVE I find that the proposed special use permit: 1. Meets the requirements of Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County Code and that the proposed special use conforms with the standards set forth in article IV, use and design standards of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance; 2. Is in conformance with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan; and 3. Will have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community. I therefore MOVE THAT WE APPROVE the petition to obtain a special use permit, with the following seven (7) conditions: 1. The short-term rental shall be limited to the finished area of the existing residential dwelling indicated by the applicant (approximately 1,900 square feet). 2. The number of overnight guests shall not exceed ten (10) people. 3. The number of vehicles allowed at the short-term rental shall be limited to the number of provided onsite parking spaces located in driveways and other designated approved parking areas, which is four (4) vehicles. 4. The property owner shall provide and maintain in good working order every smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector, and fire extinguisher required by law. Exits required by law shall not be obstructed. 5. The property must maintain a residential appearance. No signage shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 6. No events such as parties, banquets, weddings, receptions, meetings, or similar events shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 7. A business license shall be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue for the short-term rental use. OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY 5204 Bernard Drive, P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 MOTION TO DENY I find that the proposed special use permit request: 1. Is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the County’s adopted comprehensive plan or good zoning practice, and/or 2. Will result in substantial detriment to the community. I therefore MOVE THAT WE DENY the request. MOTION TO DELAY ACTION I find that the required information for the submitted proposal is incomplete. I therefore MOVE TO DELAY action until additional necessary materials are submitted to the Board of Supervisors. Page 1 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2024 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO TRACY ETAYO TO OPERATE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL ON APPROXIMATELY 0.1803 ACRE OF LAND ZONED R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 5445 ENDICOTT STREET, HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Tracy Etayo has filed a petition for a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 0.1803 acre of land zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) District, located at 5445 Endicott Street (Roanoke County Tax Map Number 038.12-03-32.00-0000), in the Hollins Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 19, 2024, and the second reading and public hearing were held on December 17, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on December 3, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission recommends approval of the petition to obtain a special use permit, with seven (7) conditions; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, as follows: 1. The Board finds that the proposed special use meets the requirements of Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County Code and that the proposed special use conforms with the standards set forth in article IV, use and design standards of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. 2. The Board further finds that the proposed special use is in conformance with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan, and will have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community. Page 2 of 2 3. The special use permit is hereby approved, with the following seven (7) conditions: a. The short-term rental shall be limited to the finished area of the existing residential dwelling indicated by the applicant (approximately 1,900 square feet). b. The number of overnight guests shall not exceed ten (10) people. c. The number of vehicles allowed at the short-term rental shall be limited to the number of provided onsite parking spaces located in driveways and other designated approved parking areas, which is four (4) vehicles. d. The property owner shall provide and maintain in good working order every smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector, and fire extinguisher required by law. Exits required by law shall not be obstructed. e. The property must maintain a residential appearance. No signage shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. f. No events such as parties, banquets, weddings, receptions, meetings, or similar events shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. g. A business license shall be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue for the short-term rental use. 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. I.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 17, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of appointments to South Peak Community Development Authority (CDA)(At-Large), Blue Ridge Behavioral Health Board of Directors, and Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority SUBMITTED BY: Rhonda Perdue Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Confirmation of appointments BACKGROUND: South Peak Community Development Authority (CDA)(At-Large): Staff has recommended the appointment of Doug Blount to fill the unexpired term of Dan O'Donnell on the CDA. This term will expire December 31, 2025. Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors: Blue Ridge has recommended Sue Goad, the Roanoke County Representative be reappointed to a three-year term to expire 12-31-2027. Blue Ridge has recommended that Bobby Russell (At-Large) be reappointed to an additional three-year term to expire 12-31-2027 be ratified by the Board. These appointments must be ratified by all participating governing bodies as per their By-laws. It is the consensus of the Board to approve the reappointment of Ms. Goad and Mr. Page 2 of 2 Russell. Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority: Paul M. Mahoney, Martha B. Hooker, Rebecca Owens, Laurie Gearheart, Eric Orange, Brent Hudson, and Chad Beheler’s one -year term on the above Authority will expire on December 31, 2024. It is the consensus of the Board to reappoint Mr. Mahoney, Elected Representative, Ms. Hooker, Elected Representative Alternate, Ms. Owens, Administrative Representative, Ms. Gearheart, Administrative Representative Alternate, Sheriff Orange, Sheriff Representative, Mr. Hudson, Sheriff Representative Alternate, and Mr. Beheler, Sheriff Representative Alternate to additional one-year terms to expire December 31, 2025. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends confirmation of all the appointments. Page 1 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2024 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for December 17, 2024, designated as Item J - 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 – November 19, 2024 2. Ordinance authorizing the granting of new public drainage easements to the Board of Supervisors of County of Roanoke on property owned by Josha A & Kara B. Cundiff (Tax Map 095.01-01-12.00), located at 7049 Crown Road; John A. & Colleen R. Leonard (Tax Map # 095.01-01-11.00), located at 7041 Crown Road; and, Shatenita & Erskine Jr. Horton (Tax Map # 095.01-01-23.00), located at 7062 Crown Road in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading) 3. Request to accept and allocate grant funds of $21,282 from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) for an Emergency Management Performance Grant along with a local match of $21,282 for a total of $42,564. 4. Ordinance accepting and appropriating proceeds from the sale of the Poage's Mill property in the amount of $845,465. (Second Reading) 5. Resolution approving an Amendment to the Comprehensive Agreement between the County and G&H Contracting, Inc. regarding construction services for the Bonsack Fire Station. 6. Joint Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Bedford County, Virginia and the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, Expressing Support for Legislation Authorizing the Dissolution of the Virginia Recreational Facilities Page 2 of 2 Authority and Authorizing the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, to Acquire Parcels in Roanoke County, Virginia and Bedford County, Virginia Known as “Explore Park.” 7. Ordinance accepting and appropriating funds in the amount of $50,000 from the Virginia Brownfields Restoration and Economic Redevelopment Assistance Fund Program and granting signatory authority to the County Administrator or his designee to execute a Performance Agreement with the Virginia Economic Development Partnership for Professional Park, located in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading) 8. The Acceptance and Allocation of $120,000 from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management 2024-SHSP (State Homeland Security Grant Program). Page 1 of 5 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the only regularly scheduled meeting of the month of November 2024. Audio and video recordings of this meeting will be held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Before the meeting was called to order, an invocation/a moment of silence was observed. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. A. OPENING CEREMONIES 1. Roll Call Present: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North Absent: None Staff Present: Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator; Rebecca Owens, Deputy County Administrator; Doug Blount, Assistant County Administrator; Madeline Hanlon, Community Engagement Director; Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public Information Officer and Rhonda D. Perdue, Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Caywood requested to hold the closed meeting first, and then, time permitting, hold the brief work session. No objections were made, the agenda was amended as requested. C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS Action No. 111924-1 Item C.1 1. Recognition of GIS Department staff on winning a 2024 VACo award for the Town of Vinton’s Stormwater Outfall Management Application. (Darren Jones, GIS Analyst II) (Anita McMillian, Vinton Planning Director) (James Hutzler, VACo) Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Minutes November 19, 2024 – 3:00 p.m. Page 2 of 5 Recognition was given to the GIS Department staff. D. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE Action No. 111924-2 item D.1 1. Ordinance accepting and appropriating proceeds from the sale of the Poage's Mill property in the amount of $845,465. (Susan Peterson, Director of Finance, Roanoke County Public Schools) (First Reading and Request for Second Reading) Supervisor Mahoney moved to approve the first reading of the amended ordinance and scheduling the second reading for December 17, 2024. Supervisor Hooker seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North Nays: None E. CONSENT AGENDA Action No. 111924-3.a-f Item E.1-6 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 Action No. 111924-3.a Item E.1 1. Approval of minutes – October 22, 2024 Action No. 111924-3.b Item E.2 2. The Resolution establishing a meeting schedule for the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County for calendar year 2025. Action No. 111924-3.c Item E.3 3. Ordinance Amending Chapter 5 (Animals and Fowl), Article II (Dogs, Cats and Other Animals), Division 2 (License) and Division 3 (Rabies Control) to provide for a Lifetime Licensing Tax on the ownership of dogs and cats in Roanoke County. (Second Reading) Action No. 111924-3.d Item E.4 4. Request to accept and allocate grant funds in the amount of $3,824.37 from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bulletproof Vest Partnership along with a $3,920.13 local match from the fiscal year 2024-2025 Roanoke County Sheriff’s Office operating budget. Page 3 of 5 Action No. 111924-3.e Item E.5 5. Resolution requesting changes in the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System of State Highways, Route 866, Mount Pleasant Boulevard, Vinton Magisterial District. Action No. 111924-3.f Item E.6 6. The petition of Tracy Etayo to obtain a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 0.1803 acre of land zoned R-1, Low intensity Residential District, located at 5445 Endicott Street, Hollins Magisterial District. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading and Public Hearing) Supervisor Mahoney moved to adopt all matters on the consent agenda. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North Nays: None F. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Two (2) citizens were signed up to speak. One citizen spoke and the other postponed comments to a future board meeting. G. REPORTS Action No. 111924-4 Item G.1-5 1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report 2. Outstanding Debt Report 3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of October 31, 2024 4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances as of October 31, 2024 5. Accounts Paid – October 2024 Supervisor Hooker moved to receive and file the reports that have been included with the agenda under Item G. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North Nays: None Page 4 of 5 H. CLOSED MEETING, pursuant to the Code of Virginia as follows: Action No. 111924-5 1. Section 2.2-3711(A)(5) of the Code of Virginia, for discussion concerning a prospective business or industry or the expansion of an existing business or industry where no previous announcement has been made of the business’ or industry’s interest in locating or expanding its facilities in the community. Specifically, the Board will discuss potential business location or expansion in the community/Catawba Magisterial District. Supervisor North moved to go to closed session. Supervisor Hooker seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North Nays: None I. WORK SESSION 1. Work Session to Discuss Proposed Amendments to Chapter 14 of the County Code (Parades). (Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney) EVENING SESSION – 7:00 PM J. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION Action No.111924-6 In the closed session just concluded, nothing was discussed except the matter which was identified in the motion to convene in closed session. Only those matters lawfully permitted to be discussed under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act were discussed. Supervisor Hooker moved to adopt the certification resolution. Supervisor Mahoney seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North Nays: None K. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING Action No. 111924-7 Item K.1 1. Ordinance amending Article III (District Regulations) and Article IV (Use and Design Standards) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to regulate tobacco, nicotine, and hemp product retail sale locations pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-912.4. (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning) (Second Reading and Public Hearing) Page 5 of 5 Six (6) citizens spoke in favor of the ordinance. Supervisor Shepherd moved to approve the ordinance amending the zoning ordinance as proposed and included in the board packet. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Shepherd, North Nays: Supervisor Mahoney L. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 1. Tammy E. Shepherd 2. Martha B. Hooker 3. Paul M. Mahoney 4. David Radford 5. Phil C. North Supervisors were offered the opportunity to share comments and provide updates to their peers and the public on items of interest to them. N. ADJOURNMENT Action No. 111924-8 Supervisor Hooker moved to adjourn the meeting. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North, Nays: None Submitted by: Approved by: __________________________ __________________________ Richard L. Caywood Phil C. North Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Chairman Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. J.2 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: Page 2 of 2 The owners of the impacted parcels (see "Attachment A") have agreed to donate public drainage easements to County o f R o a n o k e for construction and maintenance of the proposed improvements. Plats indicating the exact location of each proposed easement are attached to the Deeds of Easement. The easements are necessary for the installation and maintenance of a new drainage system which will be designed and constructed to provide adequate and positive drainage. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no cost to Roanoke County for preparation of the easement deeds as they have been prepared by Roanoke County staff. Plats were prepared by consultants as part of the project. Roanoke County will advertise for bids for construction of the drainage improvements. The estimated cost of $200,000 for this project is covered by the American Rescue Plan Act known as ARPA funding available for the Department of Development Services and approved by the Board of Supervisors. Future maintenance for this said easement will be covered by routine maintenance efforts by Department of Development Services. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this ordinance and scheduling the second reading for January 14, 2025. Page 1 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2024 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF NEW PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ON PROPERTY OWNED BY (1) SHATENITA HORTON AND ERSKINE HORTON, JR. (TAX MAP #095.01-01- 23.00-0000) LOCATED AT 7062 CROWN ROAD AND (2) JOHN A. LEONARD AND COLLEEN R. LEONARD (TAX MAP #095.01 -01- 11.00-0000) LOCATED AT 7041 CROWN ROAD, IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, it is proposed that (1) Shatenita Horton and Erskine Horton, Jr. and (2) John A. Leonard and Colleen R. Leonard, who own properties on Crown Road in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District, grant drainage easements to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to enable the Board to assist in correcting long -standing drainage problems; and WHEREAS, the owners of the impacted parcels have agreed to donate public drainage easements to Roanoke County for construction and maintenance of the proposed improvements to the following parcels, all of which are depicted on the attached “Exhibit A”: (1) Property owned by Shatenita Horton and Erskine Horton, Jr. (Tax Map #095.01-01-23.00-0000) located at 7062 Crown Road, and (2) Property owned by John A. Leonard and Colleen R. Leonard (Tax Map #095.01-01-11.00-0000) located at 7041 Crown Road; and WHEREAS, receipt of the proposed easements is necessary to enable the County to assist with the installation and maintenance of a new drainage system; and WHEREAS, the estimated cost for this project is proposed to be funded with distributions received by the County under the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA); such Page 2 of 2 funding was previously allocated by the Board for use by the Department of Development Services; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 17, 2024, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on January 14, 2025. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the conveyance of new public drainage easements by (1) Shatenita Horton and Erskine Horton, Jr. and (2) John A. Leonard and Colleen R. Leonard to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, as depicted on the attached Exhibit A, all of which are located in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District, are hereby approved. 2. That the County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator, or Assistant County Administrator, any of whom may act, are authorized to execute, deliver, and record the deeds, and any other documents, on behalf of the County, and to take such further actions as any of them may deem necessary or desirable in connection with this project. The form of the deeds is hereby approved with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes as the County Administrator may approve, whose approval shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery thereof, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 3. That this ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its adoption. Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. J.3 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: FISCAL IMPACT: Page 2 of 2 Awarded grant funds are $21,282 and requires a local match of fifty percent (50%) equaling $21,282, for a total of $42,564. A portion of the Emergency Manager's salary will be used as the in-kind, fifty percent (50%) required match. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the acceptance and allocation of grant funds to the Fire and Rescue Department in the amount of $21,282 with the required local match of $21,282 for a total of $42,564 from VDEM. The Department of Homeland Security Standard Terms and Conditions 2018 Page 1 of 3 SUBAWARD AGREEMENT Page 1 of 3 SUBRECIPIENT NAME AND ADDRESS:4a. SUBAWARD ID NUMBER: 4b. Federal Award ID: 5.SUBAWARD DATE: .PROJECT PERIOD: 7.TOTAL AMOUNT OF THIS SUBAWARD: 2. SUBRECIPIENT UEI Number:8.FEDERAL AMOUNT OF THIS SUBAWARD: SUBRECIPIENT EIN: .SUBRECIPIENT NON-FEDERAL COST SHARE : .INDIRECT COST RATE (If applicable): PASS-THROUGH ENTITY: Virginia Department of Emergency Management SUBAWARD NAME: CFDA: U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 1. STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS & SPECIAL CONDITIONS he above subaward is approved subject to the 2024 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Standard Terms and found here: DHS Terms and Conditions 2024 2.APPROPRIATION AUTHORITY FOR GRANT roject is supported under the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law No. 118-47). 3. METHOD OF PAYMENT Cardinal Accounting System AGENCY APPROVAL SUBRECIPIENT ACCEPTANCE 4. TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF APPROVING VDEM OFFICIAL 16. NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL Cheryl Adkins Chief Financial Officer 7. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED SUBRECIPIENT OFFICIAL 18. DATE: Emergency Management 9711 Farrar Court, Suite 200 North Chesterfield, VA 23236 to The Department of Homeland Security Standard Terms and Conditions 2018 Page 2 of 3 SUBAWARD AGREEMENT Page 2 of 3 Subaward Name: Subaward Date: SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. The Subrecipient shall comply with the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards located at 2 CFR Part 200, and adopted by DHS at 2 CFR Part 3002 and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO). 2.The Subrecipient agrees to permit the pass-through entity and auditors to have access to its records and financial statements as necessary for the pass-through entity to meet the requirements of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards located at 2 CFR Part 200. 3. The Subrecipient understands and agrees that it cannot use any federal funds, either directly or indirectly, in support of the enactment, repeal, modification or adoption of any law, regulation or policy, at any level of government, without the express prior written approval of FEMA. 4.The Subrecipient shall comply with the indirect costs provisions of 2 CFR§ 200.414. With the exception of subrecipients who have never received a negotiated indirect cost rate as described in 2 C.F.R. § 200.414(f), subrecipients must have an approved indirect cost rate agreement with their cognizant federal agency to charge indirect costs to this subaward. 5.In the event VDEM determines that changes are necessary to the award document after an award has been made, including changes to period of performance or terms and conditions, the Subrecipient will be notified of the changes in writing. Once notification has been made, any subsequent request for funds will indicate Subrecipient acceptance of the changes to the award. 6.Subrecipients proposing projects that have the potential to impact the environment, including but not limited to construction of communication towers, modification or renovation of existing buildings, structures and facilities, or new construction including replacement of facilities, must participate in the FEMA Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) review process. Subrecipients must comply with all conditions placed on the project as the result of the EHP review. Any change to the approved project scope of work will require re-evaluation for compliance with these EHP requirements. If ground disturbing activities occur during project implementation, the Subrecipient must ensure monitoring of ground disturbance, and if any potential archeological resources are discovered, the Subrecipient will immediately cease construction in that area and notify FEMA and the State Historic Preservation Office. Any construction activities that have been initiated without the necessary EHP review and approval will result in a non-compliance finding and will not be eligible for FEMA funding. 7. The Subrecipient agrees that federal funds under this award will be used to supplement, not supplant, state or local funds for emergency preparedness. Emergency Management 9711 Farrar Court, Suite 200 North Chesterfield, VA 23236 The Department of Homeland Security Standard Terms and Conditions 2018 Page 3 of 3 SUBAWARD AGREEMENT Page 3 of 3 Subaward Name: 8. The Subrecipient agrees that all publications created with funding under this grant shall prominently contain the following statement: "This document was prepared under a grant from FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate or the U.S. Department of Homeland Security." 9. The Subrecipient agrees that, when practicable, any equipment purchased with grant funding shall be prominently marked as follows: “Purchased with funds provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” 10. The Subrecipient agrees to cooperate with any assessments, national evaluation efforts, or information or data collection requests, including, but limited to, the provision of any information required for the assessment or evaluation of any activities within this project. 11. The Subrecipient must submit a Quarterly Progress Report for every quarter of the period of performance, including partial calendar quarters, as well as for periods where no grant activity occurs. Reports are due within fifteen (15) days following the end of the quarter. A Final Progress Report is due thirty (30) days after the end date of the performance period. Failure to provide this information may result in VDEM withholding grant funds from further obligation and expenditure and prevent future awards to the Subrecipient. 12.National Incident Management System (NIMS) Implementation Compliance In accordance with HSPD-5, the adoption of the NIMS is a requirement to receive federal preparedness assistance through grants, contracts, and other activities. No federal funds will be released to the primary grantee and any other entity participating and benefiting in this project if this requirement has not been met. In the event of a Corrective Action Plan submitted, VDEM/SAA will determine if the Subrecipient has made sufficient progress to disburse funds. 13.All conferences and workshops using federal preparedness funds must pertain to the project being funded. The Subrecipient agrees to submit a Trip Report when using federal funds to attend a conference or workshop. Failure to do so will result in a delay of payment until received. 