Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/8/2006 - Regular August 8, 2006 641 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 August8,2006 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of August, 2006. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wray called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Michael A. Wray, Vice-Chairman Joseph P. McNamara, Supervisors Michael W. Altizer, Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Richard C. Flora MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Dan O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board; Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by Father Rob Cole, Our Lady of Nazareth Catholic Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. 642 August 8, 2006 IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1:. Certificate ofrecoanition to Kellv Clark. Glenvar Hiah School. for winnina the state championship in the 1600 meter and 3200 meter events Chairman Wray advised that Ms. Clark was unable to attend the meeting today due to a scheduling conflict. The Clerk read the certificate of recognition. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1:. Reauest from the Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate! arant in the amount of ~232.000 from the Virainia Office of Emeraencv Medical Services for the purchase of ! sauad vehicle for the Fort Lewis Station. (Richard E. Burch. Jr.. Fire and Rescue Chief) A-080806-1 Chief Burch reported that the estate of Ms. Marie Hott made a generous donation of funds to the Fort Lewis Volunteer Rescue Squad and the Fort Lewis Volunteer Fire Department. He stated that at the time of Ms. Hott's death, the Fort Lewis Rescue Squad had been disbanded. He expressed appreciation to Joe Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney, who provided assistance in resolving this matter and securing the funds for use by the Fort Lewis Fire Department, which is now covering the duties of the Fort Lewis Rescue Squad. Chief Burch noted that it was Ms. HoU's intention that the donated funds serve the residents of tl1e Fort Lewis community. August 8, 2006 643 Chief Burch advised that staff evaluated their equipment needs and determined that a new squad truck used to extract accident victims was the area of greatest need for the station and that such a purchase would satisfy the intentions of Ms. HoU's estate. Once the decision to purchase the vehicle was made, Roanoke County applied for and received a grant in the amount of $116,000 from the State of Virginia to use toward the purchase price. In addition, the Fort Lewis Volunteer Fire Department has offered to sell the old squad unit to provide supplemental funding. Any remaining balance will be provided from the Fire and Rescue Department budget to fund the full $300,000 purchase price. He stated that staff is requesting an appropriation of funds to proceed with the purchase of the vehicle to serve the Fort Lewis community. Supervisor Church stated that this is a very generous gesture, and he thanked Mr. Obenshain for his assistance in this matter. He noted that this gift benefits the entire County, and he requested that Ms. Hott's donation be commemorated in some way at the Fort Lewis station. Chief Burch advised that the family will be notified of the action taken by the Board today, and he stated that a dedication service will be held when the truck is received in approximately 10 months. Supervisor Flora questioned if the $232,000 is the vehicle cost or if it includes the equipment. Chief Burch stated that the vehicle cost is approximately $230,000 - $250,000; the equipment is an additional $50,000. Chief Burch advised that the bid process has just begun, and staff is confident that this estimate is reasonably accurate. 644 August 8, 2006 Supervisor Wray stated that this is a gesture from a giving person who looks out for others. He noted that Ms. Hott could have done many things with this amount of money, and he expressed gratitude on behalf of the citizens of Roanoke County for this significant donation that will benefit many others. Chief Burch noted that Ms. Hott also provided funds for other charitable organizations as part of her estate. Mr. Obenshain listed some of the agencies that had been recipients of donations from Ms. Hott and stated that the County welcomes these contributions; however, he cautioned citizens to consult with an attorney when making these types of bequests to be certain that they correctly identify the agency/organization that they wish to receive the funds. He noted that in some cases, the agency name is not listed correctly or as in this case, the agency was no longer operating. Supervisor Church moved to approve the staff recommendation (acceptance of the grant from the Virginia Office of Emergency Medical Services in the amount of $232,000 and appropriation of the funds to account number 486634 in the grant fund as outlined). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES .h First readina of an ordinance amendina Section 5-29. "Same- Imooundment" of Article !h "Doas. Cats and Other Animals" of Chaoter 5. "Animals and Fowl" to increase the dailv imooundment August 8, 2006 645 fee charaed !rl Roanoke County from J8.75 to J10.00 oer day oer animal. (John M. Chambliss. Assistant County Administrator) Mr. Chambliss advised that for a number of years, Roanoke County has been one of the area governments working with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) to provide animal shelter services. He stated that the SPCA is working through a subsidiary company to manage the shelter, which is separate from the SPCA building. He indicated that during the period of time in which this ordinance has been in effect in Roanoke County, the owners of animals that are recovered reimburse the County for the per diem cost of boarding the animals. In addition, there is a series of fees based on whether the animal is being picked up for the first, second, or subsequent times. In order to recover some of the County's costs and to remain consistent with the fees charged by other Roanoke Valley governments, staff is recommending that the ordinance be amended to increase the daily impoundment fee from $8.75 to $10 per day. Mr. Chambliss stated that staff is also recommending increasing the first pickup fee from $20 to $25 to more appropriately reflect those costs. Mr. Chambliss indicated that the regular budget of the Police Department covers the payment to the SPCA of the fees incurred and the fees collected under this ordinance would be used to recover part of these costs. He advised that staff requests approval of the first reading of the ordinance and noted that if the amendments are approved at the second reading on August 22, the new fees would go into effect at that time. 646 August 8, 2006 Supervisor Wray inquired if the County's current fees were lower than any of the surrounding jurisdictions. Mr. Chambliss responded in the affirmative and stated that the fees have been increasing incrementally over the last several years in other localities; however, the Roanoke County ordinance has not been amended to recover these additional costs. Supervisor Church questioned if the varying fees for pickups are due to picking up the same animal on multiple occasions. Mr. Chambliss responded in the affirmative and stated that some individuals fail to keep their animals penned and let them run at large. He advised that the fee increases if the same animal is picked up multiple times. Supervisor Church stated that the fees for picking up an animal a second or third time should be higher because there is a problem if multiple trips have to be made for the same animal. Mr. Chambliss noted that when the same animal has to be picked up multiple times, the owner often becomes frustrated and does not return to recover the animal. He indicated that only a small percentage of owners recover the animal following multiple pickups. He stated that staff attempts to notify the owner before the animal is placed at the shelter in order to avoid incurring these expenses. Supervisor Church noted that this was a good point, and asked that his remarks be disregarded. Supervisor Wray moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for August 22, 2006. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: August 8, 2006 647 Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray None 2. First readina of an ordinance amendina Chapter 8.1 "Erosion and Sediment Control" of the Roanoke County Code to address steep slope development and other technical amendments. (Arnold Covey. Director of Community Development) Mr. Covey advised that this is the first reading to amend Chapter 8.1, erosion and sediment control ordinance, to address steep slope development and other technical amendments identified as part of the program review with the Department of Conservation and Recreation (OCR). He stated that last year, the Board concurred with the Planning Commission regarding the need to identify a work program as a result of the update of Roanoke County's Comprehensive Plan. He noted that one of the items identified was development on steep slopes. Mr. Covey indicated that County staff and the Board of Supervisors were concerned with protection of property owner rights and felt that the issue could best be addressed through the County's erosion and sediment control ordinance. He stated that these changes do not p,'event development on steep slopes; however, there are new regulations on this type of development. The amendments establish slope angle and height thresholds of constructed slopes; any proposed slopes or thresholds higher than the proposed thresholds will require additional geotechnical engineering investigation, design criteria, and reporting. He advised that Community Development staff researched slope development ordinances AYES: NAYS: 648 August 8, 2006 across the United States and interviewed experts in the field of geology, civil engineering, geotechnical engineering, and urban planning to develop the proposed amendments. Staff conducted six work sessions with the Planning Commission, worked with a committee of experts in the field of construction, grading contractors, civil engineers and designers, geotechnical engineers, and County engineers and planning staff. Mr. Covey stated that on July 10, 2006, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution in support of these amendments. He indicated that on July 25, 2006, a work session was held with the Board of Supervisors and staff presented the proposed steep slope development amendments, as well as those amendments required by the OCR. Mr. Covey outlined the proposed OCR amendments as follows: (1) Include a reference to the Code of Virginia chapter that grants Roanoke County the authority to adopt an erosion and sediment control ordinance. (2) Where land disturbing activities involve land under the jurisdiction of more than one local control program, the applicant may submit his plan to the Board for review and approval rather than to each jurisdiction. (3) The plan approving authority may waive or modify any of the regulations that are deemed inappropriate or too restrictive for site conditions by granting a variance under conditions noted in the Virginia erosion and sediment control regulations. (4) Electric, natural gas, telephone utility companies, interstate and intrastate natural gas pipeline companies shall file general erosion and sediment control specifications annually with the Board for review and comments. (5) The owner, permittee, or person responsible for carrying out the plan shall be given notice of the inspection. August 8, 2006 649 Mr. Covey outlined the following proposed slope development amendments: (1) Limiting the angle of constructed slopes to 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) unless a geotechnical engineering report is provided for the proposed slopes. (2) Limiting the height of constructed slopes to 25 vertical feet unless a geotechnical report is provided for the proposed slopes. Constructed slopes with an angle of less than or equal to 3: 1 (horizontal: vertical) would be allowed to exceed 25 vertical feet without a geotechnical report being required. (3) Requiring "as-built" plans for any constructed slopes that required geotechnical evaluation. (4) Requiring soil compaction information on site development plans and compaction test results submitted in development files. (5) Requiring individual lot grading plans for all new subdivisions. (6) Defining "Geotechnical Report" and "Steep Slope". Mr. Covey advised that David Holladay, Senior Planner, was present at the meeting to respond to any questions. Supervisor Church staied that this is probably one of the most concentrated areas of concern for property owners in Roanoke County. He stated that there are currently multiple areas being scrutinized in the County, and we need to examine the effects of rainfall, compaction of soil, topography, vegetation cover, etc. He stated that the County needs to focus on preventative maintenance and monitoring construction of new developments. He noted the difficulty Board members experience when meeting with citizens who have experienced damage to their property, and he advised that in many cases a small investment on the part of the developer would help alleviate the need for a more costly fix in the future. He 650 August 8, 2006 stated that the County must stay on top of these types of situations throughout the development process. Supervisor Altizer advised that he has experienced mudslides in his district, and he indicated that changes need to be implemented in this area. He stated that one of his concerns is infringement on individual property rights and that he feels that approving these changes to the ordinance may save individuals money in the long run. He voiced support for this action and indicated that it will benefit people who are downstream from development. Supervisor Wray noted that the Board previously met in work session with the Planning Commission to review these proposed amendments and advised that the Board has evaluated these issues in detail. Supervisor Church moved to appro\'e the first reading and set the second reading for August 22,2006. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None 3. First readina of an ordinance authorizina conveyance of !!l easement to Appalachian Power Company 2!l property owned ~ the Roanoke Countv Board of Supervisors. "Goode Park". to provide electric service for KTP. LLC. Vinton Maaisterial District. (Pete Haislip. Director of Parks. Recreation. and Tourism) August 8, 2006 651 Mr. Haislip advised that this is a small easement that is required to provide power to a mini-storage facility being built adjacent to Goode Park in the Vinton Magisterial District. He stated that the facility is less than 200 square feet and does not have an impact on the County's programming needs or future ability to develop Goode Park. He noted that staff applied the standard formula for calculating the fair market value of the easement which totals $60. Supervisor Altizer noted that the County is using the standard formula for calculating the value of the easement and advised that any related expenses are being paid by the petitioner. Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for August 22,2006. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None IN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1.:. Capital Improvement Proaram (CIP) Review Committee (Appointed !rl District) Chairman Wray noted that the Board had discussed the development of guidelines for this committee at the July 25 meeting, and he questioned if Mr. Hodge had an update regarding this matter. Mr. Hodge advised that staff is working to develop the guidelines and that they should be available by the September 22 meeting. 652 August 8, 2006 Chairman Wray advised that the following one-year terms will expire on August 31, 2006: King Harvey, Catawba District; James T. Anderson, Cave Spring District; Jason B. Perdue, Hollins District; Erica Kuelz, Vinton District; and Brian Garber, Windsor Hills District. He stated that Mr. Garber has indicated that he is willing to serve an additional term and that confirmation of his appointment has been placed on the consent agenda. 2. Economic Develooment Authoritv Chairman Wray advised that the four-year terms of Craig W. Sharp and Allan Robinson, Jr. will expire on September 26, 2006. 3. Parks. Recreation. and Tourism Advisory Commission (Aooointed !rl District) Chairman Wray stated that Mr. Terry Harrington, Hollins Magisterial District, resigned from the Commission on May 18, 2006. This three-year term will expire on June 30,2007. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-080806-2; R-080806-2.b Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None August 8, 2006 653 RESOLUTION 080806-2 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for August 8, 2006, designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 4, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes - July 25, 2006 2. Confirmation of committee appointment 3. Resolution of appreciation to Richard Braford, Police Department, upon his retirement after twenty-six years of service 4. Request from the schools to accept and appropriate state awards and grants totaling $123,790 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None RESOLUTION 080806-2.b EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO RICHARD BRAFORD, POLICE DEPARTMENT, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER TWENTY-SIX YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Richard Braford was first employed by Roanoke County on August 6, 1980, as a Deputy Sheriff in the Sheriff's Office; and WHEREAS, Sergeant Braford remained with the Police Department when the change was made to separate law enforcement functions from the Sheriff's Office in 1990; and WHEREAS, Sergeant Braford was a patrol officer during his entire career with Roanoke County and was promoted to Sergeant in 1992; and WHEREAS, Sergeant Braford retired from Roanoke County on August 1, 2006, after twenty-six years of service; and WHEREAS, Sergeant Braford was a dedicated law enforcement officer who was loyal to the department and his subordinates and was well liked and respected by his officers; and 654 August 8, 2006 WHEREAS, the public safety of Roanoke County citizens is assured by dedicated employees such as Sergeant Braford; and WHEREAS, Sergeant Braford, through his employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to RICHARD BRAFORD for twenty-six years of capable, loyal, and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None 1. General Fund Unaporopriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Continaencv 4. Future Capital Proiects IN RE: WORK SESSIONS .1:. Work session to report on site visits to multi-aenerational facilities in St. Louis and to discuss the status of the Parks. Recreation and Tourism Master Plan draft report. (Elmer C. August 8, 2006 655 Hodae. County Administrator: Pete Haislio. Director of Parks. Recreation and Tourism) The work session was held from 3:52 p.m. until 4:40 p.m. Mr. Hodge advised that the purpose of this work session is to provide information in preparation for the August 22 work session in which Leon Younger, PROS Consulting, will present the draft master plan. He noted that a multi-generational facility was rated high on the survey that was conducted and represents an economic development opportunity for Roanoke County to draw sporting events and tournaments. Mr. Haislip gave a presentation outlining the following multi-generational facilities that were visited on a recent trip to St. Louis: (1) River Chase - City of Fenton: 72,000 square feet; population of 4,375; median age 40.1; (2) The Lodge - City of Des Peres: 72,000 square feet; population of 8,592; median age 42.4; (3) The Center of Clayton - City of Clayton: 125,000 square feet; population of 16,061; median age 36.7; (4) Richmond Heights - City of Richmond Heights: 73,000 square feet; population of 9,602; median age 35.8; and (5) Renaud Spirit Center - City of O'Fallon: 66,000 square feet; population of 72,000; median age 40.1. Supervisor McNamara requested that staff provide the Board with data such as square footage, construction costs, amenities offered, annual operating costs, membership fees, daily admission rates, etc. for each of the five facilities visited prior to the next Board meeting. 