HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/14/1987 - RegularO~ ROANp~~
a A
ti~ p
2 ~
~ 2
0
a
18 E50 88
SFSQVICENTENN~P~
d l3eauti~ull3eginnin~;
C~nitnt~ of ~nttnokr
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
Mr. Hugh D. Key
5355 Black Bear Lane, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Mr. Key:
BOF3 JOHNSON. CHAIRMAN
HOLLINS h1Al.IS TERIAL UIS TRICT
LEE GARRETT. VICE-CHAIRMAN
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
ALAN H. BRITTLE
July 16 , 19 8 7 CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW
CATAWE3A MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
The Board of Supervisors have asked me to express their
sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Recreation
Commission. Allow me to personally thank you for the time you
served on this Board. Citizens so responsive to the needs of
their community and willing to give of themselves and their time
are indeed all too scarce.
Very truly yours
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
bjh
cc: Steve Carpenter, Director
Parks & Recreation
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 98 (703> 772-2004
~~ ;
~'
Z ~
v a2
i
' ~~
i'4
~ ~
,t.-
~ ~ ~~4~ ~~
150 p Q
18 rrans 88 ~
-
~.
SFSQUICEN7ENN~P~ ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
A Beauti~ul Beginning
ACTION AGENDA
JULY 14, 1987
Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular
meetings are held on the second Tuesday of the month at 2:0.0 p.m., and
the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public Hearings will be heard at _7:00
p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this
schedule will be announced. (There is a Public Hearing scheduled for
this afternoon.)
A. OPENING CEREMONIES (2:00 P.M.)
1. Roll Call.
2. Invocation: .The Reverend William E. Eicher
Poages Mill Church of the Brethren
3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag.
B. WORK SESSIONS
1. Street Light Study.
FOLLOWUP REPORT in 30 - 45 DAYS INCLUDING URBAN VS. RURAL, PRIVATE
SECTOR HELP, REQUIRING DEVELOPERS TO INSTALL STREET LIGHTS, COST
SAVINGS IN CONVERSION
2. Methods of Refuse Collection.
ACTION TAKEN AS ITEM F-8
3. Water System Acquisitions.
ACTION TAKEN AS ITEM F-9
C. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS
1. INTRODUCTION OF GARDNER SMITH, DIRECTOR OF GENERAL SERVICES
2. CAPTAIN WADE GAVE ANNUAL REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
COMMISSION AND PRESENTED ACHIEVEMENT AWARD TO ROANOKE COUNTY.
3. TIM GUBALA PRESENTED STREET SIGN PLAQUES TO BOARD MEMBERS
D. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA
ITEMS.
AHB ADDED ITEM N-7 - CONFIRMATION OF COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT
BLJ ADDED ITEM L-2 - APPOINTMENT OF BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION TO STUDY
DELIVERY OF SERVICES
ECH MOVED ITEM F-2 TO BE HEARD FOLLOWING ITEM Q (EXECUTIVE SESSION)
E. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Resolution of Congratulations to the Roanoke County/
Salem Jail Personnel.
BLJ/SAM - URC
F. NEW BUSINESS
1. Update on the Explore Project.
BLJ/HCN TO SUPPORT EXPLORE PROJECT AND INFORM GOVERNOR AND AREA
LEGISLATORS OF COUNTY'S SUPPORT
2. Old Courthouse Litigation.
ACTION TAKEN FOLLOWING EXECUTIVE SESSION
3. Request for funding for Human Service Agencies.
SAM/BLJ TO APPROVE
AYES: AHB,LG,SAM,BLJ
ABSTAIN: HCN
4. Request for approval of refund of Industrial
Development Bonds for:
a. Fralin & Waldron Commercial Rental II
b. Fralin & Waldron Office Park II
HCN/LG TO APPROVE - URC
5. Claim of Tim Edmondson.
BLJ/SAM TO DENY CLAIM - URC
6. Protest of Bid by Oxford Services.
LG/SAM TO DENY PROTEST - URC
7. Protest of Bid by Valley Communications.
2
AHB/SAM TO TABLE UNTIL AUG. 11, 1987 AT ATTORNEY'S REQUEST
8. Approval of Automated One-man Refuse Collection
SAM/HCN TO APPROVE - URC
9. Approval of the following Water System Acquisitions:
a. Cherokee Hills
b. Crescent Heights
c. Sherry Court
d. Forest Edge
e. Carriage Hills
AHB/SAM TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION
AYES: AHB,LG,SAM,BLJ
NAYS: HCN
G. REQUEST FOR WORK SESSIONS
H. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
PMM - REQUESTED THAT PETITION OF JERRY W. BUSH AND JANAT L. BUSH
TO VACATE PLAT OF RAMSGATE COURT SUBDIVISION WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN
ON JUNE 23, 1987 BE HEARD JULY 28, 1987
I. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
J. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
K. PUBLIC HEARINGS
787-1 Public Hearing and Resolution pursuant to Section
15.1-238(e) authorizing condemnation and right-of-entry
for North Lakes Water Interconnection.
BLJ/HCN TO ADOPT RESO - URC
L. APPOINTMENTS
1. Community Corrections Resources Board.
3
2. BLJ APPOINTED A BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION TO STUDY
DELIVERY OF SERVICES:
- Joe Thomas
- Jack Shelton
- Joe Hanrahan
- Mr. Nat LaGuard
- One additional member
M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
MCGRAW: WILL SUBMIT A REPORT ON THE NACO CONFERENCE AT THE
NEXT BOARD MEETING
N. CONSENT AGENDA
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE
CONSIDERED BY TAE 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.
AHB ASKED THAT ITEM N-7 (CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE
RECREATION COMMISSION BE ADDED)
AHB ASKED THAT ITEM N-3 BE REMOVED FOR A SEPARATE VOTE SO HE MAY
ABSTAIN
HCN/BLJ TO APPROVE WITH CHANGES - URC
1. Minutes of Meetings - June 9, 1987.
2. Acceptance of Water & Sewer Lines serving
Meadowbrook Condominiums, Phase I and II.
3. Acceptance of Water and Sewer Facilities serving
Branderwood, Section I.
SAM/BLJ TO APPROVE
AYES: LG,SAM,HCN,BLJ
ABSTAIN : AHB
4. Acceptance of Rights of Way for the following
roads:
a. Farmington South
b. Pine Hill
c. Waltdon Farms
5. Request for School Board Appropriation for
Textbook Fund for 1987/88.
6. Approval of Amendment to Classification Plan for
position in the Sheriff's Department.
4
7. Confirmation of Appointment to Recreation
Commission .
O. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
1. HUGH KEY, COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW WAS
PRESENT TO PRESENT A REVISED BILL OF COMPLAINT
CONCERNING THEIR PROPOSED LITIGATION
P. REPORTS
1. Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability of
Investments and Portfolio Policy.
2. Youth Haven II Project Status Report.
3. Oral Report by Wayne Compton, Commissioner of
Revenue concerning proration of Personal Property
tax .
Q. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia
2.1-344 (a).
BLJ/LG - URC AT 5:20 P.M.
(1) To consider a personnel matter.
(2) To consider a real estate matter.
(6) To discuss a legal matter.
OPEN SESSION AT 6:25 P.M.
1. Old Courthouse Litigation
BLJ/HCN THAT OLD COURTHOUSE AND OTHER REAL ESTATE CONVEYANCES BE
DESIGNATED AS "SURPLUS" PROPERTY - URC
LG/SAM THAT $200,000 PURCHASE PRICE OF COURTHOUSE BE DESIGNATED
FOR CAPITAL FACILITY PROJECTS, THAT BUDGET APPROPRIATED APPROVED
ON MAY 28, 1987 BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE $175,000 IN CAPITAL FUND
FOR RENOVATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING AND ADDITIONAL
APPROPRIATION OF $25,000 BE ALLOCATED TO CAPITAL FUND - URC
SAM/LG MOTION THAT BOARD RATIFY FUTURE RECEIPTS FROM SALE OF
CAPITAL FACILITIES WILL BE APPROPRIATED TO CAPITAL FACILITIES
FUND UNLESS THERE IS PRIOR CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENTS - URC
PMM TO GO FORWARD FOR DISMISSAL OF LAWSUIT
5
2. Establish Salaries of County Administrator and County
Attorney for 19:87/88 Fiscal Year
BLJ/LG MOTION TO SET COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SALARY AT 5$ INCREASE
OVER 1986/87 SALARY. EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1987 SALARY WILL BE
$73,028 - URC
BLJ/SAM MOTION TO SET COUNTY ATTORNEY'S SALARY AT 5$ INCREASE
OVER 1986/87 SALARY. EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1987 SALARY WILL BE
$53,928 - URC
R. ADJOURNMENT at 6:37 p.m.
6
~.
of AOANp~.~
> ~
ti A
a ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~e
p ,~ p
18 ruRS $$
SFSQUICENTENN~P~ ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
A Bcauti~ulBcginning
AGENDA
JULY 14, 1987
Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular
meetings are held on the second Tuesday of the month at 2:00 p.m., and
the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public Hearings will be heard at 7:00
p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this
schedule will be announced. (There is a Public Hearing scheduled for
this afternoon.)
A. OPENING CEREMONIES (2:00 P.M.)
1. Roll Call.
2. Invocation: The Reverend William E. Eicher
Poages Mill Church of the Brethren
3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag.
B. WORK SESSIONS
1. Street Light Study.
2. Methods of Refuse Collection.
3. Water System Acquisitions.
C. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS
D. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA
ITEMS.
E. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Resolution of Congratulations to the Roanoke County/
Salem Jail Personnel.
a
F. NEW BUSINESS
1. Update on the Explore Project.
2. Old Courthouse Litigation.
3. Request for funding for Human Service Agencies.
4. Request for approval of refund of Industrial
Development Bonds for:
a. Fralin & Waldron Commercial Rental II
b. Fralin & Waldron Office Park II
5. Claim of Tim Edmondson.
6. Protest of Bid by Oxford Services.
7. Protest of Bid by Valley Communications.
G. REQUEST FOR WORR SESSIONS
H. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
I. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
J. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
K. PUBLIC HEARINGS
787-1 Public Hearing and Resolution pursuant to Section
15.1-238(e) authorizing condemnation and right-of-entry
for North Lakes Water Interconnection.
2
L. APPOINTMENTS
1. Community Corrections Resources Board.
M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
N. 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. Minutes of Meetings - June 9, 1987.
2. Acceptance of Water ~ Sewer Lines serving
Meadowbrook Condominiums, Phase I and II.
3. Acceptance of Water and Sewer Facilities serving
Branderwood, Section I.
4. Acceptance of Rights of Way for the following
roads:
a. Farmington South
b. Pine Hill
c. Waltdon Farms
5. Request for School Board Appropriation for
Textbook Fund for 1987/88.
6. Approval of Amendment to Classification Plan for
position in the Sheriff's Department.
0. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
P. REPORTS
3
1. Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability of
Investments and Portfolio Policy.
2. Youth Haven II Project Status Report.
Q. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia
2.1-344 (a).
(1) To consider a personnel matter.
(2) To consider a real estate matter.
(6) To discuss a legal matter.
R. ADJOURNMENT
4
ITEM NUMBER ~ ~' !
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1987
SUBJECT: Street Light Evaluation
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
For a number of years, the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors had concerns over the cost and effectiveness of the
Street Light Program. After a long research and formulation
process, the Board of Supervisors approved an evaluation process
in December 1983. This evaluation process provides the
following:
1. Consistency in evaluating the needs of street lights.
2. A nationally recognized method for evaluating the need
for street lights with the emphasis on traffic safety,
while also giving consideration to pedestrian safety
and crime.
As with most new programs, the Board members received a
number of complaints about the evaluation process. In 1986, the
County staff contracted with Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern to
provide an independent review of the street light evaluation
process.
Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern found that the present
method is satisfactory except for evaluating the need for
continuous lighting, differentiating between various types of
roadways and recommending appropriate lighting levels.
During the three (3) years that staff has used the
evaluation form, staff has identified several areas of concern,
namely:
1. Request usually originates from citizens within the
urbanized areas while the evaluation process favors
substandard roads that are usually located in the rural
areas.
2. Request for street lights usually are to assist in
crime and pedestrian protection while the evaluation
process places the emphasis on traffic safety.
3. Most street lights in Roanoke County have not been
evaluated under a formal process.
Obviously, the Board can direct staff to develop a new
street light program that would evaluate the need for street
lights with greater emphasis on pedestrian safety and crime.
However, such a program would certainly result in a much more
expensive street light program.
In response to our own concerns and those raised by Hayes,
Seay, Mattern and Mattern, staff would recommend the following:
1. Continue the existing evaluation process
2. Leave all existing street lights in place.
3. Pursue cost saving options such as converting mercury
vapor to high pressure sodium lights and developer
contribution toward the installation of new lights
justified as the result of the development.
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED:
G~2~
Phillip Henry Elmer C. H dge
Director of Engine ring County Administrator
--------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) M tion b No Yes Abs
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To
o y.
Brittle
Garrett
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
A-71487-1
..-
ITEM NUMBER _ ~ °- ..d'.. & F-8
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
July 14, 1987
SUBJECT: Work Session on Methods of Refuse Collection
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
During the last eighteen months, the Utility Department has
been evaluating methods by which Refuse Collection operation
could be made more efficient. Several of the methods which were
operational in nature were implemented and resulted in a $70,000
reduction in the 1986/87 operating budget. These methods were
the assignment of specific routes to individual crews and the
implementation of true 'Task Force' for the ten refuse collection
crews. The brush collection operation for the next fiscal year
is being funded by transferring $58,000 of these savings which
were retained as reserve in the 1986/87 Refuse Budget. The re-
maining methods which were evaluated would make significant
changes in the method of refuse collection and therefore, would
require Board approval prior to further consideration. Those
methods are presented in this Board Report.
ONE MAN - BAG COLLECTION
This method of refuse collection would require that the col-
lection operation be for what is termed "household refuse only".
All residential refuse collection would be for garbage bags only,
which would be collected weekly by a side loading, low entry
refuse truck. This type truck would be driven by the driver/
collector, that drives standing up on the right side of the vehi-
cle. He collects the garbage bags by reaching out and throwing
the bag over his shoulder into the side load hopper. While this
method of residential refuse collection results in significant
reduction in personnel and cost, there would be a significant
reduction in the level of service which is provided to the resi-
dents. Since the basic concept was to develop methods to reduce
cost without reducing the level of service, the one man - bag
collection method is not recommended for consideration at this
time .
~ : ~ .~
A,t. .,.....
SEMI-AUTOMATED COLLECTION
This method of refuse collection provides for the residents
to be provided with a 98 gallon roll-out container which would
be collected b~y the refuse crew and emptied into standard refuse
trucks equipped with a hydraulic dumping device which tips the
roll-out container and dumps it into the hopper. This is the
refuse collection method used by the City of Salem. This method
of collection provides a higher level of service to the customer
since they are provided with a large roll-out container that is
easy to use and handle. The use of the roll-out container also
provides for less scattering of refuse by wind or animals.
The semi-automated method of refuse collection uses the same
type vehicle we currently have with the hydraulic tipping device
installed at a cost of $5,000 per truck. The same size three man
crew is required, which picks up the same number of homes per day
as our present three man crews do. There would be much less
physical work on the part of the two collectors that work the
semi-automatic method. The cost to provide containers to 3,600
residents is 3,600 x $68 = $244,800. Since the same number of
refuse vehicles and the same size crew is required for the semi-
automatic method as is required for our current operation, there
are no cost reductions to off-set the cost of the containers or
the hydraulic tipping devices. Since there is an increase in
cost for the semi-automated method, with no current or future
savings to off-set these costs, this method is not recommend for
further consideration.
AUTOMATED ONE-MAN COLLECTION
This method provides the residents with a 98 gallon roll-out
container, the same as the semi-automatic method described above.
This method employs a refuse vehicle that is equipped with a me-
chanical arm that would be operated by the driver/collector. The
mechanical arm extends to pick up, empty and return the roll-out
container. This is the type of operation that was demonstrated
to the Board on May 26, 1987. The automated method has been eval-
uated by staff over the last sixteen months. Staff has visited
and observed the automated one-man collection method as it is
used in Greensboro, North Carolina and Albany, Georgia and feel
strongly that this is the best method available by which Roanoke
County can increase the level of service, while at the same time,
significantly reducing the annual cost of refuse collection.
The cost analysis for this method has been previously presented
to the Board. A copy of that cost analysis is attached to this
report. The cost analysis presented is valid for a 12 month
budget period. The cost analysis indicates that the transition
to the automated one-man collection method could be made in FY
87/88, with the funds that were available within the current and
approved budgets. Two items have changed. First the $70,000
reserve indicated in the cost analysis has been reduced by
$60,000 because we transferred that amount to next years budget
,.., .~
._ ..~ .
in order to fund the brush collection. Second, the $91,550 per-
sonnel cost savings considers that the six employees would be
reduced on July 1, 1987, which is the start of the fiscal year.
Due to the delay in bringing this report to the Board, it will
not be possible to start the automated one-man method until or
after November, 1987, due to delivery of equipment. We can not
reduce the six personnel until the new equipment is delivered.
As you can see, the costs remain unchanged for a 12 month period.
However, the analysis is not correct unless it is implemented at
the beginning of the fiscal year.
The merits of conversion to the automated one-man method and
the cost savings to the County are so significant that we are
presenting a method whereby this method can be implemented as
soon as possible.
Funds available in the current Refuse budget $110,000
Funds available in FY 87/88 Budget - vehicle 90,000
Personnel cost savings after November, 1987 70,000
(Use overtime and 3 temporary collectors)
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR PROGRAM $270,000
Cost of first truck and 3,600 containers 330,000
Additional Funds Required $ 60,000
The $60,000 could be provided by using a two year lease pur-
chase for the cost of the new refuse vehicle. This would in-
crease the program cost by the amount of interest on the lease
purchase.
The automated one-man collection cost analysis is presented
considering that the cost of fuel, maintenance, labor, and land-
fill fees are the same regardless of the collection method used.
However, the cost savings in personnel reduction must be funded
in future years in order to be able to purchase the remaining
containers and vehicles. After the fourth year, the annual sav-
ings of $450,000 per year will be realized, and an actual reduc-
tion in the refuse budget will be realized.
FISCAL IMPACT:
During the five year implementation of this program, a cumu-
lative savings of over $950,000 can be realized. Each year after
the fifth, an annual savings in excess of $450,000 will be made
as well as a reduction in vehicle purchase. Lease purchase will
be required in an amount of between $60,000 and $70,000, which
will be paid for with the Capital Equipment Budget in FY 88/89.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Utility Director recommends that staff be authorized to
begin the transition to the automated one-man refuse collection
method. It is further recommended that the funds that remain
I_ i
within the Refuse Budget at the end of FY 86/87 be carried over
to the Capital Purchase line item in the FY 87/88 Budget to fund
the transition with the smallest possible use of lease purchase.
The Department will reduce personnel at the fastest rate possible
without affecting the level of service to the residents, in order
to require the lowest possible level of lease purchase.
Additional information will be provided as requested at the
previous Board Meeting as to methods of privatization of refuse
collection.
SUBMITTED BY:
Cliffor ig
Director of Utilities
APPROVED:
~a2ti.~'
Elmer C. Hod e
County Administrator
ACTION
Approved (x) Motion byy: Steven A. McGraw/
Denied ( ) Harry C. Nic ens app Brittle
Received ( ) au oma e one-man se Garrett
Referred Johnson
To McGraw
Nickens
cc: File.
John Hubbard
Clifford Craig
River Bonhotel
VOTE
No Yes Abs
x
x
X
x
x
'i`.,r.-.1 rT
AUTOMATED REFUSE COLLECTION METHOD
Listed below are the tentative collection routes for the
automated system. These routes average 900 collections a day
with Friday scheduled for maintenance. These routes will be
collected one day prior to the manual collection routes so that
any delay or deletions by the automated truck can be collected by
the manual trucks. The manual truck will be modified with an
automated lifting device.
Monday Collection Route - Combines Monday and Tuesday Manual
Routes:
Street/Subdivision
Eton Hills
Vest Drive and Hazel Drive
Georgetown Park
Rasmont Road and Ledgewood Drive
Melody Acres
Cross Creek
Dover Drive
Western Hills/Windsor West - excluding
three streets
Total
Number of Homes
52
44
76
30
34
28
8
626
898
Tuesday Collection Route - Normally Wednesday Manual Route:
Street/Subdivision Number of Homes
North Lakes/Meadowwood Estates/
Beacon Hills 688
Glen Cove 77
Willow Creek 175
Total 940
Wednesday Collection Route - Normally Thursday Manual Route:
Street/Subdivision
Woodlands
Boxley Hills/Captain's Grove
Malvern Hills
Alexander Drive
Pendleton Drive
Dent Road
Greenfield
Total
Number of Homes
234
489
21
25
8
135
912
Thursday Collection Route - Normally Friday Manual Route:
Subdivision
Montgomery Village/Foxfire
Lindenwood
Crofton
Spring Grove
Stonebridge Acres
Total
Number of Homes
292
275
170
86
80
903
~--r i >
. _..-
AUTOMA~"'EZ) RF~VSE COLL~CTICN METHOD
One-Man Mechanical Refuse Collection
It is proposed that the County implement one~nan mechanical refuse
collection over the next six years.
The one-man mechanical refuse collection system uses a special truck that
picks up and empties 90 gallon roll-out containers. The mechanical arm is
hydraulically operated from the driver's position. The driver of the truck is
the only person on the collection crew.
Each one~nan truck will replace two of the rear or side loader refuse
trucks that are currently being used. The result is a reduction of one
vehicle and five personnel for each one-man truck that is put into service.
Although the mechanical collection is much different than the system that
Salem is using, the 90 gallon roll-out containers used would be similiar to
those Salem uses.
Zt is recatmended that the ire-ica~n mechanical collection system be
implemented with funds available within the Refuse Budget target amount. No
additional funds are requested for this transition.
The cost for one, one-man mechanical truck and 3,600 containers is
$330,000. This truck will replace two existing trucks and six personnel.
First Truck:
The proposed funding for the first unit is as follows:
Within the FY 86/87 budget, we have $85,000 for a new refuse truck and
$70,000 in reserve for a total of $155,000.
In the proposed FY 87/88 budget (which is within the target), we have
$90,000 capital available. Within the proposed FY 87/88 budget, personnel
cost will be reduced by $91,550 by deleting two MEO I positions and four
~i _. _''
collector positions. The vehicle maintenance budget it~n will subsequently be
reduced by $5,100.
The total funds available within the current year budget and the proposed
budget target is therefore $341,650. This is sufficient to place one, one~nan
mechanical truck in operation by July 1, 1987 and leave a $11,650 reserve.
For the next fiscal year FY 88/89, the amnulative funds saved above
would be held in reserve for FY 89/90. These cumrnulative funds are projected
as follows: Second year savings on the 6 man personnel reduction $91,550 x
1.07; _ $97,958; the second year savings on reduced maintenance = $5,100, and
the $90,000 capital within the budget and the $11,650 prior year reserve.
Total reserve within the FY 88/89 budget available for FY 89/90 = $204,708.
Second Truck:
For fiscal year FY 89/90, the previous funds of $204,708 are available
plus the third year savings on the 6 man personnel reduction which would be
$97,958 x 1.07$ _ $104,815. The $90,000 capital for FY 89/90 will be
available within the budget for a total available of $399,523. Since the
seccand •tiuck and containers can now be purchased, a further personnel
reduction of five men can be made at a cost reduction of $90,950. Additional
maintenance savings of $10,200 will also be available. Total available funds
will be $500,673. Cost to place second truck in operation is $340,000,
leaving a balance of $160,673 to be carried into FY 90/91.
Third Truck:
For FY 90/91, we would have available $160,673 carry aver, personnel
reduction of 11 man, which is $209,468, and maintenance reduction of $10,200
with the $90,000 capital in FY 90/91, the total available funds are $470,341.
This will fund the third truck and equip~~ent for $350,000 and provide further
~~"3 µ ~ }
.~/ ra;'.... ~/
reduction of 5 men = $97,316 and $5,100 reduction in maintenance. Balance to
carry over to FY 91/92 will be $222,757.
For FY 91/92, we have $222,757 carry aver, personnel reduction of 16 men,
which is $328,259, and maintenance reduction of $15,300 and $90,000 capital in
FY 91/92 budget. The total available funds are $656,316. This will fund the
fourth truck and equipment at $360,000 and provide further reduction of 5 men
_ $104,128 and $5,100 additional reduction in maintenance. Balance to carry
wer to FY 92/93 will be $405,544.
The one-man mechanical systan is now in full operation. The savings and,
therefore, a "reserve" in FY 92/93 would be $987,598. No new equipment should
be required and therefore, these funds would be excess.
In actual operation, the prior year reserve would be carried aver only to
the extent required to fund an add' tional !-.ruck operatirn. Therefore,
beginning in FY 90/91, the refuse target oould be reduced frcxn the prior year
since all of the reserve would not be needed.
Personnel Reduction = 21 F~loyees
Vehicle Reduction = 4 Vehicles
i~~ .~ .
ATTACHMENT #1
While there are numerous advantages to the
collection system, there are several conce
be addressed before any decision is made.
are outlined below.
1. Roanoke County's terrain is extremely
proposed system is more successful in
terrain and wider roads.
automated one-man
rns which also need to
Some of these concerns
hilly, and the
areas with a flatter
2. Another change in the refuse collection will again impact
the citizens of the County. Several years ago, the County
began asking residents to bring their refuse to the street
in exchange for free service. Now they will be asking them
to adjust to another change in the system. Under the new
system, brush, boxes, etc. that are now being picked up
weekly will only be picked up monthly unless it is placed
within the containers.
4. Many residents have built areas for their refuse cans based
on the average size of trash containers. The new, 90 gallon
containers will no longer fit into these areas, which could
cause further problems for citizens.
5. The County does not have an off-street parking ordinance
which will make the placement of the containers more
critical.
6. The new system may not be compatible with recycling
possibilities which are being studied for the future.
7. The automated one-man collection system may limit the
County's possibility for privatization in the future.
8. The present system allows for backyard pickup for elderly
and handicapped. The proposed system would necessitate
another truck picking up refuse for those residents. It
would also be extremely difficult for some residents living
on hilly property to roll up or down, to the street, a 98
gallon container filled with refuse.
9. This system will not be available to residents in extremely
hilly terrain and narrow roads, yet the County will provide
them with the 98 gallon containers which refuse collectors
will have to manually empty.
There are many advantages to the proposed system which must be
recognized. In the long run, there will be a considerable
savings to the taxpayer by the elimination of jobs. The system
will also reduce workers compensation claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, I would recommend against the project. Should the
Board wish to consider it further, I would recommend that the
staff study for thirty days the impact of the concerns that have
been expressed. Once both the advantages and disadvantages of
this system are studied, it is the Board's discretion to decide
which approach would be best for Roanoke County.
A-71487-2
ITEM NUMBER ~.? - ,~ & F9a-e
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1987
SUBJECT: Work Session on Water System Acquisitions
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
~~ ~,.c ~~ ~ d, ~, ~ ~ ~.~~
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
See Attached Report.