14. The Subrecipient agrees that under program guidelines, travel expenses are allowable for approved training, planning, administrative, and exercise activities following local, state, and federal guidelines. Prior to traveling for these activities outside of contiguous United States (OCONUS) as well as to Canada and Mexico, preapproval is required by the state and FEMA through the SAA office. Please reference 2 CFR 200.403, in regard to reasonableness when considering requests for travel of this type. Where applicable, you should also reference the following regarding travel: the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (https://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/gc_1200693579776.shtm). Emergency Management 9711 Farrar Court, Suite 200 North Chesterfield, VA 23236 Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. J.4 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: Page 2 of 2 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: The RCPS budget category for facilities per Code of Virginia 22.1 -115 will increase by $845,465. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. !" #$%& '( )*)$ +,-"./0/.1%+, 4#5 66) 6) &6) *57) 8&5 ' 79 : )8 )5,%#5 9)5 /7 )8 B>CDEFGEGHFIJK<JL>MJN<@OPNBQRS=STJJQUU>@@Q>V@T>UKQ>JW@T>PJKX>YKCA?CJ?>C@OZ[T>VR\RURJ<C>S>R\>V?CJS>>OaRC>?KOA><@Z[TRUC>\><N>aKU<J@R<@T>SNCC><@BNVX>@K<VaRQQC>bNRC>K??CJ\KQ\RKJCVR<K<S>BO@T>MJN<@OJWI?>C\RUJCUZ[T>PJKX>YKCA?CJ?>C@OaKU?NCSTKU>VR<@T>WRUSKQO>KCGEEdeGEE^NUR<XfKgJCMK?R@KQYN<VUUJU@KWWC>SJVUC>@NC<@J@T>fKgJCMK?R@KQYN<VZU@U@T>=STJJQcJKCVK??CJ\>@T>WJQQJaR<Xh??CJ?CRK@RJ<JW]^H_FH`_WJCN<V>URX<K@>VU?>SRKQ?CJg>S@UR<@T>fKgJCMK?R@KQYN<VZN>U@@J@T>MJN<@OJWIJK<JL>cJKCVJW=N?>C\RUJCU@JK??CJ?CRK@>]^H_FH`_@J@T>WKSRQR@R>USK@>XJCO?>CMJV>JWjRCX AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2024 ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF POAGE’S MILL PROPERTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $845,465 WHEREAS, the Poage’s Mill property was purchased in fiscal year 2007-2008 using Major Capital Funds; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2024, Roanoke County Public Schools (RCPS) settled the sale of the Poage's Mill property, receiving proceeds of $845,465 by wire payment; and WHEREAS, this revenue was not in RCPS current budget and therefore requires approval by ordinance from the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2024, the School Board approved making such a request, but directed that the proceeds of $845,465, if appropriated by the Board of Supervisors to the Schools’ “facilities” category, be appropriated by the School Board for “undesignated special projects in the Major Capital Fund”; and WHEREAS, § 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be appropriated by ordinance; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 19, 2024, and the second reading was held on December 17, 2024. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That $845,465 be accepted from the sale of the Poage’s Mill Farm property and appropriated into the Roanoke County Public Schools’ facilities category per Code of Virginia § 22.1-115. 2. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption. Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. J.5 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: BACKGROUND: Page 2 of 2 On October 10, 2023, the Board approved a comprehensive agreement with G&H for construction services, which included site development, building construction, and off - site stormwater and signalization improvements for the Bonsack Fire Station. Under the comprehensive agreement, the County paid G&H $8,012,308 for the agreed -upon construction services. DISCUSSION: During the construction of the off-site stormwater improvements to convey stormwater from the new subsurface detention facility, the City determined that the G&H -designed and City-approved conveyance system would no longer work due to a downstream obstruction. The City asked the County to pursue an alternative approach for conveying the fire station stormwater. In cooperation with the City, two alternatives were identified. The first approach would extend the newly constructed storm sewer system from its terminus to Challenger Avenue at an estimated cost of $350,000. The second alternative and preferred method will pump the stormwater from the detention facility to an existing on-site drainage ditch. This option utilizes a grinder pump connected to the station's generator and a small-diameter force main pipe at a proposed change order cost of $58,213.00. The Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) is increased to $8,070,521.00. FISCAL IMPACT: The associated change order cost of $58,213 will be taken from the project's contingency. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board, by resolution, approve the agreement. 1 AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT THIS AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT (the “Change Order”) is made and entered into as of December ___, 2024 (the “Effective Date”), by and between the County of Roanoke, Virginia, hereinafter referred to as the “County” or “Owner,” and G&H Contracting, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the “Contractor” and modifies the scope of the Work and the Completion Date, as those terms are defined in the Comprehensive Agreements dated October 10, 2023, between the County and the Contractor (the “Comprehensive Agreement”). Terms not defined in the Amendment have the meaning given to them in the Comprehensive Agreement. RECITALS: A. The County has directed the Contractor to perform the scope of the Work as described in Potential Change Order #002, dated November 25, 2024, which is attached to and made part of this Change Order as Exhibit 1. B. The Guaranteed Maximum Price shall be increased by $58,213 for the Work described in Exhibit 1. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises of the Parties and of other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 2. The scope of the Work described in Exhibit 1 is added to the scope of the Work under the Contract Documents. 3. The Guaranteed Maximum Price shall be increased by $58,213.00 with the new Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) of $8,070,521.00. 4. Except as amended herein, the Comprehensive Agreement remains in full force and effect. [Signatures appear on the following page.] 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, on the day and year written below, have executed this Amendment in three (3) counterparts, each of which shall, without proof or accountancy for the other counterpart, be deemed an original thereof. CONTRACTOR: OWNER: COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA By: G&H Contracting, Inc. By: County of Roanoke Date: Date: Name: Troy Henderson Name: Richard L. Caywood Title: Vice President Title: County Administrator Signature: Signature: Phone: 540-387-5059 Phone: 540-772-2004 Email: thenderson@ghcntracting.com Email: rcaywood@roanokecountyva.gov Approved as to form: County Attorney G & H Contracting, Inc. 1383 Southside Drive Salem, Virginia 24153 Phone: (540) 387-5059 Fax: (540) 387-3394 Project: 23-2063 - Bonsack Fire Station #12 1485 Mexico Way Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Prime Contract Potential Change Order #002: Added Grinder Pump TO: Roanoke County FROM: G & H Contracting, Inc. 1383 Southside Drive Salem, Virginia 24153 PCO NUMBER/REVISION: 002 / 0 CONTRACT:23-2063 - Bonsack Fire Station #12 REQUEST RECEIVED FROM: CREATED BY: Nicholas Harvey (G & H Contracting, Inc.) STATUS: Pending - In Review CREATED DATE: 11/25/2024 REFERENCE:PRIME CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER: FIELD CHANGE: No LOCATION: ACCOUNTING METHOD: Amount Based SCHEDULE IMPACT: PAID IN FULL: No EXECUTED:No SIGNED CHANGE ORDER RECEIVED DATE: TOTAL AMOUNT: $58,213.00 POTENTIAL CHANGE ORDER TITLE: Added Grinder Pump CHANGE REASON: Owner Request / RFP POTENTIAL CHANGE ORDER DESCRIPTION: (The Contract Is Changed As Follows) CE #029 - Grinder Pump G&H Proposal for added pump to take stormwater to back of site from the stormwater storage at front of site. ATTACHMENTS: Bonsack Fire Station - Pump- Control Panel- Floats- Parts List and Quote.pdf , PUMP SYSTEM PROGRESS PLAN.pdf , Bonsack Fire Station - Pump- Control Panel- Floats- Submittal.pdf , BFS12 STORM PUMP BID.pdf , Change Order #5 Storm Water Pump.pdf #Budget Code Description Amount 1 02-080.S Site Work, ES, Excavation Utilities Stormwater Scope $41,800.00 2 16-005.S Electrical Complete (including opticom)Electrical Scope $7,031.00 3 01-030.S A/E Contract Adminstration A/E Design & Coordination $4,090.00 4 90-001.O Profit OH & P $5,292.00 Grand Total:$58,213.00 Earle Shumate (Hughes Assoc Arch. & Engineers) Roanoke County G & H Contracting, Inc. 1383 Southside Drive Salem, Virginia 24153 ProcoreArchitectSignHere ProcoreArchitectSignedDate ProcoreOwnerSignHere ProcoreOwnerSignedDate ProcoreGeneralContractorSignHere ProcoreGeneralContractorSignedDate SIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE DATE G & H Contracting, Inc.Page 1 of 1 Printed On: 11/25/2024 04:59 PM EST PCO #002 EXHIBIT 1 SU B C O N T R A C T O R E S T I M A T E F O R C H A N G E O R D E R DG S - 3 0 - 2 0 4 SC - 1 (R e v . 0 9 / 0 4 ) Pr o j e c t C o d e : Ge n e r a l C o n t r a c t o r : G& H C o n t r a c t i n g Ag e n c y : Su b c o n t r a c t o r : Ja m i s o n E l e c t r i c , I n c . Pr o j e c t : Bo n s a c k F i r e S t a t i o n # 1 2 Su b c o n t r a c t o r T r a d e : El e c t r i c a l Ch a n g e D e s c r i p t i o n : Ch a n g e O r d e r # 5 S t o r m W a t e r P u m p SU B C O N T R A C T O R D I R E C T C O S T S Sc o p e D e s c r i p t i o n Di r e c t L a b o r Di r e c t M a t e r i a l Di r e c t E q u i p m e n t Di r e c t L a b o r To t a l Ho u r l y W a g e To t a l Ma t e r i a l To t a l Eq u i p m e n t To t a l It e m Qt y Ho u r s Di r e c t L a b o r Ra t e , E x c l . La b o r Co s t Ma t e r i a l Co s t Eq u i p m e n t No . De s c r i p t i o n Qu a n t i t y Un i t s Pe r U n i t La b o r H o u r s Ta x e s & I n s . Co s t Pe r U n i t Co s t Pe r U n i t Co s t A B C D E F = C x E G H = F x G I J = C x I K L = C x K 1. 0 1 EM T 3 / 4 27 . 0 0 Fe e t 0. 0 5 1. 2 2 $6 0 . 0 0 $7 2 . 9 0 $0 . 8 8 $2 3 . 7 6 $0 . 0 0 1. 0 2 EM T E M T C o n n e c t o r 3 / 4 4. 0 0 Ea c h 0. 0 8 0. 3 2 $6 0 . 0 0 $1 9 . 2 0 $0 . 6 7 $2 . 6 8 $0 . 0 0 1. 0 3 3/ 4 E M T C o u p l i n g s 3. 0 0 Ea c h 0. 1 4 0. 4 2 $6 0 . 0 0 $2 5 . 2 0 $0 . 8 8 $2 . 6 4 $0 . 0 0 1. 0 4 1' ' R i g i d 15 . 0 0 Fe e t 0. 0 7 1. 0 5 $6 0 . 0 0 $6 3 . 0 0 $1 0 . 8 1 $1 6 2 . 1 5 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 1. 0 5 Ha r d W a r e / p v c 9 0 A N D F I T T I N G S 1. 0 0 LO T 1. 0 0 1. 0 0 $6 0 . 0 0 $6 0 . 0 0 $2 0 . 0 0 $2 0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 1. 0 6 #1 2 W i r e f o r p o w e r a n d c o n t r o l s 1, 1 4 9 . 6 1 Fe e t 0. 0 1 6. 2 1 $6 0 . 0 0 $3 7 2 . 4 7 $0 . 1 9 $2 1 3 . 0 2 $0 . 0 0 1. 0 7 Fl o w e r P o t 1. 0 0 Ea c h 3. 0 0 3. 0 0 $6 0 . 0 0 $1 8 0 . 0 0 $4 0 . 0 0 $4 0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 1. 0 8 Di t c h W i t c h D i t c h i n g 10 3 . 0 0 Fe e t 0. 0 1 1. 0 3 $6 0 . 0 0 $6 1 . 8 0 $0 . 5 5 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 1. 0 9 S u b t o t a l f r o m E s t i m a t e C o n t i n u a t i o n S h e e t s $1 , 0 9 1 . 9 0 $5 9 2 . 3 0 $0 . 0 0 1. 9 7 S u b t o t a l ( S / T ) D i r e c t C o s t s : S u b t o t a l L a b o r $1 , 9 4 6 . 4 7 S u b t o t a l M a t ' l $1 , 0 5 6 . 5 5 S u b t o t a l E q u i p . $0 . 0 0 1. 9 8 T a x e s / I n s u r a n c e : FI C A , F U I , S U I , & W o r k m e n s ' C o m p . a t 35 . 0 0 % % o f I t e m 1 . 9 7 H = $6 8 1 . 2 7 Sa l e s T a x @ 5 . 3 % $5 6 . 0 0 Sa l e s T a x @ 5 . 3 % $0 . 0 0 1. 9 9 T o t a l D i r e c t C o s t s T o t a l L a b o r $2 , 6 2 7 . 7 4 T o t a l M a t ' l $1 , 1 1 2 . 5 5 T o t a l E q u i p . $0 . 0 0 SU B - S U B C O N T R A C T C O S T S SU M M A R Y Su b m i t t e d B y It e m Su b - S u b c o n t r a c t o r N a m e To t a l It e m No . ( L i s t t o t a l s f r o m a t t a c h e d S S - 1 f o r m s ) Co s t No . De s c r i p t i o n To t a l C o s t Na m e : Ri c h a r d C a r t e r A B C 3. 0 1 T o t a l D i r e c t L a b o r C o s t It e m 1 . 9 9 H $2 , 6 2 7 . 7 4 2. 0 1 $0 . 0 0 3. 0 2 T o t a l D i r e c t M a t e r i a l C o s t It e m 1 . 9 9 J $1 , 1 1 2 . 5 5 S i g n a t u r e : 2. 0 2 3. 0 3 T o t a l E q u i p m e n t C o s t It e m 1 . 9 9 L $0 . 0 0 2. 0 3 3. 0 4 S u b t o t a l 3. 0 1 + 3 . 0 2 + 3 . 0 3 $3 , 7 4 0 . 2 8 T i t l e : Pr o j e c t M a n a g e r 2. 0 4 3. 0 5 O v e r h e a d a n d P r o f i t 10 % x I t e m 3 . 0 4 $3 7 4 . 0 3 2. 0 5 3. 0 6 T o t a l S u b c o n t r a c t o r C o s t 3. 0 4 + 3 . 0 5 $4 , 1 1 4 . 3 1 D a t e : 11 / 2 5 / 2 0 2 4 2. 0 6 3. 0 7 S u b - S u b c o n t r a c t o r C o s t It e m 2 . 9 9 $0 . 0 0 2. 0 7 3. 0 8 S C M a r k u p o n S u b - S u b c o n t r a c t o r s 10 % x I t e m 3 . 0 7 $0 . 0 0 2. 9 9 T o t a l S u b - S u b c o n t r a c t C o s t s $0 . 0 0 3. 9 9 S / C C o s t R e p o r t ' d t o G C 3. 0 6 + 3 . 0 7 $4 , 1 1 4 . 3 1 ES T I M A T E C O N T I N U A T I O N S H E E T ( A t t a c h t o F o r m G C - 1 , S C - 1 , o r S S - 1 a s n e c e s s a r y f o r c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h e d i r e c t c o s t e s t i m a t e s . ) Pr o j e c t C o d e : Pe r f o r m i n g C o n t r a c t o r : Ja m i s o n E l e c t r i c , I n c . Ag e n c y : 0 Pr o j e c t : Bo n s a c k F i r e S t a t i o n # 1 2 Ch a n g e D e s c r i p t i o n : Ch a n g e O r d e r # 5 S t o r m W a t e r P u m p PE R F O R M I N G C O N T R A C T O R D I R E C T C O S T S Sc o p e D e s c r i p t i o n Di r e c t L a b o r Di r e c t M a t e r i a l Di r e c t E q u i p m e n t Di r e c t L a b o r To t a l Ho u r l y W a g e To t a l Ma t e r i a l To t a l Eq u i p m e n t To t a l It e m Qt y Ho u r s Di r e c t L a b o r Ra t e , E x c l . La b o r Co s t Ma t e r i a l Co s t Eq u i p m e n t No . De s c r i p t i o n Qu a n t i t y Un i t s Pe r U n i t La b o r H o u r s Ta x e s & I n s . Co s t Pe r U n i t Co s t Pe r U n i t Co s t A B C D E F = C x E G H = F x G I J = C x I K L = C x K 0 Ft 0. 0 1 0. 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 2 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 Ta m p i n g o f t h e d i t c h 10 3 . 8 3 Fe e t 0. 0 1 1. 0 4 $6 0 . 0 0 $6 2 . 3 0 $0 . 5 5 $5 7 . 1 1 $0 . 0 0 4x 4 b o x 2. 0 0 ea c h 0. 3 5 0. 7 0 $6 0 . 0 0 $4 2 . 0 0 $0 . 8 1 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 4x 4 b o x c o v e r s 2. 0 0 Ea c h 0. 0 9 0. 1 8 $6 0 . 0 0 $1 0 . 8 0 $0 . 4 8 $0 . 9 6 $0 . 0 0 1' ' P V C 15 7 . 0 0 FE E T 0. 0 4 6. 2 8 $6 0 . 0 0 $3 7 6 . 8 0 $1 . 3 9 $2 1 8 . 2 3 $0 . 0 0 LA B O R T O I N S T A L L P A N E L P U M P A N D F L O A T S 1. 0 0 LO T 9. 0 0 9. 0 0 $6 0 . 0 0 $5 4 0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 BR E A K E R S 1. 0 0 LO T 1. 0 0 1. 0 0 $6 0 . 0 0 $6 0 . 0 0 $3 1 6 . 0 0 $3 1 6 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 Ea c h 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 Ea c h 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 Ea c h 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 lo t 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 P a g e S u b t o t a l s ( C a r r y F o r w a r d T o L i n e 1 . 0 9 ) La b o r : $1 , 0 9 1 . 9 0 Ma t e r i a l : $5 9 2 . 3 0 Eq u i p m e n t : $0 . 0 0 Hubbard Excavating and Hauling Inc 2805 BLACKSBURG RD. xcav81@gmail.com Bid Sheet 1019 ADDRESS G & H CONTRACTING DATE TOTAL $41,800.00 P.O. NUMBER BONSACK FS 12 STORM PUMP ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT MISC.LABOR AND MATERIALS TO PERFORM THE FOLLOWING SCOPE OF WORK: INSTALL PUMP CHAMBER MH OVER EXISTING STORM PIPE, 3" PLASTIC FORCE MAIN PIPING TO DISCHARGE MH, 8" OUTFALL PIPE TO DAYLIGHT, INSTALL PUMP & FLOATS INSIDE PUMP MH, BACKFILL, RESTORE DISTURBED AREAS WITH SEED & STRAW 41,800.00 ***NOTE*** HUBBARD WILL PURCHASE PUMP CONTROL PANEL/ JAMISON WILL INSTALL NOTES/EXCLUSIONS: (1) BID BASED ON HUGHES ASSOCIATES/ PIERSON ENGINEERING PLAN DATED 11/5/24 (2) ROCK AND/OR UNSUITABLE MATERIALS EXCAVATION EXCLUDED (3) STONE BEDDING FOR 3" FM NOT INCLUDED (4) REMOVAL OF SOME NEWLY PLANTED LANDSCAPING TREES IS NECESSARY & IS NOT INCLUDED (5) NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE TO EXISTING SIDEWALK (6) ELECTRICAL CONDUITS, WIRING, MOUNTING OF CONTROL PANEL, FLOAT SWITCHES, ETC IS EXCLUDED TOTAL $41,800.00 Contact Hubbard Excavating and Hauling Inc to pay. THANK YOU. Accepted By Accepted Date CMC SUPPLY, INC 2510 JOHNSON AVE NW FIRE STATION/HUGHES ASSOCIATES ROANOKE, VA 24017 CMC SUPPLY, INC. 2510 JOHNSON AVE NW ROANOKE, VA 24017 Phone 540-982-1095 Fax 540-342-8048 EXPIRATION DATE PAGE NO. Quotation QUOTE NUMBER S375963611/12/2024 1 of 2 CMC SUPPLY, INC. 2510 JOHNSON AVE NW ROANOKE, VA 24017 Phone 540-982-1095 Fax 540-342-8048 CUSTOMER NUMBER CUSTOMER PO NUMBER JOB NAME / RELEASE NUMBER SALESPERSON WRITER SHIP VIA TERMS SHIP DATE HOUSE BW BEST WAY 11/20/2024Randall Smith NET 30 DAYS NO SVC 6934 FIRE STATION PUMPS ORDER QTY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE EXT PRICE QUOTE TO: CMC SUPPLY, INC WATERWORKS DIVISION 2510 JOHNSON AVE NW ROANOKE, VA 24017 SHIP TO: ORDERED BY MIKE WOOLWINE SHIPPING INSTRUCTIONS This take off is an estimate only. We do not guarantee that this is all the material required for this job. Materials are subject to code approval, and any materials not approved are subject to re-quote. ---------------------------------- Contractor is responsible for verifying quantities needed to complete job. Contractor is solely responsible for verifying specified material for usage on this project. This is for estimate purposes only. ************************************* Prices valid for 30 days. Please notify us in advance if this is a LEEDS Project or Domestic only. *********************************** +++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++ 100 GPM OPTION +++++++++++++++++++ WS1038BHF GOULDS 3887 SEWAGE PUMP. 1 HP. 200V.3PH. 8.6AMPS. 2" NPT DISCHARGE. 1ea 1475.886/ea 1475.89 ** Above Item is Non-returnable ** Printed By: RANDALLS on 10/29/2024 3:21:24 PM EDT ** Continued on Next Page ** Quotation EXPIRATION DATE PAGE NO.QUOTE NUMBER S375963611/12/2024 2 of 2 ORDER QTY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE EXT PRICE A1-3 GOULDS 3" DISCHARGE FLANGE. ** Above Item is Non-returnable ** 1ea 63.143/ea 63.14 C4S36310 GOULDS CONTROL PANEL. 3 PH. 60HZ. NEMA 4X.LOCKABLE SS LATCH.HOA PUMP SWITCH. RED ALARM LIGHT.95db HORN. ELAPSED 1ea 1696.686/ea 1696.69 TIME METER. CYCLE COUNTER. ** Above Item is Non-returnable ** A2D33W SJE PUMPMASTER FLOAT SWITCH WITH 20FT CORD BARE LEADS AND CABLE WEIGHT ** Above Item is Non-returnable ** 3ea 93.600/ea 280.80 Subtotal -------3516.52 ______________ ++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++ 200GPM OPTION ++++++++++++++++++++ WS2038BHF GOULDS 3887 SEWAGE PUMP.2 HP.200V.3PH. 12.0 AMPS. 2" NPT DISCHARGE ** Above Item is Non-returnable ** 1ea 1825.171/ea 1825.17 A1-3 GOULDS 3" DISCHARGE FLANGE. ** Above Item is Non-returnable ** 1ea 63.143/ea 63.14 C4S31016 GOULDS CONTROL PANEL.3PH.60HZ.NEMA 4X.LOCKABLE SS LATCH.HOA PUMP SWITCH.RED ALARM LIGHT.95db HORN.ELAPSED TIME 1ea 1696.686/ea 1696.69 METER.CYCLE COUNTER. ** Above Item is Non-returnable ** A2D33W SJE PUMPMASTER FLOAT SWITCH WITH 20FT CORD BARE LEADS AND CABLE WEIGHT ** Above Item is Non-returnable ** 3ea 93.600/ea 280.80 Subtotal -------3865.80 ______________ Subtotal Freight Amount Due 7382.32 0.00 7773.58 Printed By: RANDALLS on 10/29/2024 3:21:24 PM EDT Estimated Tax 391.26 Handling 0.00 GRASS SLOPE GRASS SLOPE 107 0 10 6 0 1060 10 5 6 1055 10 5 5 1056 105 6 10 5 7 10 5 8 10 6 0 10 6 4 1057 1057 1056 10 5 6 2.5:1 2.5:1 2.5: 1 3: 1 3:1 5' WIDE BERM TOP 1057.2 5' WIDE BERM TOP 1056.2 5' 5' G G 2. 5 : 1 1056 NEW 2-BAY FIRE STATION +/-10,835 SF FIN FLR 1057.50 1057 10 5 6 105 6 1057 10 5 8 10 5 7 10 5 7 1056 105 7 1056 10 5 6 1057 1057 G G G G STORM PUMP SYSTEM SCHEDULE A PUMP CHAMBER - VDOT ST'D 48" MANHOLE WITH MH-I FRAME & COVER TOP OF COVER 1056.0, INSIDE BOTTOM ELEV OF MANHOLE 1044.9 INSTALL ON BOTTOM OF MAHNOLE - GOULDS MODEL 3887, ORDER NO. WS2038BHF SUBMERSIBLE EFFLUENT PUMP (2HP, 3 PHASE, 200V, 12 AMPS, CONVERT FLANGE FOR A 3" DISCHARGE) INV (IN) 18" 1046.20 INV (OUT) 18" 1046.16 INV (OUT) 3" FM 1054.0 A - B 290'-NEW 3" IPS SDR 11 HDPE PRESSURE PIPE - FORCE MAIN (FM) B VDOT ST'D 48" MANHOLE WITH MH-1 FRAME & COVER TOP OF COVER 1060.5 INV (IN) 3" FM 1058.5 (TURN DOWN IN THE MH WITH 90° ELBOWS) INV (OUT) 8" 1056.6 B - C 20'- NEW 8" SDR 40 PVC @ 3.5% C INV 8" 1055.9 A B C 11 13 3" FO R C E M A I N 3" FO R C E M A I N 3" FO R C E M A I N 18" FROM STR. #11 18" OUT TO STR. #12 PUMP OFF +13" ELEV 1045.98 PUMP ON +28" ELEV 1047.23 3 FLOAT SYSTEM. ATTACH FLOATS TO GUIDE RAIL. POSITION FLOATS AWAY FROM IN FRONT OF THE 18" INLET AND OUTLET PIPES 3" SCH. 40 PVC ELECTRICAL CONDUIT WITH CONDUCTORS TO DISCONNET AND CONTROLLER/ALARM INSIDE BUILDING INV (IN) 1046.2INV (OUT) 1046.16 BOTTOM 1044.9 3" DR11 HDPE FORCEMAIN TO MANHOLE #B 24 " M I N . DETECTABLE WARNING TAPE FINISH GRADE PUMP CHAMBER DETAIL NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1. PUMP CHAMBER IS A VDOT ST'D 48" DIAMETER PRECAST MANHOLE WITH MH-1 FRAME AND COVER PUMP CONTROLLER/ALARM DESIGN & NOTES THE PUMP & CONTOLLER/ALARM ARE BASE ON THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: VOLUME DOSED SYSTEM STATIC HEAD 14 FT. FRICTION HEAD 6 FT. TOTAL DYNAMIC HEAD 20 FT. VOLUME / CYCLE 118 GAL PUMP RUN TIME / CYCLE 35 SEC. PUMP DESIGN POINT 200 GPM @ 20 FT. OF HEAD THIS IS A SIMPLEX SYSTEM - THE PUMP IS A GOULDS - SUBMERSIBLE EFFLUENT PUMP - MODEL 3887, ORDER NO. WS20388BHF, 2.0 HP, 3-PHASE,200V,12 AMPS. CONVERT OUTLET FLANGE TO ACCOMMODATE A 3" DISCHARGE. THE SIMPLEX CONTROL PANEL IS GOULDS ORDER NO. C4S31016. NEMA 4X ENCLOSURE WITH FLASHING RED ALARM LIGHT & ALARM HORN, 3-PHASE, FIELD ADJUSTABLE FOR 208/230/460/575 V, 115V CONTROL CIRCUIT TRANSFORMER LOCATE INSIDE THE BUILDING. PUMP / CONTROL PANEL SWITCHES ARE GOULDS A2D SERIES, SJE PUMPMASTER PUMP SWITCH, ORDER NO. A2D33W. FOLLOW MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS FOR INSTALLATION OF CONTROLLER, ALARM AND FLOAT SWITCHES. THE CONTROLLER/ALARM AND THE PUMP REQUIRE SEPARATE AND DEDICATED CIRCUITS. HIGH LEVEL ALARM +97" ELEV 1052.98 CONDUCTORS TO FLOAT SWITCHS AND PUMP 24 " M I N . FINISH GRADE DETECTABLE WARNING TAPE TOP 1056.0 3" CHECK VALVE 3" GALVANIZED STEEL DISCHARGE PIPE FROM PUMP CHECK VALVE 3/4" GALV. GUIDE RAILS (PLUMB) RAIL SUPPORT ANCHOR INV (OUT) 1054.00 GUIDE RAIL SUPPORT (OPTIONAL) THE NEW STORM SYSTEM FOR THIS PROJECT CONNECTS TO THE EXISTING CITY STORM SYSTEM IN MEXICO WAY, LABELED AS STRUCTURE #13. DOWNSTREAM OF THIS CONNECTION POINT IS AN EXISTING CURB INLET THAT DISCHARGES TO AN INFILTRATION TRENCH. THIS TRENCH WAS BELIEVED TO BE A PIPE AT THE ONSET OF THE PROJECT, HOWEVER, DISCOVERED AFTER INSTALLATION OF THE NEW STORM SYSTEM, THAT IT WAS A TRENCH. THE POST-DEVELOPED STORMWATER RELEASE RATE FROM THIS PROJECT MEET THE STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR CHANNEL PROTECTION AND FLOOD PROTECTION BY ATTENUATING THE PEAK FLOW RATES FROM THE 1-YR & 10-YR STORM EVENTS. THE CONTROL STRUCTURE IS LABELED AS STRUCTURE #11. AS A PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE, IN RESPECT TO THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE INFILTRATION TRENCH, A PUMP LABELED AS STRUCTURE 'A' WILL BE ADDED BELOW STRUCTURE #11 TO PUMP THE 1-YR PEAK FLOW, 0.88 CFS (395 GPM), TO A SECONDARY DISCHARGE POINT, LABELED AS STRUCTURE 'C', AT THE SITE'S NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. C-403 STORMWATER PUMP DESIGN DRAWN BY: DATE: CHECKED BY: COMMISSION No. SHEET ©C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 2 3 HUGHES ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 23007 RE V I S I O N S 65 6 E L M A V E N U E S W | R O A N O K E , V I R G I N I A 2 4 0 1 6 54 0 . 3 4 2 . 4 0 0 2 ww w . H u g h e s A E . c o m HU G H E S AS S O C I A T E S AR C H I T E C T S & E N G I N E E R S 14 6 5 M e x i c o W a y R o a n o k e , V i r g i n i a RO A N O K E C O U N T Y F I R E S T A T I O N # 1 2 RO A N O K E C O U N T Y F I R E & R E S C U E xxx xxx JUNE 7, 2024 10'20'0 40' 3 11-5-2024 FIELD REVISION 3 FIELD REVISION 3 FIELD REVISION 3 FIELD REVISION 3 & SURVEYING ENGINEERING PIERSON & SURVEYING ENGINEERING PIERSON 44 CATAWBA ROAD DALEVILLE, VA 24083 (540) 966-3027 TEL rpierson@rbnet.com COMMONWEAL T H OF VIRGIN A PROFESSION A L ENGINEER RODERICK F. PIERSON Lic. No. 023842 11-5-2024 Page 1 of 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2024 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND G&H CONTRACTING, INC. REGARDING CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR THE BONSACK FIRE STATION WHEREAS, at the County Administrator's direction, a request for proposals pursuant to the Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act (PPEA) was issued for the construction of a new County fire station, which will be located at 1465 Mexico Way, NE, in the City of Roanoke. The fire station shall be known as the Bonsack Fire Station; and WHEREAS, following the receipt of proposals, the Board held a public hearing on October 20, 2022, to receive citizen comments on such proposals, as required by the County's adopted PPEA guidelines. After the public hearing and the competitive negotiation process, County purchasing staff selected G&H Contracting, Inc. (G&H) as the party with whom to pursue the design and construction of the Bonsack Fire Station ; and WHEREAS, on February 28, 2023, the Board approved an interim agreement with G&H for pre-construction services, including site plan design, site permitting review and approvals, and building design development for the Bonsack Fire Station. Pursuant to the interim agreement, the County paid G&H $367,950 for the agreed -upon pre- construction services; and WHEREAS, on October 10, 2023, the Board approved a comprehensive agreement with G&H for construction services, which included site development, building construction, and off-site stormwater and signalization improvements for the Page 2 of 3 Bonsack Fire Station. Under the comprehensive agreement, the County paid G&H $8,012,308 for the agreed-upon construction services; and WHEREAS, During the construction of the off-site stormwater improvements to convey stormwater from the new subsurface detention facility, the City determined that the G&H-designed and City-approved conveyance system would no longer work due to a downstream obstruction. The City asked the County to pursue an alternative approach for conveying the fire station stormwater. In cooperation with the City, two alternatives were identified. The first approach would extend the newly constructed storm sewer system from its terminus to Challenger Avenue at an estimated cost of $350,000. The second alternative and preferred method will pump the stormwater from the detention facility to an existing on-site drainage ditch. This option utilizes a grinder pump connected to the station's generator and a small-diameter force main pipe at a proposed change order cost of $58,213.00. The Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) is increased to $8,070,521.00; and WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Board approve this amendment to the Comprehensive Agreement, such approval being required pursuant to Section VIII of the County’s adopted PPEA guidelines. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, as follows: 1. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Agreement is hereby approved. 2. The Board authorizes the County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator, or Assistant County Administrator, any of whom may act, to Page 3 of 3 execute the agreement in such form as is approved by the County Attorney. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. J.6 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: COUNTY, VIRGINIA KNOWN AS “EXPLORE PARK” SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION: FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Page 2 of 2 Staff recommends the adoption of the resolution. A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF BEDFORD COUNTY, VIRGINIA AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING THE DISSOLUTION OF THE VIRGINIA RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY AND AUTHORIZING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO ACQUIRE PARCELS IN ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA AND BEDFORD COUNTY, VIRGINIA KNOWN AS “EXPLORE PARK” WHEREAS, Roanoke County signed a 99-year lease in 2013 for the development and management of Explore Park from the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority ; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County has developed a master plan for the park that provides a roadmap of development for the next 20 years in Roanoke and Bedford Counties; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County has invested over $8,000,000 in park infrastructure to include public water and sewer, roads, telecommunications, greenways, trails, trailheads, building renovations, a campground and an aerial adventure course that has created a destination for citizens in the region as well as tourists; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County has brought life back to Explore Park over the last 11 years through public-private investment, programs, camping, biking, hiking and special events; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County has grown park attendance from over 30,000 visitors in 2013 to more than 250,000 visitors in 2023; and WHEREAS, Explore Park hosts signature annual events such as USA cycling championships, Illuminights, Tavern Stage Concert Series , and Go Fest Adventure Outpost; and 2 WHEREAS, Roanoke County wishes to fully implement the park master plan to attract additional public-private partnerships; and WHEREAS, Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority has not had a relevant role in providing funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia in over 11 years; and WHEREAS, the current land ownership arrangement is an ongoing barrier to major potential investments within Explore Park by the private sector such as a lodge or restaurant; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County has shown a sustained financial commitment to Explore Park as a regional asset for tourism, outdoor education, health, leisure activity and conservation while providing a positive economic impact to the community; and WHEREAS, in order to more efficiently and effectively further develop Explore Park, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia wishes to acquire properties in Roanoke County and Bedford County, Virginia from the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority identified as Roanoke County Tax Map Numbers 080.00-01-34.02-0000, 080.00-02-33.00-0000, 080.00-02-36.00-0000, 080.00-05-34.00-0000, 080.00-05-31.00- 0000, 080.00-05-30.00-0000, 080.00-05-29.00-0000, 080.00-05-27.00-0000, 080.00-02- 34.00-0000, 080.00-05-17.00-0000, 071.03-01-10.00-0000, 080.00-02-35.00-0000, 071.03-01-11.00-0000, 071.03-01-15.00-0000, 080.00-02-33.00-0000, 080.00-05-32.00- 0000, 080.00-05-26.00-0000, 071.00-01-13.00-0000, 071.00-01-12.00-0000, 080.00-05- 24.00-0000, 080.00-02-32.00-0000, 080.00-01-35.00-0000, 080.00-01-34.03-0000 and Bedford County Real Property Code (“RCP”) Numbers 15505110, 15505500, 17201200, 17201300, 17201400, 17201700, 17201800, 17202000, 17205300, 17205400, 3 17205500, 17201900, 17204800 and 17305100 (collectively the “Explore Park Parcels”); and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Bedford County, Virginia wishes to support the endeavors of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia in acquiring the Explore Park Parcels in both Roanoke County, Virginia and Bedford County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, in anticipation of potential legislation which would allow for the dissolution of the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority and the acquisition of the Explore Park Parcels by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, representatives of both Roanoke County and Bedford County have met to discuss the future of Explore Park; and WHEREAS, representatives of both Roanoke County and Bedford County agree that (a) Roanoke County will not seek a boundary line adjustment to incorporate the Explore Park Parcels located in Bedford County, Virginia into the Roanoke County jurisdictional boundaries, (b) Roanoke County will display sensitivity to future branding that will appropriately identify portions of Explore Park’s as being located in Bedford County, Virginia, and (c) absent an agreement otherwise between the localities, that future development and all activities that occur on the Explore Park Parcels located in Bedford County, Virginia shall adhere to Bedford County’s ordinances including, but not limited to, the collection and retention of tax revenues. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT JOINTLY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia and the Board of Supervisors of Bedford County, Virginia, that the Boards do each hereby respectfully urge the General Assembly to adopt 4 legislation that would authorize the dissolution of the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority and the conveyance of the Explore Park Parcels to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. Page 1 of 3 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. J.7 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: BACKGROUND: (the “VBAF”) was established pursuant to § 10.1 as amended (the “Virginia Code”), to promote the restoration and redevelopment of The VBAF is administered by the Virginia Resources Authority (“VRA”), and the Virginia Page 2 of 3 the VBAF. VEDP, in consultation with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”), has established guidelines for the awarding of Site Assessment and Planning Grants from the VBAF. VBAF Site Assessment and Planning Grants, in amounts up to $50,000, are available to assist with the costs of: (i) environmental and cultural resource site assessments; (ii) development of remediation and reuse plans; (iii) the necessary removal of human remains, the appropriate treatment of grave sites, and the appropriate and necessary treatment of significant archaeological resources, or the stabilization or restoration of structures listed on or eligible for the Virginia Historic Landmarks Register; or (iv) demolition and removal of existing structures, when necessary, to abate the hazardous material or other site work required to make a site or certain real property usable for new economic development. Only political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including counties, cities, towns, industrial/economic development authorities, planning district commissions, and redevelopment and housing authorities, may apply for grants from the VBAF Program. The property may be publicly or privately owned, as long as the property has public or private redevelopment potential. The County of Roanoke, Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Grantee") was awarded a Site Assessment and Planning Grant (the “Grant”) for an asbestos survey, concept designs, utility planning, and access road study for property located at 4502-4504 Starkey Road and 4034 Emma Lane, Roanoke, VA, 24018 (the “Project”), identified as Tax Parcel ID Numbers: 087.07 -01-29.00-0000, 087.07-01-30.00-0000, 087.07-01-31.00-0000, 087.07-01-36.00-0000, 087.07-01- 31.01-0000, and 087.07-01-33.00-0000. Recipients of the VBAF Site Assessment and Planning Grant are required to enter into a performance agreement with VEDP, as acknowledged by VRA and DEQ. DISCUSSION: On October 9, 2024, Roanoke County was awarded $50,000 in VBAF for a Site Assessment and Planning Grant (the “Grant”) for an asbestos survey, concept designs, utility planning, and access road study for property located at 4502-4504 Starkey Road and 4034 Emma Lane, Roanoke, VA, 24018 (the “Project”). The project site has been an office park since it was built in 1974. Real estate developer Alexander Boone purchased the property in fall 2024. He plans to demolish the two existing office buildings and redevelop the site into a retail/hotel use. This aligns with Page 3 of 3 Roanoke County’s strategy to reimagine the Route 419 corridor by focusing on redevelopment opportunities. The project will require asbestos abatement, transportation upgrades, and utility planning to make the redevelopment of the site successful. FISCAL IMPACT: The VBAF Performance Agreement requires no additional funds from Roanoke County. The required local match for the $50,000 VBAF grant has been met by the private purchase of the property. This project will be locally administered by Roanoke County, necessitating acceptance and appropriation of this funding to facilitate project reimbursement requests. Roanoke County will serve as the responsible entity and grantee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the first reading of an ordinance to: 1. Accept and appropriate $50,000 for the Professional Park Redevelopment Project to the Grant Fund; and 2. Grant signatory authority to the County Administrator, or his designee, to execute the Performance Agreement with the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP). Staff recommends that the second reading be scheduled for January 14, 2025. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2025 ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 FROM THE VIRGINIA BROWNFIELDS RESTORATION AND ECONOMIC REDEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FUND PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE VIRGINIA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP FOR PROFESSIONAL PARK, LOCATED IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Virginia Brownfields Restoration and Economic Redevelopment Assistance Fund (“VBAF”) was established pursuant to § 10.1 -1237 of the Code of Virginia, to promote the restoration and redevelopment of brownfield sites in the Commonwealth and to address environmental problems or obstacles to reuse so that such sites can be effectively marketed to new economic development prospects; and WHEREAS, VBAF is administered by the Virginia Resources Authority (“VRA”), and the Virginia Economic Development Partnership ("VEDP") directs the distribution of grants from the VBAF; and WHEREAS, on October 9, 2024, Roanoke County was awarded a $50,000 Site Assessment and Planning Grant for an asbestos survey, concept designs, utility planning, and access road study for property located at 4502-4504 Starkey Road and 4034 Emma Lane, Roanoke, VA, 24018 (the “Project”), identified as Tax Parcel ID Numbers: 087.07- 01-29.00-0000, 087.07-01-30.00-0000, 087.07-01-31.00-0000, 087.07-01-36.00-0000, 087.07-01-31.01-0000, and 087.07-01-33.00-0000; and WHEREAS, the project site has been an office park since it was built in 1974 , and in fall 2024, real estate developer Alexander Boone purchased the property with plans to demolish the two existing office buildings and redevelop the site into a retail/hotel use , aligning with Roanoke County’s strategy to reimagine the Route 419 corridor by focusing on development opportunities; and WHEREAS, the site will require asbestos abatement, transportation upgrades, and utility planning to make the redevelopment of the site successful; and WHEREAS, recipients of the VBAF Site Assessment and Planning Grant are required to enter into a performance agreement with VEDP, as acknowledged by VRA and DEQ; and WHEREAS, the VBAF Performance Agreement requires no additional funds from Roanoke County, as the required local match for the $50,000 VBAF grant has been met by the private purchase of the property; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County will serve as the responsible entity and grantee, and will administer this project locally, necessitating acceptance and appropriation of this funding to facilitate project reimbursement requests; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be appropriated by ordinance; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 17, 2024, and the second reading was held on January 14, 2025. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the sum of $50,000 for the Professional Park Redevelopment Project is hereby accepted and appropriated to the Grant Fund. 2. The County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator, or Assistant County Administrator, each of whom may act, are authorized to execute the Performance Agreement with the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (“VEDP”). 3. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption. Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. J.8 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: Page 2 of 2 Department a grant for $120,000. The Roanoke County Police Department is working on upgrading its low-light working capability. The SWAT team has eight first-generation PVS-14 single-tube units between 20 and 25 years old. This funding will go toward the purchase of eight state-of-the-art low-light units along with the necessary hardware and laser-aiming devices. FISCAL IMPACT: The awarded funds total $120,000. No matching funds are required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the acceptance and allocation of $120,000 from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management 2024-SHSP to the grant fund. Capital Unappropriated % of Board Expenditure Balance Revenues Contingency Contingency Reserves Audited balance as of June 30, 2024 29,191,800$ ‐$ ‐$ 9,058,432$ Approved Sources: Appropriated from 2024‐25 budget (Ordinance 052824‐3.a)‐ 50,000 ‐ 93,647 Appropriated from 2023‐24 budget amendment (Ordinance 072324‐6) 2,022,180 ‐ 650,291 1,500,000 Addition of 2023‐24 operations and close out of completed projects ‐ ‐ ‐ 158,263 Approved Uses: Appropriated for 2024‐25 budget (Ordinance 052824‐3.b)‐ ‐ ‐ (5,159,423) Appropriated for 2024‐25 budget (Ordinance 052824‐3.b)‐ ‐ ‐ (93,647) MOU regarding the joint capital funding approved on April 11, 2023 ‐ ‐ ‐ (5,000,000) Balance at December 17, 2024 31,213,980$ 12.0% 50,000$ 650,291$ 557,272$ County of Roanoke Unappropriated Balance, Board Contingency, and Capital Reserves Fiscal Year 2024‐2025 General Government Changes in outstanding debt for the fiscal year to date were as follows: Audited Outstanding Outstanding June 30, 2024 Additions Deletions December 17, 2024 VPSA School Bonds 69,781,182$ -$ 7,019,794$ 62,761,388$ Lease Revenue Bonds 78,395,000 - 4,630,000 73,765,000 Subtotal 148,176,182 - 11,649,794 136,526,388 Premiums 11,056,810 - - 11,056,810 159,232,992$ -$ 11,649,794$ 147,583,198$ Submitted By Laurie L. Gearheart Director of Finance and Management Services Approved By Richard L. Caywood County Administrator Revenues Revenues Budget Revenues % of Budget Budget Revenues % of Budget Actuals % of Variance Real Estate Taxes $119,492,000 $27,242,266 22.80% $129,080,327 $25,294,331 19.60% ($1,947,934) -7.70% Personal Property Taxes 44,500,000 2,008,762 4.51% 44,500,000 2,375,219 5.34% 366,458 15.43% Public Service Corp Base 4,220,000 1,458,240 34.56% 5,500,000 1,195,347 21.73% (262,893) -21.99% Penalties & Interest on Property Taxes 1,130,000 330,810 29.28% 1,350,000 364,087 26.97% 33,277 9.14% Payment In Lieu Of Taxes 210,000 90,922 43.30% 225,000 44,775 19.90% (46,147) -103.06% Total General Property Taxes 169,552,000 31,131,000 18.36% 180,655,327 29,273,760 16.20% (1,857,240) -6.34% Communication Taxes 2,550,000 858,297 33.66% 2,625,000 839,945 32.00% (18,351) -2.18% Local Sales Tax 15,800,000 5,187,511 32.83% 17,000,000 5,254,316 30.91% 66,805 1.27% Consumer Utility Tax 3,750,000 1,179,426 31.45% 3,750,000 1,327,682 35.40% 148,256 11.17% Business License Tax 7,800,000 341,344 4.38% 9,100,000 352,612 3.87% 11,267 3.20% Franchise Tax 690,000 0 0.00% 750,000 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Motor Vehicle License Fees 2,450,000 265,444 10.83% 2,450,000 281,064 11.47% 15,621 5.56% Taxes On Recordation & Wills 1,650,000 484,283 29.35% 1,550,000 527,782 34.05% 43,499 8.24% Utility License Tax 575,000 95,722 16.65% 565,000 117,843 20.86% 22,121 18.77% Hotel & Motel Room Taxes 1,650,000 646,163 39.16% 2,050,000 725,495 35.39% 79,332 10.93% Taxes - Prepared Foods 6,100,000 2,127,920 34.88% 6,450,000 2,123,002 32.91% (4,918) -0.23% Other Taxes 1,345,000 448,163 33.32% 1,355,000 316,742 23.38% (131,421) -41.49% Total Other Local Taxes 44,360,000 11,634,274 26.23% 47,645,000 11,866,484 24.91% 232,210 1.96% Animal Control Fees 42,500 9,095 21.40% 42,500 9,990 23.51% 895 8.96% Land and Building Fees 15,850 4,071 25.69% 18,000 5,464 30.36% 1,393 25.49% Permits 924,107 244,343 26.44% 1,112,872 351,487 31.58% 107,143 30.48% Fees 64,600 13,635 21.11% 64,600 16,238 25.14% 2,603 16.03% Clerk of Court Fees 127,000 47,847 37.68% 127,000 55,512 43.71% 7,665 13.81% COUNTY OF ROANOKE Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues General Fund - C100 For the Five Months Ending Saturday, November 30, 2024 Prior Year Current Year Variances Revenues Revenues Budget Revenues % of Budget Budget Revenues % of Budget Actuals % of Variance COUNTY OF ROANOKE Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues General Fund - C100 For the Five Months Ending Saturday, November 30, 2024 Prior Year Current Year Variances Photocopy Charges 210 0 0.00% 210 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total Permits, Fees and Licenses 1,174,267 318,992 27.17% 1,365,182 438,691 32.13% 119,698 27.29% Fines and Forfeitures 558,500 147,812 26.47% 558,500 166,715 29.85% 18,903 11.34% Total Fines and Forfeitures 558,500 147,812 26.47% 558,500 166,715 29.85% 18,903 11.34% Revenues from Use of Money 500,000 545,205 109.04% 1,229,586 490,175 39.87% (55,029) -11.23% Revenues From Use of Property 185,014 67,358 36.41% 185,014 74,333 40.18% 6,975 9.38% Total Use of Money and Property 685,014 612,562 89.42% 1,414,600 564,508 39.91% (48,054) -8.51% Charges for Services 3,750,400 1,639,446 43.71% 4,145,100 1,357,282 32.74% (282,164) -20.79% Charges for Public Services 70,000 (23) -0.03% 80,000 195 0.24% 218 111.79% Education Aid-State 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total Charges for Services 3,820,400 1,639,423 42.91% 4,225,100 1,357,477 32.13% (281,946) -20.77% Reimb-Shared Programs Salem 1,124,084 166,716 14.83% 1,396,800 177,437 12.70% 10,721 6.04% Miscellaneous Revenue 298,536 156,026 52.26% 303,200 106,839 35.24% (49,188) -46.04% Recovered Costs 950,000 409,944 43.15% 1,050,000 478,431 45.56% 68,487 14.31% Total Miscellaneous 2,372,620 732,686 30.88% 2,750,000 762,706 27.73% 30,020 3.94% Non-Categorical Aid 418,000 949,492 227.15% 418,000 992,273 237.39% 42,781 4.31% Shared Expenses 6,199,847 2,013,547 32.48% 6,371,084 2,237,167 35.11% 223,620 10.00% Revenues Revenues Budget Revenues % of Budget Budget Revenues % of Budget Actuals % of Variance COUNTY OF ROANOKE Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues General Fund - C100 For the Five Months Ending Saturday, November 30, 2024 Prior Year Current Year Variances Welfare & Social Services-Categorical 4,786,943 1,680,786 35.11% 5,425,000 1,829,097 33.72% 148,312 8.11% Other State Categorical Aid 2,468,805 693,855 28.10% 2,523,710 1,344,781 53.29% 650,926 48.40% Welfare & Social Services 6,550,000 2,519,682 38.47% 6,765,000 2,763,420 40.85% 243,737 8.82% Education Aid-Federal 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Other Categorical Aid 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total State and Federal Revenue 20,423,595 7,857,362 38.47% 21,502,794 9,166,738 42.63% 1,309,376 14.28% Other Financing Sources 3,900,878 0 0.00% 365,000 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total Other Financing Sources 3,900,878 0 0.00% 365,000 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Transfers 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total Transfers 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Grand Totals 246,847,274 54,074,112 21.91% 260,481,503 53,597,080 20.58% (477,032) -0.89% Expenditures Exp & Encum Expenditures Exp & Encum % of Budget & Encumbrances % of Budget Budget & Encumbrances % of Budget Actuals Variance Legislative 498,070 154,505 31.02% 274,494 159,956 58.27% (43,065) -38.64% General & Financial Administration 9,729,315 4,016,017 41.28% 10,684,848 4,358,644 40.79% 415,321 9.53% Electoral Board & Officials 878,412 326,681 37.19% 1,038,250 385,459 37.13% 71,092 18.51% General Government Administration 11,105,797 4,497,203 40.49% 11,997,592 4,904,059 40.88% 443,348 9.14% Courts 1,827,562 670,106 36.67% 1,914,261 733,005 38.29% 62,899 8.58% Other Judicial Support 1,571,959 674,904 42.93% 1,821,753 772,416 42.40% 97,161 12.58% Judicial 3,399,521 1,345,010 39.56% 3,736,014 1,505,422 40.29% 160,060 10.63% Law Enforcement & Traffic Cont 19,246,292 8,692,892 45.17% 20,589,510 9,018,453 43.80% 394,850 4.39% Fire and Rescue 23,092,811 9,900,808 42.87% 25,556,755 11,013,098 43.09% 932,805 8.69% Correction & Detention 12,292,958 4,365,677 35.51% 12,866,341 4,872,763 37.87% 514,080 10.57% Animal Control 1,368,078 549,058 40.13% 1,307,776 537,764 41.12% (11,294) -2.10% Public Safety 56,000,139 23,508,435 41.98% 60,320,382 25,442,077 42.18% 1,830,442 7.29% General Services Administration 1,110,335 451,337 40.65% 1,431,285 615,399 43.00% 150,520 25.01% Refuse Disposal 5,835,919 2,439,964 41.81% 6,233,165 2,567,470 41.19% 139,299 5.46% Maint Buildings & Grounds 5,294,882 2,696,719 50.93% 5,882,387 2,466,451 41.93% (233,319) -9.52% Engineering 2,592,143 1,241,675 47.90% 2,859,001 1,032,103 36.10% (198,026) -19.19% Inspections 1,195,396 468,471 39.19% 1,135,510 502,542 44.26% 34,071 6.78% Garage Complex 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Public Works 16,028,675 7,298,166 45.53% 17,541,348 7,183,964 40.95% (107,454) -1.51% Mental Health 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Public Health 579,181 289,591 50.00% 767,419 355,210 46.29% 65,619 18.47% Social Services Administration 9,670,780 3,812,214 39.42% 10,890,884 4,296,458 39.45% 483,392 11.25% Comprehensive Services Act 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Public Assistance 4,918,666 1,812,175 36.84% 4,918,666 2,030,054 41.27% 217,879 10.73% Social Services Organizations 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% COUNTY OF ROANOKE Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances General Fund - C100 For the Five Months Ending Saturday, November 30, 2024 Prior Year Current Year Variances Expenditures Exp & Encum Expenditures Exp & Encum % of Budget & Encumbrances % of Budget Budget & Encumbrances % of Budget Actuals Variance COUNTY OF ROANOKE Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances General Fund - C100 For the Five Months Ending Saturday, November 30, 2024 Prior Year Current Year Variances Health and Welfare 15,168,627 5,913,979 38.99% 16,576,969 6,681,722 40.31% 766,890 11.48% Parks & Recreation 3,176,882 1,174,044 36.96% 3,059,387 1,354,756 44.28% 168,966 12.58% Library 4,877,723 1,981,491 40.62% 5,229,183 2,040,018 39.01% 60,620 3.00% Cultural Enrichment 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Parks, Recreation & Cultural 8,054,605 3,155,535 39.18% 8,288,570 3,394,773 40.96% 229,586 6.83% Planning & Zoning 1,880,767 780,099 41.48% 1,926,574 757,337 39.31% (12,761) -1.79% Cooperative Extension Program 115,391 458 0.40% 145,391 23,189 15.95% 22,731 98.03% Economic Development 590,862 458,604 77.62% 682,294 344,936 50.56% 37,647 11.56% Public Transportation 510,000 83,016 16.28% 510,000 202,851 39.77% 119,835 59.08% Contribution to Human Service Organizations 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Planning 3,097,020 1,322,177 42.69% 3,264,259 1,328,314 40.69% 167,452 13.24% Employee Benefits 3,439,985 765,394 22.25% 2,925,437 651,933 22.28% (113,461) -17.40% Dixie Caverns Landfill Cleanup 62,700 32,445 51.75% 62,700 16,345 26.07% (16,100) -98.50% Miscellaneous 10,196,943 4,596,830 45.08% 10,683,516 4,618,887 43.23% 22,057 0.48% Tax Relief/Elderly & Handicapp 1,110,000 947,319 85.34% 1,694,060 1,091,533 64.43% 144,214 13.21% Refuse Credit Vinton 225,000 0 0.00% 225,000 56,250 25.00% 56,250 100.00% Board Contingency 3,632,275 0 0.00% 50,000 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Unappropriated Balance 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Non-Departmental 18,666,903 6,341,988 33.97% 15,640,713 6,434,948 41.14% 92,960 1.44% Interfund Transfers Out 109,250,809 54,031,474 49.46% 116,861,844 57,169,571 48.92% 3,138,097 5.49% Intrafund Transfers Out 6,075,177 3,885,751 63.96% 6,253,812 1,903,327 30.43% (1,982,424) -104.16% Transfers Out 115,325,986 57,917,225 50.22% 123,115,656 59,072,898 47.98% 1,155,673 1.96% Grand Totals 246,847,273 111,299,719 45.09% 260,481,503 115,948,177 44.51% 4,738,958 4.11% ACTION NO. _______________ ITEM NO. __________________ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 17, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid – November 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Laurie L. Gearheart Director of Finance and Management Services APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Direct Deposit Checks Total Payments to Vendors -$ -$ 12,840,333.55$ Payroll 11/08/24 2,205,593.36 12,986.66 2,218,580.02 Payroll 11/22/24 2,388,767.08 20,930.31 2,409,697.39 Manual Checks - 4,007.01 4,007.01 Grand Total 17,472,617.97$ A detailed listing of the payments to vendors is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. ACTION NO.___________________ ITEM NUMBER_______________ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER. : December 17, 2024 : Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy, as of 31-Oct-24 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: CASH INVESTMENT: TRUIST CONCENTRATION 5,555,598.07 JP MORGAN 7,130,031.07 HOMETRUST 3,106,710.18 15,792,339.32 GOVERNMENT: TRUIST ROA CONTRA (6,330.00) TRUIST ROA 4,000,000.00 ROCKEFELLER CONTRA (2,500.00) ROCKEFELLER 14,000,000.00 17,991,170.00 LOCAL GOV'T INVESTMENT POOL: GENERAL OPERATION 3,652,304.84 ROCO EMA PORTFOLIO 1,085,628.60 ROCO EMA PORTFOLIO CONTRA 19,101.70 4,757,035.14 MONEY MARKET: ATLANTIC UNION BANK 4,830,029.40 HOMETRUST BANK 4,319,162.92 TRUIST ROA 1,751,255.77 ROCKEFELLER 16,223,295.21 PUBLIC FUNDS:27,123,743.30 BANK OF BOTETOURT 7,592,597.37 7,592,597.37 TOTAL 73,256,885.13 12/17/2024 Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. N.