656 August 8, 2006 Supervisor Wray requested that visits be scheduled to local facilities such as the Salem YMCA, Roanoke Athletic Club (RAC), Botetourt Athletic Club (BAC), and the Downtown YMCA to evaluate the types of facilities already available in the region and what the County's multi-generational center would be competing against. Supervisor Church requested that cost estimates for building and operating this type of facility be provided to the Board, and he emphasized the need to communicate this information to citizens to determine if they are willing to support the cost of the project. He noted that Roanoke loses potential revenues when residents travel to other areas to visit attractions such as Emerald Point, and he would like to be able to capture these revenues locally. Supervisor Altizer stated that a multi-generational facility will address the needs of County citizens who have below average incomes and cannot afford the membership fees charged by the RAC/BAC. He stated that on the tour, the citizens that he met advised that atmosphere, affordability, family, and safety are the key reasons they support the multi-generational center concept. He referenced the sports marketing component and advised that many participants in regional sporting events would attend this type of facility. Mr. Haislip noted that these facilities offer daily attendance rates, which are not currently offered by other facilities in the valley. Supervisor Altizer referenced the 2000 study regarding a potential water park and he noted that citizens were supportive of the project at that time, and he indicated that nothing has changed since then. August 8, 2006 657 Supervisor Wray noted that the YMCA does not turn away families that can not pay for a membership. He stated that with respect to sports marketing, a water park or Moyer type complex is a destination attraction. He noted that to effectively attract tournaments, the multi-generational center would need to have greater seating capacity than what was seen in the facilities visited in St. Louis. Supervisor Flora indicated that the Board considers this type of facility worthy of consideration and would like to move this project forward to the next level, and he requested that more information be provided with respects to costs. 2. Work session to discuss the status of the Slate Hill develoDment. (Elmer C. Hodae. County Administrator: Arnold Covey. Director of Community DeveloDmentl The work session was held from 4:42 p.m. until 5:40 p.m. Staff present included the following: Elmer Hodge, County Administrator, and Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development. Individuals representing Integra Development included Jim Smith, Hunter Smith, Bill Terry, Clayton Perry, Jack Terry, and Rob Glenn. Also attending were Richard Caywood and Jeff Echols, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Mr. Hodge advised that the purposes of the work session are to update the Board on the changes that have occurred at the Slate Hill development and to share the ordinances and regulations that staff must comply with when reviewing projects. He stated that following the meeting, we would like to have a clear set of guidelines 658 August 8, 2006 regarding what Mr. Jim Smith wants to do with the property and what is required to accomplish this outcome. He highlighted the changes that have occurred with the project during the last two years, and outlined the next steps in the development process. Mr. Covey advised that in 2003, Integra Development submitted their erosion and sediment control plan for Slate Hill which included a conceptual design. It was noted that since that time, Integra has purchased the former Lampworks site and is currently working with VDOT on intersection improvements and connection of their road at this location. Mr. Covey stated that all parties agree that this is an appropriate access point. He further advised that Integra would like to remove a sediment trap and is currently working with their engineers to design piping facilities necessary to convey the stormwater into the detention facility in front of Lowe's. Mr. Covey stated that normally once the grading plan is submitted, a development plan is provided showing the road configuration, water/sewer line locations, method for handling storm water runoff, and other infrastructure. Mr. Covey advised that this is the information that the County has needed from Integra and it was noted that this information was submitted today. He indicated that the next step is to finalize the construction drawings in order to proceed with the work needed in the public right-of-way. He stated that following approval of the development plan, staff will review a revision to the grading plan which has been submitted to allow for the removal of 150,000 yards of dirt from Slate Hill for use by Home Depot and Pheasant Ridge. Mr. Covey stated that the area proposed for August 8, 2006 659 grading is the same area that was previously graded, and Mr. Jim Smith advised that the top portion of the slope would be graded back to comply with the 2: 1 slope requirement. There was discussion regarding the hours during which the grading would occur to minimize disruption to surrounding neighborhoods, and there was a consensus that the trucks should use the entrance at Valley Drive (in front of Lowe's) where there is a signal light. With respect to access, Mr. Caywood stated that the traffic studies support the