FISCAL IMPACT:
RECOMMENDATION:
SUBMITTED BY:
Cliffo raig
Utility Director
APPROVED
Elmer C. H ge
County Administrator
ACTION
Approved (x) Motion by: Alan H. Brittle/Steve
Denied ( ) A. McGraw to approve staff
Received ( ) recommendation and acquire all
Referred water systems except Bridlewood
To & Falling Creek and fund as
recommended
Received under F-9
--------------------
VOTE
=_n No Yes Abs
Brittle x
Garrett x
Johnson x
McGraw x
Nickens
cc: File
John Hubbard
Clifford Craig
Exhibit 1
~`
-_ ~..
TABULATION OF WATER SYSTEMS CURRENTLY
BEING CONSIDERED FOR ACQUISITION
WATER SYSTEM
Cherokee Hills
Crescent Heights
Sherry Court
Forest Edge
Carriage Hills
TOTAL
OWNERSHIP
Jim Lyle
Association
P. G. Divers
F & W
COST
$ 67,000
$ 60,000
$ 8,000
$131,000
FUNDING SOURCE
1986 Bond Account
1985 Well Bonds
Utility Fund~l)
L & H
$ 35,000
$301,000
1986 Bond Account
or Utility Fund
1986 Bond Account
Falling Creek and Seller would not
Bridlewood Halderway $90,000 agree to offer.
See Exhibit 2
(1)$1,700 of the $8,000 may be charged to customers for meter
installation if Board directs such charges be made.
Summary of funding:
From 1985 Well Drilling/Source Bond account - $60,000
From 1986 Bonds for System Acquisition - $233,000 or $102,000
From Utility Fund Off-Site Facilities Fund - $8,000 or $139,000
Exhibit 2
WORK SESSION ON WATER SYSTEM ACQUISITIONS
I. BACKGROUND
On June 23, 1987, the Board of Supervisors requested a work
session to discuss the acquisition of various water systems
within County that are not owned by the County.
The current Roanoke County Water Ordinance which was adopted
in 1976 provides that "any water system that is proposed to
be established or expanded after the effective date of this
ordinance (July 1976)" shall be conveyed to the County by
one of the following methods: (Paraphrased)
A. PROPOSED WATER SYSTEMS:
1. Expansion of the County owned s~stem:the applicant
extends the County owned system, installs the necessary
distribution system and connections, pays the water
connection fees subject to the oversized main and off-site
facility credits, and conveys the extended facilities to the
County at no cost.
2. Expansion of a privately owned water stem: the
applicant extends the necessary distribution system and
installs individual connections, pays the water connection
fees subject to the oversized main and off-site facilities
credits, agrees to sell water to the County, and conveys the
extended facilities to the County at no cost. The applicant
is also required to convey the original portion of the
private water system to the County if a fair market value
for the system can be agreed upon. County reserves the
right of condemnation of the established private water
system.
3. Areas where the County does not provide water service
_and the County water system can not be ex~ anded: the
applicant is required to install a complete water system and
either:
a. convey the complete water system including supply and
storage to the County at no cost and pay the actual cost of
the water meter ($20) or;
b. convey to the County the water system exclusive of
any supply or storage facility at no cost to the County;
convey at cost of construction the supply and storage
facilities and pay the water connection fees. (Since last
August, we have limited the amount the County will pay for
the supply and storage not to exceed 100 of the off-site
facilities fee for the development. A Reimbursement
agreement can be used so that the applicant can recover the
balance of the supply and storage costs that are not covered
by the 100 off-site facilities fee credit.)
1
t ,r
. ,..a ~.~
6~... .:...:...' ....,,~...
A 1978 amendment to the water ordinance provides that the
Board may waive the above requirements and allow the
expansion of or the establishment of private water systems
to remain under private ownership.
II. CiJRRENT APPLICATION OF WATER ORDINANCE
Since August 1985, strict compliance with the provisions of
the water ordinance. has been required. Expansions of
private water systems that were not previously approved as
private have been or will be conveyed to the County. For
these expansions, we have negotiated with the owners to
purchase the original portion of the water system as
required by the ordinance. The Falling Creek, Cherokee
Hills and Read Mountain water systems are examples. The
establishment of a new water system in parts of the County
that we do not provide service have also been handled as
required by the ordinance. The Thousand Oaks subdivision
will have a newly established water system whereby the
developer will install a complete water system and convey it
to the County. The developer will pay the total connection
fees and we will pay for the wells and storage up to a
maximum of 1009b of the off site facilities fee. The Forest
Edge and Forest Vista water systems will also be constructed
under these provisions. However, since the Forest edge
water system was proposed prior to the 100 off-site
facility fee credit maximum being set, the full cost of
supply and storage will be eligible for payment by the
County.
III. FUTURE APPLICATION OF THE WATER ORDINANCE
Staff feels the prohibition of establishing or expanding
private water systems should be continued. The County can
provide a better a more complete water system by being the
owner of all water systems. If private water systems are
permitted to expand or be established, one of two things
will happen; (1) the systems will degrade to the point that
the County will feel an obligation to take them over at no
or little cost and then will be required to spend funds on
the system to just get it into operational condition (i.e.
Sherry Ct.); (2) the private water system will be in the
path of normal expansion of the County water system. The
County will want to acquire it as part of our system and the
selling price will be much higher than the cost of supply
and storage (i.e. Read Mountain Water Company).
With the continued requirement that all water systems be
built to the County Standards and the requirement for a more
stringent well production test, it is felt that all newly
established water systems will be adequate for current and
future needs. Most of the problems associated with
establishing new water systems have been with low quantity
of supply from wells. At this time the step draw down test
2
method is being used to determine the safe yield for a 30
day period. The new method will be used starting with the
Vista Forest system. A very stringent well production
requiremer_t will be proposed as part a new water ordinance.
IV. FUNDING ACQUISITION OF WATER SYSTEMS
There are four funding categories that can be used to
acquire both existing and future water systems which are not
expansions to the County water system.
1. UTILITY FUND - OFF-SITE FACILITY FEES
Credit against the off-site facilities fee and any possible
reimbursements from fees paid from others that benefit from
the eligible facilities. This category would apply to any
development which is outside the the current County service
area, and would require that the developer take financial
risk for the cost of the water system. This method would
require individual approval of the Board if the second half
of the off-site facilities fee or reimbursement is used.
These funds are within the existing Utility Fund.
2. WELL DRILLING - NEW WATER SOURCE BONDS - 1985 BONDS
These bonds could be legally used to purchase private water
systems if the water system had excess water available in
their existing wells. The bond moneys should be used only
if the excess capacity is at least twenty gallon per minute,
and should be used only when other funding sources are not
available or where there is large excess capacity.
3. PRIVATE WATER ACQUISITION BONDS - 1986 BONDS
One million dollars was included for the purchase of private
water systems that were in the path of development of the
County water system. This funding source is recommended for
acquiring some of the systems mentioned later in this
report. A Utility Fund Account would eventually contain the
funds from the sale of these bonds. Until the bond proceeds
are available, the Utility Fund will loan money to this bond
account allowing us to make the purchases. The Utility Fund
will be reimbursed when the bonds are sold.
4. DONATION TO COUNTY BY OWNER
When the County receives requests from owners of private
water systems to donate their water systems, the County
should accept these systems so they are not acquired by
others who will eventually want to sell the system to the
County at a profit. Many of these systems are below minimum
acceptable condition and the owner or users should be
required to pay to the County the necessary costs required
to have proper metering installed and to pay for any
3
~_.
construction that would be required for the County to
supply the customers with basic domestic water needs. If
the County acquired a system requiring a great deal of
upgrade work, this work would be prioritized along with the
existing water capital projects unless the owner or
customers agreed to pay for this upgrade at the time the
County accepts the system (i.e. Sherry Ct.). The Board may
decide to pay for some of the basic improvements since these
improvements would be part of future capital projects or
part of a future expansion of the County system.
IV. WATER SYSTEMS CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW FOR ACQUISITION
1. CHEROKEE HILLS - This water system is owned by James Lyle
and has approximately 150 connections. The owner proposed
to expand his private water system to service a new section
of the Cherokee Hills Subdivision. The County enforced the
water ordinance requiring that the newly expanded water
system be conveyed to the County, connections fees paid and
that Mr. Lyle sell us water. Acquisition of the original
water system was discussed and a price of $67,000 was agreed
upon for the original system. This price was established
using the value of the wells and storage facilities only.
The value of the distribution system or the number of
connections was not considered. Although this system is now
adequate for domestic service, there is no excess capacity
in the well systems. It is proposed that the $67,000
purchase of the Cherokee Hills Water System be made with
funds from the Water System Acquisition Bond Account with
money loaned to this account from the Utility Fund.
2. CRESCENT HEIGHTS WATER SYSTEM - This water system is
located along Starkey Road at Buck Mountain Road and is
owned by a user association. There are approximately 100
connections/members at this time. The wells serving this
system have excess capacity of approximately 40 gallon per
minute. This system could be purchased with funds from the
1985 Well Drilling/Source Bonds. A purchase price has been
established at $60,000. It is proposed that the County
purchase the Crescent Heights Water System with $60,000 from
the Well Drilling/Source Bonds. The Association proposes to
then give the County Utility Fund $60,000 which would
be used to upgrade the Crescent Heights water distribution
system. A portion of the $60,000 may be retained to fund
some needed work such as lateral and pressure reducing valve
installation that will be required, and which the County
could not do. This proposal will benefit both the
association members and the County since we will be getting
an additional source of water and a loop tie-in to our
existing water system for the same cost we would pay for the
system as it is. The excess 40 gallon per minute will be
pumped into the South County Water system and require less
water to be purchased from the city in the same manner the
capacity of a new well would be used.
4
3. SHERRY COURT WATER SYSTEM - This water system located in
North West County provides domestic water service to 17
customers. The well has poor quality water and is in
frequent violations of the State Water Regulations. The
owner is elderly and is unable to improve or maintain the
water system and has offered to donate it to the County.
Due to the poor supply, we would connect this water system
to our adjacent system. The well would not be of benefit to
the County, and would remain the property of the present
owner. This water system has two inch water lines which are
in poor condition. All new water meters would have to be
installed at each connection. The cost to interconnect the
Sherry Court water system to the County system will be
approximately $6300 and meter installation another $1700.
The connection of this system to the County system will be
in the path of a future loop within our system, and the
Board could consider it a part of the capital improvement
program for utilities. The 17 existing connections could be
expected to pay for the meter installation since they do not
presently have proper metering. The present connections are
customers of the water system that we would be acquiring,
and any other connection fee related cost should not be
charged. However, if the present customers want the
distribution system upgraded within the next five years,
they should be required to fund some of the cost. Funding
would be made available within the Utility Fund as the Board
may direct.
4. FOREST EDGE WATER SYSTEM - This water system is being
constructed to serve the Forest Edge Subdivision which is
located out Rt. 221 adjacent to Carriage Hills. The
developers are establishing the water system under the
provisions of the water ordinance which requires that they
construct a complete system, pay connection fees and convey
the system to the county for the cost of supply and storage
facilities. The establishment of this water system was very
expensive because the developer had to drill 16 wells in
order to get five wells that have a combined yield of 32
gallon per minute. .This system has a 150,000 gallon storage
reservoir and is presently permitted by the State to serve
64 single family connections. The total connection fees
that will be paid by the developer is approximately $58,000.
The cost to provide the supply and storage facilities will
be about $187,000. The County's cost to acquire this system
will be approximately $131,000. The value of the wells and
storage exceed the amount which we would pay, and this
system will cost the County less to acquire under the
provisions of the ordinance than it would if we try to
purchase the system at a latter date for a cost equal to the
value of the wells and storage. Funds to acquire this
system could either be from the off-site facilities fund or
from the account being set up for purchase of private
systems with the bonds approved for that purpose. The bond
account is recommended since this would be a proper use for
those funds, and not put an additional demand on the off-
5
''y
site facility fund used to expand and improve the existing
water system. However, funds are available within the off-
site facilities fund if that source is preferred. Please
note that this system was approved for construction under
the old water construction standards and prior to the
increase in connection fees.
5. CARRIAGE HILLS and PARKER WATER SYSTEM - This water
system will be made by an interconnection of the two
adjacent systems by the owner to provide water for the last
phase of the Carriage Hills Subdivision. The owner and
developer have agreed to interconnect the two systems and
provide the required booster station. The owner has agreed
to sell the combined system to the County for $35,000. The
value of the wells and 20,000 gallon storage reservoir was
established to be $35,000. If the
County acquires the adjacent Forest Edge water system as
discussed in 4 above, then the Carriage Hills/Parker water
system should also be considered. Funds for this
acquisition would come from the account established to
purchase private water systems with the bonds approved for
that purchase.
6. FALLING CREEK/BRIDLEWOOD WATER SYSTEM - The purchase by
the County of these two systems was handled as a package.
The Bridlewood water system has very poor supply and no
value was assigned to it. The Falling Creek water system
value is established at $90,000 using the value of the wells
and storage facilities. The County and the owner were very
close to agreement on a fair value for. this system when it
became clear that the Falling Creek water system is within
the exclusive service area which the County gave to Vinton.
If the County purchased this system, we would be required to
give it to Vinton for operation and receive $1.00 in return.
At the same time, the owner started to increase the price
because he had drilled an additional well for this system.
No further discussions have taken place since last summer.
V. FUTURE WATER SYSTEM ACQUISITIONS
In order to be able to provide equal water service to our
residents, we should continue to prohibit the establishment
or expansion of any private water system. The owner of a
private water system may also use his dissatisfied customers
to pressure the County to purchase the system knowing that
if our residents apply enough pressure to County officials,
our purchase offer may increase.
Any water system that is in poor condition will eventually
end up as part of the County or another water system. It
may be best to acquire the private systems at a low or no
cost before that they become completely worthless and
require us to do immediate work in order to provide for the
health of our residents. In the past, the County has
refused to take over a private water system because it was
6
r
in poor condition. Just four years ago the County refused
to take the Sherry Court water system unless the owner or
residents put $22,000 worth of improvements into the system.
In 1980, the Utility Department recommended that the County
not purchase the Cherokee Hills water system at a cost of
$50,000. It is now recommended that we take the Sherry Court
system for the cast of meter installation and that we
purchase the Cherokee Hills system at a cost of $67,000.
Both systems are in poorer condition today than they were in
the past.
The staff will proceed to acquire private water systems
under the guidelines and direction provided by the Board.
Any and all proposals to acquire private water systems will
be presented to the Board for approval on an individual
basis.
7
ROANOKE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SAFETY COMMISSION
Activities and Programs Sponsored in 1986
The Roanoke County Transportation Safety Commission held four meetings
in 1986 to cite hazardous traffic areas and seek possible remedies and
solutions to correct them.
After citing hazardous conditions, the Commission worked with the
appropriate governmental agencies to correct them in areas of sponsoring the
Roanoke County Sheriff's Department for four separate mini-grants of $1,500
each.
The Roanoke County Sheriff's Department was successful in obtaining two
mini-grants for Seat Belt Safety, one for Driving Under the Influence, and
one f_or Police Traffic Services. ~
7'he Seat Belt Safety mini-grants were used to purchase VHS video equip-
ment and seven seat belt safety films. The DUI mini-grant was used to pur-
chase three field Alco-Sensors and one DUI filmstrip, "The Toll, the Tears."
The Police Traffic Services mini-grant was used to purchase anew radar unit,
Kustoms Model HR-12.
The Commission has been instrumental in assisting the Roanoke Valley ASAP
Programs administered by the Court Community Corrections in preventing recid-
ivism.
Tlie Commission is sponsoring a new pilot program of a Professional Crash
Investigation Team. The team will reconstruct all serious and fatality
crashes and offer solutions to preventing recurrences.
The Commission sponsored the "Get Caught Buckled Up" Campaign adminis-
tered by the Junior League of Women of the Roanoke Valley. It sponsors the
STEERING (Safe Transportation for Each and Every Rider) Committee of the
Roanoke Valley and has a member assigned to this committee.
Also sponsored by the Commission is the Bicycle Registration Program
and the AAA Bicycle Rodeo for the Roanoke County Sheriff's Department. The
Commission sponsors the annual Truck Rodeo of the Roanoke Valley and the
Roanoke Valley and Southwest Virginia Safety Council.
The Commission presented awards to the following professionals and
Roanoke County Transportstion Safety Commission
Page 2
fraternities for their contributions to traffic safety:
Junior League of Women of the Roanoke Valley
Outstanding School Bus Driver Award
Fireman of the Year Award
Rescue Squad Member of the Year Award
State Trooper of the Year Award
Outstanding Traffic Officer of the Year Award
Roanoke Valley Safety Council
Six Achievement Awards to School Crossing Guards for 17 Years
of Service without an Injury Incident.
Sheriff 0. S. Foster for 34 Years' Dedicated Service to Highway
Safety ~,
Respectfully submitted,
~° , ~~~
~~
L. J. Wade, Chairman
Roanoke County Transportation
Safety Commission
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE ~,w, ~~ ~j
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1987
RESOLUTION OF CGNGRATULATIONS TO THE
ROANOKE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT FOR
RECEIVING 100 PERCENT COMPLIANCE FROM THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
WHEREAS, the State Department of Corrections conducted
a Certification Audit of the Roanoke County jail facility on May
26-28, 1987, and
WHEREAS, the jail was graded on 104 standards, and met
100 percent of all of these standards, and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Sheriff's Department
received a certificate recognizing 100 percent compliance with
the Minimum Standards for Jails and Lockups, and
WHEREAS, this significant achievement is due to the
dedication and support of the Sheriff's Department employees, and
in particular, the jail personnel.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, wishes to express its
pride to the Sheriff's Department for attaining this important
goal; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, offers congratulations to Sheriff O. S.
Foster, Captain Stephen Huff and the staff of the Roanoke County
jail facility for this outstanding accomplishment.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1987
RESOLUTION 71487-3 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO
THE ROANOKE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
FOR RECEIVING 100 PERCENT COMPLIANCE FROM
THE COMMONWEALTH OF` VIRGINIA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
WHEREAS, the State Department of Corrections conducted
a Certification Audit of the Roanoke County jail facility on May
26-28, 1987, and
WHEREAS, the jail was graded on 104 standards, and met
100 percent of all of these standards, and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Sheriff's Department
received a certificate recognizing 100 percent compliance with
the Minimum Standards for Jails and Lockups, and
WHEREAS, this significant achievement is due to the
dedication and support of the Sheriff's Department employees, and
in particular, the jail personnel.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, wishes to express its
pride to the Sheriff's Department for attaining this important
goal; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, offers congratulations to Sheriff O. S.
Foster, Captain Stephen Huff and the staff of the Roanoke County
jail facility for this outstanding accomplishment.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor
McGraw, and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY - TESTE:
7YL~~, ~d Gu.ca.-.~
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
7/15/87
cc: File
Resolution of Congratulations File
ITEM NUMBER ~"
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
July 14, 1987
SUBJECT: Update on the Explore Project
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
A representative of the River Foundation will be present at the
meeting to update the Board on the Explore Project.
A new video is being released, and the River Foundation would
like to share this with the supervisors prior to its being made
public.
APPROVED BY:
;.
Elmer C. Hodg
County Administrator
-------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) Motion by: lvo Yes Abs
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To
Brittle
Garrett
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
{
A-71487-4
ITEM NUMBER~o~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1987
SUBJECT: Litigation on the Old Courthouse
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This item will be discussed in Executive Session pursuant to the
Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 (a) (6) to discuss a legal
matter .
Action may be taken following Executive Session
~~~ ~ ` 1r
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
---------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOT
Approved ( ) Motion by: _ No
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To
SEE ATTACHED FOR BOARD ACTION
Brittle
Garrett
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Yes Abs
MOTION #1 - APPROVED BY UNANIMOUS RECORDED VOTE
Bob L. Johnson/Harry C. Nickens to ratify and confirm that the
old courthouse is "surplus in relation to the use for which
acquired", ratify and confirm that the old courthouse has
been made available for other public uses by contract with
Roanoke College, through leases for the Extension Service and
County Registrar and Roanoke College's intent to negotiate a
lease for the Court of Appeals and that other public uses were
considered in comparison to the costs, need and limitations to
the County. This ratification of the determination that property
is surplus, and the confirmation that other public uses for
property have been considered by the Board are apparent from the
procedures followed and the actions taken by the County, not only
for this transaction, but also for all real estate conveyances.
MOTION #2 - APPROVED BY UNANIMOUS RECORDED VOTE
Lee Garrett/Steven A. McGraw to identify the use of $200,000 of
the purchase price of the old Courthouse for capital facility
projects, amending the original budget appropriation approved on
May 28, 1987. The 1987-88 budget currently includes an
appropriation in the Capital Fund in the amount of $175,000 for
the renovation of the Southview Public Safety Building. An
additional appropriation of $25,000 to the Capital Fund, combined
with this $175,000 for the Southview facility would equal the
$200,000 that would be paid to the County by Roanoke College in
fiscal year 1987-88. This additional $25,000 appropriation is
from fund balance.
MOTION #3 - APPROVED BY UNANIMOUS RECORDED VOTE
Steven A. McGraw/Lee Garrett to ratify that any future receipts
from sales of capital facilities will be appropriated to the
Capital Facilities Fund to be expended for the acquisition,
construction, maintenance or replacement of other capital
facilities projects unless another disposition is required by
prior contractual commitments.
cc: File
Paul Mchoney
Reta Busher
John Chambliss
A-71487-5
ITEM NUMBER ~ ~"'
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1987
SUBJECT: Recommendation for funding of Human Services Agencies
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
On May 26, 1987, the Board of Supervisors approved the 1987-88
fiscal year budget which included an appropriation in the amount
of $20,000 for funding of Roanoke Valley community service
agencies. Due to budgetary constraints, $4,000 less was
allocated this year than in 1986/87.
In addition to the $20,000 allocated for distribution to various
agencies, the Board of Supervisors also approved $25,000 funding
for Total Action Against Poverty and $69,984 to the Mental Health
Services of the Roanoke Valley for a total of $114,984.00 to fund
community service organizations throughout the Roanoke Valley.
When the County previously funded these organizations, federal
revenue sharing monies were used. This source of funds is no
longer available. It is hoped that in future years, the County
will be able to budget larger amounts for this category.
On June 18, 1987, the Human Services Committee met to study the
requests for allocation of the funds. The committee expressed
disappointment that the budget did not allow for additional funds
for fiscal year 1987/88, and felt that since there was no
additional funding, it was not feasible to consider the requests
from other agencies. Instead, they recommended that the County
staff review the requests for approval by the Board of
Supervisors.
After reviewing the requests with Betty Lucas, Social Services
Department Director, staff recommends that funds be allocated
based on the prior year disbursements. A schedule is attached
showing the requests from services organizations, last year's
allocation and the current year's recommendation.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. Approval will simply allocate the $20,000 to the
specific organizations approved for funding by the Board of
Supervisors.
j~" ~ w ~
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the monies be allocated based on the
attached schedule, and that staff be allowed to distribute funds
to the appropriate agencies.
ro
Elmer C. Ho ge
County Administrator
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Steven A. McGraw/Bob No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) L. Johnson to approve Brittle x
Received ( )
Referred
To
cc: File
Reta Busher
Betty Lucas
- Social Services
Garrett
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Abstain
x
x
x
t 02-Ju1-87 date
HUMAN
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
HUNAN SERVICES COMMITTEE
ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR FY 1987-88
1986-87 1987-88 1987-88
ORGANIZATION
----------------------------------- ALLOCATION
---------------- REpUEST
----
- ALLOCATION
LEAGUE OF OLDER AMERICANS
84,000 -
----------
816,413 ---------------
83,252
FREE CLINIC OF ROANOKE VALLEY 5,000 5,000 4,065
ADULT CARE CENTER OF RKE. VALLEY 2,000 4,000 1,626
TRUST 1,800 6,200 1,463'
FAMILY SERVICE OF RKE. VALLEY 1,000 10,000 813
CHILD ABUSE AHD NEGLECT
COORDINATING COUNCIL 2,000 2,466 1,626
ROANOKE-AREA MINISTRIES 1,000 1,166 813
PLANNED PARENTHOOD 500 2,000 407
ASSOCIA?ION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS 4,300 44,117 3,496
TINKER MOUNTAIN flORKSHOP 3,000 15,744 2,439
ROANOKE VALLEY SPEECH & HEARING
CENTER, INC. 0 1,000 0
COUNCIL OF COMMUNITY SERVICES 0 3,770 0
BETHANY HALL 0 1,980 0
THE SALVATION ARMY 0 5,000 0
CAMP VIRGINIA JAYCEE 0 * O
ROANOKE NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE 0 20,000 0
BIG BROTHERS/BIG SISTERS OF
ROANOKE VALLEY, INC. 0 373 0
TOTALS ----------------
824,600 ----------------
8139,229 --------------
820,000
/'~" -_ ~s
*REQUESTING 8190 PER CAMPER
~,~~'.i ~
$UNTON 8C wILLIAMS
707 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. BOX 1535
2000 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N. W.
P. O. BOX 19230
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20036
TELEPHONE 202-955-1500
FIRST VIRGINIA BANK TOWER
P.O BOX 3889
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA 23514
TELEPHONE 804-625-5501
TELEX 755628
3050 CHAIN BRIDGE ROAD
P. O. BOX 1147
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030
TELEPHONE 703-352-2200
r-- y
RICHMOND, VII40INIA 23212 100 PARK AVENUE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017
TELEPHONE 212-309-1000
TELEPHONE 804-788-8200 TELEX 424549 HUNT UI
TELEX 6844251 ONE HAN NOV ER SOUARE
P. O. BOX 109
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27602
TELEPHONE 919-899-3000
FIRST TENNESSEE BANK BUILDING
P. O. BOX 951
KNOXVILLE. TENNESSEE 37901
TELEPHONE 615-637-4311
September 1, 1987
E NO
FIL
.
DIRECT DIAL NO. 804 788-
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia
Salem, Virginia 24153
Industrial Development Authority
of Roanoke County, Virginia
$780,000 Industrial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds
(F & W Building D Project), Series of 1987
Dear Sir:
In connection with the above-referenced financing, I en-
close for filing on behalf of the Industrial Development Authori-
ty of Roanoke County, Virginia, a certified copy of United States
Internal Revenue Service Form 8038.
Please indicate the receipt of the enclosed Form 8038 by
stamping the enclosed copy of this letter and returning it to me
in the enclosed postage paid envelope.
Very truly yours,
Bryar ;~i. Nettles
Enclosures
J~~ J
i
CERTIFICATE AS TO INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE FORM 8038
The undersigned Assistant Secretary of the Industrial De-
velopment Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia (the Authority),
hereby certifies that attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and
correct copy of United States Internal Revenue Service (the Ser-
vice) Form 8038 filed with the Service in connection with the is-
suance on September ~, 1987, of the Authority's $780,000 Indus-
trial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds (F & W Building D
Project), Series of 1987.
WITNESS my hand this ~ day of September, 1987.
!~ .~
Assistant Secreta Industrial
Development Authority of Roanoke
County, Virginia
$Q$$ Information Return for Tax-Exempt `-:~'
forT OMB NO : SaS•4720
(Rev. December 1986) Private Activity Bond Issues ~o~~s iz; 31,•99
Department of tn. treasury - Under Section 119(e)
Internal Revenue $ernt:t
Reporting Authority Check box If Amended Return - ;J
t Iau«'snante Industrial Development Authority z Issu.rsemo~ayer~ee~nhcanennumoe.
ok o 52-1290561
3 NumnM af10 ftrNt ~ • Reoart numoer
1919 Electric Road, S . W. PA198 L - ~.
S Gity tx town. state. and ZIP coat i 6 Date of issue
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Type of luue (check box(es) that applies) I Issue Prlce
7 ^ Qualified hospital band (section 145(c))
a ^ Qualified section 501(cX3) bond other than a qualified hospital bond (section 145)
9 ^ Qualified student loan bond (section 144(b)) .