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 17, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session to review progress on the Safe Streets and Roads For All Comprehensive Safety Action Plan SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: A work session will be held to review progress on the Safe Streets and Roads For All Comprehensive Safety Action Plan. BACKGROUND: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law established the SS4A Discretionary Grant Program to fund initiatives to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries. The U.S. Department of Transportation has appropriated $5 billion for the SS4A program with funds split between Planning and Implementation grants. The SS4A program provides eighty percent (80%) Federal funding for a twenty percent (20%) local match. Applicants must first have an eligible Safety Action Plan in place in order to apply for Implementation Grants in subsequent grant rounds. Staff requested and were awarded an Action Plan Grant for development of a Comprehensive Safety Action Plan in partnership with the Town of Vinton and Botetourt County. Events and milestones to date include: · September 13, 2022: Board of Supervisors approved a resolution of support and funding commitment for the grant · September 15, 2022: Application submitted · January 31, 2023: Award notification · April 27, 2023: Grant agreement executed with the U.S. Department of Transportation Page 2 of 2 · July 11, 2023: Board of Supervisors accepted and appropriated funding · November 17, 2023: Notice to Proceed issued to Timmons Group · April/May 2024: First round of Roanoke County community meetings · August 2024: Updates to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors · September 2024: Second round of Roanoke County community meetings to review and comment on draft safety improvement recommendations · December 2024: Presentations to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors on the draft Plan DISCUSSION: Future events and milestones are anticipated to include: · January 2025: Draft Plan to be released for public comment and Planning Commission work session · February 2025: Public hearings to be held with the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to consider adopting the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan as part of the Roanoke County 200 Plan After the Draft Action Plan is adopted, the top prioritized project will be designed and estimated for submission as an Implementation Project in mid-2025. A resolution of support and match commitment would be requested from the Board of Supervisors prior to submission of an Implementation Grant application. FISCAL IMPACT: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None Board of Supervisors Update December 17, 2024 Agenda •Project Schedule •Safe Streets & Roads for All (SS4A) •Crash Summary •Community Engagement •Input Needed •Questions / Discussion Project Schedule Safe System Approach Crash Summary Crash Summary High Injury Network Roanoke County Top 10 Corridors Roanoke County Top 10 Intersections Community Engagement Community Meetings Survey Results –Intersections •How much would you spend on each location? Survey Results –Intersections Survey Results –Intersections Survey Results –Intersections Survey Results –Corridors •How much would you spend on each location? Survey Results –Corridors Survey Results –Corridors Survey Results –Corridors Equity Analysis Additional Input Needed Commitment to Safety •A commitment to safety is needed through an official public commitment (e.g., resolution,policy,ordinance,etc.)by the governing body related roadway fatalities and serious injuries. •The commitment must include a goal and timeline for eliminating roadway fatalities and serious injuries achieved through one,or both,of the following: 1.The target date for achieving zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries;OR 2.An ambitious percentage reduction of roadway fatalities and serious injuries by a specific date with an eventual goal of eliminating roadway fatalities and serious injuries. Commitment to Safety •The Virginia Strategic Highway Safety Plan (VSHSP)has an interim goal of reducing fatalities and serious injuries by 50%by 2045. The Planning Commission recommends considering adopting a similar goal. Selection of a Project for Future Application •FHWA Funding Cycle for 2025 will open approximately March 2025 •Requires 20%funding commitment to receive matching 80%from FHWA Planning staff requested $500 ,000 CIP funding for FY 2026 and $500 ,000 for FY 2027 to start accruing a match for a 2025 application.Match funding is needed by the time awarded funding is expended and reimbursement is requested. •Need to select a project to develop for submission to FHWA considering: •Anticipated safety benefit •Equity status •Estimate and amount of required County match •Community support •If unsuccessful,eligibility for other funding programs (SMART SCALE,Surface Transportation Block Grant/Carbon Reduction Program,Highway Safety Improvement Program,Transportation Alternatives Program,etc.) Selection of a Project for Future Application Project Types •Areas that need further study (5) •Small-scale safety improvements,maintenance and signal coordination that can be accomplished by VDOT or City of Roanoke staff in the short term without an application (6) •Education or Training Campaigns •Larger projects (5) Selection of a Project for Future Application Larger Projects (none are located in Equity areas) 1.Washington Ave.at East Vinton Shopping Plaza Left Turn Offset and Access Management •6 Serious Injuries •Anticipated lowest cost •Community Ranking:Left Turn Offset –1/3 (highest),Access Management –2/3 •VTrans District Priority Score (Draft 2023 Prioritized Mid-term needs):2.22 which is highest of the five projects •Needs:Construction District Safety Improvement (Very High),Transportation Demand Management (High),Bicycle Access (High),Transit Access (Very High) 2.Route 419 at Exit 141 Intersection/Lane Reconfiguration •5 Serious Injuries •Anticipated second lowest cost •Community Ranking:Intersection Reconfiguration –1/3 (highest),Lane Reduction –2/3 •VTrans District Priority Score (Draft 2023 Prioritized Mid-term needs):1.29 which is third out of five projects •Needs:Capacity Preservation (Low),Transportation Demand Management (Medium),Bicycle Access (Very High), Transit Access (Very High),Economic Development (Low) Selection of a Project for Future Application Larger Projects,Continued (none are located in Equity areas) 3.Hardy Road at Feather Road Roundabout •1 Fatality,5 Serious Injuries •Anticipated moderate cost compared to other projects •Community Ranking:Roundabout –1/3 (highest) •VTrans District Priority Score (Draft 2023 Prioritized Mid-term needs):0.71 which is lowest of the five projects •Needs:Transportation Demand Management (Low),Bicycle Access (Low),Transit Access (Medium),Construction District Safety Improvement (Low) 4.Garst Mill Road Pedestrian Improvements •1 Fatality,7 Serious Injuries •Anticipated second highest cost •Community Ranking:1/1 •VTrans District Priority Score (Draft 2023 Prioritized Mid-term needs):0.92,which is fourth of the five projects •Needs:Transportation Demand Management (Low),Pedestrian Access (Low),Bicycle Access (Medium),Transit Access (High) Selection of a Project for Future Application Larger Projects,Continued (none are located in Equity areas) 5.Shadwell/Sanderson/Hollins Road Peanut Roundabout OR Left Turn onto Sanderson •4 Serious Injuries •Anticipated highest cost •Community Ranking:Left Turn onto Sanderson –4/5,Peanut Roundabout –5/5 (last) •VTrans District Priority Score (Draft 2023 Prioritized Mid-term needs):1.37,which is second of the five projects •Needs:Transportation Demand Management (Low),Bicycle Access (Medium),Transit Access (High),Construction District Safety Improvement (High) Questions and Discussion Roanoke County | Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Prepared by Timmons Group Fall 2024 Safe Streets andRoads for All 2 3 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Table of Contents Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................3 I. Introduction .........................................................................................................................4 1. Commitment to Safety .......................................................................................................6 2. Planning Structure (Stakeholders) ...................................................................................7 3. Safety Review ....................................................................................................................8 4. Network Analysis ..............................................................................................................16 High Injury Network ..................................................................................................................18 Priority Locations ......................................................................................................................20 Spring Community Engagement ..............................................................................................24 5. Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles ..........................................................34 Corridor Profiles........................................................................................................................37 Intersection Profiles .................................................................................................................55 Fall Community Engagement ...................................................................................................68 6. Equity Considerations .....................................................................................................80 7. Policy and Process Changes ............................................................................................88 8.Strategy and Project Selections ......................................................................................92 Potential Improvements Summary Matrix .............................................................................94 Supplemental Planning & Demonstration Activities .............................................................100 Funding Options .....................................................................................................................102 9.Progress and Transparency ...........................................................................................108 Appendix A - Project Exhibits ............................................................................................110 A special thank you to all our partners who contributed to this Comprehensive Safety Action Plan: Roanoke County Philip Thompson, Director of Planning Megan Cronise, Assistant Director of Planning Isaac Henry, Principal Planner Nathan Grim, Transportation Planner The Town of Vinton Botetourt County Timmons Group Thomas Ruff Zachary Holder Rachel Moon Acknowledgments 4 5Introduction Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Between 2015 and 2023, 67 people were killed in traffic crashes in Roanoke County. In the same nine-year time-frame, 552 people were seriously injured in a crash on our transportation network. That represents an average of seven deaths and 61 serious injuries each year. These severe crashes are preventable tragedies that can be reduced or eliminated through innovative design, strategic policies, and committed local leadership. This Comprehensive Safety Action Plan is part of Roanoke County’s commitment to enhancing roadway safety under the Federal Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program. The plan outlines targeted strategies to improve road safety, reduce crashes, and promote a culture of responsible driving. By implementing engineering solutions, enhancing enforcement measures, and fostering community education, Roanoke County can create a safer, more reliable roadway system for all. Summer 2024: Draft Recommendations for Priority Locations Winter 2025: Adoption of Action Plan Fall 2024: Community Engagement & Draft Action Plan Spring 2024: Safety Analysis & Community Engagement Spring/Summer 2025: Apply for SS4A Implementation Grants and/or other funding Plan Development Timeline 2024 2025 Program Overview Safe Streets and Roads for All Program (SS4A) In 2022, the US Department of Transportation awarded $280,000 to Roanoke County, Botetourt County, and the Town of Vinton. With a $70,000 match from the localities, these funds were used to develop a comprehensive safety action plan as part of the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program. The SS4A program funds regional, local, and Tribal initiatives throughout the country through grants to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries. The program focuses on the development of a comprehensive safety action plan and its implementation for all users of a municipality’s highways, streets, and roadways, including motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and more. According to USDOT, an Action Plan is required to have the following aspects: 1. Leadership and goal setting: A high-ranking official and/or governing body in the jurisdiction publicly committed to an eventual goal of zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries 2. Planning structure: committee, task force or implementation group 3. Safety analysis 4. Engagement and collaboration 5. Equity Considerations 6. Policy and process changes 7. Strategy and project selections 8. Progress and transparency IntroductionI 6 7Commitment to Safety Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan A commitment to safety is needed through an official public commitment (e.g., resolution, policy, ordinance, etc.) by a high- ranking official and/or governing body (e.g., Mayor, City Council, Tribal Council, MPO Policy Board, etc.) to an eventual goal of zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries. The commitment must include a goal and timeline for eliminating roadway fatalities and serious injuries achieved through one, or both, of the following: (1) the target date for achieving zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries, OR (2) an ambitious percentage reduction of roadway fatalities and serious injuries by a specific date with an eventual goal of eliminating roadway fatalities and serious injuries. Our goal is to reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries by x% by 20xx. Picture of a leader and their signature To develop the Action Plan, a committee, task force, implementation group, or similar body must be established and charged with the plan’s development, implementation, and monitoring Note: This should include a description of the membership of the group and what role they play in the development, implementation, and monitoring of the Action Plan. Commitment to Safety1 Planning Structure (Stakeholders)2 8 9Safety Review Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan The Safe System Approach The Safe System approach, developed and adopted by the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), is a framework that guides safety efforts. It works by building and reinforcing multiple layers of protection to both prevent crashes from happening in the first place and minimize the harm caused to those involved when crashes do occur. It is a holistic and comprehensive approach that provides a guiding framework to make places safer for people. This is a shift from a conventional safety approach because it focuses on both human mistakes AND human vulnerability and designs a system with many redundancies in place to protect everyone. The Safe System Approach is arranged around five complementary objectives: safe people, safe roads, safe vehicles, safe speeds, and post-crash care. Together, these objectives help steer safety programs to a future with zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries in Roanoke County, Botetourt County, and the Town of Vinton. Safe System Approach. Source: FHWA Historical Crash Analysis The safety analysis is informed by a historical crash analysis within Roanoke County. Historical crash data from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2023 was reviewed to evaluate patterns and trends within the crash data such as crash types, crash locations, and contributing circumstances. Crashes on interstates I-81 and I-581 were excluded from the analysis in order to focus improvements on roads where Roanoke County is most able to affect change; interstates fall wholly under Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) purview. Crashes within the City of Roanoke, the City of Salem, and the Town of Vinton were also removed from the dataset. The scope of this Safety Action Plan is non-interstate crashes located within Roanoke County. This analysis focused primarily on the 541 non-interstate severe crashes in the nine-year time period that resulted in fatal and serious injuries. Within Roanoke County, there were 47 fatal crashes and 494 serious injury (FSI) crashes reported during the study period. Figure 1 illustrates the non-interstate severe (fatal and serious) crashes reported by year within the county. Though some variation occurred year-to-year, the number of fatal and serious crashes in the county remained relatively steady. 47 46 50 61 46 47 85 51 61 7 3 5 2 7 6 2 8 7 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s Serious Injuries Fatalities Figure 1. Severe Crashes by Year, Roanoke County (2015-2023) Roanoke County 47 severe crashes resulting in fatality 494 severe crashes resulting in serious injury 60.1 average annual severe crashes 80% of commutes were by a single occupant vehicle Safety Review3 10 11Safety Review Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Crash Types The most common crash type among the fatal and serious injury (FSI) crashes reported in the nine-year analysis period was fixed object off-road crashes, which accounted for approximately 36 percent (36%) of all fatal and serious injury crashes in Roanoke County. Angle crashes (28%), rear-end crashes (12%), and head- on crashes (7%) were the next most common crash types reported. Figure 2 summarizes the fatal and serious injury (FSI) crashes reported during the nine-year analysis period by crash type. The vast majority of severe fixed object off-road crashes occurred during clear weather conditions (87%), and most commonly occurred during the day. 5% 6% 13% 37% 27% Rear End Head On Angle Pedestrian MOST COMMON CRASH TYPES Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes Only Roanoke County (2015-2023) Fixed Object Off-Road Figure 2. Severe Crashes by Crash Type, Roanoke County (2015-2023) Figure 3. Severe Crashes by Weather Conditions Figure 4. Severe Fixed Object Off-Road Crashes by Lighting Conditions 31% of severe crashes happened at night Environmental Conditions The environmental factors contributing to crashes can highlight potential areas for improvement in the roadway network to better serve the traveling public. Factors such as lighting and weather were analyzed for the 541 crashes reported in Roanoke County. Figure 5 illustrates the impact of changing lighting conditions on roadway safety. Fatal and serious injury (FSI) crashes disproportionately occur at night, and are more likely occur to occur when the road is not lit than when it is lighted. Overall the environmental factors contributing to crashes were consistent with statewide trends. 31% of Roanoke County’s severe crashes occurred at night compared to 38% in all of Virginia, 9% of Roanoke County’s severe crash occurred during rain compared to 10% in all of Virginia, and 14% occurred during wet roadway surface conditions compared to 14% statewide. 3% 3% 71% 62% 59% 3% 4% 11% 8% 10% 4% 15% 21% 26% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Non-Severe Crashes Serious Injuries Fatalities Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s Dawn Daylight Dusk Dark - Road Lighted Dark- Road Not Lighted 9% of severe crashes occurred during rain 14% of severe crashes happened during wet surface conditions Figure 5. Crash Types by Lighting Conditions, Roanoke County (2015-2023) 3% 3% 71% 62% 59% 3% 4% 11% 8% 10% 4% 15% 21% 26% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Non-Severe Crashes Serious Injuries Fatalities Nu m b e r o f C r a s h e s 12 13Safety Review Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Driver Behavior Speed Higher driving speeds lead to higher collision speeds. Higher driving speeds also make crashes more difficult to avoid because high speeds provide less time to process information and to act on it, and require longer break distance. 56% of fatal and serious injury crashes occurred on roads with speed limits of 45 mph or higher. High speeds are especially dangerous for road users outside of a vehicle. According to the FHWA, pedestrians have a 90% chance of surviving a crash involving a vehicle traveling 20 mph or below, and less than a 50% chance of surviving a crash with a vehicle traveling 30 mph or above Exceeding the posted speed limit further heightens the risk of a severe crash. In Roanoke County, 29% of fatal and serious injury crashes involved speeding, similar to the 32% of crashes statewide. 29% of cars in severe crashes were speeding Drugs or Alcohol According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), every day, about 37 people in the United States die in drunk-driving crashes. In 2022, 13,524 people died in alcohol-impaired driving traffic collisions. Drivers with a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) .08 (the legal limit) are approximately 4 times more likely to crash than drivers with a BAC of zero. At a BAC of .15, drivers are at least 12 times more likely to crash than drivers with a BAC of zero. In Roanoke County, 24% of fatal and serious injury crash involved drugs or alcohol, compared to only 17% statewide. 24%24% of severe crashes of severe crashes involved drugs or alcohol Distraction Distracted driving is defined as any activity that diverts attention from driving. According to the NHTSA, in 2022, 3,308 people died in traffic collisions that involved distracted drivers. Such distractions may include talking or texting on the phone, eating or drinking, or adjusting the audio navigation system. Sending or reading a text takes a driver’s eyes off the road for 5 seconds. At 55 mph, that is equivalent to driving the length of an entire football field. In Roanoke County, 17% of fatal and serious injury crash involved distracted driving, compared to 19% statewide. Note that distracted driving is often underreported and the actual number may be higher. 17%17% of severe crashes involved of severe crashes involved distracted driving Drivers aged 65 and older were involved in 21% of all severe crashes in Roanoke County. Residents that are 65 years or older consist of 22% of the County population (2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Seniors were 50% more likely to be involved in a severe crash on Principal Arterials as non-senior drivers. Principal arterials are major highways intended to serve large amounts of traffic traveling relatively long distances at higher speeds. The most common collision type for senior drivers was angle crashes (42%). Crash Age Profiles Crashes involving seniors (age 65+) and young drivers (ages 15-20) were analyzed due to the unique challenges and risk factors associated with each group. Drivers aged 15 to 20 were involved in 20% of all severe crashes. Residents that are 15 to 20 years of age consist of 6% of the County population (2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Young drivers were 50% more likely to be in a severe crash when speeding was a factor. The most common collision type for young drivers was with a fixed object off the road (35%) Senior drivers in severe crashes on all roadways Senior drivers in severe crashes on Principal Arterials Young drivers in severe crashes Young drivers in severe crashes when speeding was a factor Severe Crashes for Senior Drivers by Crash Type Severe Crashes for Young Drivers by Crash Type Seatbelts One of the safest and simplest choices drivers and passengers can make is to buckle up. Research on passenger cars has shown that seatbelts reduce the risk of fatal injury to front-seat occupants by 45 percent and the risk of injury by 50 percent. However, according to the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration 2022 report on seat belt use, Virginia has lowest lowest use rate of any state in the U.S. at 75.6%. In Roanoke County, severe crashes are twice as likely to be fatal if the occupants are not buckled up. 18% of serious injury crashes involved unbelted occupants, but in 40% of fatal crashes the occupants were not wearing seatbelts 40%40% of fatal crashes involved of fatal crashes involved not wearing a seatbelt Senior Young Speeding Senior Non-Senior Not Young Not Speeding Non-Senior 14 15Safety Review Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes Among the 541 fatal and serious injury (FSI) crashes, there were 25 pedestrian crashes and three bicycle crashes recorded within Roanoke County during the nine-year analysis period. Among these incidents, five of the pedestrian crashes resulted in a fatality; all three of the bicycle crashes resulted in serious injury. A majority of the pedestrian crashes (56%), occurred during the night time under dark conditions. Eight of the bicycle and pedestrian crashes (32%) involved drugs or alcohol. Almost half of the pedestrian crashes (44%) occurred on 45 mph roads. Most of the bicycle and pedestrian crashes occurred where bicycle or pedestrian facilities are not present. Figure 7 shows these crashes throughout the region. Hotspot locations include Brambleton Avenue in the vicinity of Cave Spring Middle and Elementary School, Peters Creek Road in the vicinity of Burlington Elementary School, and Williamson Road. 25 pedestrians killed or injured in crashes 3 bicyclists injured in crashes Figure 7. Roanoke County Bicycle & Pedestrian Crashes Heat Map Crash Severity by Mode Although motorcyclists, bicyclists and pedestrians represent a small minority of overall road users, they are overrepresented in fatal and serious crashes. The figure below illustrates the relative risk of a crash resulting in serious or fatal injury for different roadway users. Less than 6% of car crashes cause severe harm, but 43% of motorcycle crashes and 46% of bicycle or pedestrian crashes result in a serious or fatal injury. Motorcyclists are 12 times more likely to be killed in a crash compared to motorists, and pedestrians and bicyclists are 18 times more likely to be killed in a crash compared to motorists. 94% 5% <1% (Fatal) Motorist 53% 38% 8% Bicyclist or Pedestrian 58% 37% 6% Motorcyclist Figure 6. Crash Severity by Mode of Travel Crash Severity of Motorists Crash Severity of Motorcyclists Crash Severity of Bicyclists & Pedestrians 16 17Network Analysis Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan In addition to understanding historical trends, it is important to locate the places where people are most likely to be injured in a crash. This effort utilized the ESRI Traffic Crash Analysis Solution to better understand and map out the areas with the highest incidence of serious injury and fatal crashes – along with crashes of other severity types. The Traffic Crash Analysis solution provides a range of capabilities designed to analyze crash data using methodologies outlined by the United States Road Assessment Program (usRAP) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). usRAP uses a risk-mapping protocol to create maps that show variations in the level of crash risk across a road network. These maps can guide the prioritization of highway infrastructure improvements and targeted enforcement strategies. The tool creates roadway segments, assigns crashes to the segments, and creates risk maps. Crash Density Crash Rate Ratio Crash Rate Potential Crash Savings For Roanoke County, the usRAP Analysis was used to generate the following maps: 1. Crash Density: Crashes per mile of road. Emphasizes road segments that are associated with the highest rate of severe crashes. These segments represent areas where there may be the greatest opportunity to reduce crashes. 2. Crash Rate: Crashes per 100 million vehicle miles of travel. Illustrates the risk to an individual motorist while traveling through a given road segment. 