access points at the former Lampworks location and the existing signalized intersection at Lowe's on Valley Drive. He indicated that a turn lane extension on Route 419 at the signal light will be required anc. the landing at this entrance still needs to be addressed. He indicated that these issues can be addressed with the more detailed plans and also noted that if the internal s'(reets are private, this will limit the amount of oversight required by VDOT. In response to an inquiry from Mr. Hodge, Mr. Jim Smith advised that he owns the forr:1er Lampwcrks property and he is not aware of anything that would prohibit his use of this as an access point to the Slate Hill development. Mr. Hodge provided the Board with a list of the County and State Codes which regulate this type of development and he indicated that these regulations will dictate the process that must be foliowed. Mr. Jim Smith advised that he and his staff are generally okay with the information outlined by the County specifying the steps necessary to proceed with development of the site. 660 August 8, 2006 Mr. Jim Smith stated that since the project was approved in 2004, they have made tremendous progress in improving the site. He referenced the relocation of the entrance to the former Lampworks site to coincide with the existing signal light at Tanglewood Mall, and he advised that they have acquired approximately 12 additional acres of land on top of the site which provides more alternatives for development of the project. He stated that one possible approach to developing the site is a stair step approach with retail at the lower level, a hotel at the next level, and office space at the highest elevation. He indicated that due to the fact that multi-family property has been acquired, condominiums can be built at the top of the site. Mr. Smith stated that he 'wanted to keep his options open between a four-tier versus a two-tier approach. He indicated that they have been in discussions with large, publicly traded companies regarding location on the site. He noted that the traffic counts and household incomes in this area attract the interest of larger companies. 3. Work session to Drovide an uDdate reaardina Roanoke County's Stormwater Manaaement Proaram. (Arnold Covey. Director of Community DeveloDment) The work session was held from 5:28 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. Staff present included the following: Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; Butch Workman, Storm Water Operations Manager; Jeff Altice, Construction Engineer; and Kafi Nophlin, Civil Engineer I. August 8, 2006 661 Mr. Covey stated that the purpose of the work session is to provide an update regarding the status of the drainage maintenance program, and he indicated that staff will bring back the list of projects to be adopted by the Board at the August 22 meeting. Mr. Workman provided a brief history of the program and noted that Roanoke County is a Class 8 community rated system which results in a 10% reduced rate for County residents on their flood insurance. Mr. Workman stated that staff is responsible for the following aspects of stormwater management: floodplain management; environment compliance for Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit; routine stormwater facility maintenance; emergency projects; and Board approved projects. Flood plain management negative impacts include damage to homes, damage to property, loss of life, and local economy. He stated that part of the County's efforts have been focused on purchase and demolition of repetitive loss or heavily damaged properties and since 2000, 20 homes within designated floodplains have been purchased or relocated. The County has aided homeowners in receiving financial assistance up to $30,000 in addition to flood insurance claims provided by FEMA. He advised that existing homes that are in the floodway must be relocated, elevated or rebuilt so that the living level is 2 feet above the 100 year flood plain level. He stated that staff also removes large debris in flood prone areas and requires the installation of flood vents. Mr. Workman advised that the Community Rating System (CRS) is a program through the national flood insurance program, and Roanoke County was the 662 August 8, 2006 first to obtain a Class 9 rating; we, have since been promoted to Class 8, resulting in an average of $12,000 in savings on flood insurance premiums for our residents. He noted that 40% of localities in good standing are rated Class 8. Mr. Workman stated that between 1998 and 2005, Roanoke County received over $3 million in grants which were used for the following purposes: purchase and relocate 20 homes; update flood plain mapping; establish elevation certificates for all homes in designated flood plain; creation of regional stormwater management facility at Hidden Valley High School; and digital flood plain data. Mr. Workman stated that the results of these efforts are fewer flood plain obstructions and reduced property damage and loss. Mr. Workman highlighted the following flood statistics for the Roanoke Valley: (1) Roanoke County: 24 homes in repetitive flooding - total loss from 1978 to present is $2.7 