10 ^ Qualified mortgage bond (section 143(a)). Check box if you elect to rebate arbitrage profits
to the U.S. - ^
11 ^ Qualified veterans' mortgage bond (section 143(b)). Check box if you elect to rebate arbttrage profits
to the U.S. - ^
12 ^ Qualified redevelopment bond (section 144(c)) •,
13 ®Qualified small issue bond (section 144(a)). Check box for S 10 million small tssue exemption - ^
14 Exempt facility bond:
a ^ Airport (section 142(aXl))
b ^ Docks and wharves (sectton 142(a)(2))
c ^ Mau commuting facilities (section 142(a}(3))
d ^ Water furnishing facilities (section 142(a)(4))
e ^ Sewage facilities (section 142(a)(5))
f ^ Solid waste disposal facilities (section 142(aX6))
g ^ Residential rental projects (section 142(a)(7))
h . ^ Facilities for the local furnishing of electric energy or gas (sectton 142(aX8))
I ^ Local district heating or cooling facilities (section 142(aX9)) .
j ^ Qualified hazardous waste facilities (section 142(aX 10)) .
k ^ Sports facilities (see instructions)
1 ^ Convention or trade show facilities (see instructtons)
m ^ Pollution control facilities (see instructions)
n ^ Hydroelectric generating facilities (see instructions)
o ^ Parking facilities (see instructions) .
15 ^ Industrial parks (see instructions)
16 ^ Other. Describe {see instructions) -
• • ° Description of Bonds
Staten reaemoUOn We~ghteo average
~'eiC Net mte•est
Mature daM
ry interest rate Issw once once at matur~ry maturity cost
17 Final maturit 5 15. 7 5 96 I 6 5 , 0 0 0 I 10 0 0 / ~// ~~"~ ~! 'i ~ ~'~'
y
to r.,,;..,-~~.. ;;,,..~,,.: „ / c_ .~:~ir,' , 780, 000 I 100 o Ill. 08years t 5 . ~G.ri2~
Uses of Original Proceeds of Issue (including underwriters' discount)
19 Proceeds used for accrued Interest . • 19 I
20 Proceeds used for bond issuance costs (including underwriters' discount) . 20
21 Proceeds used for credit enhancement . 21
22 Proceeds allocated to reasonably required reserve or replacement fund 22
23 Proceeds used to refund prior issues (complete Part VI) 23
24 Nonrefundin¢ proceeds of the issue (subtract lines 20.21.22. and 23 from line 18. column c 4
For Paperwork Reduction Ad Notice. see page 1 of the Instructions. Form 8038 (Rev. 12-86)
2000 PENNSYWANIA AVENUE. N• W.
P. O. BOX ID230
WASHINGTON. O. C. 20036
TELEPNONE 202.633-1300
FIRST VIRGINIA BANK TOWER
P. O. eOX 3666
NORFOLK. VIRGINIA P3314
TELEPNONE 604.625-5301
TELEX 736626
SOSO CHAIN BRIDGE ROAD
P. O. e0X 1147
FAIRFAX. VIRGINIA 22030
T[LEPHONC 703.332.2200
HUNTON BC WILLIAMS r
707 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. BOX 1535
RicsacorrD. Vlgolxla 23218
TELEPHONE 804-799-6200
TELEX 6844251
September 1, 1987
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED ~-
Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia
Salem, Virginia 24153
SEP S t987
100 PARK AVENUE
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10017
TELEPHONE 212.306.1000
TELEX 42434e HUNT UI
ONE HANNOV[R SOUARE
P. o. eox loa
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27602
TELEPHONE Yle-69e•3000
FIRST TENNE33EE BANK 9UILOING
P. O. e0X eSl
KNO%VILLC. TENNCSSCE 37D01
TELCPHON[ 613.637.4311
FILE NO.
DIRECT D1AL NO. 604 766'
Industrial Development Authority
of Roanoke County, Virginia
$780,000 Industrial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds
(F & W Building.D Project), Series of 1987
Dear Sir:
In connection with the above-referenced financing, I en-
close for filing on behalf of the Industrial Development Authori-
ty of Roanoke County, Virginia, a certified copy of United States
Internal Revenue Service Form 8038.
Please indicate the receipt of the enclosed Form 8038 by
stamping the enclosed copy of this letter and returning it to me
in the enclosed postage paid envelope.
Very truly yours,
Bryar C. Nettles
Enclosures
Item ~ '~`J - ~~E..,.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
IN ROANOKE, VA., ON TUESDAY,
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1987
SUBJECT: Industrial Development Bonds
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Industrial Development Authority is requesting that the Board
of Supervisors approve the refund of certain bonds issued for
Atlantic Companies Building, Keagy Road and Electric Road, not to
exceed $3,660,000.
This action is requested to fulfill a technical requirement of
the Bond Counsel and does neither affect the local allocation nor
affect the taxing power of Roanoke County or the Authority.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval.
SUBMITTED BY:
Brent D. Sheffle
Economic Development Specialist
APPROVED:
Elmer C. Hodge, Jr.
County Administrator
------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) Motion by• No Yes Abs
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To
Brittle
Garrett
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
.~a.
July 9, 1987
Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia
P. 0. Box 660
Salem, Virginia 24153
Industrial Development Authority
of Roanoke County, Virginia
Proposed Financing for
Fralin and Waldron Commercial Rental II
Fralin and Waldron Commercial Rental II (the Partnership)
has requested that the Industrial Development Authority of
Roanoke County, Virginia (the Authority), refund certain of the
Authority's bonds issued to assist the Partnership in financing
the construction and equipping of an addition to an existing of-
fice facility known as the Atlantic Companies Building, (the
Project) in Roanoke, Virginia, by the issuance of its industrial
development revenue refunding bonds in an amount not to exceed
$3,660,000 (the Bonds).
As set forth in the resolution of the Authority attached
hereto (the Resolution), the Authority has agreed to do so. The
Authority has conducted a public hearing -.pith respect to its pro-
posed financing oz the Project and 'r.as recommended that you ap-
prove the issuance of the Bonds as required by Section 147(f) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
Attached hereto is (1) a certificate evidencing the con-
duct of the public hearing and the action taken by the Authority,
(2) the "Fiscal Impact Statement" and (3) the form of resolution
suggested by counsel to evidence your approval.
S~ovefis~y of the I ustrial
Development Authority of
Roanoke County, Virginia
-2-
Fralin and Waldron Commercial Rental II
CERTIFICATE
The undersigned Secretary of the Industrial Development
Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia (the Authority), hereby
certifies as follows:
1. A regular meeting of the Authority was duly called
and held on July 9, 1987, at 9:00 o'clock a.m. in the Board of
Supervisors Meeting Room in the Roanoke County Administration
Building, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia. The
meeting was open to the public, and persons of differing views
were given an opportunity to be heard. At such meeting all of
the Directors of the Authority were present or absent throughout"
as follows:
PRESENT : ~~ ~~~ ~~ 1~ rt 1~ GGt
Ch a~/PS ~c • Sz ~ /
w.~a~~~~~~'~~y~
ABSENT: ~ytlvN 21 /~. ~,StviGl~~
,T. Ca.,.s~M ~~ s,./~s
~2wie/ /~. 22~~
2. The Chairman announced the commencement of a public
hearing on the application of Fralin and Waldron Commerci<31 Rent-
al II (the Partnership) and that a notice of the hearing was pub-
lished once a week for two consecutive weeks, the first publica-
tion being not more than 28 days nor less than 14 days prior to
the hearing in a newspaper having general circulation in Roanoke
County, Virginia (the Notice). A copy of the Notice and a cer-
tificate of publication of such Notice have been filed with the
records of the Authority and are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3. The following individuals appeared and addressed the
Authority:
/ ~' 0 /1 ~
A reasonably detailed summary of his her their statements
together with the fiscal impact statement. required by the Indus-
trial Development Revenue Bond Act are attached hereto as Exhib-
its B and C.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true, correct and
complete copy of a resolution (the Resolution) adopted at such
meeting of the Authority by a majority of the Directors present
at such meeting, with the ayes and nays being recorded in the
minutes of such meeting as follows:
Director Vote
1S~i %l % ~~~ ~ c.L, ~le
The Resolution constitutes all formal action taken by the Author-
ity at such meeting relating to matters referred to in the Reso-
lution. The Resolution has not been repealed, revoked, rescinded
or amended and is in full force and effect on the date hereof.
-2-
_.._ f
..~...a._.~ ..
<~ ~..,~.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Authority this
day of July, 1987.
~~~~~ .~ fl~~.l~.
Secretary, Indust ial
Development Authority of
Roanoke County, Virginia
(SEAL)
Exhibits A, B and C to be attached.
A - Copy of Notice, Certified by Newspaper
B - Summaries of Statements
C - Fiscal Impact Statement
D - Inducement Resolution
-3-
~„"-'- .~
a
~ ~r t r ~
fI5CAL ZMpACT STATEN.ENT
July 9, 1987
Date
Fralin and Waldron Commercial. Rental II
App cant
Addition to Atlantic Building _
Faci ty
1. Maximum amount of financing sought
2. Estimated taxable value of the facility's
r4a1 property to be constructed in the
municipality
3. Estimated real property tax per year using
present tax rates
4. Estimated personal property tax per year
using present tax rates
5. Estimated merchants' capital tax par year
u8inq prasant tax rates
6. Estimated dollar value par year of goods and
services that will be purchased locally
7. Estimated number of regular employees on
year round basis
B. Average annual salary per employee
S 31~~0,000
,~ 29.900*
~ 0*
~ 500~000*
165*
$ 12.33.3*
znc~ustrial Development Authority
ount Vir inia
Name o Aut or ty
Applies to facility constructed with bonds being refunded
~' I NAL RFSOLUT I Oi~' OF THE
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF ROAN4KE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
%"s~
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke
County, Virginia (the Issuer), has previously issued its Indus-
trial Development Revenue Note (Fralin and Waldron Commercial
Rental II Project), dated December 27, 1984, in the aggregate
principal amount of $4,100,400 (the prior Bonds) to finance the
construction and equipping of an addition to an existing office
facility in Roanoke County, Virginia, operated by Fralin and
Waldron Commercial Rental II, a Virginia limited partnership (the
Borrower); and
WHEREAS, the Borrower has requested that the Issuer issue
its Industrial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds (Fralin and
Waldron Commercial Rental II Project) Series of 1987, dated July
I, 1987, in an aggregate principal amount of $3,6b0,000 (the
Bonds), to refund the Prior Bonds and the issuer has agreed to do
so;
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held as required by Sec-
tion 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of i98b, as amended (the
Code); and
WHEREAS, there have been presented to this meeting the forms
of the following instruments (collectively, the Documents) which
the issuer proposes to execute to carry out the transactions de-
scribed above, copies of which instruments shall be filed with
the records of the Issuer:
1. Sale Agreement dated as of July 1, 1987 (the Agree-
ment), between the Issuer and the Borrower.
2, Indenture of Trust dated as of July 1, 1987 (the Inden-
ture), betvteen the Issuer, the Industrial 'Development Authority
of Louisa County, the Industrial Development Authority of the
County of Caroline, Virginia, and Signet Trust Company, as trus~
teQ (the Trustee), providing for the issuance of the Hands and
including the form of the Bonds.
3. Decd and Bill of Sale to the Borrower, dated as of July
1, 1987 (the Deed).
4. Bond Purchase Agreement between Davenport & Co. of Vir-
ginia, Inc., the Issuer and the Borrower, to be dated the date of
its execution (the Bond Purchase Agreement).
5. Official Statement of the Issuer to be dated the date
of issuance of the Bonds (the Official Statement).
8E IT RESOLVED BY THE INDUSTRII~L DEVELOPMENT ~-UTHORITY OF
ROANOKE COUNTY , V I RG I N I A ; ~~~ ° ~, ,~ ~' ,.^~
1. Signet Trust Company is hereby appointed as Trustee,
pursuant to recommendation of the Borrower.
2. The officers of the Issuer are hereby authorized and
directed to execute the Documents and to deliver the Documents to
the other parties thereto.
3. The Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Issuer are
hereby authorized and directed to accept from the Borrower its
promissory note dated the date of issuance of the Bonds and in
the aggregate principal amount of the aggregate principal amount
of the Bonds (the Note}, and to assign and deliver the xote to
the Trustee under the Indenture as security for the Bonds.
4. The Chairman or the Vice Chairman of the Issuer is
hereby authorized and directed to execute the Honda by his manual
or faCSimiie signature, the Secretary or the Assistant Secretary
is authorized and directed to affix the seal, or a facsimile
thereof, of the Issuer on the Sands and attest the same, by his
manual or facsimile signature, and either is authorized and di-
rected to deliver the Honda to the Trustee for authentication and
to cause the Bonds so executed and authenticated to be delivered
to or for the account of the purchasers thereof upon payment of
the purchase price.
5. The Documents and the Bonds shall be in substantially
the forms submitted to this meeting, which are hereby approved,
with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes as may
be approved by the Chairman or the other officers executing them,
their execution to constitute conclusive evidence of their ap-
proval of any such omissions, insertions and changes. Without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Chairman and such
other officers are authorized to approve: {i} the amount of Bonds
maturing or subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption in any
year, so long as the final maturity of the Bonds is not later
than February 1, 2007 and the average weighted maturity of the
Honda does not exceed the average weighted maturity of the Prior
Bonds; (ii) the rate of interest borne b an Sond, so long as
such interest rate is not greater than8~~~$; tiii) issuance of
Bonds in an aggregate principal amount less than that authorized
hereby so long as the aggrega~e principal amount of Honda issued
is at :east 53,000,000; and (iv) a change n the form of any Doc-
ument, including without limitation the Official Statement, re-
sulting from such Document relating exclusively to the Bonds.
6. The officers of the Issuer are heresy authorised and
directed to execute, deliver and file all certificates and in-
struments, including without limitation the IRS Form 8038
~ ~ Y
containing information with respect to the Bonds, and to take all
such further action as they,•or any one of them, may consider
necessary or desirabl4 in connection with Lhe refunding of the
Prior Bonds and the issuance and sale of the Bonds. ~.: ~'`ARr~ -~~
7. Any authorization made hereby to the officers of the
Issuer to execute a document shall include authorization to exe-
cute the document, authorization to the Secretary and any Assis-
tant Secretary to affix the seal of the Issuer to such document
and attest such seal and authorization to any officer to provide
for the recording of such document where appropriate and to de-
liver it to the other parties thereto.
8. Ali other acts of the officers of the Issuer that are
in conformity with the purposes and intent of this resolution and
in furtherance of the issuance and sale of the sonds and the re-
funding of the Prior Bonds are hereby approved and confirmed.
9. The Issuer hereby elects to have the provisions of Sec-
tion 1~4(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 198b, as amended,
applied to the Honds.
10. The Issuer hereby recommends that the Board of Supervi-
sors of Roanoke County approve the issuance of the Bonds.
CERTIFICATE
The undersigned Chairman of the Industrial Development Au-
thority of Roanoke County, Virginia (the Issuer), hereby certi-
fies that the foregoing is a true, correct and complete copy of a
resolution adopted by a majority of the Directors of the issuer
present and voting at a meeting duly called and held on July 9,
1987, in accordance with law, and that such resolution has not
been repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended but is in full force
and effect on the date hereof.
wITNES5 the following signature and seal of the Issuer, this
day of July, 1987.
L
chairman f the Industrial
Development Authority of
Roanoke County, Virginia
-3-
~.D "JUMREF - 624??_ O1 8
Pi1RL i5 Nr ~' S FE f - S20B.24
~iA~r~ELL r+ DA~BY JF
315 SH:=NAN~GAH BLiIG
RLAFJCK.~ VA 24+J11
STATE CF VIAGI~JIA
ITY OF F.C~NCiKE
AFFiDaVIT L~F PU3LICATIt3r:
I, (T HC UrJDER51 GfJE'~l AN UFFICER OF
IMES-rDF LD C°~]F.P~FATIDId, l~tH1Ct~ LCP-
pOkATI~JN IS PUBLISHEF 0~ THE RDAN['KE
T I~1FS E W`~3F LG-NEWS, A DAILY !~'=WSr',~P=~
'UBLISHED IN K?AfviKE, I~! THE STATE OF
V [~G1NIA, DO CERTIFY THAT THL' AN"JEXED
V01 ICE WAS PURL ISHED Irv SAID N`Y~SI'Aac~S
G°°iV THE F~LLCWING DATES
06/25/87 M''~rJING
U7/02/87 M3 RNI'VG
rti ITNESS, THI E~Tt-i DL'.Y CF' JULY 19 g7
r; ~ ~ p
DFFICEF'S SIGNATUF`'
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING ON PROPOSED ~..-_ ~. ~^
ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL ~ ~ d ",„{~ „
~ DEVELOPMENT
REFUNDING BONDS BY THE
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOP-
MENT AUTHORITY
OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA
Notice Is hereby Olven that the
Industrlal Development Au-
thorlty of Roanoke County,
Vlrplnla (the Authority), will
hold public hearings on the
aDDllcatlon of: (1) Frslin end
Waldron Commerclsl Rental
I1, a Vlrplnla limited Dartner-
shlD (Frslin and Waldron
Commerclsl Rental II), whose
principsl Dlsce of business Is
located at 2917 Penn Forest
Boulevard, Roanoke, Vlrplnla
2101!, for the Authorlty t0 Is-
sue, pursusntfo the Vlrpinla
Industrial Development end
Revenue Bond Act (the Act),
Its Industrlal development
revenue refunding bonds In
sn -mount not to exceed
f3,660,000 to refund the Au-
thority's f1, 100,000 Industrlal
Development Revenue Note
(Frslin and Wsldron Com-
merclsl Rents! II Protect),
dated December 27, 1911, ;
which was Issued to asslst
Frslin and Wsldron Commer-
cial Rental tl In flnancinp the
costs of constructing end
equlDPinp an sdditlon to an
existing otflce facility known
ss th• Atlantic Companies
Bulidlnp, located et the corner
of Kespy Road end Electric
Road In Roanoke County, Vlr-
plnla 21016, and (2) F3W Of-
tlce Park 11, a Vlrplnla limited
psrtnenhlp (F3W Oftic• i
Perk 11 ), whose prlnelpai
piece of businesslslocafed at
2917 Penn Forest Boulevard,
Roanoke, Vlrplnla 21011, for
the Authority to Issue, pursu-
ant fo tM Act, its Industrial
dwNopment nvenw refund-,
Inp ponds in an amount not fo
exceed 800,000 fo refund tM
Authority's 800,000 Industrial
Development Revenue Bond
(F3W Bulidlnp D Protect),
dated October !, 1985, which
was Issued to asslst F3W Of-
fice Park 11 In flnancinp The
costs of acquiring, construct-
Inp end equipping of an otflce
fscllity located at 2x17 Penn
Forest Boulevard, Roanoke
County, Vlrpinla 21018. The
public hearing, which may be
continued or sdlourned, will
be held at 9:00 o'clock s.m. on
July 9, 1987, before the Author-
' Ity, in the Board of SupervF
', sor's Meeting Room In the
Roanoke County Adminlatra-
tion Bulidlnp, 3738 Bremble-
ton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke,
Virginia. As required by the
Act, the bonds will not pledge
the credit or the taxing Dower
of Roanoke County or the Au-
thority Dut will be Oeyeble
solely from revenues derived
from either Frslin and Wetd-
ron Commerclsl Rental II or
F3W Office Park It, es the
case msy be, and pfedped
therefor. Any person Interest-
ed In the Issuance of the bonds
or the location or purpose of
the proposed protect may ap•
pear and be heard. Additional
information concerning the is-
suance of such bonds may be
obtained from the otflce of the
Authority's attorney, Oster•
houdt, Ferguson, Natt, Aher-
on 3 Apes, P.C., 1919 Electric
Road, Roanoke, 'Vlrplnla
24018, during business hours.
Industrlal Development
Authorlty of Roanoke
County, Vlrpinla
By: s/Charles R. Saul
Chairman
(22018) _ ' ~~
C h~~h~ ~
• ' f t.~
Pry` ~~. / __.
Exhibit B
nership.
and appeared on behalf of the Part-
reviewed the information set forth in the
application of the Partnership attached hereto. In addition,
made the following remarks.
Nark
Y. #
t'"`~
RESOLUTION OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke
County, Virginia (the Authority), has considered the application
of Fralin and Waldon Commercial Rental II, a Virginia limited
partnership (the Partnership) for the issuance of the Authority's
industrial development revenue refunding bonds in an amount not
to exceed $3,660,000 (the Bonds) to refund the Authority's Indus-
trial Development Revenue Bonds (Fralin and Waldron Commercial
Rental II Project) in the amount of $4,100,000, issued on
December 27, 1984, which were issued to assist in the financing
of the construction and equipping of an addition to the Partner-
ship's existing office facility, known as the Atlantic Companies
Building (the Project) located at the corner of Keagy Road and
Electric Road in Roanoke, Virginia, and has held a public hearing
thereon on July 9, 1987; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board of Super-
visors (the Board) of Roanoke County, Virginia 4the County), to
approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with Section 147(f)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code);
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving
the issuance of the Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a
record of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" with
respect to the Project have been filed with the Board;
-1-
,. _
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds
by the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Vir-
ginia, for the benefit of Fralin and Waldron Commercial Rental
II, to the extent required by Section 147(f) of the Code, to per-
mit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project.
2. Approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by
Section 147(f) of the Code, does not constitute an endorsement of
the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Partnership, but, as re-
quired by Section 15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended, the Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the
Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest
thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues
and moneys pledged therefor, and neither the faith or credit nor
the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County nor the Authori-
ty shall be pledged thereto.
3. This resol•.:tion shall take effect immediately upon
its adoption.
-2-
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD A'I' THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1987
RESOLUTION 71487-7 APPROVING THE ISSUANCE
OF BONDS BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY FOR FOR THE BENEFIT OF FRALIN
AND WALDRON COMMERCIAL RENTAL II
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of
Roanoke County, Virginia (the Authority), has considered the
application of Fralin and Waldron Commercial Rental II, a
Virginia limited partnership (the Partnership) for the issuance
of the Authority's industrial development revenue refunding bonds
in an amount not to exceed $3,660,000 (the Bonds) to refund the
Authority's Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (Fralin and
Waldron Commercial Rental II Project) in the amount of $4,100,00,
issued on December 27, 1984 which were issued to assist in the
financing of the construction and equipping of an addition to the
Partnership's existing office facility, known as the Atlantic
Companies Building (the Project) located at the corner of Keagy
Road and Electric Road in Roanoke, Virginia, and has held a
public hearing thereon on July 9, 1987; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board of
Supervisors (the Board) of Roanoke County, Virginia (the County),
to approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with Section
147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
Code);
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving
the issuance of the bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a
record of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" with
respect to the Project have been filed with the Board;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia:
1. The Board hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds
by the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County,
Virginia, for the benefit of Fralin and Waldron Commercial
Rental II, to the extent required by Section 147(f) of the Code,
to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the
Project.
2. Approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required
by Section 147(f) of the Code, does not constitute an endorsement
of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Partnership, but, as
required by Section 15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended, the Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the
Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest
thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues
and moneys pledged therefor, and neither the faith or credit nor
the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County nor the
Authority shall be pledged thereto.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon
its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor
Garrett, and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY - TESTE:
,~
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
7/15/87
cc: File
Tim Gubala, Assistant County Administrator
Brent Sheffler, Economic Development Specialist
Industrial Development Authority
CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION
1. A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia (the Board), was held on July 14, 1987,
at which meeting the following duly elected members were present
or absent:
PRESENT: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson:
ABSENT: None
Such members constituted all of the members of the Board on the
date of~such meeting.
2. Attached hereto is a true and correct copy of a reso-
lution duly adopted at such meeting by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
3. The resolution referred to above has not been re-
pealed, revoked, rescinded or amended but is in full force and
effect on this date and constitutes the only resolution adopted
by the Board relating to the issuance by the Authority of its in-
dustrial development revenue bonds for the benefit of Fralin and
Waldron Commercial Rental II.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County, Virginia, this 15 day of July, 1987.
~~~~.~ G~c..C~J
Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Roanoke County, Virginia
(SEAL)
-2-
~`:::"~
Item ~~ "'
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
IN ROANOKE, VA., ON TUESDAY,
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1987
SUBJECT: Industrial Development Bonds
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Industrial Development Authority is requesting that the Board
of Supervisors approve the refund of certain bonds issued for
Fralin and Waldron's Office Park II, 3801 Electric Road, not to
exceed $800,000.
This action is requested to fulfill a technical requirement of
the Bond Counsel and does neither affect the local allocation nor
affect the taxing power of Roanoke County or the Authority.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval.
SUBMITTED BY:
Brent D. Sheff
Economic Development Specialist
APPROVED:
Elmer C. Hodge, Jr.
County Administrator
------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) Motion b No Yes Abs
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To
Y•
Brittle
Garrett
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
..~
.~~: __ ~ l
E,
July 9, 1987
Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia
P. 0. Box 660
Salem, Virginia 24153
Industrial Development Authority
of Roanoke County, Virginia
Proposed Financing for
F & W Office Park II
F & W Office Park II (the Partnership) has requested that
the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia
(the Authority), refund certain of the Authority's bonds issued
to assist the Partnership in financing the acquisition, construc-
tion and equipping of an office facility located adjacent to an
existing facility (the Project) at 3801 Electric Road in Roanoke,
Virginia, by the issuance of its industrial development revenue
refunding bonds in an amount not to exceed $800,000 (the Bonds).
As set forth in the resolution of the Authority attached
hereto (the Resolution), the Authority has agreed to do so. The
Authority has conducted a public hearing with respect to its pro-
posed financing of the Project and has recommended that you ap-
prove the issuance of the Bonds as required by Section 147{f) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
~ ~;
Attached hereto is (1) a certificate evidencing the con-
duct of the public hearing and the action taken by the Authority,
(2) the "Fiscal Impact Statement" and (3) the form of resolution
suggested by counsel to evidence your approval.