3. Crash Rate Ratio: Risk expressed as the ratio of the crash rate for a particular analysis segment to the average crash rate for all segments of the same roadway type. Emphasizes segments that have above average crash rates for their roadway type. 4. Potential Crash Savings: Estimate of the number of crashes per mile that would be reduced if the crash rate for the road segment could be reduced to the average crash rate for similar road segments. Each map includes five color coded risk levels. The risk categories include Highest Risk (top 5 percent of system), Medium-High Risk (10 percent of system), Medium Risk (20 percent of system), Medium-Low Risk (25 percent of system), and Lowest Risk (bottom 40 percent of system). Click on each map to launch a detailed map viewer in a new browser. Note that only corridors with 3 crashes or more in the 9-year study period were placed in the two highest risk categories. Figure 8. Roanoke County Severe Crashes Risk Maps Network Analysis4 18 19Network Analysis Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan High-Injury Network The crash risk data from the four maps generated by the usRAP analysis was combined to assign each roadway a single risk score. The result is a High-Injury Network ranking every roadway in Roanoke County. The High-Injury Network (HIN) is a collection of streets and roadways where a disproportionate number of severe car crashes, resulting in fatalities or serious injuries, occur. While increasing safety is important on every street, identifying a HIN assists local leaders in focusing their efforts on improvements on areas that will have the greatest impact and save the most lives. The HIN in Figure 9 shows areas where the risk score is the highest and most in need of transportation investment are in red, lower scoring areas are shown in orange, and places with lowest risk score are shown in yellow. The corridors scoring in the highest 10% of Roanoke County’s entire roadway network are highlighted and shown in a bold red. The corridors account for almost 60% of all fatal and serious crashes in Roanoke County. A few notable findings about these corridors are summarized below: • 40% are in rural areas • 50% are along 40-45 mph roadways • The two most common crash types are: • Fixed Object Off Road: 31% • Angle Crash: 30% Figure 9. Roanoke County High Injury Network )( ✗⌅ȏẛ⌅ṋȏṋ🄯îṋʨɇṝŝʨắʨɇ⌅ṝȏắɗẓ ắΏŝ Aççȏǔṋʨ⌅ẛȏṝ⌅{ [ ✗⌅ȏẛ⌅ ắḻḻ⌅ẛắʨắḻ⌅ắṋɗ⌅ŝɇṝîȏǔŝ⌅ çṝắŝħɇŝ 10% of County roads experience FSI crashes (shown in bold red in Figure 9) 59% of FSI crashes have occurred on only 10% of County roads (non-interstate roadways) 41% of FSI crashes on other County roads (non-interstate roadways) Roanoke County Roadways Fatal & Serious Injury Crashes All Other County Roads 20 21Network Analysis Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Table 1. Roanoke County Priority Corridors Figure 10. Roanoke County Priority Corridors Priority Corridors Map LabelsA Map Label Corridor Location Serious Injury Crashes Fatal Crashes 1 Challenger Avenue (From Roanoke City Line to Botetourt County Line) 29 4 2 Electric Road East (From Brambleton Avenue to Roanoke City Line) 27 1 3 Electric Road West (From Brambleton Avenue to Glen Heather Drive) 17 1 4 Plantation Road (From Williamson Road to Hershberger Road) 15 2 5 West Main Street (From West River Road to Pleasant Run Drive (East)) 14 2 6 Starkey Road (From Benois Road to Merriman Road) 7 0 7 Garst Mill Road (From Brambleton Avenue to Roanoke City Line) 7 1 8 Bent Mountain Road (From Tinsley Lane to Back Creek Orchard Road) 10 2 9 Jae Valley Road (From Blue Ridge Parkway to Franklin County Line) 11 1 10 Bradshaw Road (From Catawba Valley Drive to Montgomery County Line) 11 1 Priority Corridors The overall high injury network was further refined to include only the top 10 corridors. These 10 corridors represent less than 30 miles of roadway, approximately 7% of Roanoke’s non-interstate roadways, but account for 30% of all severe crashes in Roanoke County. Refining the High Injury Network to the top 10 priority corridors ensures that Roanoke County can focus its limited resources on the areas with the greatest potential for reducing severe crashes. This approach not only enhances road safety but also improves the quality of life for all road users. By using data-driven strategies, community input, and proven safety measures, Roanoke County can make measurable progress toward the goal of zero fatalities. These ten corridors established a preliminary list that was reviewed by elected officials, locality staff, and the public to ensure the selection aligned with broader safety and mobility goals. Figure 9 shows the locations of the 10 highest crash corridors. Table 1 lists each corridor’s road name(s) and number of crashes. 30% of severe crashes in Roanoke County between 2015-2023 occurred on the Top 10 Priority Corridors 22 23Network Analysis Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Figure 11. Roanoke County Priority Intersections Map LabelsA Map Label Intersection Serious Injury Crashes Fatal Crashes 1 Challenger Avenue and Valley Gateway Boulevard 3 1 2 Williamson Road and Plantation Road 3 0 3 N Electric Road and I-81 Southbound Ramps at Exit 141 5 0 4 Washington Avenue and Food Lion Access (East Vinton Plaza Shopping Center) 6 0 5 Hardy Road and Feather Road 5 1* 6 West Main Street and Dow Hollow Road 9 1 7 Peters Creek Road and Barrens Road 3 0 8 Plantation Road and McDonald’s/Days Inn Access 4 0 9 Shadwell Drive and Sanderson Drive 4 0 10 Shadwell Drive and Hollins Road 4 0 Table 2. Roanoke County Priority Intersections Hot-Spot Priority Intersections In addition to the systemic corridor analysis preformed for all Roanoke County roadways, individual intersections were analyzed to find hot spots. All intersections with fatal and serious crashes within 250 feet of the intersection were compiled and ranked by the number of crashes. The 10 intersections with the most severe crashes were selected for further review. Figure 8 shows the location of the 10 highest crash intersections. Table 2 lists each intersection’s road names and number of crashes. 16% of severe intersection crashes in Roanoke County between 2015-2023 occurred at the Top 10 Priority Intersections * Fatality occurred in 2024 24 25Network Analysis Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Community Engagement Community engagement and feedback played a critical role in ensuring the development of this Action Plan was done using an inclusive and representative process. Community engagement for the initiative included holding community meetings, gathering survey responses, and distributing project information through local news campaigns, social media marketing, and online resources (such as StoryMaps and interactive dashboards). The project team also routinely collaborated with an identified stakeholder group, that consisted of representatives from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), local police, fire, and emergency response, the Town of Vinton, Roanoke County Public Schools, and other Roanoke County departments. The first round of community meetings took place in April/May 2024. The April/May community meetings were an opportunity to introduce the project and its goals to County residents, as well as gather feedback on the identified fatal and serious injury crash locations. With feedback from the community, the project team moved forward in developing both location-specific and systemic recommendations. The September meetings presented these findings to the community and collected their thoughts and comments (see page XX for Fall 2024 community responses). Following each of the meetings, community members could share their on-road observations and experiences, as well as their comments on the recommendations by attending the in-person meetings or completing a paper or online survey. The meetings were held in a variety of different locations across Roanoke County to ensure more people have an opportunity to contribute to the plan and to better target those less likely to attend meetings. • Monday, April 29th from 5-7 pm: Roanoke County (South) at the Brambleton Center Gymnasium • Thursday, May 2nd from 5-7 pm: Roanoke County (North) at the Hollins Library • Thursday, September 5th: Roanoke County (North) at the Hollins Library • Monday, September 9th: Roanoke County (South) at the South County Library 235 survey responses recorded 75 total attendees at in-person meetings 1,000 total community members reached* Over Spring 2024 Meetings Fall 2024 Meetings Spring 2024 Engagement Summary Public outreach and participation have added a much-needed component to the evaluation and decision-making process for this project. Residents provide invaluable first-hand experiences with transportation safety issues. To ensure that Roanoke County staff and the project team had the benefit of the public knowledge and support, a website and survey were presented to local residents to understand where they believe targeted transportation investment is needed most. The website was available for public access and comment from April 25 to May 25, 2024. Roanoke County staff worked to initiate outreach efforts on social media and other resources to share the website and survey links. There were a total of 121 responses to the on-line survey as part of the public outreach. The survey asked respondents to rank the priority locations in order of their level of concern, and provided an opportunity to comment on the location. Figure 12. Roanoke County Spring 2024 Community Survey Results * Includes Spring and Fall survey respondents and meeting attendees, observation app respondents, AGOL Dashboard views, and AGOL StoryMap views 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Challenger Avenue & Valley Gateway Boulevard Williamson Road & Plantation Road Electric Road & I-81 Southbound Ramps at Exit 141 Washington Avenue & Food Lion Access (East Vinton Plaza Shopping Center) Hardy Road & Feather Road West Main Street & Dow Hollow Road Peters Creek Road & Barrens Road Plantation Road & McDonald's/Days Inn Access Shadwell Drive & Sanderson Drive Shadwell Drive & Hollins Road Please Rate the Top Crash Intersections:(by level of concern) AVERAGE SCORE: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Challenger AvenueRoanoke City Line to Botetourt County Line Brambleton Avenue to Roanoke City Line Brambleton Avenue to Glen Heather Drive Williamson Road to Hershberger Road West River Road to Pleasant Run Drive Benois Road to Merriman Road Brambleton Avenue to Roanoke City Line Tinsley Lane to Back Creek Orchard Road Blue Ridge Parkway to Franklin County Line Catawba Valley Drive to Montgomery County Line Electric Road East Electric Road West Plantation Road West Main Street Starkey Road Garst Mill Road Bent Mountain Road Jae Valley Road Bradshaw Road Please Rate the Top Crash Corridors:(by level of concern) AVERAGE SCORE: 26 27Network Analysis Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Spring 2024 Engagement Summary The responses from the community survey can be grouped into several categories based on the concerns and suggestions provided by the respondents. Below is a detailed summary of each category: Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Many respondents expressed concerns about the lack of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in the county. Key points include: • Need for more sidewalks and bike lanes on a variety of roads. Specific roads mentioned include Brambleton Avenue, Electric Road, Garst Mill Road, Stoneybrook Road, Feather Road, Hardy Road, Plantation Road, Washington Avenue, and Blacksburg Road • Importance of prioritizing pedestrian access to commercial and community services • Desire for improved pedestrian crossings near public facilities, such as Burlington Elementary and the Roanoke County Hollins Library on Peters Creek Road. Improvements could include installing high-visibility crosswalks or rectangular rapid flashing beacons. • Concerns about the safety of cyclists on roads with rural character such as Route 311, Twelve O’ Clock Knob Road, Carvins Cove Road, and Roselawn Road Intersection Safety and Traffic Flow Respondents identified several intersections of concern: • Colonial Avenue and Electric Road near North Cross School: Speeding concerns • Electric Road between Chaparral Drive and Colonial Avenue: Speeding concerns; Access concerns to/from Promenade Park and Electric Road • West Main Street and Dow Hollow Road: Speeding concerns; Driver behavior concerns • Challenger Avenue and W. Ruritan Road: Flashing yellow left turn light concerns • Peters Creek Road and Barrens Road: Pedestrian access concerns, specifically connections to the school and library Road Design and Maintenance Some respondents provided suggestions for road design improvements, both system-wide and for specific locations: • Washington Avenue in Vinton: Convert four-lane road to two lanes with a tree-lined median to reduce congestion • Ramp from Route 419 onto US-220 North: Reconfigure to eliminate the need for merging traffic to shift left • Implement more traffic circles and traffic calming measures to reduce speeds on residential streets • Improve street repairs as respondents feel that degraded streets contribute to accidents Driver Behavior and Enforcement Many respondents attributed safety issues to driver behavior rather than road design. Suggestions include increased enforcement and education measures. Public Transportation and Land Use A few respondents touched on broader issues related to public transportation and land use: • Limit further development along congested corridors like Route 460, as existing infrastructure cannot handle increased traffic • Improve public transportation options to reduce reliance on personal vehicles 28 29Network Analysis Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Observation Reporting App In addition to the public survey questions, participants were also provided with the opportunity to share their experiences by marking locations on a map where they had encountered specific transportation safety concerns. The observations clustered around two areas, summarized below. 1. Washington Avenue Most observations clustered along Washington Avenue from the Town of Vinton to Spring Grove Drive, near the East Vinton Plaza Shopping Center. Respondents reported instances of near-misses, speeding, and the need for pedestrian infrastructure. In addition, respondents expressed a desire for more sidewalks on the routes that connect to the corridor, such as Feather Road. 2. Green Ridge Road and Wood Haven Road Intersection The second grouping of observations clustered around the intersection of Green Ridge Road and Wood Haven Road. Respondents reported issues with speeding and poor sight distance. These concerns, coupled with the lack of pedestrian facilities, have raised concerns about pedestrian safety. Figure 15. Roanoke County Observation Reporting AppFigure 13. Washington Avenue Observations Figure 14. Green Ridge Road & Wood Have Road Observations 30 31Network Analysis Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Crash Patterns of Top Fatal and Serious Injury Corridors Following the first round of community meetings, the locations of the highest fatal and serious injury crashes were finalized to study further. Locations that currently have an existing process to pursue funding or design were removed from analysis. Project exhibits for the areas already being addressed by the County are viewable in the appendix at the end of this document. The remaining locations were examined to determine why crashes were occurring and what kinds of crashes were taking place. 1. Mixture of lit/unlit roadway 2. Fixed Object - Off Road 3. Only two night crashes occurred on unlit roadway Map Label Corridor Location Severe Crashes Prevalent Crash Characteristics 1 Challenger Avenue (From Roanoke City Line to Botetourt County Line) 33 2 Electric Road East (From Brambleton Avenue to Roanoke City Line) 28 3 Electric Road West (From Brambleton Avenue to Glen Heather Drive) 18 4 Plantation Road (From Williamson Road to Hershberger Road) 17 5 West Main Street (From West River Road to Pleasant Run Drive (East)) 16 SMART SCALE application submitted in August 2024 proposing a peanut-style roundabout for the Dow Hollow Road and Fallbrooke Drive intersections 6 Starkey Road (From Benois Road to Merriman Road) 7 7 Garst Mill Road (From Brambleton Avenue to Roanoke City Line) 8 8 Bent Mountain Road (From Tinsley Lane to Back Creek Orchard Road) 12 9 Jae Valley Road (From Blue Ridge Parkway to Franklin County Line) 12 10 Bradshaw Road (From Catawba Valley Drive to Montgomery County Line) 12 Rear End Rear End Angle Angle Angle Angle FOOR5 FOOR5 FOOR5 FOOR5 FOOR5 Rain Alcohol Alcohol Alcohol Senior Driver Senior Driver Senior Driver Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Night1 Night6 Unbelted Unbelted Unbelted Motorcycle Speeding Speeding Speeding Speeding Distracted Distracted Distracted High Speeds High Speeds High Speeds High Speeds High Speeds 32 33Network Analysis Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Crash Patterns of Top Fatal and Serious Injury Intersections Following the first round of community meetings, the locations of the highest fatal and serious injury crashes were finalized to study further. Locations that currently have an existing process to pursue funding or design were removed from analysis. The remaining locations were examined to determine why crashes were occurring and what kinds of crashes were taking place. Map Label Intersection Severe Crashes Prevalent Crash Characteristics 1 Challenger Avenue and Valley Gateway Boulevard 4 2 Williamson Road and Plantation Road 3 SMART SCALE application submitted in August 2024 that includes right-turn lanes on Williamson Road EB and Plantation Road NB 3 North Electric Road and I-81 Southbound Ramps at Exit 141 5 4 Washington Avenue and Food Lion Access (East Vinton Plaza Shopping Center) 6 5 Hardy Road and Feather Road 61 6 West Main Street and Dow Hollow Road 10 SMART SCALE application submitted in August 2024 proposing a peanut-style roundabout for the Dow Hollow Road and Fallbrooke Drive intersections 7 Peters Creek Road and Barrens Road 3 SMART SCALE application submitted in August 2024 that includes intersection improvements and pedestrian accommodations 8 Plantation Road and McDonald’s/Days Inn Access 4 9 Shadwell Drive and Sanderson Drive 4 10 Shadwell Drive and Hollins Road 4 1. Fatal crash occurred in 2024 2. Fixed Object - Off Road 3. Mixture of lit/unlit roadway High Speeds High Speeds High Speeds High Speeds High Speeds Angle Angle Angle Angle Angle Angle Distracted Senior Driver Young Driver FOOR2 Night3 34 35Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan A key outcome of the Road Safety Action Plan is a set of projects and strategies to address specific safety needs that can be implemented to reduce the frequency of fatalities and serious injuries. This section of the Plan highlights proven safety countermeasures and develops potential priority projects from the High Injury Network (HIN) that can positively impact roadway safety. The Safe System Approach encourages designing transportation systems with a multi-layered safety net. If one countermeasure fails, another will help prevent a crash or, in the event of a crash, reduce the likelihood of serious injury or death. The safety net utilizes proven countermeasures designed to protect all road users. Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Roadway Departure Appropriate Speed Limits for All Road Users Variable Speed Limits Speed Safety Cameras Bicycle Lanes Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements Leading Pedestrian Interval Medians and Pedestrian Refuge Islands Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons Road Diets (Roadway Reconfiguration)Walkways Enhanced Delineation for Horizontal Curves Longitudinal Rumble Strips and Stripes on Two-Lane Roads Median Barriers Roadside Design Improvements at Curves SafetyEdge℠Wider Edge Lines Speed Management Safety Countermeasures Toolkit Addressing safety in Roanoke County will require the deployment of proven safety countermeasures across the transportation network., starting with the HIN. To assist communities in taking action, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) designed the Proven Safety Countermeasures initiative (PCSi). The PCSi is a toolbox of 28 treatments and strategies that have been proven to reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries nationwide. Each countermeasure addresses at least one safety focus area – speed management, intersections, roadway departures, or pedestrians/bicyclists – while others are crosscutting strategies that address multiple safety focus areas. Implementing these proven safety countermeasures within Roanoke County’s top locations for fatal and serious injury crashes can work towards reducing crash incidents as well as crash severity. Roanoke County staff will collaborate with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) on selecting and implementing any of these countermeasures. The FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures are listed below along with hyperlinks to provide a more detailed description of the effectiveness of the full safety countermeasure. 36 37Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Intersections Crosscutting Backplates with Retroreflective Borders Corridor Access Management Dedicated Left- and Right-Turn Lanes Reduced Left- Turn Conflict Intersections Roundabouts Systemic Application of Multiple Low-Cost Countermeasures at Stop-Controlled Intersections Yellow Change Intervals Lighting Local Road Safety Plans Pavement Friction Management Road Safety Audit Corridor Profiles 38 39Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan West Village Shopping Center Promenade Park Shopping Center Tanglewood Shopping Center Portion of Electric Road with planned improvements West Village Shopping Center Promenade Park Shopping Center Tanglewood Shopping Center Portion of Electric Road with planned improvements ELECTRIC ROAD EAST |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR Brambleton Avenue to Roanoke City Line Context Electric Road is a major commercial corridor on the southern edge of the City of Roanoke. Electric Road provides an important connection between the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County. The corridor provides access to multiple shopping centers including Tanglewood, Promenade Park, and West Village, as well as industrial sites off of Starkey Road. Several improvements have recently been completed along this eastern portion of Electric Road, between Ogden Road and the Route 220 interchange in 2021; a third lane was added between Ogden Road and Route 220 Southbound, with sidewalks and bicycle lanes on both sides of the road. Pedestrian signals and crosswalks were also installed on Electric Road, at South Peak Boulevard/Tanglewood Center Entrance, Elm View Road/Tanglewood Center Entrance, and Ogden Road. In addition to the recently completed projects, a diverging diamond interchange improvement at Route 220 is currently in progress. There was one pedestrian crash at Atalantis Boulevard, the crash injured 2 pedestrians Prevalent Crash Characteristics ELECTRIC ROAD EAST |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR Average Daily Traffic: 27,000-39,000 vehicles/day Speed Limit: 35 mph / 45 mph Angle Crashes Read End Senior Driver Severe Injury Crashes: 27 Fatal Crashes: 1 2015-2023 Number of Lanes: 4 lanes / 6 lanes Community Survey Rank: #2 Safety Analysis Potential Strategies The severe crashes are predominately angle crashes on this roadway and indicate a pattern of conflicts arising from drivers turning to and from the commercial accesses and side streets along the corridor. Evaluate Restricted Crossing U-Turns (RCUT) or Thru-Cut improvements east of Colonial Avenue • Because of the pattern of angle crashes at unsignalized intersections, RCUTs or thru-cuts east of the Colonial Avenue intersection could improve traffic safety and efficiency by reducing the number of conflict points. • Additional study is required and should be evaluated following the construction and installation of the proposed improvements east of Starkey Road. Consider an intersection study of Electric Road and Colonial Avenue • The Electric Road and Colonial Avenue intersection has experienced a cluster of severe crashes. Due to the existing grade, the existing intersection angle, nearby school operations, and the proximity to the Manassas Drive intersection, a focused intersection study is required to provide comprehensive improvement recommendations at this location. Brambleton Avenue to Roanoke City Line 40 41Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan ELECTRIC ROAD WEST |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR Glen Heather Drive to Brambleton Avenue Context Electric Road is a major commercial corridor on the southern edge of the City of Roanoke. Electric Road provides an important connection between the City of Roanoke, the City of Salem, and Roanoke County. The corridor provides access to multiple shopping centers, including the Cave Spring Corners Shopping Center and Oak Grove Plaza, and connects to many residential communities. Several improvements are already funded along the corridor, including pedestrian improvements at Postal Drive and Brambleton Avenue, and Restricted Crossing U-Turns at Glen Heather Drive and Stoneybrook Drive. Additionally, a SMART SCALE funded sidewalk project is in progress, from Glen Heather Drive to Grandin Road Extended, which will provide pedestrian access to Oak Grove Plaza. Prevalent Crash Characteristics ELECTRIC ROAD WEST |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR Average Daily Traffic: 23,000 vehicles/day Speed Limit: 45 mph Angle Crashes Pedestrian1 Senior Driver Severe Injury Crashes: 17 Fatal Crashes: 1 2015-2023 Number of Lanes: 4 lanes Community Survey Rank: #3 Safety Analysis Potential Strategies The severe crashes are predominately angle crashes on this roadway and indicate a pattern of conflicts arising from drivers turning to and from the commercial accesses and side streets along the corridor. Conduct a corridor study or a road safety audit for Electric Road (from Bower Road to Brambleton Avenue) • A corridor study or RSA could be performed, south of the proposed RCUT improvements at Glen Heather Drive and Stoneybrook Drive. A study may be utilized to gather additional information, especially for hotspot locations that have experienced a cluster of serious crashes, for example, Cordell Drive and McVitty Road. Evaluate Restricted Crossing U-Turns or Thru-Cut improvements • This corridor currently has planned Restricted Crossing U-Turns to be installed at Glen Heather Drive and Stoneybrook Drive. Following construction, if crash severity and frequency is improved, similar implementations could be pursued at other intersections with additional study. Glen Heather Drive to Brambleton Avenue City of Roanoke ramb le ton Ave Garst MillRd Electric Rd GlenHeatherDr Sto n e y b r o o k D r Bower Rd Wentworth Rd Postal D r Planned RCUTs at Glen Heather Drive & Stoneybrook Drive Kroger & Cave Spring Corners Shopping Center SMART SCALE funded pedestrian intersection improvements SMART SCALE funded sidewalk improvements Oak Grove Plaza McVitty Rd Cordell Dr Planned RCUTs at Glen Heather Drive & Stoneybrook Drive Oak Grove Plaza Kroger & Cave Spring Corners Shopping Center SMART SCALE funded pedestrian intersection improvements SMART SCALE funded sidewalk improvements McVitty Rd Cordell Dr Severe Injury Crash Fatal Crash Legend 0 800 1,600 2,400 3,200400 Feet 1. (1) pedestrian crash at Glen Heather Drive 42 43Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan PLANTATION ROAD |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR Glen Heather Drive to Brambleton Avenue Context Plantation Road is minor north-south arterial in Roanoke County. Plantation Road provides a direct connection to Route 11 Williamson Road to the north and the City of Roanoke, as well as access to Valley Metro bus stops, to the south. This section is an almost exclusively