million. (2) Roanoke City: 93 homes in repetitive flooding - total loss from 1978 to present is $14.2 million. (3) City of Salem: 90 homes in repetitive flooding ...;.. total loss from 1978 to present is $11.5 million. Ms. Nophlin outlined the County's environmental responsibilities and stated we have more than 115 miles of creeks and streams that flow throughout the County. Along with enforcement of erosion and sediment control, the County also maintains the VPDES permit. We have the responsibility to comply with federally mandated regulations that protect streams in Roanoke County. She stated that VPDES has several components to be addressed: public education and participation; August 8, 2006 663 construction site runoff control; post construction stormwater management and pollution prevention; and illicit discharge detection and elimination. Under illicit discharge, we are required to provide a map of the County's entire storm drain system. She noted that interns have been working on this mapping project for the past four years. The data is collected manually via GPS receivers and is then uploaded to the GIS network. She displayed an example showing how attr;~utes of structures collected in the field are used in conjunction with Roanoke County geographic data to create a complete network from inlet to stream. She stated that there are over 300 detention ponds currently in Roanoke County, and the stormwater map allows the County to do the following: be more proactive in their drainage maintenance; utilize stormwater models to analyze flow to predict flood-prone areas; develop more regional stormwater controls that are planned for future development; and elir.1inate illicit discharges into the storm drain system. Ms. Nophlin advis~>d that. in addition to storm drain mapping, staff alsG maintains more than 9,000 storm water structures throughout the County. In addition to structures, staff is responsible for maintenance of all channels and she noted that there are over 200 miles of storm sewers and channels. Routine maintenance projects include cutting grass, picking up trash, cleaning silt out of drainage channels, and removing debris off trash racks after heavy rains. Routine inspections are mandated by the VPDES permit and staff is required to inspect more than 300 storm water management ponds annually. 664 August 8, 2006 Mr. Workman reviewed the types of emergency projects handled by staff in the past year and highlighted the benefits to the County of the program. There was general discussion regarding detention ponds, which are frequently owned by homeowners associations, and the potential impact to the County when maintenance is required on these facilities. It was noted that in many cases, the homeowners associations do not have funds set aside to cover maintenance costs for the detention ponds. Supervisor Altizer requested that staff evaluate a process that would require that these issues be addressed with new projects so that we can mitigate the future impact of problems that may occur with detention ponds. Supervisor Flora noted that a special tax district can be created for areas where concerns such as this need to be addressed. IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Church: He advised Bruce Bohon, a citizen in the Red Lane Extension/Dennis Lane area, that the County is aware of the problem he is experiencing with grass, soil, and construction debris. He indicated that Bill Richardson, Planner I, has been in touch with Mr. Bohon and that letters are being sent to the owner who is in violation. He stated that numerous calls are made daily regarding violations, and he noted that County staff is working diligently to resolve the matter. Supervisor Altizer: He read a letter from Mayor Brad Grose, Town of Vinton, and the Vinton Police Department thanking Roanoke County for their backup assistance when Vinton Police Officer Bradley Cook was shot. Mayor Grose expressed August 8, 2006 665 appreciation to Chief Ray Lavinder and his staff for their support. Supervisor Altizer also extended his thanks to Chief Lavinder. Supervisor Wrav: He noted that at the July 25 Board meeting, he requested a review regarding the process for the removal of dead animals on County roads. Mr. Hodge advised that a memo has been prepared for the Board outlining the responsibilities of the various state and local agencies and it should be in the Board's correspondence package today. (2) He requested an update on the recycling receptacle for the South County area which was to be installed as a pilot project. Mr. Hodge advised that he thinks this receptacle has been ordered, and staff is working with the schools to determine an appropriate location. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Wray adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m. until Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. for the purpose of a joint meeting with the Roanoke County School Board, School Administration Center, 5937 Cove Road, Roanoke, Virginia. Submitted by: DJO t Q "~ . CJ;l4nl Diane S. Childers, CMC Clerk to the Board Approved by: ~~\.Q lJ-J~ Michael A. Wray - \ Chairman 666 August 8, 2006 This oaae intentionallv left blank.