SeCvt~avy of the In strial
Development Authority of
Roanoke County, Virginia
-2-
~~ F & W Office Park II
_.~ !e
CERTIFICATE
The undersigned Secretary of the Industrial Development
Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia (the Authority), hereby
certifies as follows:
1. A regular meeting of the Authority was duly called
and held on July 9, 1987, at 9:00 o'clock a.m, in the Board of
Supervisors Meeting Room in the Roanoke County Administration
Building, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia. The
meeting was open to the public, and persons of differing views
were given an opportunity to be heard. At such meeting all of
the Directors of the Authority were present or absent throughout
as follows:
PRESENT: f3~~~Iy ~• ~rtHc~J
Cha,./~s tQ•~'z~ ~
f3;~1 1'vi~o/t 11'
f/. ~ a vh t // (~i •v~ ~ ~/ ~ vc~
ABSENT : ~ DIM s S ~~. T off ~~~
.T, Crvlo~ c~ua//eS
~Zhie//~.2atiN
2. The Chairman announced the commencement of a public
hearing on the application of F & W Office Park II (the Partner-
ship) and that a notice of the hearing was published once a week
for two consecutive weeks, the first publication being not more
than 28 days nor less than 14 days prior to the hearing in a
newspaper having general circulation in Roanoke County, Virginia
(the Notice). A copy of the Notice and a certificate of publica-
tion of such Notice have been filed with the records of the Au-
thority and are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
~.__, ,
4 .~. . --r , ~'
3. The following individuals appeared and addressed the
Authority:
//e M ~
A reasonably detailed summary of his her their statements
together with the fiscal impact statement required by the Indus-
trial Development Revenue Bond Act are attached hereto as Exhib-
its B and C.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true, correct and
complete copy of a resolution (the Resolution) adopted at such
meeting of the Authority by a majority of the Directors present
at such meeting, with the ayes and nays being recorded in the
minutes of such meeting as follows:
Director Vote
j~;~/y ~ 13r1HcG, ~~ e
Ctia~/eJ 2.Sa~/ lye
jj~ 1 / ~r,~0/C~ ~'~ e
The Resolution constitutes all formal action taken by the Author-
ity at such meeting relating to matters referred to in the Reso-
lution. The Resolution has not been repealed, revoked, rescinded
or amended and is in full force and effect on the date hereof.
-2-
."' ~ °~
WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Authority this
day of July, 1987.
Secretary, Indust i 1
Development Authority of
Roanoke County, Virginia
(SEAL)
Exhibits A, B and C to be attached.
A - Copy of Notice, Certified by Newspaper
B - Summaries of Statements
C - Fiscal Impact Statement
D - Inducement Resolution
-3-
PURL IS HERS S FEE - S2QB.24
HAFh'ELL M D'+R.RY JF
31~ S-1EfVANDG4H BLi1G
KLAPJ~KE VA 24~J11
STATE CF VIAGIPJIA
S iTY JF RCANOKE
AFFI~JAVIT OF PU$LICNTI(~P,
I, (THE UPJDERSI Gfr'ED) AN C)FFICER_ C',F
T IMFS-,MGR LD C~~F,PDFATIDP~, t~1NIC±-I CC'F-
DOkATI~N IS PUBLISHER n~ THE RDANDKE
T IMES E %'ORLD-NEWS, A DAILY ~!=~~iS~AP_R
~UFlLISHED IN R'?AN~KE, IN THE STATE OF
V I~ GINIA, DO CERTIFY TH~,T THE ANNEXE!3
VL~T ICE WAS PURL ISHED ITS SAID N`Y,!Sf'A~ERS
C+V T?~E FvLLCWING DATES
~)b/25/87 M"RtViNG
(37/t~2/87 MJR~;I`VG
,t ITNESS, THI 67Fi DAY CF JULY 1Q87
F
`~ FF IC EF • S S iGNA TUF ~'
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING ON PROPOSED ~-~--° ,~ ! ~
_,.,, =..
~
~
ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL !
/
DEVELOPMENT
REFUNDING BONDS BY THE
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOP-
MENT AUTHORITY
OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA
Notice Is hereby given that the
industrlsl Development Au-
thority of Roanoke County,
Virplnle (the Authority), will
'
hold Dubllc hearings on the
application of: (1) Fralln and
Waldron Commercial Rental
II, s Vlrpinia Ilmited partner-
shlD (Fralln and Waldron
Commercial Rental 11 ), whose
principal place O} business Is
located st 2917 Penn Forest
Boulevard, Roanoke, Virplnle
21018, for the Authorlty to Is-
sue, pursuant to the Vlrplnla
Industrial Development and
Revenue Bond Act (the Act),
Its Industrlal development
revenue refunding ponds in
an smount not to exceed
(3,660,000 to refund the Au-
thority's f1, 100, 000 Industrlal
Development Revenue Note
(Fralln and Waldron Com-
mercial Rental II Protect),
dated December 27, 19({1,
which was Issued fo sssist
Fralln and Wsldron Commer•
clal Rental 11 In financing the
costs of constructing and
equlppinp an sddition to an
existing office facllity known
as the Atlsntlc Companies
Building, located st the corner
of Kespy Road end Electric
Road In Roanoke County, Vlr•
pima 21018, end (2) F3W Of•
flce Psrk II, a Virplnle Ilmited
parinershlD (F3W Offlee
Park II), whoN principal
piece of business Is located et
4917 Penn Forest Boulward,
Roanoke, Vlrplnla 21011, for
fhe Authorlty to Issue, purw•
ant to tM Act, tts Industrial
development revenue refund-,
Inp bonds In an amount not to
exceed fe00,000 to re}und tM
Authority's f800,000 Industrlal
Development Revenue Bond
(F3W Building D Protect),
dsted October 0. tMS, which
was Issued to assist F3W Of•
ffce Park II in financing The
costs of acquiring, construN-
Inp antl equlppinp of an of}Ice
facllity located at 2817 Penn
Forest Boulevard, Roanoke
County, Vlrplnla 21018. The
public hesrinp, which may be
continued or adlournetl, will
be held at 9:00 o'clock a.m. on
July 9, 1987, before the Author-
lty, In the Board of Supervi-
sor's Meeting Room in the
Roanoke County Administra-
tion Building, 3738 Bremble-
ton Avenue, S. W., Roanoke,
Vlrplnla. As required by the
Act, the bonds will not pledge
the creditor the taxlnD Dower
of Roanoke County or the Au-
thorlty but will be payable
solely from revenues derived
from either Fralln and Wald-
ron Commercial Rentsl 11 or
F3W Office Park II, as the
case may be, and pledged
therefor. Any person Interest-
ed In the Issuance of the bonds
or the location or purpose of
the proposed Drolect may ap•
pear and be heard. Additional
information concerning the Is-
suance of such bonds may be
obtained from the office of the
Authority's attorney, Oster•
houdt, Ferguson, Nstt, AAer•
on 3 Apes, P.C„ 1919 Electric
Road, Roanoke, Virginia
21016, during business hours.
Industrial Development
Authorlty of Roanoke
County, Vlrpinia
By: s/Charles R. Saul
22o1 'yr
' •
i
(
e) e
n j~/
r~
Exhibit B
nership.
and appeared on behalf of the Part-
reviewed the information set forth in the
application of the Partnership attached hereto. In addition,
made the following remarks.
~/o n e
FISTAI. IMPACT STATEMENT
.- A
July 9, 1987 _
Data'
F & W Office park
Appi cant
F & w Building D
ace ty
1. Maximum amount of finnncinq sought
Z. Estimated taxable value of the facility's
real property to ba constructed in th•
municipality
3. Estimated real property tax per year using
present tax rates
4. Estimated personal property tax per year
using present tax rotas
5. Estimated merchants' capital tax por year
using present tax rates
6. Estimated dollar value per year of goods and
services that will be purohm:ed locally
_------. ---~:--~ ~#mat~- -R~ha~ at.-=eg~s,la.~-.ampiayaea oz~..
year round basis
8. Avezage annual salary per employeQ
$l30 0 0 _
$1.400 000* _
S 16 ,~_~,_,_
$ .~..~5~.~..~.
$_ N/A•-
$ 233,333*
_.._. -- 75*-~----~
$ 15 400*
Industrial Development Authority
r it inia
Nam• o Author ty
*Applies to facility constructed with bonds being refunded
FINAL RESOLUTION OF THE
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
__ OF ROA,*IOKE COUNTY , V I RG I N I A
WHEREAS, the industrial Development Authority of Roanoke
County, Virginia (the Issuer), has previously issued its Indus-
trial Development Revenue Bond (F ~ W Building D Project), dated
October 8, 1985, in the aggregate principal amount of $800,000
(the Prior Bonds) to finance the construction and equipping of an
office facility for rent to commercial tenants in Roanoke County,
Virginia, operated by F & W Office Fark II, a Virginia limited
partnership (the Borrower); and
WHEREAS, the Borrower has requested that the Issuer issue
its Industrial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds (F & w avild-
ing D Project) Series of 1987, dated July 1, 1987, in an aggre-
gate principal amount of 5760,000 (the Sonds), to refund the
prior Bonds and the Issuer has agreed to do so;
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held as required by Sec-
tion 147(f) of the internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
Code); and
WHEREAS, there have been presented to this meeting the forms
of the following instruments (collectively, the Documents) which
the Issuer proposes to execute to carry out the transactions de-
scribed above, copies of which instruments shall be filed with
the records of the Issuer:
1. Sale Agreement dated as of July 1, 1987 (the Agree-
ment), between the Issuer and the Borrower.
2. Indenture of Trust dated as of July 1, 1987 (the Inden-
ture), between the Issuer, the Industrial Development Authority
of Louisa County, the Industrial Development Authority of the
County of Caroline, Virginia, and Signet Trust Company, as trus-
tee {the Trustee), providing for the issuance of the Honds and
including the form of the Bonds.
3. Deed and Bill of Sale t.o the Borrower, dated as o` July
1, 1987 (the Deed).
4. Bond Purchase Agreement between Davenport & Co. of Vir-
ginia, Inc., the Issuer snd the Borrower, to be dated the date of
its execution (the Bond Purchase Agreement).
5. Official Statement of the Issuer to be dated the date
of issuance of the Bonds (the Official Statement).
Y
BE IT RESOLVED HY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF
i+tOANOKE COUNTY , V I RG I h' I A t
1. Signet Trust Company is hereby appointed as Trustee,
pursuant to recommendation of the Borrower.
2. The officers of the Issuer are hereby authorized and
directed to execute the Documents and to deliver the Documents to
the other parties thereto.
3. The Chairman and the vice Chairman of the Issuer are
hereby authorized and directed to accept from the Borrower its
promissory note dated the date of issuance of the Bonds and in
the aggregate principal amount of the aggregate principal amount
of the Bonds (the Note), and to assign and deliver the Note to
the Trustee under the Indenture as security for the Bonds.
4. The Chairman or the Vice Chairman of the Issuer is
hereby authorized and directed to execute the Honds by his manual
or facsimile signature, the Secretary ar the Assistant Secretary
is authorized and directed to affix the seal, or a facsimile
thereof, of the issuer on the Bonds and attest the same, by his
manual or facsimile signature, and either is authorized and di-
rected to deliver the Bonds to the Trustee for authentication and
to cause the Honds so executed and authenticated to be delivered
to or for the account of the purchasers thereof upon payment of
the purchase price.
5. The Documents and the Bonds shall be in substantially
the forms submitted to this meeting, which are hereby approved,
with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes as may
be approved by the Chairman or the other officers executing them,
their execution to constitute conclusive evidence of their 8p-
proval of any such omissions, insertions and changes. Without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Chairman and such
other officers are authorized to approve: (i) the amount of Bonds
maturing or subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption in any
year, so long as the final maturity of the Bonds i$ not later
than October 10, 2005 and the average weighted maturity of the
Bonds does not exceed the average weighted maturity of the Prior
Bonds; (ii) the rate of interest borne by any Bond, so long as
such interest rates is not greater thana,T~~; (iii) issuance of
Bonds in an aggregate priincipal amount less than t~:at authorized
hereby so fang as the aggregate principal amount of Hr.ds issued
is at least S~50,000; and (iv) a change in the form of any Docu-
ment, including without limitation the Official Statement, re-
sulting from such Document relating exclusively to the Bonds.
6. The officers of the Issuer are hereby authorized and
directed to execute, deliver and file all certificates and in-
struments, including without limitation the IRS Form 8038
-2-
containing information with respect to the Bonds, and to take all
such further action as they, or any one of them, may consider
necessary or desirable in connection with the refunding of the
Prior Bonds end the issuance and sale of the Honda.
7. Any authorization made hereby to the officers of the
Issuer to execute a document shall include authorization to exe-
cute the document, authorization to the Secretary and any Assis-
tant Secretary to affix the seal of the Issuer to such document
and attest such seal and authorization to any officer to provide
for the recording of such document where appropriate and to de-
liver it to the other parties thereto.
8. Ail other acts of the officers of the Issuer that are
in conformity with the purposes and intent of this resolution and
in furtherance of the issuance and sale of the Bonds and the re-
funding of the Prior Bonds are hereby approved and confirmed.
9. The Issuer hereby elects to have the provisions of Sec-
tion 144(a}(4} of the Internal Revenue Code of 1966, as amended,
applied to the Bonds.
i0. The Issuer hereby recommends that the Board of Supervi-
sors of Roanoke County approve the issuance of the Bonds.
CERTIFICATE
The undersigned Chairman of the Industrial Development Au-
thority of Roanoke County, Virginia (the Issuer), hereby certi-
fies that the foregoing is a true, correct and complete copy of a
resolution adopted by a majority of the Directors of the Issuer
present and voting at a meeting duly called and held on July 9,
19$7, in accordance with law, and that such resolution has not
been repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended but is in full force
and effect on the date hereof.
WITNESS the following signature and seal of the Issucr, this
day of July, 1987.
,~
~~ ~_ `
Chairman ~ the Industrial
Development Authority of
Roanoke County Virginia
-3-
,[ ~,, ,
._, d. , ~1
RESOLUTION
OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
F ROANOKE COUNTY], VIRGINI
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke
County, Virginia (the Authority), has considered the application
of F & W Office Park II, a Virginia limited partnership (the
Partnership) for the issuance of the Authority's industrial de-
velopment revenue refunding bonds in an amount not to exceed
$800,000 (the Bonds) to refund the Authority's Industrial Devel-
opment Revenue Bonds (F & W Building D Project) in the amount of
$800,000, issued on October 8, 1985, which were issued to assist
in the financing of the construction and equipping of an office
facility for rent to commercial tenants in Roanoke County, Vir-
ginia, (the Project) located at 3801 Electric Road in Roanoke,
Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on July 9, 1987;
and
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board of Super-
visors (the Board) of Roanoke County, Virginia (the County), to
approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with Section 147(f)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code);
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving
the issuance of the Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a
record of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" with
respect to tY:e Project have been filed with the Board;
-1-
~~ ~
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds
by the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Vir-
ginia, for the benefit of F & W Office Park II, to the extent
required by Section 147(f) of the Code, to permit the Authority
to assist in the financing of the Project.
2. Approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by
Section 147(f) of the Code, does not constitute an endorsement of
the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Partnership, but, as re-
quired by Section 15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended, the Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the
Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest
thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues
and moneys pledged therefor, and neither the faith or credit nor
the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County nor the Authori-
ty shall be pledged thereto.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon
its adoption.
-2-
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1987
RESOLUTION 71487-6 APPROVING THE ISSUANCE
OF BONDS BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY' FOR FOR THE BENEFIT OF F & W
OFFICE PARK II
BE I'r RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of
Roanoke County, Virginia (the Authority>, has considered the
application of F & W Office Park II, a Virginia limited
partnership (the Partnership) for the issuance of the Authority's
industrial development revenue refunding bonds in an amount not
to exceed $800,000 (the Bonds) to refund the A uthority's
Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (F & W Building D Project)
in the amount of $800,000, issued on October 8, 1985, which were
issued to assist in the financing of the construction and
equipping of an office facility for rent to commercial tenants in
Roanoke County, Virginia (the Project) located at 3801 Electric
Road in Roanoke, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon
on July 9, 1987; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board of
Supervisors (the Board) of Roanoke County, Virginia (the County),
to approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with Section
147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
Code);
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving
the issuance of the bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a
record of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" with
respect to the Project have been filed with the Board;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia:
1. The Board hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds
by the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County,
Virginia, for the benefit of F & W Office Park II„ to the extent
required by Section 147(f) of the Code, to permit the Authority
to assist in the financing of the Project.
2. Approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required
by Section 147(f) of the Code, does not constitute an endorsement
of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Partnership, but, as
required by Section 15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended, the Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the
Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest
thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues
and moneys pledged therefor, and neither the faith or credit nor
the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County nor the
Authority shall be pledged thereto.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon
its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor
Garrett, and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY - TESTE:
`~)~ C~ ~-
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
7/15/87
cc: File
Tim Gubala, Assistant County Administrator
Brent Sheffler, Economic Develoment Specialist
Industrial Development Authority
..
F & W Office Park II
CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION
1. A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia (the Board), was held on July 7.4, 1987,
at which meeting the following duly elected members were present
or absent:
PRESENT: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens,
Johnson
ABSENT: None
Such members constituted all of the members of the Board on the
date of such meeting.
2. Attached hereto is a true and correct copy of a reso-
lution duly adopted at such meeting by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens
Johnson
NAYS: None
3. The resolution referred to above has not been re-
pealed, revoked, rescinded or amended but is in full force and
effect on this date and constitutes the only resolution adopted
by the Board relating to the issuance by the Authority of its in-
dustrial development revenue bonds for the benefit of F & W Of-
fice Park II.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County, Virginia, this 15 day of July, 1987.
Deputy Clerk, B and of Supervisors
Roanoke County, Virginia
(SEAL)
-2-
A-71487-8
ITEM NUMBER ~"
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE
IN ROANOKE, VA., ON
MEETING DATE:
July 14, 1987
OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
TUESDAY,
SUBJECT: Petition of Tim Edmondson for Allowance of Claim
COUNTY ADMINISTRA/T~OR'SVCO~MMENTS~~~
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Mr. Tim Edmondson, formerly a detective in the Roanoke
County Sheriff's Department, has petitioned the Board in accor-
dance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-550 (see attached letter)
for allowance of a claim of $255. This Code section requires
that before a person may institute a court action against a
county he must first present the claim to the Board of Super-
visors. Mr. Edmondson's claim arises from a March 1986 disciplin-
ary action which resulted in his being suspended without pay for
three days. Mr. Edmondson has now left County employment and
seeks to secure the lost pay for the three-day suspension.
Prior to the suspension, Mr. Edmondson received a letter
from Sheriff O. S. Foster notifying him of the impending disci-
plinary action. Mr. Edmondson chose not to contest the suspen-
sion through the grievance system. Now that he has left County
employment, he is seeking relief from the Board.
FISCAL IMPACT:~,~~~
None . ~`
RECOMMENDATION:
The County Attorney recommends that the claim be denied.
The petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedy and
should not be awarded compensation from the Board.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
~- c-~
Approved ( )
Denied (x)
Received ( )
Referred
To
ACTION VOTE
Motion by: goh ~ 7n}"1pSnp ~.~'ij'P~TPn No Yes Abs
A. McGraw to dQr.y c-ia;m Brittle x
Garrett x
Johnson x
McGraw x
Nickens x
cc: File
Sheriff Foster
Paul Mahoney
Keith Cook
LAW OFFICES
OSTERHOUDT, FERGUSON, NATT, AHERON &AGEE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
1919 ELECTRIC ROAD, S. W.
CHARLES H. OSTERHOUDT P. O. BOX 20008
MIC HAEL S. FERGUSON
EDWARD A. NATT ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
MICHAEL J. AHERON 24018-1699
G. STEVEN AGEE
MARK D. KIDD
June 17, 1987
Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County
P. 0. Box 3800
Roanoke, VA 24015
RE: Tim Edmondson
Gentlemen:
OF COUNSEL
PHILLIP A. SHORT
C. JOHN RENICK
703-774-1197
Pursuant to the provisior~s of Section 15.1-550 of
the Code of Virginia, this claim is made against the Board
of Supervisors on behalf of my client, Mr Tim Edmondson.
This claim is in the amount of $255.00 and represents a sum
due to Mr. Edmondson for his employment on March Ilth, 12th
and 13th, 1986.
His paycheck for that period was improperly
deducted. There is no basis for said deduction in his per-
sonnel file and Mr. Edmondson, therefore, feels as if he is
entitled to the funds.
This matter has been brought to the attention of
the County Administration and the Administration has failed
to make the necessary adjustments. Therefore, the appeal to
the Board of Supervisors is necessary pursuant to the pro-
visions of law.
Your attention to this matter would be appreciated.
Very truly yours,
OSTERHOUDT, FERGUSON, NATT,
AH~E`RON t; AGEE, P. C.
~~-~`t^1~~ U 1i
Edward A. Natt
~bP
A-71487-9
ITEM NUMBER ~'_--
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
IN ROANOKE, VA., ON TUESDAY,
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1987
SUBJECT: Protest of Bid by Oxford Services
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR`'%~'JS `COMMENTS
~CGt.b 1' G~i.!'~n2R%
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The attorney for Oxford Services, Inc. submitted a written
protest of the award of bid RC87-20 by letter dated June 26,
1987, a copy of which is attached. This bid was for janitorial
cleaning services for FY 1987-88.
The invitation to bid was issued on May 5, 1987, and re-
sulted in four (4) responses:
Oxford Services, Inc. $72,681.00
American Chemical $72,952.98
Swan Services $74,681.52
ARC Roanoke (CHD) $142,794.72
Roy Nester, Director of Buildings and Grounds, has docu-
mented the numerous complaints from various County departments
concerning the cleaning services provided by Oxford during the
past year. Mr. Nester reports that he repeatedly discussed these
problems with Oxford's management by telephone and by meetings
(including tours of the various facilities) in an attempt to cor-
rect these problems.
Based upon these reported complaints and the record of per-
formance during the past contract year, Mr. Nester recommended
that the janitorial services contract for FY 1987-88 be awarded
to the next low bidder, American Chemical Company. The differ-
ence between these two bids was $271.98. J. Gradick Council,
Procurement Director, concurred in this recommendation, and the
County awarded this contract to American Chemical Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that this protest by Oxford Services, Inc.
be rejected, and that the Board confirm and ratify the award of
the contract to American Chemical Company. This action is based
upon unsatisfactory performance of Oxford Services, Inc. during
~~- ~~
the 1986-87 contract year. Further, the Board confirms and
ratifies the determination to proceed with the contract to
protect the public interest.
Respectfully submitted,
~ ~~.
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
Attachment - Letter dated 6/26/87 from Charles N. Center
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) Motion by: Lee Garrett/Steven No Yes Abs
Denied (x) A. McGraw to deny - Brittle ~-
Received ( ) Garrett ~
Referred Johnson ~
To McGraw ~-
Nickens _~___
cc: File
Paul Mahoney
Jack Council
Roy Nester
CHARLES N. CENTER, P.C. ~
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3400 PEACHTREE ROAD, N.E.
SUITE 1701
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30326
June 26 , 190 1 TELEPHONE
CHARLES N. CENTER f4O4) 233-0001
STEVEN C. ROSEN
Mr. J. Gradick Council
County of Roanoke
Procurement Services
P. 0. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018
Re: Bid RC87-20
Cleaning Services
Dear Mr. Council:
This letter constitutes a formal protest of the award
of Bid #RC87-20 on behalf of Oxford Services, Inc. The
basis for our protest is as follows:
1. Oxford Services was the low bidder for the
contract.
2. Oxford Services satisfactorily completed all the
terms and conditions of the contract for the prior years.
3. The award of the contract to American Chemical
Company was arbitrary and capricious.
The relief sought by Oxford is the cancellation of the
contract between the County and American Chemical Company
and the awarding of the contract to Oxford Services. As the
contractor to the County for the last two years we believe
we were the most experienced and qualified bidder. Although
the stated reason for not awarding the contract to Oxford
was purportedly unsatisfactory performance, the record does
not reflect that.
We note that the cleaning contract awarded consisted of
in excess of 100,000 square feet. Specifications of the
requirements under the contract are also contained. Our
client, Oxford Services, has performed all of its
obligations under the contract.
Specific provision in the contract under the heading
"Inspections" calls for the County to make inspections of
the premises monthly or more frequently. According to the
contract "unacceptable work shall be brought to the
attention of the contractor and given two days to correct".
Oxford Services was never given any opportunity to correct
CHARDS N. CENTER, P.C.
Mr. J. Gradick Council
Page 2
July 26, 1987
- ~~
any matters which the County maintained to be unacceptable.
Oxford's performance must have been acceptable in the past.
If the County 'has not complied with its contractual
obligations in regard to any complaints it may have had and
if it has not given Oxford Services the contractual
opportunity to cure any alleged defects, it cannot base the
award of a new contract to another bidder on unsatisfactory
service. To do so constitutes the granting of an award for
arbitrary and capricious reasons.
Please note that in December, 1986 and again in May,
1987, Oxford Services corresponded with the County and
submitted Quality Rating Surveys with self-addressed stamped
envelopes. As a continuing effort to monitor the services
performed and assure that our customer (in this case the
County) is satisfied, our client submitted the Quality
Rating Surveys. If there had been any complaintthe County
to the services which Oxford had been providing it to the
could have taken this opportunity to bring
attention of Oxford. By virtue of the County's failure to
submit any complaints as to services on the survey which
Uxford submitted to it and since the County never raised any
objections to the services nor offered Oxford an opportunity
to cure any alleged problems, it is unreasonable to base the
denial of the contract to the low bidder on unsatisfactory
services.
Please accept this letter as our protest of award
pursuant to Section 17-129 of the Roanoke County Code. We
request, pursuant to Section 17-131 that no further action
be taken to award the contract and that, after consideration
by the County Board of Supervisors a determination be made
that the decision to award the contract to American Chemical
Company was arbitrary or capricious, that the contract be
terminated and that a new contract be awarded to Oxford
Services.
Sincerely,
,~cr~~~ ~
Charles N. Center
lg
cc: Oxford Services, Inc.
'ROANO~'
O F
~ ' A ~ ~ ~l
o ~
v a
1838
COUNTY ATTORNEY
PAUL M. MAHONEY
July 1, 1987
Charles N. Center, Esq.
Attorney at law
3400 Peachtree Road, NE
Suite 1701
Atlanta, CA 30326
Re: Bid RC87-20
Cleaning Services
Dear Sir:
This correspondence is in response to your letter dated June 26, 1987. You
requested that your letter be treated as a formal protest of Bid #RC87-20 on
behalf of Oxford Services, Inc.
Section 17-129 of the County Code requires that the Board of Supervisors shall
render a decision within ten (10) days upon your protest. The Board of Super-
visors of Roanoke County regularly meets on the second and fourth Tuesdays of
each month.. The next regular meeting is scheduled for July 14, 1987, at 3:00
p.m. You can appear before the Board to present any testimony, evidence or
argument relevant to this issue at that time.
If you do not concur, a special meeting of the Board could be scheduled. If
you desire this action, please contact me at your earliest convenience to
schedule a mutually agreeable date and time.
You requested that no further action be taken to award the contract, pursuant
to Section 17-131. The contract had already been awarded and the successful
bidder had been directed to proceed with performance prior to receipt of the
protest.
I am forwarding a copy of this letter to American Chemical Company, since that
company has an interest in this matter.
P. O. BOX 3800 ROANOKE COUNTY. VIRGINIA 24015 (703) 772-2007
Charles N. Center, Fsq. ~
Page Sao
July 7, 1987
Please contact me concerning your wishes regarding the date and time for your
protest to the Board.
Very truly yours,
~.~,~
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
PMM/sg
cc - American Chemical Co.
Ms. Mary Allen
Mr. Jack G. Council
ITEM NUMBER /~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
IN ROANOKE, VA., ON TUESDAY,
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1987
SUBJECT: Protest of Bid by Valley Communications
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
~~~~~ ~~ ~
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
By letter dated July 1, 1987, Valley Communications submit-
ted an apparent protest of the award of bid RC87-19, a copy of
which is attached. This bid was for a maintenance agreement for
surveillance equipment in the jail for FY 1987-88.