residential area lined by homes, churches, and Mountain View Elementary. There have been 15 serious crashes and 2 fatalities since 2015. The associated crashes are a mix of angle crashes, rear end collisions, and run off-road crashes; half of the crashes occurred at night. Two of the serious crashes were bicycle or pedestrian collisions. Additionally, 6 of the 17 fatal and serious injury crashes involved drugs or alcohol, and 5 involved speeding. Prevalent Crash Characteristics PLANTATION ROAD |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR Average Daily Traffic: 8,400-9,700 vehicles/day Speed Limit: 40 mph Angle Crashes Pedestrian1 Speeding Severe Injury Crashes: 15 Fatal Crashes: 2 2015-2023 Number of Lanes: 2 lanes Community Survey Rank: #4 Safety Analysis Potential Strategies Given the varied nature of the crash patterns, a more focused corridor study is necessary for this segment of Plantation Road. Conduct a multimodal corridor study • Considering the residential surroundings, presence of Mountain View Elementary School, and an existing lack of bicycle/pedestrian facilities along Plantation Road, there could be an opportunity to promote active transportation in the corridor. Installing these facilities and associated traffic calming could eliminate bicycle and pedestrian collisions in this location and improve overall roadway safety. A future corridor study is required to specifically evaluate Plantation Road, as well as residents’ experiences, priorities, and overall vision for this segment. Consider increasing enforcement along the corridor • There is a prevalent pattern of crashes related to drugs, alcohol, or speeding. Increasing traffic enforcement along the corridor may help alleviate this issue. Williamson Road to Hershberger Road Fixed Object Off Road Alcohol/Drugs 1. (1) pedestrian crash at Orlando Avenue 44 45Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Penn Forest Elementary School Darrell Shell Park Cave Spring High School Completed roundabout at Starkey Road & Buck Mountain Road Penn Forest Elementary School Darrell Shell Park Completed roundabout at Starkey Road & Buck Mountain Road Cave Spring High School STARKEY ROAD |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR Benois Road to Merriman Road Context Starkey Road is major north-south collector in southern Roanoke County. This section of Starkey Road is predominately surrounded by a mixture of residential and industrial uses, with few commercial businesses; many residences have driveway access directly on Starkey Road. A roundabout was recently completed at the intersection of Starkey Road and Buck Mountain Road. Given that the type of severe injury crashes are varied and do not cluster in any particular locations along the Starkey Road segment, a corridor study is needed to examine the existing conditions of Starkey Road and develop specific safety opportunities. There is potential to implement multimodal transportation through this corridor with traffic calming measures, if desired by the surrounding communities. Prevalent Crash Characteristics STARKEY ROAD |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR Average Daily Traffic: 7,000-8,500 vehicles/day Speed Limit: 35 mph Angle Crashes Severe Injury Crashes: 7 2015-2023 Number of Lanes: 2 lanes Community Survey Rank: #6 Safety Analysis Potential Strategies Crashes along this corridor are typically angle crashes, rear end crashes, and involve senior drivers. Crashes do not cluster at a specific location and instead, are dispersed along the roadway. Conduct a multimodal corridor study • Given that the type of severe injury crashes are varied and do not cluster in any particular locations along the Starkey Road segment, a corridor study is needed to examine the existing conditions of Starkey Road and develop specific safety opportunities. Particularly with the recent completion of the Starkey Road and Buck Mountain Road roundabout, a corridor study would establish the existing conditions of Starkey Road, inclusive of the new roundabout, and other complementary implementations to improve the number and severity of crashes. • A corridor study would provide an opportunity to collect user experiences along Starkey Road, determine commercial and industrial businesses’ operational needs, and compile residents’ goals for transportation in this area. Benois Road to Merriman Road Senior DriverRear End 46 47Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan GARST MILL ROAD |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR Roanoke City Line to Brambleton Avenue Context Garst Mill Road is major north-south collector in Roanoke County, leading into the City of Roanoke. The corridor runs through a predominantly residential area, with single-family detached and attached homes, as well as apartments. Garst Mill Road provides access to Garst Mill Park, the Cave Spring Corners Shopping Center, and the Brambleton Avenue commercial corridor. There is present demand for a sidewalk connection from surrounding multifamily community to the Cave Spring Corners Shopping Center and Brambleton Avenue.Prevalent Crash Characteristics GARST MILL ROAD |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR Average Daily Traffic: 6,800 vehicles/day Speed Limit: 35 mph Fixed Object Off Road Severe Injury Crashes: 7 2015-2023 Number of Lanes: 2 lanes Community Survey Rank: #7 Safety Analysis Potential Strategies With the surrounding residences and existing lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities along Garst Mill Road, there is an opportunity to create multimodal connections along this corridor. Evaluate and install pedestrian improvements, specifically for a pedestrian connection to the Brambleton Avenue commercial corridor • At a future time, additional sidepaths, bike lanes, or similar facilities could be considered as well, with complementary traffic calming interventions. Providing multimodal infrastructure along Garst Mill Road could prevent bicycle and pedestrian collisions in the future and promote active transportation options for these neighborhoods. Roanoke City Line to Brambleton Avenue Fatal Crashes: 1 Night Pedestrian1 City of Roanoke Wille t t a D r Garst MillRd Fleetwood Ave CharingCross D r Gra n d i n R d Pinevale R d Br a m b l e t o n A v e Halevan Rd Kroger & Cave Spring Corners Shopping Center Garst Mill Park Kroger & Cave Spring Corners Shopping Center Garst Mill Park Severe Injury Crash Fatal Crash Legend 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet 1. (1) pedestrian crash near Brambleton Avenue 48 49Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan BENT MOUNTAIN ROAD |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR Back Creek Orchard Road to Tinsley Lane Context Bent Mountain Road is a mountainous north-south corridor in southwestern Roanoke County. The roadway has sharp curves and steep elevation changes. The corridor experienced 47 total crashes from 2015 to 2023 and over 25% resulted in a fatal or serious injury. The fatal and serious injury crashes are predominately single-vehicle run off-road crashes, and all occurred at curves in the roadway. Prevalent Crash Characteristics BENT MOUNTAIN ROAD |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR Average Daily Traffic: 7,000 vehicles/day Speed Limit: 55 mph Severe Injury Crashes: 10 2015-2023 Number of Lanes: 2 lanes / 3 lanes Community Survey Rank: #8Fatal Crashes: 2 Back Creek Orchard Road to Tinsley Lane Fixed Object Off Road Speeding Motorcycle Safety Analysis Potential Strategies The severe crashes on this roadway are predominately the result of vehicles leaving the roadway. Evaluate condition and spacing of existing chevrons; consider upgrades (such as reflective yellow strips) as necessary • According to the VDOT Preferred CMF List, upgrading chevrons with fluorescent sheeting has a Crash Modification Factor of 0.65. Chevrons are currently present along much of the roadway, however the condition should be evaluated in dim or dark conditions and may not be spaced to optimally delineate the curve. Consider shoulder or centerline rumble strips • Installing shoulder or centerline rumble strips have associated CMFs of 0.83 and 0.55, respectively and could prevent run off-road collisions. Consider tree cutting at select curves, where possible (existing steep topography adjacent to roadway) • Some of the curves are surrounded by thick foliage which may obscure the road ahead. Select tree cutting may help drivers better judge the severity of upcoming changes in roadway alignment and adjust their speed accordingly. 50 51Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Jae Valley ParkJae Valley Park JAE VALLEY ROAD |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR Blue Ridge Parkway to Franklin County Line Context Jae Valley Road is a mountainous north-south corridor with steep elevation changes and sharp curves on the south eastern edge of Roanoke County. The fatal and serious injury crashes are predominately single-vehicle run off-road crashes. While these crashes are somewhat distributed along the corridor, three of the 12 serious crashes occurred at one sharp curve, near Jae Valley Park. Prevalent Crash Characteristics JAE VALLEY ROAD |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR Average Daily Traffic: 7,900 vehicles/day Speed Limit: 55 mph Severe Injury Crashes: 11 2015-2023 Number of Lanes: 2 lanes Community Survey Rank: #9Fatal Crashes: 1 Blue Ridge Parkway to Franklin County Line Fixed Object Off Road Speeding Rain Safety Analysis Potential Strategies The severe crashes on this roadway are predominately the result of vehicles leaving the roadway. Evaluate condition and spacing of existing chevrons; consider upgrades (such as reflective yellow strips) as necessary • According to the VDOT Preferred CMF List, upgrading chevrons with fluorescent sheeting has a Crash Modification Factor of 0.65. Chevrons are currently present along some of the roadway, however it does not appear that the current signage has fluorescent sheeting. Consider installation of high friction surface treatment (HFST) at select curves • High friction surface treatments (HFST) are pavement treatments that directly address crashes associated with friction demand issues, such as wet conditions or sharp roadway curves. FHWA reports show that HFST is estimated to reduce wet crashes by 83 percent and total crashes by 57 percent. HFST involves the application of high quality aggregate to the pavement using a polymer binder to restore and/or maintain pavement friction at high crash areas. The higher pavement friction helps motorists maintain better control in both dry and wet driving conditions. This corridor should be further studied to evaluate whether HFST would be an appropriate countermeasure; where over 70% of the 11 fatal/serious injury crashes were fixed object, run off-road collisions, improving driver control and braking capacity could reduce overall crash severity. 52 53Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Masons Cove Fire & Rescue Masons Cove Elementary School Masons Cove Fire & Rescue Masons Cove Elementary School 5.5 mi. toMontgomery County BRADSHAW ROAD |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR Catawba Valley Drive to Montgomery County Line Context Bradshaw Road is a rural corridor in the northwestern portion of the county. The roadway is narrow and lacks a shoulder. The road is typically straight which may encourage speeding, and crashes tend to cluster around curves. Prevalent Crash Characteristics BRADSHAW ROAD |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR Average Daily Traffic: 2,700 vehicles/day Speed Limit: 40 mph / 55 mph Severe Injury Crashes: 11 2015-2023 Number of Lanes: 2 lanes Community Survey Rank: #10Fatal Crashes: 1 Catawba Valley Drive to Montgomery County Line Fixed Object Off Road Speeding Pedestrian1 Safety Analysis Potential Strategies Crashes are predominately the result of vehicles leaving the roadway. Evaluate condition and spacing of existing chevrons; consider upgrades (such as reflective yellow strips) as necessary • The most common severe injury crashes along this corridor are from colliding with a fixed object, off road. If existing signage is in need of improvement, upgrades could better alert drivers of changing road conditions. Consider installing centerline or shoulder rumble strips • At the community meetings, several residents noted that bicyclists frequently travel on this corridor. Because they use the shoulder to allow vehicles to pass, bicyclists recommended against shoulder rumble strips. If shoulder rumble strips are considered, additional shoulder width beyond the rumble strip could accommodate bicycle travel. Conduct a multimodal corridor study • At the community meetings, several residents noted that bicyclists frequently travel on this corridor. Due to the length of the corridor, the use of bicyclists, and the pedestrian collision, this roadway would benefit from a corridor study to better understand the existing conditions and appropriate implementations for Bradshaw Road. 1. (1) pedestrian crash at Fire Station #10 54 55Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Intersection Profiles 56 57Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Challenger Avenue Challenger Avenue Valley Gateway Boulevard Valley Gateway Boulevard W R uritan Road Challenger Avenue Challenger Avenue Valley Gateway Boulevard Valley Gateway Boulevard W R uritan Roa d Severe Injury Crash Fatal Crash Legend Evaluate moving stop bar closer to intersection Thru-cut in design phase at Challenger Avenue & W Ruritan Road intersection Evaluate extending existing concrete median closer to intersection Google 0 150 300 450 60075 Feet 30 60 90 12015 Feet Challenger Avenue & Valley Gateway BoulevardLOCATION PROFILES | INTERSECTION Context Challenger Avenue is a principal arterial in the northeastern portion of Roanoke County. Challenger Avenue provides an important connection between the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County, Botetourt County, and other locations to the east and west across the state. From Challenger Avenue, Valley Gateway Boulevard provides access to the Kroger Shopping Center, as well as industrial businesses off of Integrity Drive. Since 2015, there have been 86 crashes at the Valley Gateway Boulevard intersection, including 3 severe injury crash and 1 fatal crash; three of the four severe injury crashes involved drivers running the red light.Prevalent Crash Characteristics Challenger Avenue & Valley Gateway BoulevardLOCATION PROFILES | INTERSECTION Average Daily Traffic: 34,000 vehicles/day Speed Limit: 45 mph Angle Crashes Distracted Red-Light Running Severe Injury Crashes: 3 Fatal Crashes: 1 2015-2023 Number of Lanes: 4 lanes Community Survey Rank: #1 Safety Analysis Potential Strategies Three of the four crashes involved red-light running, including the fatal crash Review signal timings for Challenger Avenue corridor for potentially longer all-red times Conduct a speed study to evaluate lowering the speed limit from the city boundary to this intersection Evaluate moving the existing Valley Gateway Boulevard stop bar and extending the existing concrete median closer to the Challenger Avenue intersection • Moving the stop bar and median further into the intersection would reduce the distance to turn left from Valley Gateway Boulevard onto Challenger Avenue, which may reduce crashes 58 59Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan North Electric Road Loch Haven Drive Exit 141 Southbound On-Ram Exit 141 Southbound Off-Ramp North Electric Road Loch Haven Drive Evaluate signal operations at Loch Haven Drive and Exit 141 when evaluating the possible reduction of SB lane from two thru lanes to one thru lane Evaluate reducing size of median Exit 141 Southbound On-Ram Exit 141 Southbound Off-Ramp Severe Injury Crash Legend 0 100 200 300 40050 Feet North Electric Road & I-81 Ramps at Exit 141LOCATION PROFILES | INTERSECTION Context North Electric Road is a major corridor and principal arterial that serves much of Roanoke County. The signalized intersection has seen 33 crashes since 2015, including 4 serious injury crashes. The serious injury crashes are from angle crashes associated with northbound vehicles on Electric Road, making the left-turn maneuver onto I-81. Prevalent Crash Characteristics North Electric Road & I-81 Ramps at Exit 141LOCATION PROFILES | INTERSECTION Average Daily Traffic: 7,800 vehicles/day Speed Limit: 45 mph Severe Injury Crashes: 5 Fatal Crashes: 0 2015-2023 Number of Lanes: 3 lanes Community Survey Rank: #3 Safety Analysis Potential Strategies All four severe injury crashes were angle collisions Consider reconfiguration of the intersection to reduce the width of the I-81 median, shortening the turning distance of NB left-turning movements • Existing intersection configuration is excessively wide with long crossing distances and times, which is likely a contributing factor to angle crashes • Northbound vehicles making the left turn may not fully account for the median length in addition to crossing the southbound lanes Evaluate reduction of southbound approach to one through lane • Further north, beyond the Loch Haven Drive intersection, a second through lane is added to the southbound approach • Maintaining only one through lane would reduce size of the intersection and allow drivers to more quickly clear the intersection Feedback from the Fall 2024 community meeting describes high peak hour volumes in this area and that the signal timings for the Loch Haven intersection and the Exit 141 intersection should be reviewed (especially if reducing southbound approach is studied) Angle Crashes 60 61Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Google 0 400 800 1,200 1,600200 Feet 0 30 60 90 12015 Feet Severe Injury Crash Legend Town of Vinton Washington Avenue William Byrd Middle & High School East Vinton Plaza Shopping Center Town of Vinton Washington Avenue William Byrd Middle & High School East Vinton Plaza Shopping CenterSpeed limit reduces to 35 mph westbound into the Town of Vinton Washington Avenue & Food Lion Access (East Vinton Plaza Shopping Center) LOCATION PROFILES | INTERSECTION Google Google 0 400 800 1,200 1,600200 Feet 0 30 60 90 12015 Feet Severe Injury Crash Legend Town of Vinton Washington Avenue Washington AvenueEast Vinton Plaza Shopping Center Town of Vinton Washington Avenue Washington AvenueEast Vinton Plaza Shopping Center Speed limit reduces to 35 mph westbound into the Town of Vinton Consider left-turn lane offset for improved visibility (existing grass median) Context Washington Avenue is as a major east/west corridor that serves as a primary entrance and thoroughfare for the Town of Vinton. The signalized intersection with the East Vinton Plaza shopping center has seen 51 crashes since 2015. The crashes are mostly angle crashes associated with left-turning movements, predominately from eastbound vehicles turning into the shopping center. Prevalent Crash Characteristics Washington Avenue & Food Lion Access (East Vinton Plaza Shopping Center) LOCATION PROFILES | INTERSECTION Average Daily Traffic: 19,000 vehicles/day Speed Limit: 45 mph Severe Injury Crashes: 6 Fatal Crashes: 0 2015-2023 Number of Lanes: 4 lanes Community Survey Rank: #4 Safety Analysis Potential Strategies Five out of six severe injury crashes were angle collisions Consider increasing left-turn lane offset to improve visibility for eastbound vehicles turning left into the East Vinton Plaza • According to the VDOT Preferred CMF List, increasing the left-turn lane offset has a Crash Modification Factor of 0.644 across all crash types • Increasing the offset improves driver visibility of oncoming traffic and reduces the time and distance a turning vehicle spends in the intersection Consider access management improvements of commercial parcel on south leg of intersection Conduct a speed study of the Washington Avenue corridor Angle Crashes 62 63Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Hardy Road & Feather RoadLOCATION PROFILES | INTERSECTION Feather Road Blue R idge P arkway Hardy Road Bedford County 0 60 120 180 24030 Feet Fe a t h er Road Bl ue R id ge P ark w ay Hardy Road Bedfor d Count y Blue Ridge Parkway bridge may be obstructing view of upcoming intersection Add advanced warning signage Sight distance improvements Severe Injury Crash Fatal Crash Legend 0 90 18045 Feet 1 INCH = 25 FEET ¯ Context Hardy Road is as a major east/west corridor that serves as a primary entrance and thoroughfare for the Town of Vinton. The unsignalized intersection has seen 21 crashes since 2015. The associated crash profiles indicate a pattern of drivers turning onto Hardy Road from Feather Road without yielding to oncoming traffic. Prevalent Crash Characteristics Hardy Road & Feather RoadLOCATION PROFILES | INTERSECTION Average Daily Traffic: 11,000 vehicles/day Speed Limit: 45 mph Angle Crashes Rear End Crashes Young Driver Severe Injury Crashes: 5 Fatal Crashes: 1* *1 fatal crash in 2024 2015-2023* Number of Lanes: 2 lanes Community Survey Rank: #5 Safety Analysis Potential Strategies Four of the six crashes were angle collisions from drivers traveling south on Feather Road disregarding the stop sign or not appropriately yielding and colliding with a vehicle on Hardy Road. Sight distance improvements • At the NE corner, the existing trees are present on an upward slope that could inhibit sight distance of westbound traffic on Hardy Road • Addressing this issue by trimming the obstructive trees or regrading the slope is crucial to improving safety at this busy intersection. Add advanced warning signage • Advanced warning signage could be installed to alert oncoming traffic on Hardy Road about the upcoming intersection and traffic entering the roadway from Feather Road. Evaluate a roundabout improvement • A roundabout would provide a reduction in necessary sight distance, a traffic calming measure through the intersection, and the ability to alert drivers in all directions to the presence of the intersection 64 65Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Plantation Road & McDonald’s / Days Inn AccessLOCATION PROFILES | INTERSECTION Google 0 50 100 150 20025 Feet Severe Injury Crash Legend Plantation Road I-81 Exit 146 Northbound On-RampI-81 Exit 146 Northbound Off-Ramp Days Inn McDonald’s BP Exxon Pla ntati o n Road I-81 Exit 146 Northbound On-RampI-81 Exit 146 Northbound Off-Ramp Consider extending the existing two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL)Days Inn McDonald’s BP Exxon Context Plantation Road is a principal arterial and major connection between I-81 and northern Roanoke County. The unsignalized intersection has seen 33 crashes since 2015, including 4 serious injury crashes. The associated crash profiles indicate a pattern of conflicts arising from drivers turning to and from the multiple commercial entrances. Prevalent Crash Characteristics Plantation Road & McDonald’s / Days Inn AccessLOCATION PROFILES | INTERSECTION Average Daily Traffic: 12,000 vehicles/day Speed Limit: 45 mph Angle Crashes Severe Injury Crashes: 4 2015-2023 Number of Lanes: 4 lanes with a Two-Way Left-Turn Lane Community Survey Rank: #8 Safety Analysis Potential Strategies Three of the four severe injury crashes were angle collisions from drivers turning into a commercial entrance Evaluate extension of the existing two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) further north • There is an existing TWLTL on Plantation Road that begins to taper off 150’ from the intersection. Extending the TWLTL will remove left-turning vehicles from the through lanes and store those vehicles in the median area until a safe gap in opposing traffic is available to complete the turn. • According to the VDOT Preferred CMF List, the addition of a TWLTL on a four lane road has a Crash Reduction Factor of 55%. Consider opportunities for access management • There are currently 6 full-access commercial driveways in close proximity in the vicinity of the intersection. The abundance of access points introduces undue opportunities for crashes and creates excessive conflict points. • In addition, the existing driveways do not meet VDOT access management design standards which mandate a minimum distance of 1,320’ between the end of an interchange off-ramp and four- legged intersections. Limiting the number of commercial driveways will improve safety and bring the intersection closer to current VDOT standards. 66 67Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Shadwell Drive & Sanderson Drive / Hollins RoadLOCATION PROFILES | INTERSECTION Google 0 50 100 150 20025 Feet Sanderson Shadwell DrivHollins Road Drive Shad well Driv Sa n de rson Drive Hollin s Roa d Sight distance improvements Consider left-turn lane on Shadwell Drive Consider guardrail improvement Severe Injury Crash Legend Drive Drive 0 100 20050 Feet 1 INCH = 100 FEET ¯ SHA D W E L L D R SA N D E R S O N D R HO L L I N S R D Context Shadwell Drive, Sanderson Drive, and Hollins Road are major collectors that serve the north end of Roanoke County. The unsignalized intersections have seen 35 crashes since 2015, including 4 serious injury crashes. The 4 severe crashes were angle crashes and collisions with fixed-objects, off-road. Both angle crashes occurred on Shadwell Drive, with vehicles turning out of Hollins Road or Sanderson Drive; collisions with a fixed object occurred on each side of the railroad crossing. A nearby October 2024 rezoning included a proffered condition indicating the developer would work with Roanoke County to construct a left turn lane from Sanderson Drive onto Shadwell Drive to help mitigate additional traffic that the new development will generate. A plan, timeline and funding for this improvement has not yet been determined. Prevalent Crash Characteristics Shadwell Drive & Sanderson Drive / Hollins RoadLOCATION PROFILES | INTERSECTION Average Daily Traffic Shadwell Drive: 7,200 vehicles/day Sanderson Drive: 5,600 vehicles/day Hollins Road: 5,300 vehicles/day Speed Limit: 40 mph Angle Crashes Fixed Object Off Road Night Severe Injury Crashes: 4 2015-2023 Number of Lanes: 2 lanes Community Survey Rank: #9 Safety Analysis Potential Strategies Two of the four severe injury crashes were angle collisions Consider installation of a left-turn lane on Shadwell Drive onto Sanderson Drive • The installation of a left-turn lane could reduce collisions by providing a designated space for vehicles waiting to turn Sight distance improvements • Hollins Road and Sanderson Drive would both benefit from tree cutting to improve driver visibility when turning onto Shadwell Drive Two of the four severe injury crashes involved hitting a fixed object, off road Consider guardrail installation Angle & fixed object - off road crashes Evaluate a peanut roundabout installation • A peanut roundabout would provide directly address angle collisions while providing a traffic calming effect to this intersection. Conduct a speed study and evaluate a speed limit reduction • An evaluation of lowering the speed limit to 35 mph can lead to fewer and less severe crashes, as lower speeds provide drivers with more time to respond to road conditions and other vehicles. Currently the speed limit drops from 45 to 40 mph as drivers travel west through the intersections. 