Invitations to bid were issued April 24, 1987, and resulted
in three (3) vendors submitting responses:
Valley Communications - $550 per month
$55 per hour, emergency
Kane Communication Systems - $600 per month
$37.50 per hour, emergency
Radio Communication - No Bid
Valley Communications was the low bidder and was the contrac-
tor for these services for FY 1986-87. Based upon numerous com-
plaints from the Sheriff's Department and fruitless attempts to
resolve these problems with this contractor, it was determined
that the performance was unsatisfactory.
Based upon these complaints and the record of performance
during the past contract year, the Sheriff's Department recom-
mended that the maintenance agreement for surveillance equipment
in the jail for FY 1987-88 be awarded to the next low bidder -
Kane Communictaion Systems. The difference between these two
bids was $600, less $17.50 per hour for emergency work (after
5:00 p.m.).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that this protest by Valley Communications
be rejected, and that the Board confirm and ratify the award of
~/
tl;.e contract to Kane Communication Systems. This action is based
upon unsatisfactory performance of Valley Communications during
the 1986-87 contract year. Further, the Board confirms and
ratifies the determination to proceed with the contract to
protect the public interest.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
yYl /
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
Attachment - Letter dated July 1, 1987 from Valley Communications
------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) Motion by• No Yes Abs
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To
Brittle
Garrett
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
~- 7
VALLEY COMMUNICATIONS ~ 703-389-1918
July 1, 1987
Mr. Jack Council, Purchasing Agent
County of Roanoke
P. 0. Box 3800
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
231 E. 4TH STREET
P. O. BOX 598
SALEM, VA 24153
Ref: Bid/Proposal Number: Bid RC87-19
Maintenance Agreement-Surveillance
Equipment
Roanoke County. Salem Jail
_ .Awarded to: Kane's Communication
Systems
Dear Mr. Council:
Following our meeting on July 1, 1987 with Capt. Huff, Don Fiel-der and Bonnie
Preas, we are hereby notifying you Ghat we will appeal your decision to award
the Maintenance Agreement on the Roanoke County .Salem Jail Surveillance
Equipment to someone other than Valley Communications, even though~Valley was
the low bidder.
As stated: "This decision is based on the department's recommendation, lack of
performance and higher hourly costs", we feel is not justified.
We will be in contact with you again regarding this situation.
Sincerely,
VALLEY COMMUNICATIONS
Mark W. Cronk
MWC/dmh
cc: Sherrill L. Smith
cc: Pat Whitescarver
O~ ROA O~
F
~, ~
~~
Z
~ 2
v a.
1838
~IILtYlt1J Uf 1,~UElYIII~iP
COUNTY ATTORNEY
July 7, 1987
Valley Communications
P. 0. Box 598
Salem, VA 24153
ATT'ENT'ION: Mr. Mark W. Cronk
Re: Bid RC87-19
Maintenance Agreement - Surveillance Equipment
Dear Mr. Cronk:
~_ _ ~
PAUL M. MAHONEY
..This correspondence is in response to your letter dated July 1, 1987, concern-
ing the above-referenced matter. Mr. Council-forwarded your .letter. to me for
response. You stated that you wish to appeal the decision awarding this con-
tract to Kane's Communication System.
Section 17-129 of the County Code describes the procedure to protest a.con-
tract award. I presume that your July 1, 1987, letter constitutes a formal
protest. This section provides that the ". written protest shall include
the basis for the protest and the relief sought." Also, this section provides.
that the Board of Supervisors shall issue a written decision within ten (10)
days stating the reasons for the action taken.
Since the Board meets on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month, your
protest could be scheduled for hearing at the regular Board meeting. At that
time you could present any information relevant to the protest. In the alter-
native you could request a special meeting of the Board to hear your protest,
in order to comply with the ten (10) day limit. The parties can mutually
agree to extend these time limits.
Please provide me with your written protest stating the basis for the protest
and the relief sought. Also, please contact me concerning your intentions
regarding the date and time for your protest hearing before the Board of Super-
visors.
P. O. BOX 3800 ROANOKE COUNTY. VIRGINIA 24015 (703) 772-2007
~-
Valley Communications
Page Trio
July 7, 1987
Since Kane's ComQnunication Systems has a contractual intE~rest in this matter,
I am notifying that party by copy of this letter of your protest, so that it
may take such actions as it may deem appropriate to protect; its interests.
Very truly yours,
'Ylll '
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
PNN1/sg
cc - Mr. J. Gradick Council
Mrs. Mary`Allen
Kane's Communication Systems
,. ~ ~ ,~/
ITEM NUMBER ~~ O "
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
IN ROANOKE, VA., ON TUESDAY,
MEETING DATE:
July 14, 1987
SUBJECT: Public hearing and resolution pursuant to Section 15.1-
238(e) authorizing condemnation and right-of-entry for
North Lakes Water Interconnection Project
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Two properties were involved in easement acquisition
for the North Lakes Water Interconnection Project in the area of
North Lakes Drive and Peters Creek Road. After discussion and
negotiations, one property owner has conveyed to the County a
right-of-way.
Section 15.1-238(e) provides for a notice and public hearing
by the Board of Supervisors to authorize immediate entry upon
real estate and condemnation thereof. In order to complete the
North Lakes Interconnection Project, one easement must be con-
demned:
Green Market, Inc. - Fair Market Value - $580.00
Notice by mail was given to the property owner in question.
This procedure is a necessary first step to commence condemnation
proceedings.
FISCAL IMPACT:
$580.00 plus legal costs and expenses for the condemnation
actions and expert witness fees. Utility Fund monies are being
used for the easement acquisition.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the proposed resolution be adopted by
the Board after the required public hearing.
~~~ ;> f
Respectfully submitted,
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To
Motion by:
ACTION
Brittle
Garrett
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
VOTE
No Yes Abs
~~~-~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, ON TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1987
RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 15.1-
238(e) OF THE 1950 CODE OF VIRGINIA, AS
AMENDED, SETTING FORTH THE INTENT OF
ROANOKE COUNTY TO ENTER UPON CERTAIN
PROPERTY AND TO TAKE A WATER LINE EASE-
MENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE NORTH LAKES
WATER INTERCONNECTION PROJECT
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the North Lakes Water Interconnection Project
involves the construction of a pump station and two sections of
water line. This construction will allow the 500,000 gallon Loch
Haven water reservoir to be supplied with water from Roanoke
City, in addition to the higher quality wells in the area. This
reservoir supplies water to the North Lakes subdivision and other
development in this area; and
2. That in order to complete this construction, a cer-
tain right-of-way is needed and more particularly described as
follows:
A twenty (20) foot strip of land across the
property of Green Market, Inc. and more
particularly described on a plat and
appraisal report which are attached.
Together with a ten (10) foot temporary
construction easement across the property of
Green Market, Inc. and more particularly
described on the above-referenced plat and
report.
The fair market value of the aforesaid
interest to be acquired is $580.00, such
compensation and damages, if any, having been
offered the property owner.
'7 ~ ~ ._ ~
2. That is is immediately necessary for the County to
enter upon and take such property and commence said construction
in order to provide higher quality water and wells to the
citizens of North Lakes and surrounding development; and
3. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1-
238(e) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and pursuant to
notice and public hearing as made and provided therein, the Board
does hereby invoke all and singular rights and privileges and
provisions of said Section 15.1-238(e) as to the vesting of
powers in the County pursuant to Section 33.1-119 through Section
33.1-129 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, all as made
and provided by law.
r: ~.
/ O r~~~
APPRAISAL REPORT
OF A
PROPOSED EASEMENT
FOR
NORTH LAKES WATER INTERCONNECTION
PROPERTY LOCATION
North East Corner
~ Peters Creek Road and North Lakes Drive
Roanoke County, Virginia
PROPERTY OWNER
Green Market, Inc.
PREPARED FOR
County of Roanoke
Department of Public Facilities
Mr. Phillip T. Henry, P.E.
Director of Engineering
P. 0. Box 3800
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
BY
Earl G. Robertson, MAI, SRPA
...
COMMONWEALTH APPRAISAL COMPANY
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants .
EARL 6. ROBERTSON, MAI, SRPA
~~ ~-_~
PROFESSIONAL ARTS BUILDING • TELEPHONE (703) 342-3861 • P.O. BOX 1 168 • ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24006
June 15, 1987
Mr. Phillip T. Henry, P.E.
Director of Engineering
Roanoke County Department of Public Facilities
P. 0. Box 29800
Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798
Dear Mr. Henry:
At your request I have personally inspected the proposed acquisition
described in this report. It was this appraiser's opinion that the esti-
mated market value of the proposed easement to be acquired was:
FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY DOLLARS
($580.00)
as it existed on June 8, 1987.
This report is believed to be complete and the opportunity to be
of service is appreciated. However, if there are any questions or if
I can be of further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Earl G. Robert on, MAI, SRPA
EGR/khv
~~ _ r
PURPOSE OF APPRAISAL / ~ ~..__/
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the market value of a pro-
posed sewerline easement through the property described in this report
and as shown on the attached plat dated May 28, 1987. The American
Institute of Real Estate Appraisers defines the term market value as
"The most probable price in terms of cash which a property should bring
in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair
sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assum-
ing the price is not affected by undue stimulus."
PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED
The appraisal of this property is predicated on the assumption that the
title is in fee simple, free and clear of all liens or assessments and
that easements or land covenants affecting the property have no objection-
able clauses.
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Peters Creek Road and North Lakes Drive are paved and state maintained.
ZONING
Existing zoning is "Business" (B-1) and "Single Family Residential" (R-1).
UTILITIES
Electricity, water, sewer and telephone service are available to the sub-
ject property.
FLOOD ZONE
The subject property is not located in a designated flood hazard area.
DATE OF PROPERTY INSPECTION
June 8, 1987
DATE VALUATION APPLIES
June 8, 198?
HIGI~ST AND BEST USE
The highest and best use of the subject property is a continuation of its
present use which is for commercial purposes.
COMMONWEALTH APPRAISAL COMPANY
~..
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
~ ~ ~~,~
Land - The subject land is an odd shaped site located at the northeast
corner of Peters Creek Road and North Lakes Drive in Roanoke County.
This land is nearly on grade with both streets and rises gradually toward
the rear (northerly direction). It also is slightly rolling from side to
side.
The front portion of this site is used for commercial purposes and the
back portion is unimproved. This back portion is covered with grass,
bushes and short ground cover.
Total land area is 3.42 acres according to information furnished to
this appraiser.
DESCRIPTION OF THE TAKING
The proposed land to be acquired is an easement located along the back
portion and adjacent to the left sideline (See Attached Plat). The
acquisition consists of a 20' wide permanent easement adjacent to the
west sideline from the left rear corner forward for a distance of 356.95
feet. A 10 foot wide construction easement of the same length is adjacent
to the east side of the permanent easement. Total area in the permanent
easement is 7,216 square feet and 3,470 square feet in .the construction
easement. (A plat showing easements .is attached.)
VALUATION OF THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION
Both recent sales and off rings of comparable land were compared with the
subject land to derive an estimated value of the proposed permanent and
temporary easements. From this data it is this appraiser's opinion that
the estimated market value of the proposed acquisition was:
FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY DOLLARS
($580.00)
as it existed on June 8, 1987.
The above estimate is itemized as follows:
Permanent Easement - (R-1) 7,060
(B-1) 156
Construction Easement - 3,470 S.:
Shrubbery, etc. - (None)
Damage to the Residue - (None)
Total
S.F. @ $0.1625 x 35% $402.00
S.F. @ $1.43 x 35% 78.00
?. @ (Nominal Amount) 100.00
0.00
0.00
$580.00
Data used to derive the easement value is on file in this office.
COMMONWEALTH APPRAISAL COMPANY
~ i,
Metes and Bounds descriptions shown on this plat represent a composite of
deeds, plats, and calculated information and do not reflect an accurate
boundary survey.
S. gR~NSON
H1pUD1E
331.26
.~.3~ 18 E
N
3 ~ 20~ pROPOSE~ EASEMENT
~,`~
1`
~~,1
~~
Y ~
;`\
SHC.~K~ ~ ~~ GREEN MARKET,
. N°~ "~~\ INC.
CON ~~~oN
~„~~ 10 EASEMENj ~ ~
~ ; ¢,
~~
~~~~W
,Roo,
~o,~
O ~'
ti
~"~
\~N
ti
~~~
ANNA
a Gov
oa~~0 aK~~~H N
/ ENE
J~SEPN
~P~1.PS ~ KE~'~N
W
~PMES
MP~t~E E.
9 ~a .
d d 06•`'e
~' , ~ o`~
~P, 99'
~Q.
.~
Z0 ~~
~s~' G~
~~~y
Q~
SCALE ~ 1" a 100'
Casement Far
NORTH LAKES WATER INTERCONNECTION
Granted To: County of Roanoke, By: GREEN ~ MARKETS INC. -•
Prpnarp~i Rv• R~annko 1'.n~~nty Ilpna~tmAnt of Dnhli~ Fa~ilitiAC flatp• R AO o•+
~_
~~ ~~~
Certification
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that to the best of my
knowledge and belief, the information contained in this
appraisal and the opinions based thereon are correct, subject
to the limiting conditions herein set forth. I also certify
that this appraisal has been made in conformity with the
Professional Standards of the American Institute of Real Estate
Appraisers of the National Association of Real Estate Boards.
Further, I certify that I have personally inspected the subject
property, that I have no interest present or contemplated
therein, and that neither the employment to make this appraisal,
nor the fee involved, is contingent upon the amount of valuation
reported.
"The American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers conducts a
voluntary program of continuing education for its designated
members. MAI's and RM's who meet the minimum standards of
this program are awarded periodic educational certification.
I am certified under this program through September 15, 1989."
Earl G. Robertson, MAI, SRPA
June 15, 1987
Roanoke, Virginia
COMMONWEALTH APPRAISAL COMPANY
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, ON TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1987
RESOLUTION 71487-10 PURSUANT TO
SECTION 15.1- 238(e) OF THE 1950 CODE
OF VIRGINIA, AS AMENDED, SETTING FORTH
THE INTENT OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO ENTER
UPON CERTAIN PROPERTY AND TO TAKE A
WATER LINE EASEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH
THE NORTH LAKES WATER INTERCONNECTION
PROJECT
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the North Lakes Water Interconnection Project
involves the construction of a pump station and two sections of
water line. This construction will allow the 500,000 gallon Loch
Haven water reservoir to be supplied with water from Roanoke
City, in addition to the higher quality wells in the area. This
reservoir supplies water to the North Lakes subdivision and other
development in this area; and
2. That in order to complete this construction, a cer-
tain right-of-way is needed and more particularly described as
follows:
A twenty (20) foot strip of land across the
property of Green Market, Inc. and more
particularly described on a plat and
appraisal report which are attached.
Together with a ten (10) foot temporary
construction easement across the property of
Green Market, Inc. and more particularly
described on the above-referenced plat and
report.
The fair market value of the aforesaid
interest to be acquired is $580.00, such
compensation and damages, if any, having been
offered the property owner.
2. That is is immediately necessary for the County to
enter upon and take such property and commence said construction
in order to provide higher quality water and wells to the
citizens of North Lakes and surrounding development; and
3. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1-
238(e) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and pursuant to
notice and public hearing as made and provided therein, the Board
does hereby invoke all and singular rights and privileges and
provisions of said Section 15.1-238(e) as to the vesting of
powers in the County pursuant to Section 33.1-119 through Section
33.1-129 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, all as made
and provided by law.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor
Nickens, and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY - TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
7/15/87
cc: File
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
ITEM NUMBER ~- -
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1987
SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Community Corrections Resources Board:
The one-year term of Mr. Bernard Hairston will expire August 13,
1987. Mr. Hariston was elected January 27, 1987, to complete the
unexpired term of Michael J. Lazzuri, who resigned.
The one-year term of Alternate Joseph Cronin will expire August
13, 1987. Mr. Cronin is relocating to Lynchburg and will be
unable to serve on the Board.
See attached for information on the Community Corrections
Resources Board.
SUBMITTED BY:
.~ Ct,.e~e..e.n
Mary H. Allen
Deputy Clerk
APPROVED BY:
~~
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To
Brittle
Garrett
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
i
June 17, 1987
County of Roanoke
Board of Supervisors
P. 0. Box 3800
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Attn: Mr. Alan H. Brittle
Cave Spring District
Dear Alan:
Y~~
Wiley & Wilson
Architects Engineers Planners
2310 Langhorne Road
P.O. Box 877
Lynchburg, Virginia 24505-0877
(804) 528-1901
As you know, I have recently changed my place of employment and
am now working for Wiley & Wilson, Architects, Engineers and Planners
in Lynchburg, Virginia. I will continue to reside in Roanoke County
for the immediate future, but will eventually relocate to the Lynchburg
area. With the commuting time between home and work being substantial,
I will not be able to continue to serve as an alternate delegate on
the Community Corrections Resources Board or Court Service Unit Advisory
Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board.
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to serve the County
of Roanoke. I'm particularly pleased to have had the opportunity to work
with and see the excellent work done by Mr. James Phipps and Mrs. Kathryn
Van Patten. Both were of immeasurable help to me.
Very':truly,
''''-~.
` ~osep D. Cronin, ~"~~.
Senior Vice President
~,
JDC-lg
cc: Mike Lazzuri, Director of Court Services
Kathryn Van Patten, Court Community Corrections Program
Robert Johnson, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
~ #- r
L `!
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS RESOURCES BOARD
A. COMPOSITION: (From Bylaws and Section 53.1-183)
To consist of seven members appointed as follows: one
member from Roanoke County; one member from Salem City; three
members from the judges in the 23rd Judicial District; one member
from the Department of Corrections. The term of office shall be
determined by the appointing authority (Roanoke County's is one
year.)
B. DUTIES:
Review felony referrals from the Circuit Courts of
Roanoke City, Roanoke County and the City of Salem for possible
diversion from state penal system and local jails.
C. MEETINGS:
Third Tuesday of each month at 4:00 p.m.
r
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1987
RESOLUTION NO. 71487-11 APPROVING AND
CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH
ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA
FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM N -
CONSENT AGENDA
BE I'I` RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That that certain section of the agenda of the
Board of Supervisors for July 14, 1987, designated as Item N -
Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to
each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 7 inclusive, as follows:
1. Minutes of Meetings - June 9, 1987.
2. Acceptance of Water & Sewer Lines serving
Meadowbrook Condominiums, Phase I and II.
3. Acceptance of Water and Sewer Facilities serving
Branderwood, Section I.
4. Acceptance of Rights of Way for the following
roads:
a. Farmington South
b. Pine Hill
c. Waltdon Farms
5 Request for School Board Appropriation for
Textbook Fund for 1987/88.
6. Approval of Amendment to Classification Plan for
position in the Sheriff's Department.
7. Confirmation of Appointment to the Recreation
Commission.
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.
Supervisor Brittle requested that Item N-3 be removed
for a separate vote.
Supervisor McGraw moved to approve Item N-3, seconded
by Supervisor Johnson and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Supervisor Brittle
On motion of Supervisor Nickens removing Item N-3 for a
separate vote, seconded by Supervisor Johnson, and upon the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS : None
A COPY - TESTE:
YYLcY~.,.~,1,
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
7/15/87
cc: File
Clifford Craig, Director of Utilities
Phillip Henry, Director of Engineering
John Peters, Assistant Director of Engineering
Bayes Wilson, School Superintendent
D. Keith Cook, Personnel Officer
Sheriff O. S. Foster
1~ f -~ ~
LAR MEETIiQG OF THE BOARD OKESCOUNTYSADMINISTRATOION
AT A REGU HELD AT THE ROANO 1987
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, TUESDAY, JULY 14,
CENTER ON
p,ppROV ING AND
RESOLUTION NO • _._----
CONCURRING INOFE5UPERVISORS AGENDARTH
ON THE BOARD
FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM N
CONSENT AGENDA
IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
BE
County, Virginia, as follows:
1• That that certain section of the agenda of the -
Su ervisors for July 14, 1987, designated as Item N
Board of p
enda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as o
Consent Ag nated Items 1
each item separately set forth in said section deslg
through 6, inclusive, as follows:
1, Minutes of Meetings - June 9, 1987.
2, Acceptance of Water & Sewer Lines serving
Meadowbrook Condominiums, Phase I and II.
Acceptance of Water and Sewer Facilities serving
3' Section I.
Branderwood,
4, Acceptance of Rights of Way for the following
roads:
a, Farmington South
b. pine Hill
c, Waltdon Farms
5• Request for School Board Appropriation for
Textbook Fund for 1987/88-
p,pproval of Amendment f°sCDepartmention Plan for
6
position in the Sherif
That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized
2 of said
on any
and directed where required by law to set forth up
arate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to
items the sep
this resolution.
527
June 9, 1987
- _ __ . _. _ --------- - ---- - -- - II - - -
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Roanoke County Administration Center
3738 Brambleton Avenue, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
June 9, 1987
The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County
Administration Center, this being the first Tuesday, and the
first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of June, 1987.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 2:00
p.m. The roll call was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob L. Johnson, Vice Chairman Lee
Garrett, Supervisors Alan H. Brittle,
Steven A. McGraw, Harry C. Nickens
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; John
M. Chambliss, Assistant County
Administrator for Management Services; John
R. Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator
of Public Facilities; Timothy W. Gubala,
Assistant County Administrator for
Community Development; Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney; Mary H. Allen, Deputy
Clerk; Phillip Henry, Director of
Engineering; Clifford Craig, Director of
Utilities; John Peters, Assistant Director
of Engineering; Reta Busher, Director of
Budget and Management; Diane Hyatt,
Director of Finance; Sue Palmer, Planner
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by the Reverend William
Warnock, Vinton Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was
recited by all present.
:t
:7:
r ~
J ~ v June 9, 1987 ~ / _ /
N RE: WORK SESSION ON DRAINAGE
Elmer Hodge, County Administrator, advised that this
cork session is a result of the board meeting on May 26, 1987,
ind will outline the responsibilities, financial options and
possible solutions to drainage problems in the County. Mr. Hodge
turned the work session over to Phillip Henry, Director of
Engineering.
Mr. Henry outlined the short term solutions and the
dates they would be brought to the Board of Supervisors for
approval. They include adoption of the VDOT Drainage Manual
which would be brought to the Board for the first reading on June
23rd; revision of the floodplain ordinance which would be brought
to the Board in August; improvement of the inspection process
which will be reported to the Board in September; development and
adoption of the Roanoke County Construction Standards, which will
be presented to the Board in January 1988; and an information
program to inform citizens. Long term solutions will involve
development and funding of a Watershed Plan and Drainage Program.
Mr. Henry reviewed the eight projects which were
completed with the 1986/87 drainage program, and the three
contract projects. He then outlined the options for improving
the drainage situation in the Orlando/Palm Valley area and the
Kentland/South Park/willowlawn area. These are the areas that
the Board of Supervisors approved at the May 26, 1987 meeting, if
the $200,000 proposed drainage funding was approved.
Supervisor Nickens stated his concern was that thee,
Board not act to hastily and maximize the $200,000 funds,
possibly with matching funds from VDOT. He also suggested a fee
study to ensure that accurate fees are being charged for
inspections.
June 9, 1987 ~ ~ 8a
Supervisor Brittle pointed out that at the May 26t
Board meeting, the cost was estimated at $213,000 and is no
estimated at $145,000, and inquired what the reduction was. Mr
Henry stated one savings was using County staff to clean out th
debris and the other was the elimination of curb and gutterin
along Return Road. Supervisor Brittle asked if there would be
saving by using jail inmate labor for some of the work.
Supervisor Johnson directed the staff to make sure tha
the County maximize the use of VDOT matching funds and any othe
sources of funding wherever possible.
Supervisor Brittle asked if the staff has talked wit
the Homebuilders Association concerning the constructio
standards. Mr. Hodge responded that they had met with the
recently. He also asked how the County would handle an
reduction of real estate taxes due to drainage and flooding
County Attorney Paul Mahoney advised that this can only be don
by reduced assessment through citizen initiated action
Supervisor Johnson asked that the public be informed on how t
have their assessments reduced.
Supervisor McGraw stated he felt that the staff shoul
set the priorities. He is also concerned about the perception o
the public that their drainage and flooding problems may b
solved soon, when $200,000 will not begin to solve these problems
He asked the staff to study the bonding process as a possible wa
to get the work done quickly. Mr. Hodge responded that the staf
should go through the watershed study before any bond study an
asked Supervisor Johnson to discuss this with the Fifth Plannin
District Commission. Supervisors Johnson and Garrett state
they were opposed to bonds for this project.
Mr. Hodge asked the Board's concurrence to proceed wit
the drainage problem including the funding of the drainage cre~
and the changes to the ordinances. Supervisor McGraw asked tha
a bonding procedure be included in any studies.
N-/
5 2 8B
June 9, 1987
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Renewal of the Blue Cross-Blue Shield Contract
for the 1987/88 Fiscal Year: D. Keith Cook, Director of Human
Resources announced that the current contract will expire on
June 30, 1987. Staff is recommending that the coverage remain
the same for fiscal year 1987/88 except for the addition of a
managed care program in lieu of the preadmission review provision.
The County will continue to pay the $42.00 per month, and the
rate structure for employees will remain the same. $50,000 has
been included to offset deficits.
Supervisor Johnson moved that the County Administrator
be authorized to execute the necessary renewal contract. The
motion was seconded by Supervisor Brittle.
Supervisor Nickens asked if this contract was for a
one-year period. Mr. Cook responded that was correct.
Supervisor Johnson reported that he and Supervisor McGraw had met
with the Employee Advisory Committee-and reviewed the contract.
Supervisor Nickens requested that the alternatives such
as consolidation with the school system, and the private sector
be reported to the Board in January 1988.
The motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
2 P r e s e n t a t i o n o n S a n i t a r y S ewe r
Evaluation/Rehabilitation Program (SSE/R): Clifford Craig,
Director of Utilities, reported that this program started in
October 1986. The program was approved to reduce the
infiltration/inflow into the County sewer system. This is caused
by defects in the county's sewer system, and is partially the
result of improper house connections. These problems cause
sewers to surcharge resulting in overflows, backups and higher
r/'-/
June 9, 1987
treatment cc~*G. Mr. Craig presented the priorities for th
SSE/R program for the Back Creek Sewershed, the Murray Ru
Sewershed and the Mud Lick Sewershed, and a time schedule. H
also outlined the work that has been accomplished and what wor
remains to be completed. He also introduced the members of th
Sewer Evaluation Crew. Mr. Craig stated Mr. Mahoney is studyin
the legal aspects of this program, especially as far as askin
homeowners with illegal drains to remove them. He reminded th
Board that homeowners will be reluctant to take all the step
necessary to remove these illegal drains.
County Attorney Paul Mahoney reported that Superviso
Brittle brought to his attention a private contractor involved i
violation of County ordinances. He notified the waterproofin
contractors of the various ordinances dealing with thes
connections, and set up a meeting with the contractors.
Mr. Al Bertolacci, 2709 Tanglewood Drive S. W. spok
concerning this issue. He stated his basement floods with iaate
coming from the sewer lines. His backup value has approximatel
a fifty percent success rate. He is also concerned that th
County is asking the homeowner to fix the illegal connectio
instead of the builders. Mr. Mahoney responded that the statu
of limitation against many of the developers has passed, and th
County cannot ask them to resolve the problems. They plan t
contact whoever is at fault - the homeowner, developer o
waterproofing contractors.
3. Transfer of $4,000 park bond funds from Vinvard
Park to School Board Budget to fund ball fields behind the new
William Byrd Junior High School: County Administrator Elmer C
Hodge advised that the new ball fields are being used for
number of programs by both the schools and recreation teams, any
the School Administration has requested that the fields b~
irrigated. The Town of Vinton is contributing $4,000
Supervisor Nickens brought this to his attention, and would like
~~
~'
;y.
530
June 9, 1987 f~/
- / r -/
$4,000 transferred from the bond money for Vinyard Park for this
project.
Supervisor Nickens reported that the County Attorney
has ruled that the park bond monies may be used for this purpose.
Supervisor Nickens moved to transfer $4,000 from the
Vinyard Park bond money to the School Board for development of
the ball fields. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Brittle
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
4. Request for Board of Supervisors Resolution
expressing concerns with House Bill 538: Assistant County
Administrator Timothy Gubala advised that Senate Bill 538 has
,passed the Senate Labor Committee. This bill requires advance
notification of a plant closing involving fifty or more full time
employees. The major source of Virginia's prospect leads lie in
the northern states and could limit efforts of local and state
representatives to bring new industries into the Roanoke Valley.
County Administrator Elmer Hodge suggested that this be
taken under advisement because this bill could work either for or
against the County. Supervisor Johnson asked Mr. Gubala to
contact Senator Trible's office to keep the County advised of
this bill.
5. Presentation of the Health Department Six-Year
Plan for Roanoke County:
Dr. Margaret L. Hagan, Health Director of the Alleghany
District presented copies of the executive summary of the
six-year plan. This plan reviews the programs, identifies areas
of need and outlines plans for the future. Dr. Hagan also
requested that the Board of Supervisors let her know what they
want from the Health Department. She stated that one of their
goals is public education so that citizens know that the Health
531
June 9, 1987
Department is not just for indigent people, but all the citizen
of the Coun;.y .
6. Re ort on Safe and Effective Control of
Mosquitoes: Chief Animal Control Officer Kenneth Hoga
reported he had met with Dr. Hagan, Health Director t
investigate ways of controlling mosquitoes. Dr. Hagan requeste
information from the State Health Department. Mr. Hogan advise
that both he and Dr. Hagan do not support a spraying progra
because of the danger of potential liability in using hazardou
sprays. Instead, they recommend that questions and complaints b
referred to the Health Department for appropriate methods o
elimination.
Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the staf
recommendation. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw an
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
IN RE: REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS
Supervisor McGraw advised that he had received a cop
of the street light study and requested a work session.
Supervisor Johnson asked staff to set up a work session for Jul
13, 1987.
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizin the conve ance of a
Drainage Easement, Barrens Village: County Attorney Pau
Mahoney reported that F & B Development have requested th
conveyance of a 15 foot drainage easement across a well lot owne
by Roanoke County in Deer Run Estates.
5 ~ ~ June 9, 1987
Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the first reading
of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Brittle
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance amending Chapter 18, "Sewers and Sewage
Disposal," concerning the installation of Septic Tanks and
requiring a permit and prescribing fees for the issuance of
permits: Mr. Mahoney advised that this ordinance would',
establish a permit fee of $50.00. The ordinance would becomell
effective on July 1, 1987. Approximately $29,000 of General Fund
revenues could be generated from this fee, but once the fee is
imposed the estimate may drop due to a reduction in the number of
septic tank requests.
Supervisor Johnson requested that this not be included
as ongoing revenue, because the estimates may change from year to
year.
Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the first reading
of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending Section 12-28 of the Roanoke
County Code to increase the annual license tax on motor
vehicles: Mr. Mahoney announced that this was first read on
May 26th and there has been no change to the ordinance.
Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the second reading
of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Brittle.
Supervisor Johnson pointed out that $60,000 of the
funds raised from increasing the decal fee will be used to fund
i~~ -/
i
June 9, 1987
533
T
CORTRAN transportation. Supervisor Nickens also stated that
hoped that during the next year, they hope that a more cos
effective way to fund this transportation will be found.
ORDINANCE 6987-5 AMENDING SECTION 12-28
OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO INCREASE
THE ANNUAL LICENSE TAX ON MOTOR
VEHICLES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That Section 12-28 of the Roanoke County Code en
titled "Levy and amount of tax; special provisions for antiqu
vehicles." be amended to read and provide as follows:
Sec. 12-28. Levy and amount of tax; special provisions fo
antique vehicles; exceptions.
(a) There is hereby levied an annual license tax o
every motor vehicle, trailer and semitrailer required to be li
censed under this article. The amount of such tax shall be a
set forth in the following subsections of this section.
(b) On every motor vehicle not taxed under other sub
sections of this section, there shall be a tax of f~€tee
twenty dollars E$~5-A8} ($20.00) per annum, except that the
tax on motorcycles shall be fifteen dollars ($15.00) per annum.
(c) On each truck or trailer there shall be a tax per
annum according to the following schedule:
Gross Vehicle
Weight in Pounds Truck Trailer
1,500 or less $~5-AA $20.00 $ 6.50
1,501 to 4,000 ~5-AA 20.00 15.00
4,001 to 6,500 ~8-A9 25.00 20.00
6,501 to 10,000 ~5-AA 30.00 20.00
10,001 to 20,000 35.-8A 40.00 20.00
20,001 to 30,000 45-8A 60.00 20.00
30,001 to 40,000 55.-68 70.00 20.00
40,000 and over 65.-A8 80.00 20.00
The tax for a trailer designed exclusively to transport boat:
shall not exceed six dollars and fifty cents ($6.50).
(d) The owner of an "antique motor vehicle," as de
fined and licensed in title 46.1 of the Code of Virginia, ma
secure a local license or decal at no charge upon filing an appli
cation for same with the treasurer and payment of a five dolls
($5.00) fee and the payment of the appropriate personal propert
taxes. This application shall remain valid so long as the vehi
cle is titled to the applicant.
(e) The following owners of motor vehicles are her
from the annual license tax: an honorabTv-discharcred
soner OY war an erson awarded the Medal Or Honor and an d1S-I
abled veteran. Any member of the Virginia National Guard shall
5 3 4 June 9, 1987
be entitled to a local license or decal upon the payment of a fee
in the amount of one-half of the tax prescribed in this section.
These exemptions shall be limited to any one passenger
vehicle, pickup or panel truck owned by an eligible person. The
commissioner of the revenue shall determine eligibility based
upon the criteria utilized by the Commissioner of the Department
of Motor Vehicles of the Commonwealth of Virginia for the issu-
ance of special license plates The treasurer is hereby autho-
rized to issue a local license or decal to owners eligible under
this sub-section.
2. The effective date of this amendment shall be
July 1, 1987, and shall be for the 1988 license tax year and for
tax years thereafter.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor
Brittle and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance authorizing the P.cguisition of
Easements for the 1987-88 Replacement/Improvement Water
Projects: Mr. Mahoney announced this is the second reading of
the ordinance authorizing acquisition of easements for seven
different water projects.
Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the second reading.
The motion was seconded by Supervisor Garrett.
ORDINANCE 6987-6 AUTHORIZING THE
ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS FOR 1987/88
REPLACEMENT/ IMPROVEMENT WATER PROJECTS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of
the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the
acquisition of easements for Clearbrook Water II, North Lakes
water System, Glen Forest Water Project, Geiser Road/Grander,
Wendover Drive, Western Hills, and Woodland Drive water projects __
was held on May 26, 1987. A second reading on this matter was
held on June 9, 1987.
2. That these easements are necessary to complete the
above-referenced 1987/88 Replacement/Improvements Water Projects.
! \~
June 9, 1987 r 5 3 5
These projects will provide necessary utility service to the citi- ~ - /
zens of Roanoke County.
3. That the County Administrator is authorized to exe-
cute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke
County as are necessary to accomplish the acquisitions of said
property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County
Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor
Garrett and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
3. Ordinance to increase the salaries of members of
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, pursuant to Section
14.1-46.01:1: Mr. Mahoney reported this ordinance complies
with both the State Code and County Charter dealing with the
procedural requirement to establish an increase in salaries of
the board members.
Supervisor Brittle moved to approve the second reading
I!of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw.
ORDINANCE 6987-7 TO INCREASE THE
SALARIES OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, PURSUANT
TO SECTION 14.1-46.01:1
WHEREAS, Section 14.1-46.01:1 of the 1950 Code of
Virginia, as amended, establishes the annual salaries of members
of boards of supervisors within certain population brackets; and
WHEREAS, Section 3.07 of the Charter for the County of
Roanoke provides for the compensation of members of the board of
supervisors, and the procedure for increasing their salaries; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, has heretofore established the annual salaries of Board
members to be $7607 by Ordinance #5-27-86-124, and further, has
established the additional annual compensation for the Chairman
,,~
;+~i _
5 J ~ June 9, 1987
_._ ~
~f the Board to be $1800, and for the Vice Chairman of the Board
:o be $1200; and
WHEREAS, this section provides that the maximum annual
salaries therein provided may be adjusted in any year by an infla-
lion factor not to exceed five (58) percent; and
WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held
~n May 26, 1987; the second reading was held on June 9, 1987.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED by the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the annual salaries
of members of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, are hereby increased by an inflation factor of five
(5$) percent pursuant to the provisions of Section 14.1-46.01:1
of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The new annual sal-
aries shall be $7987 for members of the Board. In addition, the
Chairman of the Board will receive an additional annual sum of
$1800 and the Vice Chairman of the Board will receive an addition-
al annual sum of $1200.
This ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 1987.
On motion of Supervisor Brittle, seconded by Supervisor
McGraw and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
4 Ordinance authorizing the vacation and relocation
of a portion of a water line easement, Ozanich Property: Mr.
Mahoney advised that Wayne E. and Rebecca A. Ozanich have
requested the relocation of a portion of water line to allow them
to construct a garage on their property. This ordinance will
authorize vacation of an existing easement and dedication of a
new easement.
Supervisor Brittle moved to approve the second reading
..of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Garrett.
ORDINANCE 6987-8 AUTHORIZING THE
VACATION AND AND RELOCATION OF A
/ ~ ~ /
4
' _. i~ _..
4
537
June 9, 1987
- --
-------
-- -lf
PORTION OF A WATER LINE EASEMENT,
OZANICH PROPERTY
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of
the Charter of ~:.j,iiiuke County, a first reading concerning the
vacation and relocation of a portion of a water line easement on
the Ozanich Property was held on May 26, 1987. A second reading
on this matter was held on June 9, 1987; and
2. That the vacation of a portion of the present
easement and the acquisition of another easement is necessary for
the relocation of a 10-inch water line; and
3. That the County Administrator is authorized to
execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke
County as are necessary to accomplish the vacation and
acquisition of said property, all of which shall be upon form
approved by the County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Brittle, seconded by Supervisor
Garrett and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
5 Ordinance authorizing the County Administrator to
accept the donation or dedication of utility and right-of-way
road easements and improvements therein: Mr. Mahoney announced
this ordinance will expedite the more routine donations or
dedications of real estate. This would authorize the County
Administrator to accept these administratively, and they would be
brought to the Board for its approval under the Consent Agenda.
Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the second reading
of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Garrett.
ORDINANCE 6987-9 AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR TO ACCEPT THE DONATION OR
DEDICATION OF UTILITY AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
ROAD EASEMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS THEREIN
/ Y
.~
,'
5 J ~ June 9, 1987
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of
the Charter of Roanoke County, first and second readings are
required to pass all ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the County routinely acquires utility and
right-of-way road easements for various County engineering and
utility projects and for private developments; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this ordinance to provide
for an orderly and expeditious procedure to review, approve,
authorize, and accept the donation or dedication of such
interests in real estate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as follows:
1. That upon the proposed donation or dedication of a
utility easement or a right-of-way for road purposes, and any
improvements or facilities constructed therein, the County
Administrator is hereby authorized to accept said donation or
',dedication, upon the review and recommendation of the County
engineer, or his designee, and upon the concurrence of the Board
of Supervisors by resolution.
2. That the County Administrator is authorized to
execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke
County as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of these
easements, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County
Attorney. The County Administrator may delegate this authority
as he deems appropriate.
3. The effective date of this amendment shall be
June 9, 1987.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor
Garrett and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
/~/-I
6 Ordinance authorizing the aurchase of a water
storage reservoir site: Mr. Mahoney reported that staff has
5 3y
June 9, 1987
~~ ~ ----
indicated the necessity to acquire a water reservoir site. The
purchase price of $5,000 has been negotiated with the owner, and
the cost is off-set by the water fees. The County Assessor's
Office considers this price to be reasonable.
Supervisor Garrett moved to approve the second reading
of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Brittle.
ORnrNANCE 6987-6 AUTHORIZING THE
PURCHASE OF WATER STORAGE RESERVOIR
SITE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of
the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the
purchase of a 100-foot by 100-foot parcel with a 25-foot right-of-
way for a water storage reservoir site was held on May 26, 1987.
A second reading on this matter was held on June 9, 1987.
2. That the acquisition of said property is necessary)
I
for the construction of a water storage reservoir; and
3. That this property be acquired from Doug Sawyer in
the amount of $5,000; and
4. That the County Administrator is authorized to exe-
cute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke
County as are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all of
which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Garrett, seconded by Supervisor
Brittle and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
9A YS: None
RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS
87-1 PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION PURSUANT
TO SECTION 15.1-238(e) AUTHORIZING
CONDEMNATION AND RIGHT-OF-ENTRY FOR
HOLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
~- /
.^.
5 ~ ~ June 9, 1987
----
~~ _ ,~ 1
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ALONG STATE ROUTE
648
Mr. Mahoney stated that this procedure is necessary
to authorize immediate entry upon real estate and condemnation
thereof in order to complete the Hollins Community Development
Project road improvements along State Route 648. Four easements
',must be condemned for this project. Sue Palmer, Community
Development Specialist, who is coordinating this project
described the parcels of land that are needed to complete the
road improvements. She stated appraisals had been done on the
property and the documents were given to the property owners)
almost a year ago. Ms. Palmer has talked with the property))
owners and attempted to answer their questions.
Supervisor Johnson inquired what will happen to the
property that is presently part of the road? Mr. Mahoney stated
that he assumed whatever property the Highway Department did not
need would go through the abandonment procedure. Supervisor
Johnson asked John Peters to ensure that the asphalt left from
the old road is taken away.
Mr. Leonard Butler, one the property owners whose
property is part of the condemnation proceedings spoke. He was
concerned that the appraised value was not accurate. The
appraiser did not include the cost of the fence. He also has two
irrigation wells on the property being condemned, and he signed a
contract not to use County water to irrigate his five-acre
garden. In order to have his garden, he will have to drill a
new well and pay for the well house. He is willing to settle if
he receives what he feels is fair amount of money for the
property, fences and both wells. He is also concerned that some
of the homeowners in the area signed an agreement over a year
ago, and have not yet received their money. Supervisor Johnson
responded that the County is dealing with various agencies, and
this takes time. Dr. Nickens stated he agreed with Mr. Butler
that he should be reimbursed for the-two wells, and the cost
541
June 9, 1987
necessary to drill the well. Gertrude Hughes who lives
in the Hollins area asked why she has not been paid for her
property.
Larry Stuart another property owners whose land is
being condemned also spoke. He felt he was not being paid fairly
for his property because the property the County was taking was
the best part of his land. The County valued the land at 8 cents
a square foot.
Supervisor McGraw moved that this issue be tabled fort
two weeks so that the County Attorney, the County Administrator
and the property owners could meet and try to solve the
differences. Supervisor Nickens seconded the motion. Mr.
Mahoney stated that the reason this was expedited was that
construction is proceeding by the Highway Department, and if this
was held over, it may take a month to come back to the Board.
~Mr. Hodge suggested that they meet in his conference during the
remainder of the meeting to try and settle the issue. Supervisor
McGraw withdrew his motion.
IIN RE: APPOINTMENTS
1. Fifth Planning District Commission: Supervisor
Nickens nominated Supervisor Bob L. Johnson to three-year term as
elected representative. His term will expire June 30, 1990.
2. Planning Commission: Supervisor Garrett
nominated Michael J. Gordon to the unexpired term of Lee Eddy
representing the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. His term
will expire December 31, 1988.
3. Recreation Commission: Supervisor Garrett
nominated William M. Skelton, Jr., to a three-year term
~~representing the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. His term
~~will expire June 30, 1990.
' ^~
~.
.542
June 9, 1987
Supervisor Brittle nominated Michael Lazzuri to another
three-year term as an at-large member. His term will expire June
30, 1990.
4. Virginia Western Community College: Supervisor
Nickens nominated Stephen Musselwhite to another four term to
expire June 30, 1991.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Nickens requested that the staff look at
alternatives to reduce compensation time earned and explore the
sick leave area to find the reasons for absenteeism. He also
suggested that a letter be sent to the Virginia Department of
Transportation thanking them for the CAUTION signs on Route 24
until a traffic light is installed. ',
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
Supervisor Brittle requested that Item N-2,
Authorization to vacate and relocate a Sanitary Sewer Easement in
Branderwood Section #2, be removed for a separate vote so he may
abstain.
Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the Consent Agenda
with the removal of Item N-2. The motion was seconded by
'',Supervisor Garrett.
RESOLUTION N0. 6987-12 APPROVING AND
CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH
ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA
FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM N -
CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That that certain section of the agenda of the
Board of Supervisors for June 9, 1987, designated as Item N -
Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to
N^/
~4u
June 9, 1987
~~ ,~~ _"
each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 9, inclusive, as follows:
1. Minutes of Meetings - April 28, 1987, May 12, 1987
2. Rnther~aatten to vacate and re~oeate a San#tarp
Sealer Easement ~n BranderWeed 8eetten ~13-
3. Notification from the Va. Department of
Transportation of the addition of Route 1916 from
Route 1832 to a south cul-de-sac and Route 1917
from Route 1916 to a southeast cul-de-sac into the
Secondary System.
4. Request for a Fireworks Display Permit from Hills
Department Store.
5. Aooroval of Resolution of Support for the Blue
Ridge Parkway "DEDICATION 87" Project.
6. Request for acceptance into the Secondary System
for the following Roads:
a. 0.15 miles of Beavers Lane and 0.13 miles of
Elizabeth Drive.
b. 0.17 miles of Wing Commander Drive and 0.14
miles of Grape Tree Lane.
c. 0.05 miles of Shadow Lane
d. 0.18 miles of Hill Drive
e. 0.18 miles of Indian Hill Drive
f. 0.26 miles of Airpoint Drive and 0.26 miles
of Airpoint Road.
g. 0.56 miles of Lakemont Drive
h. 0.04 miles of Memory Lane
i. Streets of La Bellevue Subdivision including
Forest Oak Drive, Coachman Circle, Coachman
Drive and Summit Ridge Road.
7. Acceptance of Sewer Facilities for Allred
Chevrolet
8. Approval to Request matching funds from the Va.
Department of Transportation for Industrial Access
Road Improvements to Bolling Steel.
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.
Supervisor Brittle asked that Item N-2 be removed for a
separate vote so that he may abstain.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, with Item N-2 deleted
for a separate vote, seconded by Supervisor Garrett and upon the
following recorded vote:
'AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
544
June 9, 1987
- '~ --
NAYS: None
Supervisor McGraw moved approval of Item N-2,
Authorization to vacate and relocate a Sanitary Sewer Easement in
Branderwood Section #3. The motion was seconded by Supervisor
Garrett and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Supervisor Brittle
RESOLUTION 6987-12.h REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
AIRPOINT ROAD AND AIRPOINT DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
~. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings herein, and upon the application for Airpoint Road
and Airpoint Drive to be accepted and made a part of the
Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the
Virginia State Code.
2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements
and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said roads have heretofore
deed dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Airpoint
Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 45 of the
records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke
.County, Virginia, on July 9, 1965, and that by reason of the
recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor
consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property
owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said
right-of-way for drainage.
3. That said roads known as Airpoint Road and Airpoint
Drive and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this
Resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as public
roads to become part of the State Secondary System of Highways in
Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official
~Y-/
5 45
June 9, 1987
acceptance of said streets or highway by the Virginia Department
of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor
Garrett and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 6987-12.c REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
BEAVERS LANE AND ELIZABETH DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. Tha± ±his matter came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings herein, and upon the application of Beavers Lane and
Elizabeth Drive to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary
System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia
(State Code.
2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements
and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said roads have heretofore
deed dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Fox Fire
Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 90, of
the records of the Clerk's Office of he Circuit Court of Roanoke
County, Virginia, on June 30, 1977, and that by reason of the
recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor
consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property
owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said
right-of-way for drainage.
3. That said roads known as Beaver Lane and Elizabeth
Drive and which are shown on a certain sketch accompanying this
Resolution, be, and the same are hereby established as public
roads to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways
in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official
acceptance of said streets or highway by the Virginia Department
of Transportation.
/'~ ~ '_"
n
6
54~
June 9, 1987
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor'
Garrett and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 6987-12.f REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF HILL
DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings herein, and upon the application of Hill Drive to be
accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State
Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code.
2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements
and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have heretofore
deed dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Pine Hill
Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 54, of
the records of the Clerk's Office of he Circuit Court of Roanoke
County, Virginia, on February 16, 1975, and that by reason of the
recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor
consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property
owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said
right-of-way for drainage.
3. That said road known as Hill Drive and which is shown
on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the
same is hereby established as a public road to become a part of
the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only
from and after notification of official acceptance of said
street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor
Garrett and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
'iNAYS: None
~v-
'~'
`;>'
5 4"7
June 9, 1987
RESOLUTION 6987-12.g REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF INDIAN
HILL DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
~ounty, Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings herein, and upon the application for Indian Hill
Drive to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of
State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code.
2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements
and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have heretofore
deed dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Westward Lake
Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 200, of
the records of the Clerk's Office of he Circuit Court of Roanoke
County, Virginia, on February 23, 1956, and that by reason of the
recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor
consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property
owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said
right-of-way for drainage.
3. That said road known as Indian Hill Drive and which is
shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and
the same is hereby established as a public road to become a part
of the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only
from and after notification of official acceptance of said
(street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor
arrett and upon the following recorded vote:
YES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
YS: None
RESOLUTION 6987-12.k REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
FOREST OAK DRIVE, COACHMAN CIRCLE, COACHMAN DRIVE
AND SUMMIT RZDGE ROAD INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
r
~-`/ - ~`
?~'
5 ~ r} June 9, 1987
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
roceedings herein, and upon the application for Forest Oak
rive, Coachman Circle, Coachman Drive and Summit Ridge Road to
e be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State
ighways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code.
2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements
nd a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said roads have heretofore
en dedicated by virtue of certain maps known as La Bellevue
ections 4,5,6,7,8 and 9, which maps was recorded in Plat Book 8,
age 35 and Plat Book 9, Pages 8, 78, 150, 260 and 261 of records
f the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County,
irginia, on January 11, 1973; October 4, 1974; November 15,
976; November 13, 1979 and October 12, 1983 and that by reason
f the recordation of said maps no report from a Board of
iewers, nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the
butting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby
uarantees said right-of-way for drainage.
3. That said roads known as Forest Oak Drive, Coachman
ircle, Coachman Drive and Summit Ridge Road are shown on a
ertain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same are
ereby established as public roads to become a part of the State
econdary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from and
fter notification of official acceptance of said streets or
ighway by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor
arrett and upon the following recorded vote:
YES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
YS: None
RESOLUTION 6987-12.i REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
LAKEMONT DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
snoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
oceedings herein, and upon the application of Lakemont Drive to
L
June 9, 1987
5 49
~\~6
be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State
Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code.
2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements
and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have heretofore
deed dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Farmingdale
South Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 5,
of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Roanoke County, Virginia, on August 13, 1974, and that by reason
of the recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers,
nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting
property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said
right-of-way for drainage.
3. That said road known as Lakemont Drive and which is
shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and
the same is hereby established as public roads to become a part
of the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only
from and after notification of official acceptance of said
treets or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor
arrett and upon the following recorded vote:
YES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
YS: None
RESOLUTION 6987-12.i REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF MEMORY
LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
ounty, Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
roceedings herein, and upon the application for Memory Lane to
e accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State
ighways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code.
2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements
nd a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have heretofore
5 ~) June 9, 1987
deed dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Tinker Knoll
Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 10, of
the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke
County, Virginia, on October 23, 1961, and that by reason of the
recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor
consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property
owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said
right-of-way for drainage.
3. That said road known as Memory Lane shown on a certain
sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby
established as a public road to become a part of the of the State
Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from and
after notification of official acceptance of said street or
highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor
Garrett and upon the following recorded vote:
(AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
(NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 6987-12.e REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF SHADOW
LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke',
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings herein, and upon the application for Shadow Lane to
be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State
Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code.
2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements
and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have heretofore
deed dedicated by virtue of a certain maps known as Beacon Hills
Subdivision, which map was recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 25, of
the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke
~-!
County, Virginia, on January 8, 1969, and that by reason of the
551
June 9, 1987
recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor
consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property
owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said
right-of-way for drainage.
3. That said road known as Shadow Lane and which is shown
on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the
same is hereby established as a public road to become a part of
the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only
from and after notification of official acceptance of said street
or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor
arrett and upon the following recorded vote:
YES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
AYS: None
RESOLUTION 6987-12.d REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF WING
COMMANDER DRIVE AND GRAPE TREE LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
ounty, Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
roceedings herein, and upon the application for Wing Commander
rive and Grape Tree Lane to be accepted and made a part of the
econdary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the
irginia State Code.
2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements
nd a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have heretofore
eed dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Nichols Estate
ubdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 86, of
he records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke
ounty, Virginia, on, May 20, 1977 and that by reason of the
ecordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor
onsent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property
wners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said
fight-of-way for drainage.
~ "~
J ~` 3 i. j
June 9, 1987
___ --- -
/~
3. That said roads known as Wing Commander Drive and Grape
Tree Lane and which are shown on a certain sketch accompanying
this Resolution, be, and the same are hereby established as
public roads to become a part of the State Secondary System of -
Highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of
official acceptance of said streets or highway by the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor
Garrett and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
IIN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
No citizens were present to speak.
ZN RE: REPORTS
The following reports were received and filed.
1. Youth Haven II Status Reports
IN RE: RECESS
At 5:45 p.m. Chairman Johnson declared a short recess
so that the County Attorney and County Administrator could
complete negotiations with property owners whose property were to
be condemned. At that time, Supervisor Brittle announced he had
a prior commitment and left the meeting.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS
687-1 Public Hearing and Resolution pursuant to
Section 15.1 238 (3) authorizing
condemnation and right-of-entry for
•1,
'~ 553
June 9, 1987
- .. - --- _ _ _ _. _ _ _- - - - - n ---
Hollins Community Development Project ~ ~ _ /
road improvements along State Route 648
This hearing had been tabled earlier during the meeting
to allow staff and the property owners time to negotiate.
Supervisor Johnson announced that the County offered Mr. Stuart
$300 for his property, but Mr. Stuart refused the offer. Mr.
Butler was offered $6,300 and he accepted the offer. Supervisor
Johnson moved to amend the resolution to remove condemnation
'...proceedings against Leonard Butler and Margaret Bolden Butler
since they will accept $6,300 for their property; to raise the
offer to Larry G and Mary E. Stuart to $300; and proceed with
their condemnation and the condemnation of the property of Mason
and Thelma T. Haynesworth. The motion was seconded by Supervisor
Nickens.
Mr. Mahoney explained that the Stuarts and the
Haynesworths will have twenty-one days from the date they are
served the legal papers to respond to the Court. At any time
during that twer,~y-o~~a days, they may settle the issue.