68 69Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Figure 16. Fall Community Engagement: Corridor Spending Map 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90% 100% Starkey Road (1.71) Bradshaw Road (2.22) Garst Mill Road (2.23) Electric Road West (2.28) Plantation Road (2.30) Jae Valley Road (2.34) Bent Mountain Road (2.45) Electric Road East (2.52) $$$$$$$$$$ Table 3. Fall Community Engagement Corridor Spending Fall 2024 Engagement Summary In September 2024, public outreach was directed towards collecting comments on the location-specific and systemic recommendations for the intersections and corridors with the highest number of fatal and serious injury crashes. An online survey was available from September 3 to September 30, 2024. There were a total of 114 responses as part of the public outreach. Respondents were asked how much they would be willing to spend to improve each of the priority locations, and were then asked to rank and comment on a set of potential improvements for each priority location. The table below shows the spending prioritization for each corridor in order of their average score. The mapped ranking is shown in Figure 16. A detailed summary of the responses to each corridor is provided on the following pages. 70 71Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Corridor Recommendations & Community Input Electric Road West Bent Mountain Road Free responses and community meeting attendees expressed support for the rumble strips; however, both in-person and online feedback indicates that shoulder rumble strips prohibits bicyclists from utilizing the shoulder and instead should be installed along the centerline of road. Free responses echoed concerns about specific intersections and access along the Electric Road corridor. Some commented about the curvature of the roadway and challenging sight distance contributing to the difficulty of these intersections. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response Elec W - investment 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response Bent Mtn - investment $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS INTERSECTION? IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS INTERSECTION? INTERSECTION AND CORRIDOR STUDIES 1 SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP Elect E - Intersection study I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 68% Evaluate Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) improvements at select intersections Consider tree cutting at select curves, where possible Evaluate Thru-Cut improvements at select intersections Evaluate condition and spacing of existing chevrons; consider signage upgrades ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGNROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN 2 21 3 3 Electr E - RCUT I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 60% Bent Mtn - tree cutting I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 69% Bent Mtn - rumble strips I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 73% Electr E - Thrucut I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 54% Bent Mtn - signage I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 71% Conduct a corridor study or a road safety audit for Electric Road (from Bower Road to Brambleton Avenue) Consider installing centerline or shoulder rumble strips Corridor Recommendations & Community Input Plantation Road Electric Road East Free responses included support for more bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure along this corridor and suggested a deeper analysis on the crash patterns along this corridor. Respondents also suggested traffic calming measures to slow down traffic. Free responses describe that as a high-volume commercial corridor, attention should be focused in this area to improve traffic flow and access to businesses while discouraging undesirable or illegal driving behavior. The intersection of Electric Road and Colonial Avenue is noted as an area of interest among respondents, that warrants a focused study. Conduct a multimodal corridor study Conduct an intersection study at Colonial Avenue Recommendations are ordered by community prioritization per September 2024 survey I agree with this recommendation I’m not sure how I feel about this recommendation I disagree with this recommendation No response ENFORCEMENT AND POLICIES INTERSECTION AND CORRIDOR STUDIES INTERSECTION AND CORRIDOR STUDIES 1 2 1 X SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response Plantation - investment 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response Elec E - investment Plantation - enforcement I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 64% Shadwell - speed study I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 61% Elect E - Intersection study I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 71% $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS INTERSECTION? IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS INTERSECTION? Consider increasing enforcement SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP Evaluate Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) improvements east of Colonial Avenue Evaluate Thru-Cut improvements east of Colonial Avenue ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN 2 3 Electr E - RCUT I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 68% Electr E - Thrucut I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 59% How would you rank the proposed improvements? How would you rank the proposed improvements? How would you rank the proposed improvements? How would you rank the proposed improvements? Recommendations are ordered by community prioritization per September 2024 survey I agree with this recommendation I’m not sure how I feel about this recommendation I disagree with this recommendation No responseX 72 73Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Corridor Recommendations & Community Input Garst Mill Road Bradshaw Road Similar to comments on the Bent Mountain Road corridor, free responses and community meeting attendees expressed support for centerline rumble strips, but not for shoulder rumble strips. Responses describe that shoulder rumble strips prohibit bicyclists from utilizing the shoulder. Free responses predominately expressed a desire for pedestrian infrastructure along this corridor, especially for access to the Cave Spring Corners Shopping Center. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response Garst - investment 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response Bradshaw - investment $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS INTERSECTION? IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS INTERSECTION? INTERSECTION AND CORRIDOR STUDIES 1 SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP SPEEDLIMIT35 Garst - ped I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 65% Evaluate potential upgrades to existing advisory speed signage Conduct a multimodal corridor study ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGNROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN INTERSECTION AND CORRIDOR STUDIES 21 3 Bradshaw - rumble strips I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 62% Bradshaw - signage I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 58% Bradshaw - study I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 47% Evaluate and install pedestrian improvements, specifically to the Brambleton Avenue commercial corridor SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP Consider installing centerline or shoulder rumble strips SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP Corridor Recommendations & Community Input Jae Valley Road Starkey Road While the free responses generally supported the recommendations, others reported speeding along these corridors; because of this observation, some respondents expressed hesitation against the installation of HFST along the corridor as this may inadvertently encourage more speeding along curves. Although the free responses agreed with pursuing a multimodal corridor study, respondents suggest allocating less funding towards this corridor, likely due to the recent completion of the Starkey Road & Buck Mountain Road roundabout. Commenters describe seeing speeding along this corridor, which could be discouraged with bicycle-pedestrian infrastructure, reducing lane widths, or increased enforcement. Conduct a multimodal corridor study ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN 1 SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response Jae - investment 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response Starkey - investment Starkey - study I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 56% $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS INTERSECTION? IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS INTERSECTION? SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP Evaluate condition and spacing of existing chevrons; consider signage upgrades Consider installation of high friction surface treatment (HFST) at select curves ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN 1 2 Jae - signage I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 62% Jae - HFST I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 56% How would you rank the proposed improvements? How would you rank the proposed improvements?How would you rank the proposed improvements? How would you rank the proposed improvements? Recommendations are ordered by community prioritization per September 2024 survey I agree with this recommendation I’m not sure how I feel about this recommendation I disagree with this recommendation No responseX Recommendations are ordered by community prioritization per September 2024 survey I agree with this recommendation I’m not sure how I feel about this recommendation I disagree with this recommendation No responseX 74 75Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Figure 17. Fall Community Engagement: Intersection Spending MapTable 4. Fall Community Engagement Intersection Spending 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90% 100% North Electric Road & I-81 Ramps at Exit 141 (2.04) Plantation Road & McDonald's/Days Inn Access (2.04) Shadwell Drive & Sanderson Drive/Hollins Road (2.18) Challenger Avenue & Valley Gateway Boulevard (2.31) Washington Avenue & East Vinton Plaza (2.38) Hardy Road & Feather Road (2.40) $$$$$$$$$$ Intersection Recommendations & Community Input The September 2024 survey asked respondents to how much they would be willing to spend to improve each of the priority intersections. The table below shows the spending prioritization for each intersection in order their average score. The mapped ranking is shown in Figure 17. A detailed summary of the responses to each intersection is provided on the following pages. 76 77Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Intersection Recommendations & Community Input North Electric Road & I-81 Ramps at Exit 141 Plantation Road & McDonald’s/Days Inn Access Evaluate intersection reconfiguration to reduce I-81 median, shortening the turning distance for northbound left turns Free responses included that the three signals along North Electric Road (including the signal at the I-81 ramps) need to be reviewed and coordinated, especially for peak hour volumes; moreover, potentially removing one of the southbound through lanes could further exacerbate driver frustration and aggressive behavior. Free responses included that the intersection could benefit from a speed study and traffic calming measures. Additionally, commenters suggested exploring ways to minimize distracted driving. Evaluate extending the existing two-way left- turn lane Evaluate reducing southbound approach to one through lane ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN LAND USE ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN 1 1 2 2 SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response Elec 81 - investment 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response Plantation - investment Elec - reconfig I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 47% Plantation - TWLTL I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 53% Elec - remove SB I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 46% Plantation - access mgmt I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 51% $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS INTERSECTION? IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS INTERSECTION? SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP Consider access management SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP Intersection Recommendations & Community Input Washington Avenue & East Vinton Plaza Hardy Road & Feather Road Free responses called for (1) adding bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure; (2) extending turn lane storage into East Vinton Plaza; and (3) increased enforcement. Notably, with the close proximity to William Byrd Middle and High School, any interventions should account for school zone safety and encouraging safe driving practices by young drivers. Free responses voiced (1) both support and opposition to roundabouts; (2) speed limit reductions; (3) increased enforcement; (4) adding bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure; and (5) improving sight distance. Conduct a speed study Improve sight distance ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN LAND USE INTERSECTION AND CORRIDOR STUDIES 1 1 2 2 3 3 SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 $ $$ $$$ $$$ No response Washington Intersection 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response Hardy - investment Washington - Left Turn Offset I agree Not sure Disagree No response 62% Hardy - roundabout I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 51% Washington - Access Mgmt I agree Not sure Disagree No response 58% Hardy - signs I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 57% Washington - Speed I agree Not sure Disagree No response 50% Hardy - sight distance I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 58% $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS INTERSECTION? IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS INTERSECTION? SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP Consider left-turn offset Consider access management Evaluate a roundabout Consider install of advance warning signage Recommendations are ordered by community prioritization per September 2024 survey I agree with this recommendation I’m not sure how I feel about this recommendation I disagree with this recommendation No responseX Recommendations are ordered by community prioritization per September 2024 survey I agree with this recommendation I’m not sure how I feel about this recommendation I disagree with this recommendation No responseX How would you rank the proposed improvements? How would you rank the proposed improvements? How would you rank the proposed improvements? How would you rank the proposed improvements? 78 79Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Intersection Recommendations & Community Input Challenger Avenue & Valley Gateway Boulevard Many responses described risky driving behavior due to driver frustration; coordinating timings between nearby signals and increasing all-red times could improve flow of through traffic and discourage running red lights. Consider lowering speed limit from City boundary to this intersection Evaluate moving existing stop bar and extend existing concrete median closer to intersection ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN 1 2 3 SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response Challenger - investment Challenger - signal I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 58% Challenger - speed I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 47% Challenger - move stop bar I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 54% $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS INTERSECTION? SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP Review signal timings; potentially longer all- red times Intersection Recommendations & Community Input Shadwell Drive & Sanderson Road/Hollins Road Free responses expressed concern about development projects in the pipeline that will create more volume at this intersection. Respondents were generally supportive of the recommendations. Conduct a speed study ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN INTERSECTION AND CORRIDOR STUDIES 1 4 5 2 3 SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response Shadwell - investment Shadwell - sight distance I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 60% Shadwell - left turn lane I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 49% Shadwell - peanut I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 36% Shadwell - guardrail I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 54% Shadwell - speed study I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response 47% $ $$ $$$ $$$$ No response IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS INTERSECTION? Improve sight distance Evaluate a left-turn lane on Shadwell Drive onto Sanderson Drive Evaluate a peanut roundabout SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP Consider installation of guardrail at SW corner of Hollins Road SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED STOP 22% Recommendations are ordered by community prioritization per September 2024 survey I agree with this recommendation I’m not sure how I feel about this recommendation I disagree with this recommendation No responseX Recommendations are ordered by community prioritization per September 2024 survey I agree with this recommendation I’m not sure how I feel about this recommendation I disagree with this recommendation No responseX How would you rank the proposed improvements?How would you rank the proposed improvements? 80 81Equity Considerations Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Equity Considerations6 The Safe Streets and Roads for All Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) defines equity as: Equity is the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, Indigenous and Native Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality. Several federal tools are available to help identify disadvantaged communities, including the USDOT’s Equitable Transportation Community (ETC) Disadvantaged Areas dataset and the Council on Environmental Quality’s Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST). Figure 18. Roanoke County ETC Disadvantaged Areas Method 1: Equitable Transportation Community Explorer The ETC dataset, managed by USDOT, uses census tracts to identify communities facing transportation insecurity and other transportation-related disadvantages. This tool provides insights into how limited access to transportation impacts marginalized communities, helping guide decisions toward more equitable solutions. According to USDOT, transportation insecurity occurs when “people are unable to get to where they need to go to meet the needs of their daily life regularly, reliably, and safely.” The dataset incorporates data from the 2020 Census to assess the effects of transportation underinvestment on communities. Indicators from five areas of disadvantage serve as the basis of the ETC. The indicators include: • Transportation Insecurity • Environmental Burden • Social Vulnerability • Health Vulnerability • Climate and Disaster Risk Burden Each census tract is given an overall index score based on these indicators. A community is considered disadvantaged if the overall index score places it in the 65th percentile of all census tracts. Figure 18 highlights disadvantaged communities in Roanoke County in blue, according to the ETC. The Plantation Road corridor and associated intersections fall in the highlighted area. According to the explorer, there are 6,600 people in Roanoke County living in a disadvantaged census tract, approximately 7% of Roanoke County’s 96,929 residents. 82 83Equity Considerations Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Method 2: Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool The CEJST is an alternative tool utilized to define disadvantaged populations. Developed by the Council on Environmental Quality, the dataset also uses 2020 Census data and census tracts to find indicators of overburdened or underserved communities. These communities are either located on Federally Recognized Tribal Lands or meet at least one of the eight burden categories, which include: • Climate Change • Energy • Health • Housing • Legacy Pollution • Transportation • Water and Wastewater • Workforce Development Figure 19 highlights areas considered underserved by CEJST. In this instance, the ETC and CEJST areas overlap. Approximately 6,600 of the 96,929 residents in Roanoke County live in disadvantaged Census tracts, approximately 7%. Figure 19. Roanoke County CEJST Underserved Communities 84 85Equity Considerations Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Method 3: Office of the Secretary of Transportation Defined Rural Areas The Safe Streets and Roads For All NOFO includes people living in rural areas as individuals who belong to underserved communities. A rural area is defined as located outside of a U.S. Census-designated urban area with a population of 200,000 or more. Figure 20 highlights the areas that do not fall into the U.S. Census urban areas, thus are defined as rural areas. Many of the High-Injury Network corridors and the priority project locations are located in rural areas. Approximately 19,000 of the 96,929 people in Roanoke County (or 20%) live in rural areas, according to the 2020 American Community Survey. Figure 20. Roanoke County Rural Areas 86 87Equity Considerations Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Equity and Needs Areas Figure 21 shows the intersection of the priority project locations and underserved communities. Three priority locations target areas identified by the Equitable Transportation Community Explorer and the Council on Environmental Quality’s Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool. Seven priority locations are in or closely border rural areas. Figure 21. Priority Locations and Underserved Communities 88 89Policy and Process Changes Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Policy and Process Changes7 In addition to their existing plans, Roanoke County may look towards implementing additional policy and process changes to gather focused data at specific locations, encourage appropriate driver behavior, and initiating changes to land use. Enforcement and Policies Goal: Discourage undesirable or illegal behavior that are not necessarily addressed through engineering countermeasures. 1.A: Increase Law Enforcement Patrol Increasing law enforcement patrol would discourage or address dangerous or illegal driver behaviors. However, local law enforcement is constrained (with staffing shortages, budget, etc.) and additional collaboration is needed to identify feasibility and limitations. 1.B: Implement Speed Cameras Based on survey responses and discussions with community meeting attendees, there is a high concern for speeding on County roadways. At the time of this report, Virginia legislation only permits speed cameras in school zones and work zones. The installation of speed cameras in these locations would provide enforcement without the physical presence of law enforcement and could encourage drivers to be more aware of their speeds elsewhere. Additional budget will need to be allocated to review and process violations. This recommendation will necessitate As part of the Safe Streets and Roads For All (SS4A) process, it is important for Roanoke County to review its current plans and policies to identify opportunities for improvements. There are several regional plans that contribute to the development of Roanoke County’s transportation system. Roanoke County 200 Plan Adopted by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors in September 2024, the Roanoke County 200 Plan represents the first significant update to the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan since 2005. The 200 Plan provides recommendations to guide natural and cultural resources, community facilities, land use and housing, and transportation in Roanoke County through the County’s bicentennial anniversary in 2038. The 200 Plan contains numerous formal recommendations for improving the safety and functioning of Roanoke County’s transportation system, including specific recommendations for each of Roanoke County’s eleven (11) Community Planning Areas. These recommendations come in the form of both broad strategies and specific projects. Roanoke Valley Transportation Plan Prepared and adopted by the RVTPO with significant input from localities, the Roanoke Valley Transportation Plan serves as the federally required Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) for the RVTPO service area. The latest version of the Roanoke Valley Transportation Plan was adopted in 2023, with a plan horizon of 2045. This plan outlines regional transportation needs and priorities and serves as the foundation for the development of the RVTPO’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Safety is discussed throughout the RVTP. Safety data trends since 2017 are shown with a focus on fatal and serious crashes as well as bicycle and pedestrian crashes. The Roanoke Valley Transportation Plan also includes a list of all transportation projects currently funded in the RVTPO service area, and a list of short-term and long- term priority projects for localities and public agencies to pursue in the future. The plan identifies over 100 projects that align with the goal of SS4A to eliminate fatalities and reduce injuries on a multimodal transportation system. An opportunity is available to supplement this list with projects found in the SS4A Comprehensive Safety Action Plan. Regional Pedestrian Vision Plan RVTPO’s 2015 Regional Pedestrian Vision Plan provides a coordinated and strategic approach for advancing walking as a means of transportation in the Roanoke Valley. This plan identifies where pedestrian infrastructure is most needed in the RVTPO service area based on the potential for residents, employees, shoppers, diners, and other visitors to access nearby destinations. The primary goal of the Pedestrian Vision Plan is listed as improving safety for pedestrians, and projects are provided that works towards this goal. The studies and projects recommended by this Action Plan can expand upon the Pedestrian Vision Plan and move Roanoke County towards a safer transportation network. Bikeway Plan for the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization The 2012 Bikeway Plan was prepared and adopted by the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVAMPO), the precursor to RVTPO. This plan provides a coordinated and strategic approach to developing a regional bicycle network in the RVTPO service area. The Bikeway Plan provides recommendations for bicycle infrastructure that would advance bicycling as a means of transportation in the Roanoke Valley by enhancing connectivity between activity centers, cultural resources, and other points of interest. Rural Bikeway Plan The 2020 Rural Bikeway Plan was prepared and adopted by RVARC, as RVTPO only serves the urbanized area of the Roanoke Valley. This plan identifies bicycle infrastructure improvements for localities to consider in the rural parts of the RVARC service area. The Rural Bikeway Plan also identifies why people bicycle in these rural areas, where exactly they are bicycling, and the quality of existing bicycle facilities. changes to County Code and will require discussion with Roanoke County Police before adopting. 1.C: Implement Red Light Cameras As described with reviewing signal timings, Roanoke County residents are very concerned with red-light running behavior at intersections. Red light cameras are permitted in Virginia localities, however, the quantity of cameras is restricted by population. Additional budget will need to be allocated to review and process violations. This recommendation will necessitate changes to County Code and will require discussion with Roanoke County Police before adopting. Intersection and Corridor Studies Goal: Dedicate time and budget for a focused and nuanced study of a specific intersection or corridor. 