RESOLUTION 6987-11 PURSUANT TO SECTION
15.1- 238(e) OF THE 1950 CODE OF
VIRGINIA, AS AMENDED, SETTING FORTH THE
INTENT OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO ENTER UPON
CERTAIN PROPERTIES AND TO TAKE CERTAIN
RIGHTS OF WAY IN CONNECTION WITH THE
HOLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Hollins Community Development Project is a
multi-phased neighborhood program involving residents in Roanoke
and Botetourt counties, said project will include water, sewer,
and road improvements and housing rehabilitation; and
2. That in order to complete the road improvement
phase of the project, certain rights-of-way are needed and more
particularly described as follows:
A) A ten (10) foot strip of land across
the property of Larry G. Stuart and
554
June 9, 1987
--- ----
~_
Mary E. Stuart and more particularly
described as running along Route 648
for an estimated 130 feet, containing
0.04 acre as shown on the attached high-
way plans which are a part of the
appraisal report.
Together with a temporary construction
easement more particularly described as
an approximate eight (8) foot strip of
land running an estimated 45 feet along
Route 648 and containing 293 square
feet as shown on the above-referenced
plans.
The fair market value of the aforesaid
interest to be acquired is $€4~-56,
$300.00, such compensation and damages,
if any, having been offered the
property owners.
B) A small strip of land across the proper-
ty of Mason Haynesworth and Thelma T.
Haynesworth and more particularly de-
scribed as a small strip running along
Route 648, being 14-feet wide and 107-
feet long, containing 0.03 acre as
shown on the above-referenced plans.
Together with a temporary construction
easement more particularly described as
a small strip of land, approximately
10-feet wide, running along Route 648
for an estimated 120 feet, containing
1,121 square feet as shown on the above-
referenced plans.
The fair market value of the aforesaid
interest to be acquired is $128.87,
such compensation and damages, if any,
having been offered the property owner.
C) A strap e€ hand aeress the property
of beenard But}er and Margaret Bolden
But}er and mere partien€arly deser}bed
as apprex4ntate~y 45-feet by ~8A-feetT
eenta#n#ng 6-2~ acre as sF~ei+n en the
above-re€ereneed p~ans-
~Pegetker With a temporary eenstreetien
easement mere partien~ar~p described as
a strop; appre~cimateiy ~8-€eet by ~A-
€eet= and an irregt~€ar-shaped area;
approximately ~A-€eet by ~5-€eet a€ong
Rente 648; containing ~T5~8 square €eet
as shown en tke above-re€ereneed pans:
eke €air market va~ee o€ the a€eresaid
interest to be aee~eired is $17883-i~=
such compensation and damages; }€ any?
leaving been of€ered the property
eWners:
B~ A paree~ e€ hand aeress the prapertY e€
beenard Better and Margaret Bolden
Bntier and mere partien€ar~p described
,..
~. 555
June 9, 1987
as a str}p of }ands apprex}mate}y 35
feet W4der reran#ng a}eng Rente 648 for
an est#mated }99 feetr eentatning 6-}4
acre as shown on the above-referenced
p}ans-
'Pegether w}th a temporary construct}en
easement more part£ea}ar}y deserfbed as
a }8-feet str#p rnnn}rag a}crag Reate 648
for an estimated }36 feetr eentatning
}x359 square feet as shown en the abeve-
re£ereneed p}ans-
the fair market va}ae of the aforesaid
interest to be acquired is $565..-66r
st~eh compensation and damagesr if anyr
having been offered the property
ewners-
2. That it is immediately necessary for the County to
enter upon and take such property and commence said road improve-
ments to straighten an "S" curve on State Route 648 in order to
create better visibility and improve traffic safety and to there-
after institute and conduct appropriate condemnation proceedings
as to said rights-of-way; and
3. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1-
238(e) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and pursuant to
notice and public hearing as made and provided therein, the Board
does hereby invoke all and singular the rights and privileges and
provisions of ~-=.id Section 15.1-238(e) as to the vesting of
powers in the County pursuant to Section 33.1-119 through Section
33.1-129 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, all as made
provided by law.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, resolution amended to
remove proceedings against Leonard Butler and Margaret Bolden
Butler, who agreed to a settlement of $6,300, and changing fair
market value of property of Larry G. Stuart and Mary E. Stuart to
$300.00, seconded by Supervisor Nickens and upon the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson
AYS: None
N-/
BSENT: Supervisor Brittle
~5+5
June 9, 1987
~~~
A-71487-11.f
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1987
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Water & Sewer Lines serving Meadowbrook
Condominiums, Phase I and II
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Developer of Meadowbrook Condominiums, Phase I and II
James D. Fralin, has requested that Roanoke County accept the
deed conveying the water and sewer lines serving the development
along with all necessary easements.
The water and sewer lines are installed as shown on
engineering plans prepared by Mattern and Craig entitled
Meadowbrook Condominiums dated September 19, 1983 and revised
November 9, 1983, which are on file in the Public Facilities
Department. The water and sewer line construction meets the
specifications and the plans approved by the county.
FISCAL IMPACT:~~
The values of the water and sewer construction are $38,000
and $15,750, respectively.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept
the water and sewer facilities serving the development along with
all necessary easements, and authorize the County Administrator
to execute a Deed for the transfer of these facilities.
1
/vf -- --'
.~ --
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED:
Phillip Henry, .E. Elmer C. Hodge
Director of Engineering County Administrator
--------- ------------------------
ACTION -------------------------
VOTE -------
Approved (X) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens/ No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Bob L. Johnson o accept Brittle x
Received ( ) Garrett x
Referred Johnson x
to McGraw x
Nickens x
cc: File
John Hubbard
Phillip Henry
2
~~ 2
-!
NORTH
'~ ~ ,
- ~y I Q ' N 1 ~I('
/ ~ • ;. ~ \ J
,•-- R o ~~
., ~ ,
t \ f~ ~
~ 1
.` i al
,\ ~ l - - ~, r. \
~ _ ~.
`:
_, .~
-- < tt w - ~ 1 ~ _
~, ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :~
._ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ i
~~~-~~
~ .~ ..
~, - ~ - 0-651 ~ '~
~ 8 / 5-A10- j ~ ~', ~
•~ ~ _
~ ~ °="~ .~
_ ~, ~ f ~
- rr_ ` a~
" SA /0 1. ~' ~ '.
t1 ~
-- - ..
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC FACILITIES WATERISEWER ACCEPTANCE
A-72487-11.a
ITEM NUMBER '~
AT A REGULARAMHELDNATOTHEHROANOKE COUNTYEADMINISTRATIONNCENTER
COUNTY, VIRGINI
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1987
SUBJECT: Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving
Branderwood, Section 1
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The developer of Section 1, Branderwood, Boone, Boone &
Loeb, Inc. , has re q and seweralinesa serving the subdivision along
conveying the wat
with all necessary easements.
The water and sewer lines are installed as shown on
engineering plans prepared by Buford T. Lumsden & Associates
entitled, Section 1, Branderwood dated June 16, 1987, which are
on file in the Public Facilities Department. The water and roved
line construction meets the specifications and the plans app
by the County.
FISCAL IMPACT: ~~
The values of the water and sewer construction are
$58,560.00 and $49,500.00 respectively.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept
the water and sewer facilities serving the subdivision along with
all necessary easements, and authorize the County Administrator
to execute a Deed for the transfer of these facilities.
1
SUBMITTED BY:
Phillip T. Henry, E.
Director of Engineering
APPROVED:
~C
Elmer Hodge
County Administrator
------------- -------------------------------
ACTION -
VOTE
Approved (X) Motion by: Steven A. McGraw/ No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Bob L. Johnson to accept Brittle x
Received ( ) Garrett x
Referred Johnson x
to McGraw x
Nickens x
Abstain
cc: File
Phillip Henry
Clifford Craig
John Hubbard
2
o'er ~~
717 . ,~ ~ ~ +>' a Qp~ or ~ ,~Y_ •'`
~ w
dz• ~ 613 A'
• a)• O.1 rlf
e97 : r•s 67y
9W
_. .3 _.. ._ _ VICINITY Mpp -'
• "~"~~ NORTH
Rt. 90 ~~ Rt g 79 _ _ _ __------ '
a~ B.u~k
° Mounta~~
o~ 30 , ~ R40d ••~~
2 ~ ~'
~,°~°~ 10
~,° $
M 22 ~. 0~ r
~ • g~ .yg c's ~'~ Z 05' 63~ q2 8
a• ~ 3
w 20 /9, ~g \1 Ss ~0~~ 0 ~ 16.3 _784 • ~Z ~.
o /O i2 \oa > Z4 ~~5 ~ o
m y0~ Paro 31 O.Ig
v 38.76 ~97 W . i0 • V` •~61 `~ ,I'3311 26,2
210 w3 w 23~.. N g0 36.66 2 ,19`` 'SS /Q M_`~ 4
p ?2/ ~g3 e"'~ e3 ~ 522 .90
9 80 ~ r• 9 32 ~ a•, 2868 6
w 19 9.8.76 ~ `-Ih~p'P\ x86.05 41.0941.39 6 o ~ 57 ~ 121.82 59
A // g8 Z'1 0 39.08 \\\~ 42 D 3'~7' ~ ~ ~.Q `~ \86 9
.1 z 18 15.48 35 s 35 ~ `' S6 0 ~ 60 .
s A2• • a e ~ 4 33 '9. 24.2 Ze?5 96 ~0 ° ~ • 4/ m
• ~ ~.a ~.~ \\19 , . Jr 92 96 ' ~ • 10 7.01
~ /2 b5g~ ":h s~.~7. 9a `~ --~39 g N~~ JO zs `r~.~ a 0 61 ~ .
~' 17 V ~ 2 \~g' n3. to ~ i 4O u
• ~$~ ~` , • b~ ~o ~ ~ ~ • j 143.16
2 ~, . t ~~ 9 9 ^ 24 . ,~ ~ 62
A /3 I 16 is4a ~'.r ~~ • 43 152.93 O e ' 39 u
b Jr mp ~gA. m 3A ~ 3 w 177.56
a
O°j~ / ~`~~ e0 40 /O~r g296 ~ 2 . m 3 N
/4 ~ I5 s, ~ se ~~ .
• / l4 `r v~ 3'~ 2g // ~ 128 \8A'~+ N
~ X90' Z8~'
°°, N ~°a r52~ 37~w
22 /sA ~~'°• 21~' 13 p ~ 41 Zg3 93 /2 ,,~~, 2g, A m, ~56 z' .,
/s ° ~ I ~ ~
e y0 \00 /~ ~ 9 rD •
~ 2/ \ 50g9W /7 X02 W I I ~ ~ L 200 ~~ /3 v J~ 9/ \\6 ~o J O~~\,6\ 66 ~
~ 80 8I IZ 0 g2 • ~ /B p~ W • 4 /4 ,~~ ~ 142.60 mo •3S a
~ • a . g0 g N /9 \ ~ 794 ~ ~ '7• O~^ ry\/5 J /9 49 0 106 °
,,mss ~ 80 ~° ey•°' 3 ,~~ ti'45~ m 149 ~ 67°
~a°O 2 b0 G~~ I g 4.5 T. M o ~ 34 w
2~s/ 0 ~ 75`~p2 ~ ti ~m 9~ N 116.13 n
n 6\ T Qi~~~g0 • a ~ J /6 • m 4 7 Og `~ ~
~ s ,,~• v°~ 9J m 68 ~ 10.1
61 27 ~ si °3 / T yo • ~
3p8 38 ,, ~~~62~ 7/1 102.37 ~•~9 7vQ `~'~~ ~ ~.29
'T 'b O
5 5 3s .~~ • 90 1 9 ,~
vs 76 J~ J9 2B ^~~ 9q 32 \OO 69
+ • J ,1,~ 1 0 0 ~a V
d
DEPARTMENT ~ms32~
PUBLIC OF
FACILITIES
AN~ERw~~p, SEC
. y
A-71487-11.b
ITEM NUMBER / 1' / Q- -
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1987
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Deeds dedicating Rights of Way and
Drainage Easements for Road Improvements
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
As required by state code, all state maintained highways
must have right of ways dedicated to the public for public use.
Consequently, the privately owned and maintained roads in the
Farmingdale South, Waltdon Farms, and Pine Hill Subdivisions must
be dedicated to the public prior to submitting the roads to VDOT
as part of the Road Improvement Program. The roads in the
Farmingdale South and Pine Hill Subdivisions are part of the VDOT
matching fund program, while the roads in Waltdon farms will be
reconstructed using unmatched 1985 Bond Funds.
Attached are copies of the original agreements signed by the
individual Homeowners Association dedicating the rights of way
and drainage easements to the public.
The County Administrator is authorized to execute such
documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as
are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said property, all
of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends
Administrator to execute
SUB ITTED BY: ----
' n
~// ~ ~~~~ .~ ~ ~?Z'1~, ~ ~
~r.~ti~
Phillip Henry
Director of Engineering
that the Board authorize the County
the three (3) agreements.
APPROVED:
~,
~/ Y/
~~
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
Approved
Denied ____
------______
fix) Mot ACT -''---
lo
ION ~;
-
Rec
ferr
~ ~
n bY.
( ~ L' JOhnson t ___
_----
-
ed
To o a e
~C t V -----
OTE
Brittle No yes Abs
Barrett ~ -~
Johnson
McGraw . ,~ -~
~ -~ ~
Cc:
File
Nickens
. ~ .
Phillip Hen
John
Y ~ ~ .
Hubbard
i
THIS DE® AND A~~~ made and entered into this
• day of
•~ =~-~' 1987, by and between the FARMINGDALE SOUTH MAINTENANCE ASSO-
CIATION, INC., hereinafter referred to as "Association" and the BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE OOUN'I'Y, VIRGINIA, hereinafter referred to as "County."
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, Mason H. Littreal, the developer of a subdivision known as
Farmingdale South, recorded a map of said subdivision in Plat Book 9, page 5
in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia,
showing easements and streets in the subdivision, namely Lakemont Drive; and
WHEREAS, the recordation of this plat did not vest title to Lakemont
Drive in the County of Roanoke; and
I' WHEREAS, by a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of
~ Farmingdale South recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Uffice in Deed Book 1004, ~
page 28, the Developer set forth the manner in which Lakemont Drive would be
i
l maintained by the Association; and '
i
I
WHEREAS, this Declaration provides the Association with the authority
i
to dedicate or transfer all or any part of the street to any public agency, I
~' authority, or utility for such purposes and subject to such conditions as may
~'
be agreed to by the Association; and
~I ~
WHEREAS, the Association has agreed to dedicate to the County for pub- ',
Ij
tic use all rights of way as shown on the above-referenced recorded plat.
i
~~ ARE, the Association does hereby DONATE, DIDICATE, GPAIVI',
~~
~ and CONVEY with General Warranty and English Covenants of Title unt:o the
County for public use, the rights of way as shown on the above-referenced
plat of Farmin dal ~ I
g e .,outh. Further conveyed to the County are perpetual ease-~
ments for draina e
i g purposes to meet the standards set forth by the Virginia
Department of Highways.
1
To have and to hold unto the Count
ever in fee si Y and its successors and assi ns
mple. 9 for-
The Association covenants that it has the ri h
described property to the g t to convey the above-
County, that the Count
of said y shall have quiet
property that said propert is Possession
~ it will execute such further assuran free from all encumbrances
and tha t
ces thereof as ~
Elmer C, Hod e Y be necessary.
9 County Administrator of R I
by Joins in the oanoke County, Virginia, here-
execution of this instr
said went to signify the acceptance by
Board of Supervisors of
the real estate conveyed herein pursuant to
Ordinance ## ~1- -~` , ~ _ ;~__~
adopter by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County,
W11~SS the following signatures and seals:
ASSOCIAT ~~ ~I~~CE
l I
By ~ ~ ~ ~_ I
~~~ SUPERVISpRS OF
ROANOI(E VIRGINIA
i BY
Elmer C• Hodge
State of Vir C°unty `administrator
Count 9inia,
y of ~. ~ to-wit:
The foregoing instr
,;~ `~--~L- , 1987, nt was acknowledged before
ingde'le South by ~ - me this gf/~..
Maintenan Association~~.i~,~ day of~
.on beh la f of Farm-
, J
~~~ l J /~, ~..
ery Public _~:_
~' cc~rrrtnission ~Pires: - -
~~~~-~~
2
State of Virginia,
County of
~--__, to-Wit
~~. ~~~~
The foregoin
g instrument Was
Board ac
kn°~"~ledg~ before
of SuPervisorsbof R~ oke C~ge' Count me this
Y Administrator, on be- h of athef
unty, Virginia.
Notary ~blic
~' COnmission expires:
I hereby cert. f I
Clerk of the Y that I have gamin
the Farmin Circuit Court of the ~ the land r I
the abov 9dale South hlaintenan~e County of Roanoke °rds in the Of_f_i.ce of the ~
e-describes righta of Wad,, '~s~iation, Inc. hasg the rand have ~
found I
ght to convey ~
Sarah A~~ Q . ~~,
F.sq.
3
THIS DEED AND A~~ made and entered into this
~_ day of
1987, by and between the PINE HILL MAINZ ASSOCIATION,
I hereinafter referred to as "Association and the
~~~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE ~y~ ~1IRGINIA, hereinafter referred to as "County."
I W I T N E S S E T H
I ~~REAS, Joe D. Spencer and Sybil R. Spencer, the developers of a sub-
division known as pine Hill, recorded a map of said subdivis'
lon in Plat Book
9, page 54 in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke Count
Virginia, showing easements and streets in the subdivision, namel Hill
Drive; and y
j in1E~,AS, the recordation of this plat did vest title to Hill Drive in
the County of Roanoke.
~~ by instrument dated October 11, 1977, Joe D. Spencer, S bil R.
Y
Spencer, Gary D. Spencer, Kathy B. Spencer, James Lawrence McGlothlin, and
~iRita B. McGlothlin entered into an a r
g Bement with the County vacating the
I~streets in the Pine Hill Subdivision and r
~ ecited that at the time the subdivi-
sion map was recorded it was not the intention of Joe D. S nce
~ Pe r and Sybil R.
!Spencer or the County of Roanoke that the streets be dedicated to the public;
and
I SEAS, inadvertently said agreement of October 11, 1977, provided
(that upon the vacation of the streets the fee simple title to the pro rt i
Pe Y n
i
'the streets so vacated vested in the owners of abutting lots free and clear
of any rights of the public or to other owners of said lots as shown on said
plat; and
(~ ~-~. a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Res
trictions of
;i Pine Hill was recorded in the aforesaid Clerks Office in
'~
(i Pa9e 70; and Deed Book 1033,
I~
i
~.
!' 1
. ,-~ _ ~'~
~~~, by this Declaration, which was executed by Joe D. Spencer a
Sybil R. Spencer, it was clear that all of the streets in Pine Hill mound
eventually be vested in the Association; and ld
~~, by deed dated July 18, 1979, and recorded in the aforesaid
Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1133, page 12, Joe D. Spencer, Sybil R. Spencer,
~rY D• Spencer, Kathy B. S
pencer, James Lawrence McGlothlin, Rita B.
McGlothlin, John W. Morris, Donna B. Morris, Harry M. White, Jr., Janet C.
White, James H. Ketron, Sandra J. Ketron, and Spencer and Long conveyed any
interest to be conveyed by them by said instrument of October 11, 1977, and
any other interest they may have in said streets in Pine Hill to the Associa-
tion; and
II WH~2EAS, said Declaration provides the Association with the authority
i to dedicate or transfer all or any part of the street to any public agency,
~ authority, or utility for such purposes, and subject to such co
nditions as
~I ~Y ~ agreed to by the Association; and
WHEREAS, the Association has agreed to dedicate to the County for pub-
lic use all rights of way as shown on the above-referenced recorded plat.
~ ~~ 'I~RRFt~RE, the Association does hereb
Y DCX~IATE, DIDICATE, GRA[~lI'
~ and CONVE,'Y with General Warranty and English Covenants of Tit '
le unto the
County for. public use, the rights of way as shown on the above-referenced
I plat of Pine Hill. ~larther conveyed to the County are perpetual easements
I for drainage purposes to meet the standards set forth by the Virginia Depart-
II ment of Highways.
To have and to hold unto the County and its successors and assi ns f -
ever in fee simple. 9 or
I
~ The Association covenants that it has the right to conve the
~' Y above- i
described property to the County, that the County shall have iet I
~ possession ~
I
I~ I
2 I
/ ~ ~ / /iJ
Hof said property, that said property is free from all encumbrances, and that
~it will execute such further assurances thereof as may be necessary.
Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator of Roanoke County, hereby joins in
the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance by said Board of
Supervisors of the real estate conveyed herein pursuant to Ordinance #
,~,~.~~,%-~-~ adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
PINE HILL MAIrTI'ENANCE
ASSOCIA`T'ION, INC.
B s Qi~
SUPERVISORS OF
ROANOKE COLJPII'Y, VIRGINIA
By
E]_rner C. Hodge
County Administrator
State of Vir inia,
County of ~~21c~1~ to-wit:
n; ~'
-- The foregoing inst~~npent was acknow ed ed before me this ~_ day of
1987, by __ ~.,,y,o~r/. ~~ ~ , on behalf of Pine Hill hlair.-
t ance Association, Inc`.
i._
%~
Notary Pub], ' ~
"1
J.
My commission expires: -. ,-~~~ ,~~/ /Y~ ~~
State of Virginia,
County of to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
1987, by Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator of Roanoke
County, Virginia.
Notary Publ
My commission expires:
3
I hereby certif
Clerk Y that I have ex ~~`i~ - ~_~`° ,'
the P ne the Circuit Court of t amined the ' G
above- Hill Nlaint land
descri enance Associat otY of Roanoke o d r In the office of
bed rights-of_WaY n~ Inc. has the 91nia, and have the
right to convey the
l
Sa ah~~~`-2~ C~. ~,~-e.~
A• Rice,
Esq.
4
E, a w
ice- ~ ~-
THIS DEED AND AQ~I', made and entered into this ~-~~ day of
,~u N ~ , 1987, by and between the WALTDON FARMS PROPERTY OWNEET~'S ASSO-
CIATION, hereinafter referred to as "Association," and the BOARD OF SUPER-
VISORS OF ROANOKE OOUNT'Y, VIRGINIA, hereinafter referred to as "County."
W I T N E S S E T H
WHII~EAS, McThom Development Corporation, Walter A. McCue, and Lillian
L. McCue, the owners of a subdivision known as Waltdon Farms, recorded a map
of said subdivision in Plat Book 9, page 94 in the Clerk's Office of the Cir-
cuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, showing easements and streets in the
subdivision, namely Old Farm Road and Peach Tree Circle; and
WHEREAS, the recordation of this plat did not vest title to Old Farm
Road and Peach Tree Circle in the County of Roanoke; and
WHERE'.AS, by a Declaration of Covenants and Conditions of Waltdon Farms
recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1073, page 439, the
owners set forth the manner in which Old Farm .Road and Peach Tree Circle
would be maintained by the Association; and
WHEREAS, this Declaration provides the Association the right to dedi-
cate or transfer all or any part of the common area (said area described and
shown as Old Farm Road and Peach Tree Circle on said plat) to any public
agency, authority, or utility for such purposes and subject to such condi-
tions as may be agreed to by the meanbers; and
WHEREAS, the Association has agreed to dedicate to the County for pub-
lic use all rights-of-way as shown on the above-referenced plat.
NC7W, Tf~2EE~ORE, the Association does hereby DONATE, DEDICATE, GRANT,
and OONVE,Y with General Warranty and English Covenants of Title unto the
County for public use, the rights-of-way as shown on the above-referenced
plat of Waltdon Far art
ms. ,~ f
menu for drains her conveyed to the
~E rte''
impartment of Hi he purposes to meet the stands County are perpetual ease-
To have and ways, rds set forth by the Virgini
to hold unto a
ever in fee simple. the County and its successors .
and asst
The Ass~iation gns for-
descri~ covenants
that it
of said r property to the County, that th
has the right to convey the _
P opertY, that e County shall above
said have quiet
it will eXecute Property is fr A°ssession
such further ~ from all enc
assura prances, and
Elmer nces thereof that
C. H°dge~ Count as ~Y be necessar
by joins Y A~inistrato y.
in the eXecution of r °f Roanoke Co
said Board of this instrum~t unty. Virginia, here-
si
Supervisors of to gnify the
Ordinance ~, ~L_ ~~ ~ , - , c _, the real estate a~ptance by
~: ~ - ` conveyed herei
County, adopter by the ward of Su n pursuant to
Pervisors of Roanoke
WIl~S the foll~in9 signatu
res and seals:
~ WAI.TDpN F
PROP
S ~~1ATIp~
i ~-t-~. _rc.a. ~T _ -~
LxJAR~
I ~ ROANpKEF~~VISORS OF
VIRGINIA
By
i E-Imer C. Hod e
County Admin strator
lJl
i;
i
II
i' j
~I
(:
~ +.
State of V.
County o f}~~inia,
K~~
The for .-, to-wit : ,~{'~ .... ~
=--=sic ~ ~°zp9 instr ~r~ ~.
Property p~.1er is AssobCia t ' ~ ~" t wr c~ aCknowled .
befor
~ this ~ ~
ion, -~_ on behalf of W r _ day of
~ altdon Fauns
l
MY commission ~Pires. Not rY Public ~ . ~ .., c
~ ~ ~~~ ~
State of Virginia,
County of
~~, to-wit ;
The fore9oin
9 instr
County, Vi-rginia. 1987, b~ ~~ c knowled9ed befo
Hodge. Coup tyr Admi i s tra to '----- d aY of
r °f Roanoke
MY commission I`lotarY Public
empires;
I hereby cert if
Clerk o Y that
the Wal doneF~lrcuit I have ex
a Court of ~lned the land
ab°~e'described~ Property ~wner,County of records
lgh~-of-way, s AssoCia Roane has h r9irniahea~df hce of the
e right to Con ~ FOUnd
Y the
Sarahan ~ ~ ' ~-~-
Rice,
Esq,
y ~ A-71487-11. c ITEM NUMBER fY'- C-
A'~' A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
IN ROANOKE, VA., ON TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1987
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1987
SUBJECT: Rollover of 1986-87 School Textbook Funds
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
~~~.cn~~~~~oz~
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The County Schools were unable to purchase sufficient
quantities of textbooks in certain subject areas by the end of
the 1986-87 fiscal year. Attached is a resolution from the
County School Board of Roanoke County requesting $130,000 of
unexpended funds from the 1986-87 School Textbook Account be
appropriated to the 1987-t38 School Textbook Account.
~j
FISCAL IMPACT:'(
The School Textbook Fund is a separate self-balancing fund.
All unexpended funds remain in the fund balance of the Textbook
Fund until appropriated. Therefore, funds should be available in
the Textbook Fund and no additional monies from other sources
would be required.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the
rollover of unexpended 1986-87
fiscal year.
SUBMITTED BY:
Diane D. Hyat
Director, Finance
Approved (x )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To
APPROVED:
Elmer C. o ge
County Administrator
ACTION
Motion by: Harrv C. Nickens/
Bob L. Johson to approve
Board of Supervisors approve the
Textbook Funds to the 1987-88
VOTE
No Yes Abs
Brittle x
Garrett x
Johnson x
McGraw x
Nickens x
cc: File/Diane Hyatt/Bayes Wilson
' ,..
Y "~ ..~~i
FROM THE MINUTES OF THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA MEETING IN REGULAR SESSION ON JUNE 30, 1987 AT 7 P.M. IN
THE BOARD ROOM OF THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, SALEM,
VIRGINIA.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING APPROPRIATION OF
1986-87 UNEXPENDED SCHOOL TEXTBOOK FUNDS
TO THE 1987-88 SCHOOL TEXTBOOK FUND ACCOUNT
WHEREAS, textbook adoptions for the period 1986 - 1992
necessitated the purchase of new books during 1986-87, and
WHEREAS, sufficient quantities could not be delivered
by the end of the current fiscal year (June 30) in certain
subject areas;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County School
Board of Roanoke County, on motion of Barbara B. Chewning and
duly seconded, requests the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County to appropriate $130,000.00 of unexpended funds in the
School Textbook Account for 1986-87 to the School Textbook
Account for the 1987-88 budget year in order to complete the
needed purchase of said textbooks.
Motion was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Paul G. Black, Richard E. Cullinan, Charlsie
S. Pafford, Barbara B. Chewning,
Frank E. Thomas
NAYS: None
w
A-71487_ll,d ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING ~ ~~
COUNTY, VIRGINIA OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CENTER. ~ HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY OF ROANOKE
ADMINISTRATION
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1987
SU---_~T~ Amendment to Classification Plan f
Position of Secretary in Sheriff'soDeAdditional
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR S partment
' COMMENTS:
A~~~~~a
S U (~~~ ~z1~-~(
MMARY OF INFORMATION:
The State Compensation B
of Secretary in the RoanokeaCounts apPrOped an
July 1, 1987. Y Sheriff s De additional position
partment effective
FISCAL IMPACT: ~`~~
r
The State Compensation Board will provide
of $11,842. As this
Classification Plan p°sition funding in the amount
salar ~ additional fundsl in the amou t o f f° u n t y s
Y and fringe benefits will
in Grade 11, Step A, of the be required to $2445 for
appropriation Classification Planed the position
salar of funds is requested as funds will comeof romitional
Y accounts within the Sheriff's budget.
other
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that
1987-88 be amended b the Classification p
in the Sheriff's De Y the addition lan f or fiscal year
partment effectivef Jule position of Secretary
Y 1, 1987.
SUBMITTED By;
D• K. Cook
Director of Human
Resources
APPROVED:
~~
k.z...~
Elmer C. od
RESOLUTION; YES__NO County Administrator
ACTION ------------------------------
AAproved (x) Motion B VOTE
Denied ( ) Bob y• Harry C. Nickens NO yes Abs
Received ( ) L• Johnson to / Brittle
ap rove Garrett x
Referred ( ) x
To Johnson x
McGraw x
Nickens x
cc: File/Sheriff Foster
/Keith Cook
Y
M E M O R A N D U M
MEMO T0: Mr. Elmer C. Hodge ,~
County Administrator
FROM: Sheriff 0. S. Foster ~..r
DATE: July 9, 1987
SUBJECT: Secretary
~~,1! ~ i 1?, .,
1 `.' '-°
c-~ ~ ;-
' ,..:~ ~OclfiGk,~ C~~191ty ,'
~r`; Personnel $2rvices
You will perhaps recall that in our County and State budgets
this year, we requested a full-time secretary a*id a part-time secretary from
both the County and the State Compensation Board.
We asked the Compensation Board to also fund the additional
salaries of dispatchers, as well as some of our clerical personnel.
We have received our State budget for the coming year, and
they have given us a position. which we will use by hiring a secretary to work
four hours in the Criminal Investigation;; Division and four hours in the Records
Division.
The amount of the funding is $11,842, however the position
needs to be supported by the County for $1,054, which is the difference of the
starting pay for a secretary in a Grade 11A.
This letter is being delivered to you today in the event
you have the authority to act upon the request rather than take it before the
Board of Supervisors. You will recall that the Board of Supervisors prepared
and submitted a resolution to the State Compensation Beard supporting my request.
If you are able to act upon this request prior to your leaving
for vacation, we would appreciate it; however if not, we will wait upon your'
decision upon your return.
/lav
c: Major J. E. Robertson
Capt. J. H. McCorkle
Capt. D. A. LaPrade
F-32
A~ / { ~~"~
a
o `aa~
.n ~ ~Qy
l ~~o
.. , z
.°. it I ~ ~ ~
~r '~ I J ~ ( ~ r i ~ I I ~ 1 J ~`
IL W I <~ + j i I I ~ ~I - I
.. ~2 ~ f u I I ~ ~ I I I + , I ~ 1 I ~
J 'yW~ ~ ~ I i ' ! I I I I ~ I
~~~ , I ~ ~~ +! i i I I I I i 1
o f f , W~ ~ ; ! ~ I I ; r
I ~ <' '
! ~ ' W: ~ j ! I II I I I ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ r
j J.
1 ~ rj f I ~ ~ iI ~ j ~ ~ j ~(' ~ ~ J I
I ~' I I ! ! ~ ' ~ I I I ! ~
lyyj ~qY ~ Wly , ! ! r I
r I u W f I I ~ ! ' I
X O i` ~ LL W I r j ~ I j ! II ! '
~ ~ ~ ~ I !
~p ~OW ~ OX ' I
< !
U' m.y .J2; rW f
"~+Zrty r<~~ ~ I I I ~ ~ I
~ V u' 'W O) }.~y y~ I - ~ j ~ I
.rte ~y + ~IW ~ I ! I ~ ~ f
c"'" z <WW' f ~ I
_"'~ raz' ooi~
. f. W Q W Wf S. a "'~
r W p= O< W
=ur ~~++
'OWrui ~ ~y
E--~ ~< W
~yyl ~~y V'.;4' N 0. .~.~ ~` m
ti! {~ y
4~0
,r~
IrJ
u -~
I= u h
O y Z = ~ LL J '~ J
~ y O
C ~ 1
C z
y O '
z, J O O '
I W <~ Wi ..J C K
zr
' O ~ y y XI W: G O. ~ W
3 ~ C W ~ '' 2 _ Vr W
V ~'1 '~ :., ~, o f
3 ~ ~ ~ €
A-71487-11.e o~
ITEM NUMBER ~' ~ ~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1987
SUBJECT: Confirmation of Committee Appointments
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The following nomination must now be confirmed by the Board of
Supervisors. The nominee has agreed to serve.
Recreation Commission
Mrs. Linda Shiner has been nominated by Supervisor Alan Brittle
to serve a three-year term representing the Cave Spring
Magisterial District. Her term will expire on June 30, 1990.
SUBMITTED BY:
Mary H. Allen
Deputy Clerk
APPROVED BY:
CC /~
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens/Bob No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) L. Johnson to confirm Brittle x
Received ( )
Referred
To
cc: File
Recreation Commission File
Garrett x
Johnson x
McGraw x
Nickens x
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT: Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investments and
Portfolio Policy: as of May 31, 1987.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Dominion Concentration 6,815,082.15
Sovran Savings 761,136.07
Central Fidelity Bank - CD 4,000,000.00
Southwest Virginia Savings & Loan - CD 100,000.00
Signet Bank - BA 2,968,970.83
Sovran Bank - BA 4,939,734.45
Dominion Bank - BA 985,143.61
Craigie Inc. - BA 2,955,211.67
_ Signet Bank - CP 1,970,531.11
Dominion Bank - CP - 2,968,038.89
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY:
~~~~ ~~ ~
fred C. Anderson Elmer C. Hodge
County Treasurer County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) B
Received ( )
Referred
To
rattle
Garrett
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
` _, « .
ITf;M NUME3ER /
!•'1' A EtI;GUf.AEZ ME;f:TINS: f•' 'I'I{(~ f3UAEZI) t)f' SUE'f:RVISOEt:~ ci:' EtOANOKf;
COU[; I"f, VIRGINIA EiELD A`I' 'I'[{{; ROANOKL COUNTY ADMINISTRII'1'ION CENTER
MEE:'E''.,7t_DA'T'I:_ July 14, 1987
S U E3,1 i't "I'~ YOUTH HAVEN I I Project Status Report
('r)UE:`I'Y !~E)MIN{.;;'I'R!V'I'O[Z'S ('r>MM[?N`I'S:
5(Jt•1M,'1I?.Y UE•' ICd1~ORN{!~`I'ION:
Building:
The first U.S.D.A. reimbursement check for $39,786.66 was received by
the County Treasurer this month. Due to the year-end budget close-out, a
decision about our request for U.S.D.A. basement renovation funds will not
be made by the Department of Corrections until mid-July at the earliest.
Therefore, it is most likely that the renovations will not begin until August.
A building cost summary sheet was prepared by myself and Ms. Hyatt this
month and sent to the Department of Corrections for reimbursement. Additionally,
"as built" drawings and specifications were completed, microfilmed and forwarded
to the Department of Corrections.
Program Development & Administration:
Cur resident census is six, five of whom are Roanoke City youth. The
source of referrals is about evenly split between Court Service Units and
Departments of Social Services. Several additicnai applicants were rejected
due to the severity of their behaviors and their need for a more restrictive
environment. I would like to keep our census at six during the summer and
begin accepting additional residents just prior to the resumption of school.
This plan is based on the Department of Corrections' recommendation as well
~s present programatic needs.
Tl~e placement slot trade-off with Roanoke City seems to be working quite
~.rell at this point. The County has placed one youth at Youth Haven I as well
as sevF:~ral youth at the Juvenile Detention Center. To date, Roanoke City
only owes the County $88.00 for girls at Y~UTH HP,VEN II and the County does
not owe Roanoke City anything for its youth placed in City programs. Mr. Ritchie
and I will continue to monitor this exchange monthly. We have agreed with
thr~ City to extend this trade-off through October 1, 1987. It may turn out
tf~at the Youth Haven I and Y~UTH HAVEN II programs will not need Title XX
vendorship for local Departments of Social Services reimbursement. However,
Y~;UTH HAVEN II will still pursue Title vv to enable us to•accept residents
from outside the Valley should our census not stay up r~ith Valley youth.
.,, .
This month we be an ~ ~"""'`
9 implementation of a Department of Corrections mandated
resident/program evaluation design. Our 1988-90 biennium budget request was
also submitted to the nepartment ofi Corrections. ~^Je have received word that
we will have our licensure review from September 22-September 24, 1987.
On June 29 and June 30, 1987 our residents and statf went to Kings
Dominion, The trip was paid for out of the X1,000.00 donated by Psis. Helen
VanF~annselaer. A grand tune was had by all. Since our residents did
beautifully, more trips are being planned for the future, so
Public Relations:
UJe held a luncheon this month honoring ibis, Dodie Graham for her dedicated
work on our beautiful landscaping. Ms. Graham was presented a plaque in
recognition of her efforts.
The Grder of the Eastern Star donated an additional 1112.00 to 1'C~UTH
HAVEN II this month.
Personnel:
Interviews for additional 8 a.m. to 12 midnight relief counselors are
scheduled fior the week of July 6, 1987,
APPROVEi:- 13Y ;
~;'ever I y 4'Ja I do, MSW~ - - ___
Program Manager Amer (, . f~ioc~de ~~-- --
Coun`.y t~dministr_ator
:t~,~:--:?~. ~ci i ) .~~ .ion br, 1CPION ~'--------_-------------_----VCTE --------------
D _ .. _ ~ , ~ ___________---
..
-•.. , ., -----_ Sri tt1.~
- -
' G.~i r r e ~ ~ -_.--
_---- - -
~t, o ----- -__. _. _---- - -----
J o h n s c n -~-~"--
Nickens ___._
OF POANp,I,~
a
ti ~ p
Z ~
7 2
0
'a
18 E50 88
SFSQI./ICENTENN~P~'
A Beauti~ul8eginnin~
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELME R C. HODGE
(~n~tn~,~ n~ ~n~tnvke
July 15, 1987
Rev. William E. Eicher
Poages Mill Church of the Brethren
Route 7
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Reverend Eicher:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BOB JOHNSON. CHAIRMAN
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
LEE GARRETT. VICE-CHAIRMAN
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
ALAN H. BRITTLE
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, I would like to
take this opportunity to let you know of our appreciation for
your attending the meeting on Tuesday, July 14, 1987, to offer
the invocation.
We feel it is most important to ask God's blessing on
these meetings so that all is done according to His will and for
the good of all citizens.
Thank you again for sharing your time with us.
Very truly u ,
Bob L. Johnson, Chairman
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
bjh
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004
OF aOANp~~
~ ~ f~~./ f
18 ~ ... ~~ 88 ~~~~1 ~~ ~~~
FSgVICENTENN~P~
A Beauti~ulBeRinnin~
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BOB JOHNSON. CHAIRMAN
ELMER C. HODGE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
LEE GARRETT, VICE-CHAIRMAN
July 16 , 19 g 7 WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
ALAN H. BRITTLE
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
VIN TON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
Mr. Harwell M. Darby
Shenandoah Building
P. 0. Box 2887
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Mr. Darby:
Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 71487-7 concerning
approval of issuance of bonds by the Industrial Development
Authority for Fralin and Waldron Commercial Rental II, and
Resolution No. 71487-6 concerning approval of the issuance of
bonds by the Industrial Development Authority for F & W Office
Park II. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors
at their meeting on Tuesday, July 14, 1987
Also attached is a Certificate of Resolution concerning both
actions. If you need further information, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
rn~,~., .~r. ~,c,~.,~
Mary H. Allen
Deputy Clerk
Attachment
CC: Tim Gubala, Assistant County Administrator
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (7[~~i ~-~-~ -„„-.
! a
A P P E A R A N C E R E Q U E S T
~_--~,-
.,~ ,,
PUBLIC HEARING ON (/, ,, ;f„~_ ,~~~ ,..2 ,~,~,,,~~, ~ „„ -~ -
I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to
recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter so
that I may comment. I agree to follow the guidelines listed
below. WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND
ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
1. Each speaker will have between three and five minutes
available whether speaking as an individual or
representative. The chairman will decide the time limit
based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and
will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of
the Board to do otherwise.
2. Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of
view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by
the Chairman.
3. All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between
a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed.
4. Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all
times .
5. Speakers are requested to leave any written statements
and/or comments with the clerk.
6. INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL
FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP
ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM.
P L E A S E W R I T E L E G I B L Y
NAME:
ADDRESS:
PHONE : ? ~ Lf - ~'~"
PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy
Clerk. Thank you.)
__~'
v.
V I K G I N I A:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE
COMMITTEE ON CONS'TI'TUTIONAL LAW, )
ROBERT S. GLOVER. )
PAMELA C. GLOVER )
HUGH D. KEY )
EUGENE M. LANE j
Complainants )
Alan (I. Brittle, Member )
Roanoke County Board )
of Supervisors )
3915 Skylark Circle, S.W. )
Roanoke, Virginia )
) BILL OE COMPLAINT'
Lee Garrett, Member ~ )
Roanoke County Board )
of Supervisors )
4501 Steele Road, S. W. )
Roanoke, Virginia )
Harry C. Nickens, Member )
Roanoke County Board )
of Supervisors )
3084 Woodway Road, S.E. )
Roanoke, Virginia j
Steven A. McGraw, Member )
Roanoke County Board )
of Supervisors )
3883 Shawnee Trail )
Salem, Virginia )
Bob L. Johnson, Member )
Roanoke County Board )
of Supervisors )
6628 Northway Drive, N.E. )
Roanoke, Virginia, )
Respondents )
RINp, FULOIiLIM,
r„>:`,~~.o~ME.Mc. COM11F.S NUW the Complainants, by counsel, and represent unto the Court
as follows:
1. The complainant, Committee on Constitutional Law, is a group of
Roanoke County residents and taxpayers.
2. That the remaining Complainants are residents and taxpayers of
Roanoke County.
3. That the Respondents arcs all members of the Roanoke County Board
of Supervisors, the governing body for said county.
COUNT I
4. That on April 14, 1987, the Respondents voted, on a second reading
of an ordinance, to approve a contract for sale of the "Old Roanoke County
Courthouse" located at 301 E. Main Street in the City of Salem, Virginia.
5. In approving the sale of said courthouse, the Respondents violated a
provision of Roanoke County's charter. to-wit:
AC'['S OF ASSEMBLY
CHAPTER 617
"'16.01 Use, management and disposal of property -The County may
control and regulate the use and management of all of its property,
real and personal, within and without its boundaries, and may sell,
lease, rnortgage, pledge or dispose of such property, subject to such
limitations as may be imposed by law. Property declared by a
Department of the county or local authority or instrumentality
serving the county to be surplus in relation to the use for which
acquired shall be made available for other public uses before
permitting disposition by sale..."
6. Prior to the decision to sell, no declaration was made that the "Old
Roanoke County Courthouse" was surplus.
7. Likewise, prior to t(re decision to sale, the subject property was not
made available for "other public uses".
8. In fact, the subject property is not surplus.
9. Additionally, there are several "other public uses" for which the
subject property could be made available.
10. That a public hearing was not held as required by Virginia law.
11. The Respondents did not advertise the ordinances for two successive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Roanoke City, as required by law.
12. In approving the sale of the courthouse, the Respondents violated
§§ 15.1-257,258 and 260 of the Code of Virginia 91950), as amended.
13. In approving the sale of the Courthouse the Respondents violated
§§15.1-270 of the Code of Virginia (1§950), as amended.
COUNT II
14. On April 14, 1987, the Respondents in a formal budget work session
voted to place Two Hundred Thousand Dollars (x200,000.00) of the Five Hundred
Thousand Dollars (x500,000.00), which represents the purchase price of ttre
subject land, in a n "instructional account". Funds in said account are used to
pay the salaries of teachers, principals, counselors, aides, school secretaries
and to purchase certain supplies.
15. Said use of the proceeds from the sale of the subject property is
in violation of the Roanoke County charter:
ACTS OF ASSEMBLY
CHAPTER 617
§16.01 -Use, management and disposal of property -
"The proceeds from the sale of capital facilities, be •~~
they real or personal property, shall be paid into
capital facility accounts and expended therefrom solely
for this purpose of acquisition, construction, maintenance
or replacement of other capital facilities."
16. The closing on the sale has not yet occurred.
COUNT III
17. That on July 22, 1986, a public hearing was held on the disposition
of lots 75 and 76 in tl~e Dropmore Subdivision.
18. 'Chat the Respondents approved the Sale of said land in violation of
the portion of Roanoke County's charter mentioned previously in paragraph
five (5) of this bill of Complaint.
19. Prior to the decision to sell no declaration was made that this
property was surplus.
20. Likewise, r~rior to the decision to sale, the subject property was not
made available for "other public uses."
21. That the sale on said property has closed.
COUNT IV
22. That on August 26, 1986, the Respondents approved, on a second
reading on an ordinance, the sale of 3.0 acres of Roanoke County land located
in Southwest Industrial Park.
23. That the Respondents approved the sale of said land in violation of
the portion of Roanoke County's charter mentioned previously in paragraph
five (5) of this Bill of Complaint.
24. Prior to the decision to sell no declaration was made that this
property was surplus.
25. Likewise, prior to the decision to sale, the subject property was not
made available for "other public uses."
26. That the sale on said property has closed.
27. The Respondents did not advertise the ordinances for two successive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Roanoke City, as required by law.
28. That a public hearing was not held as required by Virginia law.
COUNT V
29. That on August 26, 1986, the Respondents approved on a second
reading of an ordinance, the Sr-le of 1.72 acres of Roanoke County real estate
located in Southwest Industrial Park.
30. That the Respondents approved the Sale of said land in violation of
the portion of Roanoke County's charter mentioned previously in paragraph
five (5) of this bill of Complaint.
31. Prior to the decision to sell no declaration was made that this
property was surplus.
32. Likewise, prior to the decision to sale, the subject property was not
made available for "other public uses."
33. That the sale on said property has closed.
34. The Respondents did not advertise the ordinances for two successive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Roanoke City, as required by law.
35. That a public hearing was not held as required by Virginia taw.
COUNT VI
36. That on August 26, 1986, the Respondents approved on a second
reading of an ordinance, the sale of a well lot located near Parkwood Drive.
37. That the Respondents approved the sale of said land in violation of
the portion of Roanoke County's charter mentioned previously in paragraph
five (5) of this bill of Complaint.
38. Prior to the decision to sell no declaration was made that this
property was surplus.
39. Likewise, prior to the decision to sale, the subject property was not
made available for "other public uses."
40. That the sale on said property has closed.
41. The Respondents did not advertise the ordinances for two successive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Roanoke City. as required by law.
42. That a public hearing was not held as required by Virginia law.
COUNT VII
43. That on October 14, 1986, the Respondent approved on a second
reading of an ordinance, the exchange of 7.58 acres of real estate to McVitty
Howes of Roanoke Valley, Inc. for 7.96 acres of real estate.
44. That the Respondents approved the sale of said land in violation of
the portion of Roanoke County's charter mentioned previously in paragraph
five (5) of this bill of Complaint.
45. Prior to the decision to sell no declaration was made that this
property was surplus.
46. Likewise, prior to the decision to sale, the subject property was not
made available for "other public uses."
47. That the sale on said property has closed.
48. The Respondents did not advertise (he ordinances for two successive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Roanoke City, as required by law.
49. That' a public hearing was not held as required by Virginia iaw.
COUNT VIII
50. That on October 28, 1986 approved on a second reading of an
ordinance, the exchange of .045 acres of real estate to M.R.I. Tanglewood
Investments, Inc. for .41 acres of real estate.
51. That the Respondents approved the sale of said land in violation of
the portion of Roanoke County's charter mentioned previously in paragraph
five (5) of this bill of Complaint.
52. Prior to the decision to sell no declaration was made that this
property was surplus.
53. Likewise, prior to the decision to sale, the subject property was not
made available for "other. public uses."
54. That the sale on said property has closed.
55. The Respondents did not advertise the ordinances for two successive
I weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Roanoke City, as required by law.
56. That a public hearrng was not held as required by Virginia law.
COUNT IX
57. That oAr November 25, 1986, the Respondents approved, on a second
reading of an ordinance, the sale of a well lot on View Avenue.
58. That the Respondents approved the Sale of said land in violation of
the portion of Roanoke County's charter mentioned previously in paragraph
five (5) of this bill of Complaint.
59. Prior to the decision to sell no declaration was made that this
property was surplus.
60. Likewise, prior to the decision to sale, the subject property was not
made available for "other public uses."
61. That the sale on said property has closed.
62. The Respondents did not advertise .the ordinances for two successive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Roanoke City, as required by law.
63. That a public hearing was not held as required by Virginia law.
COUNT X
64. That on December 16, 1986, the Respondents approved, on a second
reading of an ordinance, the sale of 3.29 acres of real estate which previously
was Hidden Valley Junior High School.
65. That the Respondents approved the sale of said land in violation of
the portion of Roanoke County's charter mentioned previously in paragraph
five (5) of this bill of Complaint.
66. Prior to the decision to sell no declaration was made that this
property was surplus.
~ 67. Likewise, prior to the decision to sale, the subject property was not
I
made available for "other public uses."
I
68. The Complainants believe this sale has not been closed.
69. Tiie Respondents did not advertise the ordinances for two successive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Roanoke City, as required by law.
70. That a public hearing was not held as required by Virginia law.
COUNT XI
.71. That on January 13. 1987, the Respondents approved, on a second
reading of an ordinance, the grant of a property interest in exchange for the
release of a revisionary interest with Mason Cove Civic Club, Inc.
72. That the Respondents approved the Sale of said land in violation of
the portion of Roanoke County's charter mentioned previously in paragraph
five (5) of this bill of Complaint.
73. Prior to the decision to sell no declaration was made that this
property was surplus.
74. Likewise. prior to the decision to sale, the subject property was not
made available for "other public uses."
75. That the sale on said property has closed.
76. The Respondents did not advertise the ordinances for two successive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Roanoke City, as required by law.
77. That a public hearing was not held as required by Virginia law.
COUNT XII
78. That on January 27, 1987. the Respondents approved on a second
reading of an ordinance, the sale of real estate now located in or around the
Bent Mountain Fire Station.
79. That the Respondents approved the sale of said land in violation of
the portion of Roanoke County's charter mentioned previously in paragraph
five (5) of this bill of Complaint.
i
i
80. Prior to the decision to sell no declaration was made that this
~ property was surplus.
81. Likewise, prior to the decision to sale, the subject property was not
made available for "other ~
public uses." ~
82. This sale has not been closed yet. ~
~ 83. The Respondents did not advertise the ordinances for two successive
I
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Roanoke City, as required by law.
84. That a public hearing was not held as required by Virginia law.
COUNT XIII ~
85. That on February 10, 1987, the Respondents approved, on a second
reading of an ordinance, the sale of the "Cooks Bottom" property.
86. That the Respondents approved the sale of said land in violation of
the portion of Roanoke County's charter mentioned previously in paragraph I
five (5) of this bill of Complaint. ~
87. Prior to the decision to sell no declaration was made that this
property was surplus.
88. Likewise, prior to the decision to sale, the subject property was not
made available for "other public uses."
89. That the sale on said property has closed.
90. The Respondents did not advertise the ordinances for two successive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Roanoke City, as required by law.
91. That a public hearing was not held as required by Virginia law.
COUNT XIV
92. That on March 10, 1987, the Respondents approved, on a second
reading of an ordinance, the conveyance of an easement to Appalachian Power
Company.
93. That the Respondents approved the sale of said land in violation of
the portion of Roanoke County's charter mentioned previously in paragraph
five (5) of this bill of Complaint.
94. Prior to the decision to sell no declaration was made that this
property was surplus.
95. Likewise, prior to the decision to sale, the subject property was not
made available for "other public uses."
96. That the sale on said property has closed.
97. The Respondents did not advertise the ordinances for two successive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Roanoke City, as required by law.
98. That a public hearing was not held as required by Virginia law.
COUNT XV
99. That on March 24, 1987, the Respondents approved, on a second
reading of an ordinance, the sale of real estate on Route 601 (Old Hollins Road).
100. That the Respondents approved the Sale of said land in violation
of the portion of Roanoke County's charter mentioned previously in paragraph
five (5) of this Bill of Complaint.
101. Prior to the decision to sell no declaration was made that this
property was surplus.
102. Likewise, prior to the decision to sale. the subject property was
not made available for "other public uses."
103. This sale has not closed.
104. That a public hearing was not held as required by Virginia Law.
105. The Respondents did not advertise the ordinances for two successive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Roanoke County as required
by law.
106. The Respondents did not advertise the ordinances for two successive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Roanoke City, as required by law.
107. That a public hearing was not held as required by Virginia law.
lOsl. That the notice requirements of the Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended have been complied with.
WHEREFORE, the Complainants pray that this court
(a) Issue first a temporary and then a permanent injunction enjoining the
Respondents from selling and/or closing the sale on the property which is the
subject of counts I, X, XII, XV.
(b) issue first a temporary and then a permanent injunction enjoining the
Respondents from using any proceeds from the sale of the property which is
the subject of Count II for any purpose otheS than the acquisition, construction,
maintenance or replacement of other capital facilities.
(c) enter an order voiding the transactions which are the subject of
Counts III - IX, XI, XIII, XIV
COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
ROBERT S. GLOVER
PAMELA C. GLOVER
HUGH D. KEY
EUGENE M. LANE
By
Counsel
G. David Nixon
KING, FULGHUM, SNEAD ac HALE P.C.
112 W. Kirk Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Counsel for Complainants