2.A: Conduct an Intersection or Corridor Study Where an intersection or corridor experienced a high number of fatal and serious injury crashes without a clear crash pattern, further study is needed for developing recommendations. A specific intersection or corridor study would gather additional information about roadway conditions and learn about resident experiences, priorities, and future goals for that particular location. 2.B: Conduct a Speed Study Speeding is a top concern for Roanoke County residents, and high vehicle speeds lead to more severe crashes. A speed study in select locations could identify areas where drivers tend to excessively exceed the posted speed limit and could serve as an element of project prioritization for design solutions. Changes to the roadway design and the implementation of traffic calming measures can also be used to facilitate lower speeds where speed limit reductions are needed. 90 91Policy and Process Changes Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Land Use Goal: Coordinate with property owners to create safer conditions around high-priority intersections 3.A: Improve Access Management Where several entrances are present near an intersection, there is an opportunity to consolidate these access driveways to reduce the number of conflict points. Ease of access would improve traffic flow nearby intersections. Better access management would benefit not only drivers, but adjacent property owners and businesses. Implementation would require ongoing coordination and negotiation with private property owners. 92 93Strategy and Project Selections Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Strategy and Project Selections8 The built environment plays a major role in roadway safety. This chapter highlights potential improvements to road and intersection design in Roanoke County, and provides a list of potential projects to address safety concerns at locations identified in this study. Road and Intersection Design Goal: Improve roads and intersections to increase driver visibility, encourage drivers to slow down and be aware of their surroundings, and facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian movement. 1.A: Add New Signage or Improve Existing Signage Installation of new signage or improving existing signage may alert drivers of upcoming road conditions. Signage improvements could include increasing the size of existing signs, adding flashing lights, or adding reflectivity to improve visibility to drivers. 1.B: Improve Sight Distance Adequate sight distance is vitally important in creating safe intersections and entrances. In certain locations, there were short-term opportunities in improving sight distance by cutting back trees and landscaping. Improving sight distance through grading or other design interventions would require further study and additional coordination with involved parties. 1.C: Intersection Redesign Intersections are often hotspots for collisions, as an area of changing traffic conditions. Safety can be improved at intersections through smaller projects (such as adding sidewalk, curb bumpouts, etc.) or larger projects (such as reducing the size of the intersection, installing a roundabout/Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT)/Thru-Cut, etc.). Redesigning an intersection may vary in scope but should ultimately slow down drivers, improve visibility, and accommodate different modes of transportation, as applicable. 1.D: Add a Turn Lane or Improve Existing Turn Lane Adding a turn lane or improving an existing turn lane could improve traffic flow and reduce collisions. Where there is not currently a turn lane, adding a turn lane would allow a vehicle to wait in a designated location before turning when there is adequate time to clear an intersection. An existing turn lane could be improved with the installation of a left-turn offset, which could improve visibility at intersections where the turning vehicle must yield to oncoming through traffic. 1.E: Install Guardrail and/or Rumble Strips Where the majority of the fatal and serious injury crashes were run off-road incidents, the installation of a guardrail would be a direct solution for preventing future crashes at key locations. Similarly, the installation of centerline or shoulder rumble strips would alert drivers of lane departure and promote correction. 1.F: Review Signal Timings Reviewing and revising signal timings could improve traffic flow and alleviate pressure at certain intersections. Based on community input, uncoordinated signals may be contributing to driver frustration and potentially increasing risky and dangerous behavior. Along corridors with coordinated signals such as Challenger Avenue, the existing timing plan should be reviewed. Additionally, many survey respondents and community meeting attendees observed frequent red-light running behavior; longer all red timings could improve crashes due to red-light running. Enforcement and policy should additionally be considered to discourage dangerous driver behavior. 94 95Strategy and Project Selections Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Potential Project Improvements Summary | Corridors Potential Project Improvements Summary | Corridors Location Crashes Potential Project Community Ranking (Per Fall 2024 Survey) Cost Estimate Time Frame Serious Injury Fatal Electric Road East (Brambleton Avenue to Roanoke City Line) 27 1 Conduct an intersection study at Colonial Avenue 1 $Short Term Evaluate Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) improvements east of Colonial Avenue 2 $$-$$$Long Term Evaluate Thru-Cut improvements east of Colonial Avenue 3 $$-$$$Long Term Electric Road West (Glen Heather Drive to Brambleton Avenue) 17 1 Conduct a corridor study or a road safety audit for Electric Road (from Bower Road to Brambleton Avenue)1 $Short Term Evaluate Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) improvements at select intersections 2 $$-$$$Long Term Evaluate Thru-Cut improvements at select intersections 3 $$-$$$Long Term Plantation Road (Williamson Road to Hershberger Road) 15 2 Consider increasing enforcement 1 $$ TBD following coordination with Roanoke County Police Conduct a multimodal corridor study 2 $Short Term Per the Equitable Transportation Community Explorer and the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool, the Plantation Road corridor is considered to be within a disadvantaged community. Location Crashes Potential Project Community Ranking (Per Fall 2024 Survey) Cost Estimate Time Frame Serious Injury Fatal Starkey Road (Benois Road to Merriman Road) 7 0 Conduct a multimodal corridor study 1 $Short Term Garst Mill Road (Roanoke City Line to Brambleton Avenue) 7 1 Evaluate and install pedestrian improvements, specifically to the Brambleton Avenue commercial corridor 1 $Short Term Bent Mountain Road (Back Creek Orchard Road to Tinsley Lane) 10 2 Consider installing centerline or shoulder rumble strips 1 $ Short Term To be coordinated with repaving schedule Consider tree cutting at select curves, where possible 2 $Short Term Evaluate condition and spacing of existing chevrons; consider signage upgrades 3 $-$$Short Term Jae Valley Road (Blue Ridge Parkway to Franklin County Line) 11 1 Evaluate condition and spacing of existing chevrons; consider signage upgrades 1 $-$$Short Term Consider installation of high friction surface treatment (HFST) at select curves 2 $$Short Term 96 97Strategy and Project Selections Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Potential Project Improvements Summary | Corridors Location Crashes Potential Project Community Ranking (Per Fall 2024 Survey) Cost Estimate Time Frame Serious Injury Fatal Bradshaw Road (Catawba Valley Drive to Montgomery County Line) 11 1 Evaluate potential upgrades to existing advisory speed signage 1 $-$$Short Term Consider installing centerline or shoulder rumble strips 2 $ Short Term To be coordinated with repaving schedule Conduct a multimodal corridor study 3 $Short Term Potential Project Improvements Summary | Intersections Location Crashes Potential Project Community Ranking (Per Fall 2024 Survey) Cost Estimate Time Frame Serious Injury Fatal Challenger Avenue & Valley Gateway Boulevard 3 1 Review signal timings; potentially longer all-red times 1 $-$$ Short Term Consider potential coordination with City of Roanoke Consider lowering speed limit from City boundary to this intersection 2 $ Short Term To be coordinated with repaving schedule Evaluate moving existing stop bar and extend existing concrete median closer to intersection 3 $Short Term North Electric Road & I-81 Southbound Ramps at Exit 141 5 0 Consider reconfiguration of the intersection to reduce the width of the I-81 median, shortening the turning distance of NB left-turning movements 1 $$-$$$Long Term Evaluate reducing southbound approach to one through lane 2 $-$$Long Term Consider reviewing signal timings for the Loch Haven intersection and the Exit 141 intersection, especially if reducing the southbound approach is studied Free response feedback from the Fall 2024 community meeting describes high peak hour volumes $-$$Short Term 98 99Strategy and Project Selections Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Potential Project Improvements Summary | Corridors Location Crashes Potential Project Community Ranking (Per Fall 2024 Survey) Cost Estimate Time Frame Serious Injury Fatal Washington Avenue & Food Lion Access (East Vinton Plaza Shopping Center) 6 0 Consider left-turn offset 1 $$Long Term Consider access management 2 Varies by scope Long Term Requires coordination and agreements with private property owners Conduct a speed study 3 $Short Term Hardy Road & Feather Road 5 1*Evaluate a roundabout 1 $$$- $$$$Long Term *1 fatal crash occurred in 2024 Consider install of advance warning signage 2 $Short Term Improve sight distance 3 $Short Term Plantation Road & McDonald’s/Days Inn Access 4 0 Evaluate extending the existing two-way left-turn lane 1 $$Short Term Consider access management 2 Varies by scope Long Term Requires coordination and agreements with private property owners Location Crashes Potential Project Community Ranking (Per Fall 2024 Survey) Cost Estimate Time Frame Serious Injury Fatal Shadwell Drive & Sanderson Drive / Hollins Road 4 0 Improve sight distance 1 $$Long Term Consider installation of guardrail at SW corner of Hollins Road 2 $$ Long Term Requires coordination and agreements with private property owners Conduct a speed study 3 $Short Term Evaluate a left-turn lane on Shadwell Drive onto Sanderson Drive 4 $$-$$$Long Term Evaluate a peanut roundabout 5 $$$- $$$$Long Term Potential Project Improvements Summary | Intersections 100 101Strategy and Project Selections Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Supplemental Planning & Demonstration Activities Under the Safe Streets and Roads For All (SS4A) grant program, localities may apply for funding to explore supplemental planning and demonstration activities. Planning activities aim to gather more information through studies, plans, or audits and demonstration activities include implementations related to infrastructure, behavior, or technology. Infrastructure activities could include conducting temporary ‘quick-build’ projects, temporary street or lane closures (road diets), or MUTCD engineering studies. Localities that would like to address driver behavior and education may pilot educational campaigns, provide training (such as focusing on bus drivers and bike-pedestrian awareness), or develop projects around Safe Routes to School, encouraging best practices in student pick-up and drop-off. A variety of technological implementations could be pursued, such as signal timings and upgrades for bike-pedestrian prioritization or signal preemption for emergency vehicles, installation of red-light and speed cameras, and data collection. Type Activity Location Cost Notes Supplemental Planning Corridor/intersection study or road safety audit Electric Road & Colonial Avenue (intersection) $$High incidences of crashes at this intersection, however, no clear crash pattern. Intersection study required to collect and analyze data Electric Road (From Bower Road to Brambleton Avenue) $$ Planned RCUTs towards City of Roanoke, however, no current plans for Electric Road from Bower Road to Brambleton Avenue Plantation Road $$ Pattern of FSI crashes involve speeding as well as involving a pedestrian. Corridor study to gather information on bicycle-pedestrian needs of predominately residential area. Starkey Road $$ Consider corridor study to evaluate if newly constructed roundabout at Buck Mountain Road improved crashes along this corridor Bradshaw Road $$ Feedback from community members described bicyclists frequenting this corridor. Corridor study to gather information regarding this rural corridor, bicyclist routes, and other challenges/opportunities (see sheet X for more information). Speed study Washington Avenue (Area around the East Vinton Shopping Center and William Byrd School campus) $If warranted by speed study, consider speed limit reduction in the area approaching intersection; see sheets 60-61 for Washington Avenue and sheets 66-67 for Shadwell DriveShadwell Drive & Sanderson Drive/Hollins Road (intersection)$ Type Activity Location Cost Notes Demonstration Infrastructure Quick-Build Projects Challenger Avenue & Valley Gateway Boulevard $ Use flex-post and/or temporary curb to extend existing concrete median on Valley Gateway Boulevard closer to intersection; see sheets 56-57 Requires coordination with and approval by VDOT Demonstration Behavioral Educational or Training Campaigns Electric Road (Both eastern and western corridors) $ Pattern of senior drivers involved in the FSI crashes Opportunities include education, training and information on the CORTRAN program which is a curb-to-curb rideshare program for Roanoke County residents who are 65 or older or who are disabled.Starkey Road $ Bent Mountain Road $Pattern of motorcyclists involved in the FSI crashes Demonstration Technology Data Collection Plantation Road $$ Pattern of speeding in FSI crashes as well as involving pedestrians Collect data on vehicle speed and pedestrian counts/ location (only short segment of sidewalk on Plantation Road) Signal timings Challenger Avenue & Valley Gateway Boulevard $$ Review signal timings at this intersection and adjacent intersections (including southern intersections in City of Roanoke) Requires coordination with VDOT and the City of Roanoke North Electric Road & I-81 Ramps at Exit 141 $$ Review signal timings at this intersection & Loch Haven Drive Requires coordination with VDOT 102 103Funding Options Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Funding Options Administering Agency Program Name Description Eligible Projects Source of Funds Local Match Required Level of Funding Available VDOT SMART SCALE SMART SCALE evaluates proposed transportation projects based on certain criteria (improving safety, reducing congestion, increasing accessibility, contributing to economic development, promoting efficient land use, and affecting the environment). The scored criteria determines prioritization of funds. • Highway improvements • Transit- and rail-capacity expansion • Bicycle and pedestrian improvements • Transportation Demand Management (Park & Ride facilities) Federal and State No Varies based upon the application year Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is intended to facilitate the goals of the Strategic Highway Safety Plan. The purpose of this plan is to implement safety improvements in Virginia. Roanoke County is ineligible to apply directly for HSIP funds and must work with VDOT to request VDOT submit projects on behalf of Roanoke County • Projects consistent with Virginia’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan • Correcting or improving a hazardous road location or feature, or address a highway safety problem • Projects based on crash experience, crash potential, crash rate, or other relevant safety data • Curve delineation • Pedestrian Crossings • Edge/centerline rumble strips Federal No No maximum, but award amount likely under $1M Administering Agency Program Name Description Eligible Projects Source of Funds Local Match Required Level of Funding Available VDOT HSIP (cont.)• Be listed under 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B) or (a)(11); and • Comply with other Title 23 requirements Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Expanded under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) is intended to provide funding for non- motorized transportation. • Projects pertaining to non- motorized transportation • Expand travel choice for daily needs, strengthens local economy, improves quality of life, and protects the environment Federal Yes, 20%Funding awards between $200,000 and $600,000 104 105Funding Options Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Administering Agency Program Name Description Eligible Projects Source of Funds Local Match Required Level of Funding Available VDOT Safe Routes to School (Part of TAP) The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) initiative is part of the VDOT TAP program. SRTS program’s purpose is to encourage students, including those with disabilities, to walk or bike to school, by establishing safer bike-ped connections and reducing traffic • Walkabout mini-grants to assess existing walking and biking conditions • Program grants • Infrastructure grants Federal The Virginia SRTS Program is a locally- administered reimbursement program. For new applicants, provides 100% of total funding with no match required. However, applicants are still encouraged to leverage funding from other sources. Varies Revenue Sharing VDOT’S Revenue Sharing program enables localities to match investment with the state, in order to fund construction and/or improvement of highway systems • Bicycle and pedestrian improvements • Corridor widening and stormwater management improvements • Traffic calming • Green infrastructure State Yes, 50%A locality may apply for a maximum of $10M per biennial cycle (or $5M per fiscal year) and the maximum lifetime matching per project is $10M. This limitation includes any allocations transferred to the project. Up to $2.5M per fiscal year of these requested funds may be specified for maintenance projects. Administering Agency Program Name Description Eligible Projects Source of Funds Local Match Required Level of Funding Available DMV Virginia Highway Safety Office (VAHSO) The intent of the VAHSO grant program is to reduce the number of fatalities, injuries, and related economic losses from traffic collisions in Virginia. Initiatives to: • Reduce alcohol/impaired driving • Promote occupant protection • Reduce aggressive driving and speeding • Collect and analyze traffic records/data • Promote bicycle-pedestrian safety • Promote motorcycle safety • Promote roadway safety State Yes, 25%Minimum award: $5,000 No maximum award USDOT & Local MPO Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program As part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), the Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program provides flexible funding for transportation improvement needs. • Installation/deployment of current and emerging intelligent transportation technologies • Protective features, including natural infrastructure, to improve the experience of an eligible facility • Projects to enhance travel and tourism Federal No Funding is based on population ratio Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) As part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), the CRP provides funding to develop carbon reduction strategies and for projects to reduce transportation carbon dioxide emissions. Strategies must be developed in consultation with MPOs. • Bike lanes • Traffic management • Public transportation • Pedestrian facilities • Alternative fueling/charging infrastructure Federal No Virginia is expected to receive nearly $166 million in C R P funding from fiscal year (F Y) 2022 to F Y 2026. Funds are awarded in proportion to population. 106 107Funding Options Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Administering Agency Program Name Description Eligible Projects Source of Funds Local Match Required Level of Funding Available USDOT Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grant As part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), the Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) program provides investment towards transportation initiatives that create a significant local or regional impact. • Highway, bridge, or other road projects • Public transportation projects • Any other surface transportation infrastructure project that the Secretary considers to be necessary to advance the goals of the program Federal Yes, 20%Minimum award: Capital projects (urban) - $5M Capital projects (rural) - $1M Planning projects - no minimum Maximum award: $25M Safe Streets and Roads For All (SS4A) Supplemental Planning and Demonstration Activities Grant See sheets 100-101 for expanded description and possible activities directly applicable to this Safety Action Plan Federal Yes, 20%Varies significantly Safe Streets and Roads For All (SS4A) Implementation Grant The SS4A Implementation Grant provides funding towards project and strategy implementation as outlined in this Action Plan. Federal Yes, 20%Varies significantly 108 109Progress and Transparency Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Progress and Transparency9 The Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan is a commitment along with strategies and actions to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes on roadways across the County. This Plan can serve people across agencies, departments, organizations, and interest groups to unite around the importance of roadway safety and a positive traffic safety culture. Action items identified by this plan should be used by the County and partners on projects, policies, and programs. Additionally, the County should consistently measure how actions are making roadways safer and saving lives. Performance Measures and Dashboard Roanoke County should monitor the progress and impact of individual actions related to each strategy. Evaluation is essential for the data-driven approach of the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan. There must be accountability to the commitment of eliminating traffic deaths and severe injuries. If certain actions are not successful, not moving fast enough, or not working for another reason, the County and partnering agencies should assess and modify actions as needed. Measuring progress and success can be accomplished using a data dashboard. Routine updates can be made to the dashboard when new projects are funded, designed, and implemented will highlight changes and mark milestone efforts related to increasing roadway safety. This tool can provide insight into a number of metrics, including but not limited to: • Number of fatal and serious injury crashes • Total Crashes • Crashes along the HIN and changes in crash rates over time • Crashes involving bicycles and pedestrians • Crashes resulting from high posted speeds • Crashes occurring during particular weather conditions • Crashes in each context area (Urban, Rural) The dashboard is available for public viewing here, or by using the following link: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/ a85a20fee3104a60b8355544a654578f Annual Reporting Along with tracking several performance measures and the use of a data dashboard, annual reporting will provide the County an opportunity to reflect on accomplishments and communicate steps toward eliminating fatal and severe injury crashes. Roanoke County will publish an annual report on the progress of the SS4A Comprehensive Safety Action Plan. The report will be published in January or February of each year and may include the following: • Updated crash statistics with a focus on fatal and serious injury crashes • Projects completed or beginning construction • Proven Safety Countermeasures deployed • Funding associated with safety projects Transparency Roanoke County has developed the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan with the goal of full transparency. The Action Plan will be publicly available on Roanoke County’s website. Interim documents like the annual report will also be posted on the website. https://www.roanokecountyva.gov/ 110 111Appendix: County Project Exhibits Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Appendix: County Project ExhibitsA Priority Corridor #1 Challenger Avenue (Route 460) - Roanoke City Line to Botetourt County Line Three projects along this corridor were funded in 2021: 1. Route 460 at West Ruritan Road Intersection Improvements: $7.5 million SMART SCALE/STBG award 2. Route 460 Intersections from Carson Road to Huntridge Road: $2.8 million SMART SCALE/STBG award 3. Route 460 and Alternate Route 220 Intersection Improvements: $21.8 million SMART SCALE/STBG award Construction for all projects is anticipated in 2026 and 2027. 1 2 3 112 113Appendix: County Project Exhibits Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Priority Corridor #2 Electric Road (Route 419) - Brambleton Avenue to the Roanoke City Line (East) Three projects along this corridor were funded in 2019 and 2021: 1. Route 419/Route 220 Diverging Diamond Interchange: $17.5 million SMART SCALE/STBG award 2. Route 419 Streetscape Improvements, Phase 2 (Ogden Road to Starkey Road): $18.5 million SMART SCALE/STBG award Construction for the Diverging Diamond Interchange is anticipated in early 2025 and construction for the streetscape improvements is anticipated in 2026. 114 115Appendix: County Project Exhibits Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Priority Corridor #3 Electric Road (Route 419) - Brambleton Avenue to Glen Heather Drive (West) Three projects along this corridor were funded in 2023: 1. Route 419/Electric Road Safety Improvements (Stoneybrook Drive to Grandin Road Extension): $6.6 million SMART SCALE award 2. Route 419 Pedestrian Crossing Improvements at Brambleton Avenue and Postal Drive: $3.9 million SMART SCALE award Construction for all projects is anticipated in 2027. 116 117Appendix: County Project Exhibits Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Priority Corridor #10 Starkey Road - Benois Road to Merriman Road Construction is completed on a project to convert the existing “T” intersection at Starkey Road and Buck Mountain Road to a roundabout. Total project funding: $5.8 million in Surface Transportation Block Grant, Revenue Sharing, Secondary Six-Year Program and SMART SCALE funding 118 119Appendix: County Project Exhibits Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Priority Intersection # 1/Corridor #15 West Main Street - West River Road to Pleasant Run Drive SMART SCALE application submitted in August 2024 for West Main Street (Route 11/460) at Dow Hollow Road Safety Improvements STBG Leverage: $4 million | SMART SCALE Request: $36.1 million Total Estimate: $40.1 million 120 121Appendix: County Project Exhibits Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Priority Intersection # 9 Peters Creek Road at Barrens Creeks Road Priority Intersection # 10/Corridor #4 Plantation Road - Williamson Road to Hershberger Road SMART SCALE Application submitted in August 2024 for Peters Creek Road/ Williamson Road Multimodal Safety Improvements (Wood Haven Road to Plantation Road) including the Peters Creek Road/Barrens Road and Williamson Road/ Plantation Road intersections. Total estimate: $107.7 million AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2024 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 member’s knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies; and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia.