The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8/11/1987 - RegularO~ aOANO,Y~ ~ ~~ 2 p ~ ~ J 2 a 8 ~~~ 88 sFSQtJICENTENN~P~' A Beauti~ulBeginning ~i1~Yit1~ II~ ~~Mn11~2F ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA AUGUST 11, 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. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (2:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. 2. Invocation: The Reverend David L. Wade Bonsack United Methodist Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS C. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS. D. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of Funding from Cultural Enrichment Organizations 2. Approval to provide off-site water facilities to Appalachian Power Company. 3. Request for allocation of funds for storm sewer construction on Ogden Road (Route 867). 4. Request from the School Board to appropriate funding for positions at the Governor's School. 5. Protest of Bid by Valley Communication. F. REQUEST FOR WORK SESSIONS G. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS H. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing the transfer of Hollins Water System to Hollins Community Development Corporation. 2. Ordinance authorizing, ratifying and confirming the acquisition and execution of leases for the Enhanced Emergency 911 Communication System. 3. Ordinance accepting an offer for and authorizing the sale of real estate, the remainder of Mountain View Farm Technological Park. 4. Ordinance amending Chapter 7 "Building Regulations" of the Roanoke County Code to adopt a new Article V, "Building Numbers". I. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance approving Agreement between the City of Salem and the County of Roanoke regarding Annexation of Certain territories of Roanoke County. 2. Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of certain Water Systems. 3. Ordinance Vacating the Plat of the Ramsgate Court Subdivision. 2 4. Ordinance amending Chapter 22 of the 1985 Roanoke County Code "Water" establishing certain Requirements for the Constructing and Testing of Wells for Public Water Supplies. 5. Ordinance amending and reenacting the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to revise the Floodplain Ordinance. 6. Ordinance amending and reenacting the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance and the Roanoke County Subdivision Ordinance to adopt the Virginia Department of Transportation Drainage Manual and Road and Bridge Standards and Specifications. 7. Ordinance amending Chapter 21 of the 1971 Roanoke County Code, "Zoning," and Appendix A of the 1985 County Code by adding certain provisions mandated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to wit: Definitions of "Lowest Floor", "Manufactured Home," "Manufactured Home Park Subdivision," and "Start of Construction"; and Requirement that the Zoning Administrator obtain information regarding elevation and other flood-related factors before issuing a Zoning Permit. J. APPOINTMENTS 1. Community Corrections Resources Board. 2. Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board 3. Grievance Panel 4. Virginia Western Community College Board K. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS L. 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 Meeting - July 14, 1987 3 2. Confirmation of Appointment to the Community Corrections Resources Board 3. Acceptance of a donation of a 25' x 20' lot to construct a booster pump station. 4. Approval of a Resolution of Support to bring the World Cup Soccer Matches to the United States 5. Request for increase in Youth Haven II Petty Cash Account. 6. Request for Acceptance into the Secondary System of the following roads: a. Huntridge Road, Springer Road, Britaney Road, Setter Road b. 0.03 miles of Burnham Road c. Summerset Drive, Summerset Circle and Branderwood Drive. d. 0.12 miles of Fernway Drive e. 0.06 miles of Sutherland Circle M. REPORTS 1. Statement of Treasurer's Accountability per Investments and Portfolio Policy as of June 30, 1987. 2. Youth Haven II Status Report 3. Report on 911 Public Awareness Campaign. N. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 1. Mr. Chuck Williams, 944 Shelbourne Avenue to speak concerning the practice fields at William Byrd High School. 0. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia 2.1-344 (a). P. ADJOURNMENT 4 pF ~OANC'fF ti •~ Z 9 7 ~ O 2 /r s a ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~t~~~~ ~s >~~ ss SFSQUICENTENN~P~ A Bcauti~u/8eginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE August 13, 1987 Rev. David L. Wade _ Bonsack United Methodist Church 4661 Bonsack Road Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Dear Reverend Wade: 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, August 11, 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. mha Very truly y r , - ----,. Bob L. Jo son, Chairman Roanoke C my Board of Supervisors P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 w OF ROANp~.~ ~ ,A ~ A 2 ~ 7 v a 18 E50 88 SFSQUICENTENN~PV A Beauri~u/Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE C~v~tnt,~ of ~uttnuke BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOB JOHNSON. CHAIRMAN HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE GARRETT, VICE•CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT AUCJUSt 14, 1987 ALAN H. BRITTLE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Commonwealth Transportation Commission C/O Va. Department of Transportation 1401 E. Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 81187-5 concerning support for a direct access road between Blacksburg and the Roanoke Valley. This resolution was adopted by .the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on August 14, 1987. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, / nL2i2~ /`Y . Mary H. Allen Deputy Clerk Attachment P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 ` OF pOANp,Y~ h A 2 ~ , t O d ~~~~~ ~~ 1 r 18 ruxs $$ SFSQUICENTENN~P~' A Beauti~u/Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE w August 14, 1987 The Honorable Roger E. Hedgepeth Mayor, Town of Blacksburg 300 S. Main Street Blacksburg, Virginia 24060 Dear Mayor Hedgepeth: 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 Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 81187-5 concerning support fora direct access road between Blacksburg and the Roanoke Valley. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on August 11, 1987. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~~ .Jd Mary H. Allen Deputy Clerk Attachment CC: C. Robert Stripling, Town Manager P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703> 772-2004 ~ AOANp~ O F ti •~ 2 ~ ~ ~ ,°~ `=a 18 ,, ~~ 88 SFSQl11CENTENN~P~ A Bcauti jul Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE C~AlXritl,~ A~ ~LiFIYiLtI2P August 14, 1987 United States Soccer Federation One Village Road P. O. Box 129 Horsham, Pennsylvania 19044 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 Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 81187-12.c concerning support to bring the 1994 World Cup Soccer Games to the United States. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on August 11, 1987. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mary H. Allen Deputy Clerk Attachment P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 • OF FiOANpr~ ti 9 C~~~~~ . ,~ 00 ~ ~. ~ ~ ruas 88 V SFSQUICENTENN~P A Beauti~ul8eginning BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOB JOHNSON. CHAIRMAN HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE GARRETT. VICE-CHAIRMAN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ELMER C. HODGE August 14 , 19 87 ALAN H. BRITTLE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Ms. Donna Givens World Cup USA 1994 300 Eye Street Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20002 Dear Ms. Givens: Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 81187-12.c concerning • support to bring the 19n4WasradoCtedSbyctheGBoardtoftSupervisors States. This resolutio P at their meeting on August 11, 1987. If you•need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, y- -~. Mary H. Allen Deputy Clerk Attachment P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004 O~ FiOANp~.~ ti •A L 2 9 ~ L7 O 2 a 18 ~~ 88 S~SQUICENTENN\P\' A Beaurifu/Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE C~A1XYtf1~ IIf ~~~iYiAI2P Mr: Fred Altizer, Va. Department of P. 0. Box 3071 Salem, Virginia Dear Mr. Altizer: August 14, 1987 Resident Engineer Transportation 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 Attached is a copy of. Resolution No. 81187-3 concerning an appropriation for Roanoke County's share of the storm sewer project on Ogden Road. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on August 11, 1987. Also attached are resolutions 81187-12.e, f, g, h, i, requesting acceptance of streets into the Secondary System. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, `-mGZ~1~C~ Mary H. Allen Deputy Clerk Attachment P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 nn~~ ~~~_o.-,.-,~ OF pOANp,I.~ ti 'w p a ~ ~~~t~~~~e C~~~~t~ ~ ,~ ~ r¢-ns ~~ SFSQUICEN7ENN~P~ A Beautiful8eginning BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOB JOHNSON. CHAIRMAN HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE GARRETT. VICE-CHAIRMAN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ELMER C. HODGE August 14 , 19 8 7 ALAN H. BRITTLE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT The Honorable James Taliaferro Mayor, City of Salem 114 N. Broad Street Salem, Virginia 24153 Dear Mayor Taliaferro: Attached is a copy of Ordinance No. 81187-6 concerning approval of the agreement between the City of Salem and Roanoke County regarding annexation of certain territories of Roanoke County. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on August 11, 1987. If you~need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 7y~ y., ,~. c~~-- Mary H. Allen Deputy Clerk Attachment P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 O~ (iOANp~.~ ti •~ z ~ ° saz ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~tu~~ ~s ~~ ss O sFSQU1CENTENN~P~ A Beauti fu/Bcginning BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOB JOHNSON. CHAIRMAN HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR LEE GARRETT. VICE-CHAIRMAN ELMER C. HODGE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT August 14, 1987 ALAN H. BRITTLE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Virginia Association of Counties Old City Hall - lOth and Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 81187-12.c concerning support for bringing the 1994 World Cup Soccer Games to the United Stated. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on August 11, 1987 at the request of County Treasurer, Alfred Anderson. Mr. Anderson requested that a copy be sent to VACo. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mary H. Allen Deputy Clerk Attachment P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004 O~ FiOANp,I-~ a P ~ ~ ~ 'A z G~ z a 8 u~ 8$ SFSQUICENTENN~P~ A Beauti~u/Beginning C~nixnt~ of ~nttnvke August 14, 1987 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE Mr. Bernard Hairston 6031 Oriole Lane, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Mr. Hairston: 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 The Board of Supervisors have asked me to express on their behalf their sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Community Corrections Resources Board. Citizens so responsive to the needs of their community and willing to give of themselves and their time are indeed all too scarce. This is to advise that at their meeting held on Tuesday, August 11, 1987, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint you as a member of the Community Corrections Resources Board for a 1-year term. Your term will expire on August 13, 1988. ~== State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed to any body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act; your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflicts of Interest Act. Both of these have been amended by the 1987 Session of the Virginia General Assembly, and a copy of each amendment is attached. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Very truly yours, Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors mha Enclosures P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 O~ pOANp~.~ a ti A Z ~ a ~~~~~ ~~ ~u~t 18 ~a 88 SFSQUlCEN7ENN~P~ A Bcauti~ulBtginning ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA AUGUST 11, 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. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (2:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. 2. Invocation: The Reverend David L. Wade Bonsack United Methodist Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS ANNOUNCED LINDA LEHE IS REPLACING PAUL MAHONEY WHO IS ON VACATION C. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS. ITEM E-5 PROTEST OF BID BY VALLEY COMMUNICATION - WITHDRAWN ADDED ITEM E-6 - RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR DIRECT ACCESS ROAD BETWEEN BLACRSBURG AND ROANOKE VALLEY ITEM H-5 - 1ST READING OF ORDINANCE - SALE OF LAND ON ROUTE 11-460. D. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of Funding from Cultural Enrichment Organizations HCN MOTION $15,000 - CENTER IN THE SQUARE 2,500 - ROANOKE SYMPHONY 2,500 - ARTS COUNCIL OF ROANOKE VALLEY SAM SECOND AYES: LG,SAM,HCN,BLJ ABSTAIN: AHB 2. Approval to provide off-site water facilities to Appalachian Power Company. BLJ/HCN AYES: AHB,LG,HCN,BLJ ABSTAIN: SAM 3. Request for allocation of funds for storm sewer construction on Ogden Road (Route 867). HCN/AHB - URC 4. Request from the School Board to appropriate funding for positions at the Governor's School. HCN/BLJ - URC 5. Protest of Bid by Valley Communication. WITHDRAWN 6. Request from Town of Blacksburg for Resolution of Support for Access Road between Roanoke Valley and VPI&SU. BLJ/LG - URC F. REQUEST FOR WORK SESSIONS NONE G. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE H. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing the transfer of Hollins Water System to Hollins Community Development Corporation. BLJ/HCN TO APPROVE - URC 2ND READING - 8/25/87 2. Ordinance authorizing, ratifying and confirming the acquisition and execution of leases for the Enhanced Emergency 911 Communication System. AHB/LG TO APPROVE - URC 2ND READING - 8/25/87 3. Ordinance accepting an offer for and authorizing the sale of real estate, the remainder of Mountain View Farm Technological Park. BLJ~LG TO APPROVE - URC 2ND READING - 8/25/87 4. Ordinance amending Chapter 7 "Building Regulations" of the Roanoke County Code to adopt a new Article V, "Building Numbers". BLJ/HCN TO APPROVE - URC TO BE AMENDED FOR 2ND READING - 8/25/87 5. Ordinance accepting an offer for and authorizing the sale of real estate adjacent to Fort Lewis Fire Station on U. S. Route 11-460. HCN/SAM TO CONTINUE UNTIL 8/25/87 - URC 1ST READING - 8/25/87 I. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance approving Agreement between the City of Salem and the County of Roanoke regarding Annexation of Certain territories of Roanoke County. HCN/BLJ - URC 2. Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of certain Water Systems. LG/SAM TO APPROVE AYES: AHB,LG,SAM,BLJ NAYS: HCN 3. Ordinance Vacating the Plat of the Ramsgate Court Subdivision. HCN/SAM TO APPROVE - URC 4. Ordinance amending Chapter 22 of the 1985 Roanoke County Code "Water" establishing certain Requirements for the Constructing and Testing of Wells for Public Water Supplies. HCN/SAM TO APPROVE - URC 5. Ordinance amending and reenacting the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to revise the Floodplain Ordinance. AHB/HCN TO CONTINUE UNTIL 8/25/87. STAFF TO DISCUSS WITH HOMEBUILDERS ASSOCIATION. 2ND READING - 8/25/87 6. Ordinance amending and reenacting the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance and the Roanoke County Subdivision Ordinance to adopt the Virginia Department of Transportation Drainage Manual and Road and Bridge Standards and Specifications. HCN/LG TO APPROVE - URC 7. Ordinance amending Chapter 21 of the 1971 Roanoke County Code, "Zoning," and Appendix A of the 1985 County Code by adding certain provisions mandated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to wit: Definitions of "Lowest Floor", "Manufactured Home," "Manufactured Home Park Subdivision," and "Start of Construction"; and Requirement that the Zoning Administrator obtain information regarding elevation and other flood-related factors before issuing a Zoning Permit. SAM/HCN TO APPROVE - URC J. APPOINTMENTS 1. Community Corrections Resources Board. 2. Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board 3. Grievance Panel AHB NOMINATED RICHARD ROBERS TO ANOTHER TERM 4. Virginia Western Community College Board K. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS MCGRAW: SUBMITTED A REPORT ON HIS ACTIVITY AT NACO CONFERENCE. REPORT TO BE FILED WITH BOARD PACRET. JOHNSON: COMMENDED CLIFF CRAIG ON PAMPHLET ON NORTH LAKES INTERCONNECTION PROJECT. RECEIVED PHONE CALL ON CRUISING ON WILLIAMSON ROAD. ASKED BOARD CONCURRENCE FOR PMM TO DISCUSS WITH SHERIFF FOSTER AND FOR ROANOKE CITY AND ROANOKE COUNTY TO PROCEED ON THIS PROGRAM TOGETHER. AHB SUGGESTED THAT PARKS & REC. AND SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES TO BE INVOLVED IN SOLVING THE PROBLEM BEYOND LAW ENFORCEMENT. 1 L. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED, BY ONE RESOLU,,TION 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. BLJ/LG TO APPROVE - URC 1. Minutes of Meeting - July 14, 1987 2. Confirmatio n of Appointment to the Community Corrections Resources Board 3. Acceptance of a donation of a 25' x 20' lot to construct a booster pump station. 4. Approval of a Resolution of Support to bring the World Cup S occer Matches to the United States 5. Request for increase in Youth Haven II Petty Cash Account. 6. Request for Acceptance into the Secondary System of the following roads: a. Huntridge Road, Springer Road, Britaney Road, Setter Road b. 0.03 miles of Burnham Road c. Summerset Drive, Summerset Circle and Branderwood Drive. d. 0.12 miles of Fernway Drive e. 0.06 miles of Sutherland Circle M. REPORTS RECEIVED AND FILED 5 1. Statement of Treasurer's Accountability per Investments and Portfolio Policy as of June 30, 1987. 2. Youth Haven II Status Report 3. Report on 911 Public Awareness Campaign. DON REID, C&P WAS PRESENT TO ANSWER QUESTION N. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS x 1. Mr. Chuck Williams, 944 Shelbourne Avenue to speak concerning the practice fields at William Byrd High School. WAS NOT PRESENT 0. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia 2.1-344 (a). AHB/LG AT 3:50 P.M. (1) PERSONNEL AND (4) LOCATION OF PERSPECTIVE BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY - URC P. ADJOURNMENT 6 A-81187-1 ITEM NUMBER ~` AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE• August 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Request for funding from Cultural Enrichment Organizations COUNTY~,A~DM~IfNISTRATOR' S COMMEN 1i~ r,~~ SUMMARY OF INFOFIMATION: ~,'y ~!. , ~ Po ~ Last year, the 1986/87 budget included $15,000 for cultural enrichment programs, and all of the funds were allocated to Center in the Square. The budget for 1987/88 includes $20,000 for this purpose. This year the following three organizations have requested funds: Orqanization Center in the Square Arts Council of Roanoke Valley The Roanoke Symphony TOTAL Funds Requested $50,000 $ 3,300 $ 5,000 $58,300 Center in the Sguare benefits over 12,000 Roanoke County students through its programs, including the Center Scholars Program which is a cooperative venture with Roanoke City, Roanoke County and Salem Schools. This is an intensive college level 9-week course incorporating all aspects of performing arts. The Arts Council of Roanoke Valley serves as a promoter, fiscal agent, and occasional funder of all arts groups in the Valley such as Artemis, The Acting Company, the Roanoke Symphony, the Virginia Watercolor Society, and the annual Perry F. Kendig Award. The Roanoke Symphony offers a variety of concerts throughout the year with special guest artists at each concert. FISCAL IMPACT: None. $20,000 was budgeted in fiscal year 1987/88. This agenda item only allocates the funds to the individual organizations at the Board's discretion. A P P E A R A- ~`: C 'E R E Q U E S T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PUBLIC HEARING ON 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 : Yy / ~ ~ / • 3 •rf't S . ]~`~~ ~ ~/~ ~ e.r~ Q. N d / ~ a ~t~t ~ g T ADDRESS : 0 iYt e. ~ 8 ~,,, ~~t. ~" +S q U GZ ••,~ °~ ~Z o ~ .~ o ~~. , vm , a ~~ i~ PHONE : 3 T o~ - s`~Q~ PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy Clerk. Thank you.) A - P P E A R A_ - - - - - - - C E - - R E Q - - - U E S T - - - - PUBLIC HEARING ~~ ON ~~:~i ?~ Y to t~s ~ -, ~" %'t v-4 c ~ ~~- i'Yt ~ vt J` I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to %J~sz2G:<<,Z 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: ~G<? v~p/C.e ~ ~`J r PHONE : ~~-/ 3 ~ [~ / a PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy Clerk. Thank you.) A P P E A R A ~!: C •E R E Q U E S T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PUBLIC HEARING ON ~'~~~ ~l~J f~ Fug y' <'/~'- r~l~@~,c. ~~ 6K1/c';t'_"~'`'~/~1% ,/i, ~~_ CJ1~G- , 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 : .~'t/_5 d'C/ ~°,'~ L, L ~ ~-~'"~~ G/ Tl1.~F= ,ceJ/~ . ADDRESS: i~i~f~-= f,~%c ~"` t'_p~L.//?I~f•! - ~/~~' ~c^ dr;~r~'/~'~" j.,?~"~ ~?' PHONE : ~ T 'Lj~;,~ °~~'~r~ PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy Clerk. Thank you.) A-81187-2 ~... ~ .: ~. ITEM NUMBER ~° AT A REGULARAMHELDNATOTHEHROANORE COUNTYEADMINISTRp,TIONNCENTER COUNTY, VIRGINI MEETING DATE: August 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Appalachian Power Company Off-Site Water Facilities COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Appalachian Power Company is developing a site located north of the Loch Haven Road/Route 311 intersection at Hanging Rock. Water service to this site will require a 6,000 foot extension of the existing 12" water line that currently ends at the VDOT building on Route 311, a small booster pump station, and a water storage r alachian The estimated cost of these water facilities is $310,000. APP Power Company has drilled one well on their property which wou therey produce 15 gallons per minute and is not a suitable supplY% As noted fore, they would be required to use a public water supply. in the fiscal impact below, Roanoke County's share of the project would be approximately $115,540. This amount is less than the construction cost of the water storage reservoir alone. In addition, 000 foot extension future connections which will be made along the 6, will produce off-site facilities fees in excess of $500,000. Appalachian Power Company has requested that Roanoke County participate in the cost of installing the off-site water facilities in lieu of using a reimbursement agreement. Staff proposes that Roanoke County provide the necessary water facilities to the APCO site with the use of water revenue bond funds. FISCAL IMPACT: J The facilities which are proposed to be constructed by APCO will require a 6" domestic water service and a 12" separate fire service. The total water connection fees that will be paid is $194,460.20. Therefore, the required participation for Roanoke County would be approximately $115,540. The initial water connection fees will cover 62$ of the cost,sSnoff150~eofothe totalscost oflthe water facil ties generate in exce provided. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommanas Po e ~cthetfollowinghactions must be taken Water line. If the Boa pP (1) Approve County participation in the extension of this water line; (2) Approve the issuance of revenue bonds (through Virginia Resources Authority) in the amount of $115,540; (3) Authorize County Administrator to execute all necessary documents. - ,.-'~. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: 7 ,~ Cli r Craig, P.E. El er C. g Uti ities Director County Administrator ------- ----------------------ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs ain Approved ( ~ Motion by: Bob L. Johnson/Harry C. x Denied ( ) Nickens to approve staff Brittle Garrett x Received ( ) recommendation x Referred Johnson To McGraw x - Nickens x cc: File Clifford Craig John Hubbard - - '' -f ~ gate ~ ~,: - ~\ ~M~'cH~HTS ~ LAURElWp60S ~ ex11r4~ ~/ ~ ~ ~° Y~, . Lt. S . r:. \~~ a`P`ES~P`~S~ oac ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ 1, HOGH7S ~ ~yii ~F \ / ? ~ , ~~ ' ~SN~< Q ~i ~, j -- ~ - ~ urvl'~ ee L_ _ `_s ,~. ~p .~ ~~££G~~UEE JY ~inomc~ ~~~~~~~~ PUBLICMFACICLITIES OFFASITEIWATERWFACILITIES I i ITEM NUMBER ~'" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Appropriation for Roanoke County Share of Storm Sewer Construction, Ogden Road (Route 867) Project COUNTY AD/~MINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~(,~ %f ,~ ~ 4 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In 1983, the Board of Supervisors approved a Secondary Highway Six Year Plan for Roanoke County that included the widening to five lanes of Ogden Road ( Route 867) from Electric Road (Route 419) to the Roanoke City Limits. In December, 1986, the Board of Supervisors modified the project. Due to physical constraints, there will be a transition from five lanes back to two lanes at the bridge over the railroad tracks. It is now the policy of the Virginia Department of Transportation to require participation by localities for portions of storm sewer construction costs if curb and gutter improvements are desired. Roanoke County's share for the Ogden Road Project with curb and gutter improvements is $10,200. This amount must be appropriated if the Board approves the project but will not be expended for 2 - 3 years at the end of the project. This is the first request of this type that has come before the Board and approval of this project could set a precedent when future requests are made. The Virginia Department of Transportation also plans to request funds for the Starkey Project. Roanoke County's share for the Starkey Project could cost between $350,000 to $400,000 if curb and guttering are included. Installing curb and gutter at the time that the reconstruction work is done reduces the amount of right of way required from 110 feet for shoulder in this section to 80 feet for curb and gutter. This would negate the need for purchasing additional houses and businesses. While curb and gutter could be installed later, the cost benefit would already have been lost due to excessive right of way acquisitions. However, staff is working on other options which may reduce the cost substantially for the Starkey Road Project. .L_~ FISCAL IMPACT: ~ An appropriation will be needed to transfer $10,200 from Unappropriated Balance to a separate line item in the Capital Fund. Monies will not be expended during the 1987-88 fiscal year, but will be reserved for this project in future years. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the appropriation for the Odgen Project storm sewer construction with curb and gutter improvements. ., Elmer C. o ge County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To ACTION Motion by: VOTE No Yes Abs Brittle Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens ,~' _. °; AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 RESOLUTION NO. REQUESTING APPROPRIATION FOR ROANOKE COUNTY SHARE OF STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION, OGDEN ROAD (ROUTE 867) PROJECT WHEREAS, Ogden Road (Route 867) provides an important urban highway link to commercial property in Roanoke County; and the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors desires to improve this commercial link; and WHEREAS, Route 867 was placed on the Secondary Highway Six-Year Construction Plan by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and was assigned a project number of 0867-080-202,C501, by the Virginia Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, Virginia Department of Transportation Policy Memorandum DPM-8-6 requires participation by localities for portions of storm sewer construction costs if curb and gutter "is desired"; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transporatation has determined that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors is responsible for $10,200 on Project 0867-080-202,C501 for its portion of storm sewer construction. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors appropriates the sum of $10,200 for its share of the total construction cost for the Ogden Road Project 0867-080-202,C501. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROAiVOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 RESOLUTION 81187-3 REQUESTING APPROPRIATION FOR ROANOKE COUNTY SHARE OF STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION, OGDEN ROAD (ROUTE 867) PROJECT WHEREAS, Ogden Road (Route 867) provides an important urban highway link to commercial property in Roanoke County; and the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors desires to improve this commercial link; and WHEREAS, Route 867 was placed on the Secondary Highway Six-Year Construction Plan by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and was assigned a project number of 0867-080-202,C501, by the Virginia Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, Virginia Department of Transportation Policy Memorandum DPM-8-6 requires participation by localities for portions of storm sewer construction costs if curb and gutter "is desired"; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transporatation has determined that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors is responsible for $10,200 on Project 0867-080-202,C501 for its portion of storm sewer construction. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors appropriates the sum of $10,200 for its share of the total construction cost for the Ogden Road Project 0867-080-202,C501. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Brittle, and upon the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY - TESTE: y'Y~~.~ .3~d . Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 8/13/87 cc: File John Peters, Assistant Director of Engineering John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator Fred Altizer, Va. Department of Transportation E-81187-4 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: August 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Request to Appropriate Monies for the Purpose of Sponsoring Additional Student Positions at the Governor's School COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Following the approval of the School budget in May of this year, the Board of Supervisors received numerous requests for funding of student positions in the Governor's School if additional funds became available. The Board of Supervisors has always been supportive of the School's needs, and asked the County staff to review the request in an effort to fund the positions in the Governor's School. The School Administration has suggested funding for these positions come from the remaining balance of the 1986-87 School budget, with the understanding that if there are insufficient funds, the balance will be taken from the current year's School budget. The exact amount of the balance will not be determined for several weeks when the annual audit is completed. At the budget work sessions in April, the School Administration also pointed out the need to replace many school buses. The Board of Supervisors and County staff share this concern. As of June 30, 1987, there was a balance of approximately $117,000 in the School Bus Fund. Staff recommends that the monies remaining at year end after funding of the Governor's School be earmarked for the purchase of school buses. (, FISCAL IMPACT: U Twenty-six thousand dollars should be appropriated from beginning balance to finance the additional positions at the Governor's School. The remainder of the School Fund balance for the 1986-87 fiscal year is to be placed in the School Bus account. RECOMMENDATION: r. If the Board of Supervisors wishes to fund the Governor's School, the following actions are recommended: 'Allow the Schools to retain any unexpended funds from the 1986-87 budget to be used in the following manner: It is estimated that funding of the Governor's School will require between $18,000 and $26,000. Designate that this amount be taken from the unexpended funds from 1986/87. Allocate any monies remaining after funding the Governor's School to the School Bus Fund. SUBMITTED BY: ~- .~.:, L John M. Chambl'ss, Asst. County Administrator - Management Services APPROVED: v ,~ ,, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator cc: Bayes Wilson Diane Hyatt Reta Busher ------------------------------------------------------------------ ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens/mob No Yes Abs Denied ( ) L. Johnson to approve aff Brittle x Received ( ) recommendation Garrett x Referred Johnson x To McGraw x Nickens x cc: File Bayes Wilson Diane Hyatt Reta Busher John Chambliss 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: August 11, 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 protest was originally scheduled to come before the Board at the July 14, 1987, meeting, but was postponed at the request of the attorney for Valley Communications. 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 the 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 rati- fies the determination to proceed with the contract to protect the public interest. Respectfully submitted, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney ~~~ Attachments: a. Letter dated July 1, 1987 from Valley Communica- tions b. Letter dated November 10, 1986, to Mark Cronk from Stephen P. Huff c. Memorandum dated May 22, 1987, to Capt. Stephen Huff from H. D. Fielder. d. Memorandum dated June 1, 1987, to Bonnie Preas from Capt. Stephen Huff. e. Memorandum dated June 29, 1987, to Bonnie Preas from Sheriff 0. S. Foster. -------------------------- ACTION Approved ( ) Motion by: VOTE Denied ( ) No Yes Abs Received ( ) Brittle Referred Garrett To Johnson McGraw Nickens ~--- ~~oi ~ FY COMMUNICATIONS July 1, 1987 Mr. Jack Council, Purchasing Agent County of Roanoke P. 0. Box 3800 Roanoke, Virginia 24015 703-389-1918 ~~ 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 Fielder and Bonnie ou that we will appeal your decision to award Preas, we are hereby notifying y Salem Jail Surveillance the Maintenance Agreement on the Roanoke County Equipment to someone other than Valley Communications, even though Valley was the low bidder. As stated: "This decision is based on the eepjas~not`~ustifiedndation, lack of performance and higher hourly costs we f We will be in contact with you again regarding this situation. Sincerely, VALLEY COMMUNICATION~~~ , ~G~~ ~~ Mark W. Cronk MWC/dmh cc: Sherrill L. Smith cc: Pat Whitescarver AtAJ. J. i~• Rl)1tN:R'1'~l)N (~h+a Ury.ury ~a~.ew! I.AI.1'. J• I1. 111c1'l)RKI.I:, JH• Crlrnlnul Inrr+ligduan. 1)I vUUin !N~-r+uw l:Al''1'. l.. J• WApb: UnUrrrrn llrvl+lun ltl7.60A2 (r,1 rr. ~ ~ L U~~~'\ j~~ v. ~. I~c~~~rl~:li, ~Itl:ltlrr+ SAI.~:M, Vllt(;INIA 241N3 ). uux Ito PNONB !tl7.61M1 November 10, 1986 .~- (~~~ ~~V O~ Msrk Cronk Valley Connnunications 31 E. 4th Street , Salem, VA 24153 I am also waiting for your man to come up tl)e jail to tl~e interculn. Ile has been called it still hasn't been dune. 1 have also asked outside camera to be installed and it has been response. The problem 1s that your man comes up only when callud andl`1oty~~v1'~~ own ancf wht:n he corner up 1 is Lu fix sourethi ny tha C i s broken. contract entered Into calls for one precallstfor raaconpletuoru~purtCOl`oe0oh dll covered tryuipnrent each nwnth, ft also Inaer. 1h1s Contract inspection submitted to and signed by the Maintenance Eny was renewed by you un June 3. 1986. and will be in force until Jurrt: 3U, 1987. E. ~- (:AI'1'. U. A. I.rl'1lAUli Jrrcr.r+ l•hhlun art ~atu ('Al'l'. tl. 1'. IIIIN'N' 1117-/,.1M ('Iwl Nhlalun lN7.01l~ Dear Mr. Cronk: ' Maintenance Officer Recently, I have been talking with Don Fielder, for the Roanoke County/Salem Ja11 Facility about monthly reports un inspections on our egair~eeur•therThtsretls eabook 1n ourocontrol root that e Ile has rrut seen such p your man signs when he wurk~i~on•ttle equipment and it doss show various . times your man has bct.n p and wire the rear doors of and called, but as of this date for an estimate for another over a week arrd still no that you contact your employr:us and find out it can Gl: corrected. We hove had very good ' past, end look forward to 1t 1n the future. If I may be of assistance, please do not hesitate to call me nt 381-6346. I am by this letter' a:;king what the problem is and sets how service from your company 1n the Since ely, J ~' _ ~. Stephen ~. Huff Chief Correctional UPflcer SPH:vs ~-- ~ MEMORANDUM MEMO T0: Captain S. P. Nu-f~f// FROM: H. D. Fielder ~~~ DATE: May 22, 1987 SUBJECT: Valley Comrrrunications At the present time Valley Communication does not have personnel that have the background to perforrrr any technical work that we rrray need. Mr. Zimmerman no longer works for them and he was the only man that really could do the work. They have a man that can replace switches and etc., but he has to call others when something out of the--rte utine goes out. Several months ago we wrote them about the fact they were not doing the contract monthly check and they said they would, but still no good checks are being made and/or any report as required. The cameras have not been cleaned. I only wrote the letter after several talks with them over a year. It is rrry feeling they, Valley Corrrrnunications, should not be granted the new contract. The log in control shows two (2) hour monthly checks for when done. No date on Borne entries. HDF:vs ~d M E M O R A N D U M MEMO T0: Bonnie Preas -~ ~~ FROM: Captain S. P. Huff DATE: June 1, 1987 SUBJECT: Bid Proposals ~..F _ G I have reviewed the bid proposals sent over to me for review. As I understand the bids, Valley Communications underbid Kane's Communication Systems by $50. a month on the service contract but was over Kanes on emergency hours. _ During the last year we have experienced some problems with Valley. On November 10, 1986, I sent a letter to Mr. Mark Cronk outlining some of the problems we have had. For a short time the problems were corrected but upon checking our log book in the Control room, they haven't been coming in as required. In addition to that, the licensed technician that was good at working on the equipment no longer works for Valley and now works part-time for Kane. On Friday, May 29, 1987, one of our cameras in the lobby went out and Valley was called. At 1615 hours, two (2) of their workers came up and I showed them the problem and they brought an old replacement camera with them that was the wrong one. I told them we had two (2) spares down there and asked why they didn't bring one. They said they couldn't find any. I told them to take another camera from somewhere else in the jail but they didn't have the key for the cover to the camera. The man who had it was on vacation and took the key with him. They appear to have a bunch of young kids working for them who don't really know what they are doing. I feel the extra money that Kane has submitted outweighs the problem we have experienced over the past year. I have seen Kane's work when he worked on the phones in the jail and he was dependable then and feel he would be if given the contract. - ~- . ~ ~ i ~ ~,,, °~ .,_..~ ' -2- If he is given the contract, I would ask that Valley find the extra cameras and monitors purchased and they be turned over to Kane. SPH:vs r { M E M O R A N D U M MEMO T0: Ms. Bonnie Preas Procurement FROM: Sheriff 0. S. Foster C/ " ~ ~ DATE: June 29, 1987 SUJBECT: Surveillance Contract ee I have received bid proposals via Capt. S. P. Huff bidding on the service contract for the jail. Valley Communications submitted a contract which is $50.00 a month under that of Danny Kane, however their overtime is more than $17.50 a hour. Capt. S. P. Huff and Officer Don Fielder, our Jail Maintenance Supervisor, feel that the contract for 1987/88 should be awarded--t-o Kane's Communication Sys- tems, due to the quality of work Danny Kane performed and in view of the fact that the services of Valley Communications was unsatisfactory enough that Capt. Huff wrote them a letter on November 10, 1986. This leads me to believe that it would be cheaper in the long run to award the contract to Danny Kane. /lav c: Capt. S. P. Huff F-58 ITEM NUMBER ~=~ AT A REGULAiAMHELDNAT TgEBROANORE COUNTYEADMINISTRATIONNOCENTER COUNTY, VIRGIN MEETING DATE: August 11, 1987 SUB_ JECT: Request from the Town of Blacksburg for Resolution of Support for an Access Road between the Roanoke Valley and VPI&SU. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : , ~~~~ °~~ ~~.~ ~~~22~- ,~~.~~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Town of Blacksburg, in cooperation with Virginia Tech arovide River Foundatinformat onyeval uating athree alternative tmethods to engineering reduce travel time between Blacksburg and the Roanoke Valley. Attached is a copy of a memorandump,nraccess roadrwould provide outlining the results of the study. a direct connection between the urban center of the Roanoke Valley, and the educational factoitake bettergadvantage ofTthe link would allow the valley ive the excellent educational proogrtunity toctakenadvantage of the Blacksburg area an opp facilities offered in the Roanoke Valley such as the regional airport, medical facilities and employment opportunities. Amore direct route between teethe e t resregion,improve the economic development potential fo As a result of this study, The Town of Blackburg adopted a resolution requesting that the Virginia Department of Transportation provide direct accessThetwhaveBrecommendedna Virginia Tech and the Roanoke Valley. Y 6.6 mile stretch of new highway be constructed from South Blacksburg to thewRnut~he4threelalternates,owithAthe Ro u e1641 copy of a map sho g proposal highlighted. They have also asked that Roanoke area officials endorse this alternate which would provide better access betweeroved support and the Roanoke Valley. Roanoke City Council app for this proposal on August 10, 1987. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board support Blacksburg's choice for a direct access road bresolution,Roanoke area and Blacksburg by adopting the attached ~.-,'` Elmer C. H dge County Administrator _ ---------------- VOTE ---------- ACTION No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Motion by: Brittle Denied ( ~ Garrett Received ( ) Johnson Referred McGraw To _______ Nickens ROUTE ~ 6 0 CORRIDOR STUDY MONTGOMERY COUNTY, VA. r -`~~ '' '~'` ~ `c:.: ~+..:~ _ _~ o_.. f r ^IIR r ~_ .~s~::. ALTERNATE STUDY LINES ~~~ s~ liM~ ~' 1 11f l_ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~'I~ ~1 I .~~dG~J 3 Figure 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 RESOLUTION ENDORSING A DIRECT ACCESS ROAD BETWEEN BLACKSBURG AND THE ROANOKE VALLEY BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: WHEREAS, The Governor of Virginia has included as part of his economic development strategy for the Commonwealth the improvement of transportation facilities; and WHEREAS, the lack of direct access to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University from the Roanoke Valley is an obstacle to the continued economic development potential of the region; and WHEREAS, a study commissioned by the Town of Blacksburg shows that a new road leading from the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center east to a point near the existing intersection of Route 641 with Interstate 81 is the best solution to the problems associated with the access of the Roanoke Valley to Blacksburg and Virginia Tech. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County that: 1. The Board joins with the Town of Blacksburg and Virginia Tech in requesting that the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation accept the corridor solution the Town of Blacksburg has identified as the best answer to the needs of the Commonwealth, and provide the funds necessary for timely completion of the project; and 2. The Clerk to the Board is directed to mail copies of this resolution to members of the Commonwealth Transportation Board . 2 4. Design 5. Cost 6. Funding 7. Environmental impacts 8. Distance and time saved 9. Schedule Economic development. Ready access to good highways has always been an important element in promoting economic development. The Commonwealth of Virginia recognizes this in their industrial access road program. Virginia Tech is a $260 million a year corporation with over 10,000 employees spending more than $56 million a year in research projects alone. Although many people do not view Virginia Tech as a business, it is one of, if not the, largest corporation in Southwest Virginia. As a leader in the education industry, Virginia Tech has the resources to initiate and implement changes which can generate economic well being for the stepchild of the Commonwealth. Although the "all dirt roads lead to Tech" quotation is meant to be a joke, the fact that customers of this corporation must traverse one major congested corridor or wind their way through the back roads of Southwest Virginia to do business is no joking matter. As most of us have learned, perceptions are often more important than reality. If we are to unleash the potential of Virginia Tech, highway access is critical. The second key ingredient in the economic puzzle is the only major urban mass in Southwest Virginia, the Roanoke Valley. The Roanoke Valley contains the region's airport, its major medical facilities, employment centers, and cultural attractions. Although the New River Valley is an important popula- tion center, it is the partnership of Virginia Tech and the Roanoke Valley that must be cemented if Southwest Virginia is to prosper. Direct access to I-81 is an important element in that partnership. Traffic congestion. A person trapped in traffic congestion is a waste of resources. Whether Route 460 meets a traffic engineer's definition of over- loaded or not, the residents and visitors to the Blacksburg area know that Route 460 between Blacksburg and I-81 is inadequate. In 1985 almost 36,000 vehicles per day moved through its busiest point. The Mattern and Craig license plate survey estimates that approximately 26 percent of this traffic is headed to or from I-81. If this through traffic could be diverted to an alternative direct route, the local traffic congestion would be reduced by one-fourth. Considerably higher volumes would be diverted during special events at Virginia Tech (i.e., athletic events, spring break, concerts, end and beginning of semesters). Safety. One of the Virginia Department of Transportation's primary considerations in the design, construction or improvement to any highway is safety. Congestion usually breeds safety problems as do at-grade inter- changes. Design. Specific design features may ultimately vary, but, for the purposes of our analysis, we have assumed that all of the alternatives would involve the construction of four-lane, divided limited access highways with grade-separated interchanges. 4 2. A new road originating at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center and connecting with I-81 near the point Route 641 passes under I-81, and 3. A new road originating at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center following Route 603 along the North Fork of the Roanoke River to I-81 at the Ironto interchange. The Mattern and Craig report includes a preliminary analysis of each alterna- tive based on cost and environmental impact. The plan endorsed by Christiansburg (Mattern and Craig Alternative A) provides for the construction of a new road from South Blacksburg to the Route 460 bypass just past its intersection with Christiansburg Business 460. Anew road segment would also be built between the existing intersection of the Route 460 Bypass with Route 11 and a new interchange at I-81 less than a mile south of Exit 37. Mattern and Craig's Alternative B would include a 6.6 mile stretch of new highway from South Blacksburg to the Route 641/I-81 intersection. It would include three new grade-separated interchanges, two in Blacksburg and one at I-81. This alternative would be built well east of the Route 460 corridor and the new I-81 interchange would be over two miles north of Exit 37. Alterna- tive B would allow traffic from Giles County and places west a direct route through Blacksburg to I-81 and the Roanoke Valley. A new highway following the general corridor of existing Route 603 is shown as Alternative C in the Mattern `and Craig report. This 11.3 miles of new roadway Would have the same two grade-separated interchanges in South Blacksburg as Alternative B and would require rebuilding of the I-81 Ironto interchange. The Route 603 alternative would provide the most direct connection to the Roanoke Valley. Mattern and Craig estimated the amount of traffic which would use each of the three alternative routes if they were in place today and projected the volumes to the year 2007. Alternative A removes the largest percentage of traffic from the existing Route 460 corridor. Alternatives B and C do not remove as much traffic because only those people who are headed toward the Roanoke Valley would use these alternatives. Travelers headed south on I-81 would most likely use Route 460 or other alternatives. All of the volume projections assume that the new road segments do not encourage development and creation of new access points. Each of the alternatives is a four-lane, divided highway with grade-separated interchanges. One potential problem with Alternative A is that two of the proposed new interchanges are within one mile of I-81 Exit 37. State guide- lines suggest interstate interchanges should be more than a mile apart. Without the proposed interchanges, through traffic would bottleneck at Route 11. 6 As noted in the introduction, distance is not always a good measure of how people perceive access to their destination. Alternative A would still be a "roundabout" path between Blacksburg and Roanoke. At its best, any of the new roads would probably reduce travel time at off-peak periods by about 30 percent. At peak traffic flows, motorists would find the new routes much faster. In the face of the many objectives one may have for new road access to I-81, the economic well being of Southwest Virginia should be of paramount concern. Road improvements should provide the best access to that institution, Virginia Tech, which has the resources to meet the economic development needs of the region. If we attempt to reach a "compromise" which answers the most indi- vidual needs and focus on a "quick fix," we may well lose our best opportunity in this century to develop a solution which meets the greater long-term needs of the Commonwealth. If local needs remain after the I-81 access objective is met, we should work together to meet those more limited objectives. Conclusions 1. The existing traffic conditions in the Route 460 corridor are dangerous, inefficient and burdensome. 2. A new road is needed to provide "direct" access to I-81 from Blacksburg and Virginia Tech, as well as relieve the traffic congestion in the corridor. 3. Approximately 25 to 30 percent of the vehicles using the corridor on an average day are trying ro get to or from I-81. These vehicles would use a limited access highway providing direct access to I-81 thereby reducing the Route 460 congestion. 4. The proposal endorsed by the Town of Christiansburg is the least expen- sive solution. 5. The Route 603 proposal is the most expensive and would cause the most environmental problems. 6. The Route 641 alternative would provide direct access to I-81 from Virginia Tech and South Blacksburg, would result in the fewest number of relocations, and would meet the long-term economic development needs of both the Roanoke Valley and greater Blacksburg. Recommendation Adopt Resolution 7-F-87 endorsing the Route 641 alternative and work with the Virginia Department of Transportation and others to implement this plan. CRS:kae Attachment AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 RESOLUTION 81187-5 ENDORSING A DIRECT ACCESS ROAD BETWEEN BLACKSBURG AND THE ROANOKE VALLEY BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: WHEREAS, The Governor of Virginia has included as part of his economic development strategy for the Commonwealth the improvement of transportation facilities; and WHEREAS, the lack of direct access to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University from the Roanoke Valley is an obstacle to the continued economic development potential of the region; and WHEREAS, a study commissioned by the Town of Blacksburg shows that a new road leading from the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center east to a point near the existing intersection of Route 641 with Interstate 81 is the best solution to the problems associated with the access of the Roanoke Valley to Blacksburg and Virginia Tech. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County that: 1. The Board joins with the Town of Blacksburg and Virginia Tech in requesting that the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation accept the corridor solution the Town of Blacksburg has identified as the best answer to the needs of the Commonwealth, and provide the funds necessary for timely completion of the project; and 2. The Clerk to the Board is directed to mail copies of this resolution to members of the Commonwealth Transportation Board . On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor Garrett, and upon the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY - TESTS: Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 8/13/87 cc: File Ntayor, Town of Blacksburg Va. Department of Transportation John Peters, Assistant Director of Engineering John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator Commonwealth Transportation Board 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: August 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Ordinance authorizing the transfer of Hollins water system to Hollins Community Development Corporation COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At the May 26, 1987 meeting, the Board authorized the transfer of the existing water supply system and pump station in Hollins, owned by Roanoke County, to the Hollins Community Devel- opment Corporation. This transfer is necessary in order to receive grant funds from Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) for the construction of the sewer and water system in the "Old Fields" area of the Hollins community. This proposed ordinance will accomplish the approved transfer. The Corporation will provide the same water service as is currently supplied by Roanoke County. Under a separate manage- ment agreement, Roanoke County will continue to operate this water system. The transfer from the County to the Corporation shall be effective on the date of the FmHA loan closing of the Hollins Community Development Corporation loan/grant for development of water and sewer systems. Section 18.04 of the County Charter requires that the trans- fer of real estate or any interest therein be accomplished only by ordinance. The proposed ordinance authorizes the County Admin- istrator to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish this transfer. The first reading of the proposed ordinance will be held on August 11, 1987; the second reading is scheduled for August 25, 1987. ,FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of this transfer will not require addition- al funds from Roanoke County. /-/- / RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the pro- posed ordinance. SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ------------------------------------------------------------------ ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Brittle Received ( ) Garrett Referred Johnson To McGraw Nickens /~' l AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF HOLLINS WATER SYSTEM TO HOLLINS COMMU- NITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of §18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading on the transfer of the hereinafter described real estate was held on August 11, 1987. A second reading on this matter was held on August 25, 1987. This real estate is located in the "Old Fields" area of the Hollins Community. 2. That the transfer of the existing water supply sys- tem and pump station in Hollins from the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to the Hollins Community Development Corporation is hereby authorized and approved; and 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 transfer of this prop- erty, all of which shall be upon form approved. by the County Attorney. 4. The effective date of this ordinance shall be August 26, 1987. 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: August 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Ordinance authorizing, ratifying and confirming the acquisition and execution of leases for the enhanced Emergency 911 Communication System. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ s~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In order to successfully complete the Emergency 911 Project, the acquisition and execution of leases with property owners on Tinker Mountain, Windy Gap Mountain and Poor Mountain are neces- sary in order for the County to install, operate and maintain towers, equipment buildings and other accessories in connection with this project. The Tinker Mountain lease will provide that the County will pay $125 per month in exchange for use of the leased premises. The 911 system will use a tower which is already on the site and will erect a small building on the property. The Windy Gap lease will provide tha t the County will lease a .223 acre for an amount not as yet finalized. The Poor Mountain lease gives the County approximately one acre in exchange for the County's promise to pay the bulk of lessor's electric bill. Section 18.04 of the County Charter requires that the acqui- sition of real estate or any interest therein be accomplished only by ordinance. The proposed ordinance authorizes the County Administrator to execute such documents and take such action as may be neces- sary to accomplish these transactions. The first reading of the proposed ordinance will be held on August 11, 1987; the second reading is scheduled for August 25, 1987. ~~ FISCAL IMPACT: The costs for these acquisitions shall be paid from the 911 Project Contingency Fund. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider this proposal by the adoption of the attached ordinance. ~l AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING, RATIFYING AND CONFIRMING THE ACQUISITION AND EXECU- TION OF LEASES FOR THE ENHANCED EMER- GENCY 911 COMMUNICATION SYSTEM 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 on the acquisition of the hereinafter described real estate interests was held on August 11, 1987; a second reading on this matter was held on August 25, 1987. Leasehold interests to be acquired are located on Tinker Mountain, Windy Gap Mountain and Poor Mountain; and 2. That the acquisition and execution of leases between the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County and property owners on Tinker Mountain, Windy Gap Mountain and Poor Mountain for the enhanced Emergency 911 Communication System is hereby authorized, approved, ratified and confirmed; and 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 conveyance of this prop- erty, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. ^° ~;% Respectfully submitted, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney --------------------- ACTION --- Approved ( ) Motion by: VOTE Denied ( ) No Yes Abs Received ( ) Referred To Brittle Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens ITEM NUMBER r'7' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Sale of Tract in Mountain View Technological Park COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~ ~ ~ ~ /f J C~c. J SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The County has received an offer to purchase the remainder of the land available for sale in the Mountain View Farm Technological Park. The land in the tract currently includes 16.07 acres + of which 8 acres is reserved for recreational purposes pursuant to Resolution 83-47 dated March 22, 1983; a 60 foot wide right of way; and the residue of 7.4 acres + which is the subject of this offer. All of the above acreages are subject to a survey to be provided by the County. Section 18.04 of the County Charter requires that any sale of public property be accomplished by ordinance. The first reading of this proposed ordinance is scheduled for August 11, 1987; the second reading and public hearing is scheduled for August 25, 1987. The Board's policy for the sale of real estate provides that any person may submit an offer in writing for the purchase of property. Any written offer should be received by the County on or before August 24, 1987. FISCAL IMPACT: DN Sales price to be determined from the best offer. RECOMMENDATION: Staff makes the following recommendations: 1. That the Board of Supervisors reaffirm that this parcel of land is surplus and available for sale by the County. I_"7 '_ ~; 2. That the Board of Supervisors favorably consider the the adoption of the proposed ordinance. 3. That the net proceeds from the sale of this property be allocated to the Capital Improvements Funds as a reserve for capital improvements. Respectfully submitted, Linda S. Lehe Assistant County Attorney Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To ACTION Motion by: VOTE No Yes Brittle Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Abs AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF REAL ESTATE, THE REMAINDER OF MOUNTAIN VIEW FARM TECHNOLOGICAL PARK WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject property has been declared to be surplus; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the sale and disposition of the hereinafter described real estate was held on August 11, 1987. A second reading and public hearing was held on August 25, 1987; and WHEREAS, this real estate consists of ten acres or less and is the residue of the property located in Mountain View Farm Technological Park, excepting approximately 8 acres reserved for recreational purposes; and WHEREAS, an offer has been received for this property from in the amount of and so hereby accepted. All other offers are hereby rejected; and WHEREAS, all proceeds from sale of this real estate are to be allocated to the capital reserves of the County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED 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 conveyance of said property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. ~, . AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE IN ROANOKE, VA., ON MEETING DATE: August 11, 1987 ITEM NUMBER ~ - r - ~ OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER TUESDAY, SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 "Building Regulations" of the Roanoke County Code to Adopt a New Article V "Building Numbers." COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Q~}~' 0 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: An essential component of the 911 Emergency Communications System is the assignment of numbers to all occupied buildings within Roanoke Count were completed in the fall of 1986. The These assignments ordinance is to insure that numbers are p pac d on existing buildings and that the numbers are visible from the road. The enforcement of this ordinance will be the responsibility of the Chief Building Official. First reading of this proposed ordinance is scheduled for August 11 and second reading is scheduled for August 25, 1987. The effective date of this ordinance is September 8, 1987 upon favorable consideration. FISCAL IMPACT: RECOMMENDATION: second reading. SUBMITTED BY: None. Staff recommends approval of this ordinance upon xob Stalzer Director of Planning APPROVED: Elmer C. Hod , Jr. County Administrator ------------------------ ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: Denied ( ) No Yes Abs Received ( ) Brittle Referred Garrett To Johnson McGraw Nickens .. . AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 1987 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7 "BUILDING REGULATIONS" OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO .ADOPT A NEW ARTICLE V "BUILDING NUMBERS" WHEREAS, the 911 communications system now being implemented by Roanoke County requires that all roads in the County be assigned names and all buildings be numbered; and WHEREAS, building numbers have been assigned to every residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial building within the County; and WHEREAS, these building numbers must be visible for the rapid and proper provision of fire, rescue, and law enforcement services. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke Cour_ty, Virginia, that the Roanoke County Code is amended and reenacted as follows: 1. Amend Chapter 7, "Building Regulations" of the Roanoke County Code to add a new Article V "Building Numbers" to read as follows: Section 7-80. Buildin Numbers - time of lacin numbers on buildin s; a ment of cost. Numbers shall be placed on existing buildings within thirty (30) days after being assigned. The cost of the numbers shall be paid for by the property owner. Section 7-81. Same - size, t e of material and location of numbers. ~° ~ _ ~-~. Building numbers shall not be less than three (3) inches in height and shall be made of a durable and clearly visible material. The numbers shall be conspicuously placed on, above or at the side of the main entrance door so that the number is plainly visible from the street. Whenever a building is more than fifty (50) feet from the street, or when the building entrance is not visible from the street, the number shall be placed at the walk, driveway, or other suitable location that is easily discernable from the street. 2. The effective date of this ordinance shall be September 8, 1987. i ITEM NUMBER t~ ~_ 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: August 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Sale of Tract Along U. S. Route 11-460 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The County has received an offer to purchase the frontage property adjacent to the Fort Lewis Fire Station along U. S. Route 11-460. The tract is approximately 3 1/3 acres, in any case not to exceed 4 acres, and is part of a larger tract extending behind the fire station (see attached map). The tract has not yet been surveyed. The offeror wishes to purchase that portion of the property presently zoned B-l. Section 18.04 of the County Charter requires that any sale of public property be accomplished by ordinance. The first read- ing of this proposed ordinance is scheduled for August 11, 1987; the second reading and public hearing is scheduled for August 25, 1987. The Board's policy for the sale of real estate provides that any person may submit an offer in writing for the purchase of property. Any written offer should be received by the County on or before August 24, 1987. FISCAL IMPACT: Sale price to be determined from the best offer. RECOMMENDATION: Staff makes the following recommendations: 1. That the Board of Supervisors reaffirm that this parcel of land is surplus and available for sale by the County. 2. That the Board of Supervisors favorably consider the adoption of the proposed ordinance. 3. That the net proceeds from the sale of this property be allocated to the Capital Improvements Funds as a reserve for capital improvements. Respectfully submitted, ~~~.~ ~ Linda S. Lehe Assistant 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, AUGUST 11, 1987 ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF REAL ESTATE ADJACENT TO FORT LEWIS FIRE STATION ON U. S. ROUTE 11-460 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject property has been de- clared to be surplus; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the sale and disposition of the hereinafter described real estate was held on August 11, 1987. A second reading and public hearing was held on August 25, 1987; and WHEREAS, this real estate consists of approximately 3 1/3 acres, in any case not to exceed 4 acres, adjacent to Fort Lewis Fire Station on U. S. Route 11-460; and WHEREAS, an offer has been received for this property from in the amount of and so hereby accepted. All other offers are hereby rejected; and WHEREAS, all proceeds from sale of this real estate are to be allocated to the capital reserves of the County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the County Adminis- trator is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomp- lish the conveyance of said property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. ITEM NUMBER ._L.. '"~ 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: August 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Ordinance Approving the Agreement Between the City of Salem and the County of Roanoke Regarding Annexation of Certain Territories of Roanoke County COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On March 3, 1987, the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County and the Mayor of the City of Salem agreed to resolve the pending annexation cases: Akers, et al. and Hufford, et al. This agreement has been reviewed and approved by the Com- mission on Local Government. Section 15.1-1167.1(4) requires newspaper publication of a notice for a public hearing concerning the adoption of an ordinance approving and adopting this agree- ment, before petitioning the Circuit Court for an order finally resolving this matter. The notices were published on July 14, 1987, and July 21, 1987. The first reading and public hearing for this proposed ordinance was held on July 28, 1987, and the second reading is scheduled for August 11, 1987. FISCAL IMPACT: The County wil which represents the already been included RECOMMENDATION: 1 receive $175,000 from the City of Salem loss in tax revenues. This amount has in the 1987/88 budget. It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adop- tion of the proposed ordinance after the public hearing. Respectfully submitted, ~~ '~ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 ORDINANCE 81187-6 APPROVING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SALEM AND THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE REGARDING ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORIES OF ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has executed an Agreement dated March 3, 1987, by and between the City of Salem and the County of Roanoke; and WHEREAS, the Agreement has been reviewed and approved by the Commission on Local Government; and WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke has advertised its inten- tion to approve this Agreement on July 14, 1987, and July 21, 1987, in the Roanoke Times & World News, a newspaper of general circulation in this jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the first reading and public hearing on this ordinance was held on July 28, 1987, and the second reading on this ordinance was held on August 11, 1987; and WHEREAS, the respective localities are desirous of re- solving these issues. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of Super- visors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the Memorandum of Agree- ment dated March 3, 1987, a true copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, is hereby adopted and approved. The County Attorney is hereby directed to petition the Circuit Court for an order establishing the rights of the respec- tive local governments as set forth under the terms of this Agree- ment, and to take such other action as may be necessary to accomp- lish these purposes. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Johnson, and upon the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY - TESTE: `~n~ ~. Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 8/13/87 cc: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney The Honorable James Taliaferro, City of Salem 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: August 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of Certain Water Systems COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENT~~S~~: ~ r~~L~ . ,~~~c,G-vr Ots~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On July 14, 1987, the Board held. a work session to consider the acquisition of certain water systems, to consider several funding alternatives and to review certain staff recommendations. The Board voted to authorize staff to proceed with the recom- mended course of action. See the work session materials for a more detailed discussion. The following water systems shall be acquired within the amounts indicated utilizing the described funding sources: Water System Cost Funding Source Cherokee Hills $ 67,000 1986 Bonds Forest Edge 131,000 1986 Bonds Carriage Hills/Parker 35,000 1986 Bonds Crescent Heights 60,000 1985 Bonds Sherry Court 6,300 Utility Fund Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter requires that "the acquisition of real estate or any interest therein" be accomplished by ordinance. The first reading on this proposed ordinance was held on July 28, 1987; the second reading is scheduled for August 11, 1987. FISCAL IMPACT: V 1986 Bonds - $233,000 funds will be initially made available with a loan from the Utility Fund 97-6-87003-0- 00000 to the 1986 Bond account for the purchase of private water systems. When the bonds are sold, these funds will be repaid to the Utility Fund. 1985 Bonds - $60,000 Bonds have been issued and funds are currently available. ~ ' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 ORDINANCE 81187-7 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN WATER SYSTEMS WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter requires that the acquisition of real estate or any interest therein be accomplished by ordinance, and that the first reading on this ordinance was held on July 28, 1987, and the second read- ing on this ordinance was held on August 11, 1987; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County can provide a better, more com- plete water system by owning and operating all water systems in the County, and can better satisfy public health, safety and wel- fare standards and requirements; and WHEREAS, the citizens of Roanoke County have expressed their support for the acquisition of water systems and wells through their positive votes for the 1985 and 1986 bond referen- da. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Super- visors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the acquisition of the following water systems within the funds and funding sources indicated is hereby approved and authorized: Water System Cost Funding Source Cherokee Hills $ 67,000 1986 Bonds Forest Edge 131,000 1986 Bonds Carriage Hills/Parker 35,000 1986 Bonds Crescent Heights 60,000 1985 Bonds Sherry Court 6,300 Utility Fund 2. That an additional ten percent (10%) contingency account for legal, engineering, and miscellaneous expenses is hereby authorized. 3. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to take such actions and execute such documents, all upon a form approved by the County Attorney, as may be necessary to accomp- lish the purposes and intent of this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Garrett, seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and upon the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Johnson NAYS: Nickens A COPY - TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk 8/13/87 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Clifford Craig, Director of Utilities John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator ITEM NUMBER ~- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE IN ROANOKE, VA., ON MEETING DATE: August 11, 1987 OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER TUESDAY, SUBJECT: Ordinance and Final Order Vacating the Plat of the Rams- gate Court Subdivision COUNTY ADMINISTRATOI~R'S COMMENTS: C-Er»'Lv~tr-o' .~'~-L. . ~`' ~~`'~~~ ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This proposed ordinance to vacate the plat of the Ramsgate Court Subdivision is before the Board upon the petition of Jerry W. and Janette L. Bush. The purpose of the vacation is to permit the petitioners to graze livestock upon the property. This ordinance was originally scheduled to come before the Board on June 23, 1987, but was withdrawn since it was believed that this application could be resolved administratively. This belief was later found to be incorrect, however, when it was discovered that the plat had already been subdivided. Because of this subdivision, the vacation can be accomplished only by Board action. On July 14, 1987, the Board scheduled a public hearing on this request for July 28, 1987. Section 15.1-4$2 of the State Code requires that a subdivi- sion plat may be vacated after any lot in the subdivision has been sold either by a written instrument agreeing to the vacation signed by all of the lot owners or by an ordinance adopted by the Board. The applicants are requesting that the Board adopt an ordinance vacating this subdivision plat. The Franklin County Board of Supervisors vacated the plat for the portion of the sub- division located in Franklin County. The applicants published the required legal notices for a public hearing for June 23, 1987. To save further publication expenses the public hearing was rescheduled for July 28, 1987. The Director of Development Review notified the other subdivision property owners by certified mail. The public hearing and first reading of this requested ordinance was held on July 28, 1987; the second reading is scheduled for August 11, 1987. Please note the attached petition. G FISCAL IMPACT: None. _, RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board consider this ordinance. Respectfully submitted, Attachments - Legal Notice Petition Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney ------------------------------------------------------------------ ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Brittle Received ( ) Garrett Referred Johnson To McGraw Nickens AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 ORDINANCE VACATING THE PLAT OF RAMSGATE COURT SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, Jerry W. and Janette L. Bush have petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, to vacate the plat of the Ramsgate Court Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the petitioners are the owners of the property constituting this subdivision, except for three (3) lots therein; and WHEREAS, a public hearing and first reading on this ordinance was held on July 28, 1987, and the second reading on this ordinance was held on August 11, 1987. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Super- visors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the plat of the Ramsgate Court Subdivision recorded on March 3, 1973, and found in Plat Book 8, page 38, among the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, is hereby vacated. 2. That the Clerk of the Circuit Court is authorized to take such action as may be necessary to accomplish the purpose and intent of this ordinance. LEGAL NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING IN RELATION TO A PROPOSED ORDINANCE VACATING THE PLAT OF THE RAMSGATE COURT SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN IN PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 8, PAGE 3~3 ~` Pursuant to the provisions of Sectio~.i 15.1 - 482 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as ameaded to date, The Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, hereby gives notice that at a regular meeting of the said board to be held on Tuesday, June 23, 1987, at 7:00 o'clock Q.m., in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors at•3738 Brambleton Ave.. Roanoke, the Board will hold a public hearing on the motion of Jerry K. Bush and Janet L. Bush, that the plat of the Ramsgate Court Subdivision, the streets shown thereon (as yet undeveloped), and the restric- tions also shown thereon, be vacated. The plat sought to be vacated pursuant to Section 15.1 - 482 is of record in the Clerk`s Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke at Plat Book'; 8, page 38. ~ " At said hearing, parties in interest and citizens shall have the oppoutunity to be heard relative to this matter. Jerry W. Bush and Janet L'. Bush L. Richard Padgett, Jr: 300 Second Street Salem, VA 24153 Counsel for Petitioners By : c,c.~ ,, zl Of Counsel w ......~ V I R G I N I A BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE IN RE: * * VACATION OF PLAT (Dated September 5, 1972) OF THE RAMSGATE COURT SUB- * P E T I T I O N DIVISION AS SHOWN IN PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 8, PAGE 38 * * COME NOW the petitioners, JERRY W. BUSH and JANAT L. BUSH, husband and wife, and hereby represent that they are the owners in fee simple of the property described in the copy of the deed of conveyance dated April 21, 1987, (attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by reference incorporated herein). ,, Petitioners further represent that the property aforesaid is subject to the dedication in fee simple of the streets and roadways (Ramsgate Circle and Wycombe Road) to the County of Roanoke, Virginia, and to certain restrictions as shown on the plat of the Ramsgate Court i Subdivision recorded on '7 in Plat Book 8, page 38, in the Office of the Clerk, Circuit Court, County of Roanoke, Virginia. (See copy of Plat attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by reference incorporated herein.) Petitioners assert that said streets and roadways have never L ~ RD PAOGETT, JR. RNEY AT LAW SM.eM. VIRGINIA 24153 been developed; and, that furthermore, the land referred to hereinabove in the first paragraph of this petition has never actually been developed by petitioners or their predecessors in title to be sold off as lots. Petitioners moreover assert that the streets and roadways as i~-'_:i dedicated and restrictions serve no purpose or benefit to the County of Roanoke, Virginia, or to any of the other present owners of lots in the of_the County of Roanoke, Virginia. On the other hand, the continued Ramsgate Subdivision either in the present or in the future, and that vacation of the same shall not cause any adverse effect on any citizen by ordinance duly adopted by this Board. existence of the dedication of the streets and roadways and restrictions aforesaid shall affect adversely the usefulness and marketability of the realty aforesaid for the petitioners. WHEREFORE, petitioners respectfully request that the plat dated q ~ ~ and recorded in Plat Book 8 page 38, including the streets and roadways and restrictions b~ abandoned, vacated and discontinued ,: L. Richard Padgett, Jr. 300 Second Street Salem, VA 24153 Counsel for petitioners Respectfully, JERRY W. BUSH and JANAT L. BUSH By : ~L a 0 Counsel ~" ~ b PAOGE7'T. JR. II .NEY AT LAW U.l:A~ VIRGINIA $4133 2 - EXHIBIT "A" • .._ ... ~~,~° THIS DEED, made and entered intc this the 21st dny of April 1987, by and between BENCHMARK ENTF.RPRISi~.S, INCORPORATED, a Virginia Corporation, Marty of the first part and hereinafter referred to as the "Grantor"; any, JERRY W. BUSH and JANAT L. BUSH, husband and wife as tenants by the entirety with right of survivorship as at common law and as provided for in'Section 55-21 of the Code of Virginia 1950 as amended to date, parties of the second part and hereinafter referred to as the "Grantees". W I T N E S S E T H THAT, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the sum of TEN ($10.00) DOLLARS cash in hand paid by the grantees unto the grantor, and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the grantor does hereby BARGAIN, SELL, GRANT and CON'JEY unto the grantees, with GENERAL WARRANTY of TITLE and ENGLISH COVENANTS of TITLE, the following described property, lying and being in the County of Roanoke, State of Virginia, to-wit: BEING Lots 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9, Block 1; Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2; Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,~6, 7, 8, 9, major part of Lot 10, small part of Lot 11, a major part of Lot 18, Block 3 according to Plat of Ramsgate Court, property of Joseph R. Bandy and Ruth M.~Bandy, situate in Cooper's Cove, Roanoke County, which plat was prepared by Jack G. Bess, C.L.S., dated September 5, 1972, and of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia in Plat Book 8, page 38; and, I31'.iNG tIII~ same property cu~iv~yc~ci to ti;z ~;r.antor herein by L'eed dated March 8, 1973 from Joseph It. Bandy anti Ruth M. Bandy, of record in Deed Book 968, page 560, in the Clerk's Office aforesaid. Grantors by this deed intend to convey to Grantees all -'+RD PADGETT, JR. o.f the property obtained by deed dated )`larch 8, 1973, RNEV AT LAW recurded in Deed Book 968, page 560 in the Clerk's Office, ._.,-~. VIRGINIA 24153 ~... - -r Circuit Court for Roanoke County, less and except the Well Lot which fronts on Windemere Wav and lies to the. south of Lot 8, Block 1, Plat of Rarisgate Court. Without reimposing any of the reservations, restrictions, easements and conditions of record affecting the herein.above described property this conveyance is made subject to all of them. WITNESS the following signature and seal: BENCHMARK ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, a Virginia Corporation fj_ , / _ ~"~c7%~1~ , Title STATE OF VIRGINIA ,-~ :! . CITY/£~}~ OF ~:_= ~ s ~.~ To-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this the °~ il~ day of --- 19E7 by i' ~ i", _i '' ---- i~. Z-:- ~.;.r.~-.>-.-r of BF.NCH.M.~~RK ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, a ~'i_r;:inia Corp. on behalf of th~.~ corporation. My Comr.;ission ea;iz-es: ~c',_- ~ ~-~ 1,fi ~ `~ ~ !%~ / _ CZ ~'-~ ~ ~~ _ /. ~ r ~ --- Notary Public ~%~- 'HARD PADGETT. JR. 70RNEY AT LAW .EM. VIRGINIA 24153 i a~` ~. * VACATION OF ALL OF THE LAND EMBRACED * FINAL ORDER WITHIN STREETS AND ROADWAYS AND THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE RAMSGATE COURT SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN ON PLAT RECORDED ON MARCH 3, 1973, IN PLAT BOOK 8, PAGE 38 * ' ~ ~~ BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE CQUNTY~OF ROANOKE _., ~, ~.:i i i 7 ~~~ l: +y:. V I R G I N I A: - WHEREAS, Jerry W. Bush and Janat L. Bush petitioned this Board and requested that a resolution of the County of Roanoke, Virginia be adopted in order to vacate the streets and roadways located in the Ramsgate Court Subdivision and to vacate the restrictions applicable to said subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia did, further, by its Order, direct the Clerk of this Board to set the same down for a public hearing at the July 28, 1987, meeting of this Board; and, WHEREAS, the Clerk of this Board did set the regular meeting of this Board to be held on the 28th day of July 1987, at 7:00 o'clock, p.m., as the date and time for a public hearing on the aforesaid proposed Resolution; and, WHEREAS, said public hearing was this date had on the said proposed Resolution by this Board after due notice was given to all interested parties; and, WHEREAS, this Board after giving careful consideration to said L. Rlf'HARD PADGETT, JR. DRNEV AT LAW petition and hearing evidence concerning the merits of said proposed S. .A, VIRGINIA 24153 W~ ~ ~1 Resolution, and finding that the dedication of the streets and roadways of the Ramsgate Court subdivision and the land restrictions shall serve no purpose or benefit either in the present or in the future, and that vacation of the same shall not cause any adverse effect on any citizen of the County of Roanoke, Virginia but may affect adversely thc: marketability of the realty described in Exhibit "A" of the petition heretofore filed with this Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AND ORDERED that at this regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, held on July 28, 1987, that the streets and roadways formerly dedicated to the County of Roanoke, Virginia, and the land restrictions as shown on the plat of the Ramsgate Court Subdivision recorded on March 3, 1973, in Plat Book 8, page 38, in the Office of the Clerk, Circuit Court, County of Roanoke, Virginia, be, and the same are hereby ABANDONED, VACATED, and DISCONTINUED; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Board shall L. R~!'HARD PADGETT, JR. ORNEY AT LAW S.. _nl, VIRGINIA 24153 forthwith certify a copy of this Ordinance and Order to the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, for recordation, with directions to make the appropriate notations upon the plat of the Ramsgate Court Subdivision, recorded in Plat Book 8, at Page 38, as to the vacation of the streets and roadways and the land restrictions; and, to index this Order under the names of both the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and Jerry W. Bush and Janat L. Bush. The Clerk of this Board further is directed to certify a copy of this Ordinance and Order to Paul Mahoney, County Attorney, and a copy to L. Richard Padgett, Jr., Attorney for Petitioners. 2 ~. '-~~ The foregoing Resolution was adopted on the Motion of Supervisor and seconded by Supervisor and on record vote the Supervisors voted as follows, to-wit: AYES: NAYS: Seen: County Attorney... L. RICHARD PADGETT, JR. II 7RNEY AT LAW - 3 - 3~_ .i. VIRGINIA 24153 q ~4 o~f:° RR ~ Y{gi *Pe~~~'.~,~~~tZ~£F~~ ,S~tn6~~^,^•~oMt ,, A `~ri ~w~~<. rF2~M w~'~~ v'R~r ~'. t f . ~v~a I r v~°~ t2>fo A< a ~F <o,<a ;RF.` z -o °c-,eC - AR ~oa 4$gt`~€ d"~$ <<gt~~ia,.',°^R~ o dot ,q ? <; ~~`~`°~~~~s~°x;€ .~a„~,~ q; zoo ~~ e~ =o. yue~r~i ~t <8°$e~~Q'+Q~e~~gk~P ,-pgBaT~ ?Z ~L A ~ ' ~ ^ \ ph ~ M > D n 2 ^' ~ ~ {~~ ° N p^ ` '1 1 A ~ N r ~ ` V ~~1 7 ~V ~~~aLA~ ~~ Za-a2 ~>?syf.uY \.~., TARp~ ~a ~1\~~ V ^~ ~1`' l~ / i~48< ? ;~ ~apaGSyCOU~i~,~gR~~ :Cad aai ~~~~* b ^,~<~ 1'!; 1 ^~^~~ ° d Rig<8~~43~k~~$ -Oa`~~~ t ~~ ~~ ~9•~r ti~ c as ~~ ~~~s sT e ~ YY ~/ N • +. • A ~ M !~ r YQ~y~1! A\~ ~• ~ r'r4• • $i a ~• i gR ~l i 852 ~8 ~~iY~ Li- / r 4-. i 2e~ ~ ~,; YN" < pug ai pp~>, B~Yyx 'd~ii \°y- • 8 w8 8 o~pn~'°°,8~0 ~~8n~..Y•~?0y ~~~~ 'mo'o ~s- < . ~ 2$ ~ A ti ~~~ g~ ~~ \ ~~ A !" \~, J~~i ~'~ J ~• \~ ~ o r ~ {mss a~4 • ~.'. ~i 2 ~ y ~ ° fS1 z 4 ~ n ~ ~b 0~ *„~ ~ ~.. ?•KC vp E ~'•~ ~ ~a r~•~~ 3 `D ~ iii M~< M i~ SiL ti~ S~Ah C ' ~ a ~ ~I` n i O 'b ft `7. !~ ~„ :g 00'~ ~_ Z $ 11 i C[ to ~~ ~~~~•~~•• pew e ~ ~~*~4§~ L~•1~ ~ S ~R "A~. m ,:"'tea u °v A ~ R .oy ~ } ` .~ pp ~ Q •w a ¢ _~ n~ Fp2n~, ~~~rOV L iaty~a \~ h ~°\~ ~~ ~ crooa~a ~ nN, ~` a " '...~` t t Y va8*2~ ~ 1~oc \~~ s~~Lr y o °' s• ~ ' ~~ ~a ~ ~L ~T^ o ;~ O zD~~ a°t s ~ Z,~~. ~h R ~ ~tO, * . Asp C as ~~p a ~ A ~ 2: N N ~ T ~ ~ ~ e ~ P <~ ~ 'O roi 2 ~ ~ ,~ JO/N O ~ -~ 1 ~- 04 l~ tLf. !. NNd ~OdW < 5 ~• r o• - I!~ ~ s Z~ 1Z' ~ "-'^" I ~` r\~ t 0 r 0 Z . ~ TF~~ X ~+ . ~ ,pc~F _ `~. - 0` ,~ : y~,r+°:o°ya ~i' ~~~ ~i~ ~va~g~.g~~~~$aPP;"~~ app Y••~v~~V vvypM vv AMP A^~M!~~+7<R f~.r Y D~A~AYMq Nw.ViN~lwi Y„'M„~ + 88888788~y~3~t:~i8~g~ ~M~.•~~ 1,•wi N J~j, A A~ New 1i11w~ ~ - •~~ ~~~;x,x~,88a8~~a~~; N 22 ut >222222u a ° ~vw « Cry=-iBV~~yMSA ~arsy,••` ~i~~. A!-~:{M~r1wi.Y~Pw WwwpQ ~. .~ ?'=o• I . ~'~ l~tuo. I .. ~ -~_ ~o•- h~ ~ _ `` o. ~ \~ F ~ i .vwsiv, d,` qti% I v ' <~rr% ~ 't s p a. D j r ,ar y i o' m a _ ~~ g C~ ,~ s ..~~~ ~ ~ ,f ,~ ~ ~ 1 ~+~,~~~. MEN, rt I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 ORDINANCE 81187-8 VACATING THE PLAT OF RAMSGATE COURT SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, Jerry W. and Janat L. Bush have petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, to vacate the plat of the Ramsgate Court Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the petitioners are the owners of the property constituting this subdivision, except for three (3) lots therein; and WHEREAS, a public hearing and first reading on this ordinance was held on July 28, 1987, and the second reading on this ordinance was held on August 11, 1987. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as follows: 1. That the plat of the Ramsgate Court Subdivision recorded on March 3, 1973, and found in Plat Book 8, page 38, among the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia is hereby vacated. 2. That the Clerk of the Circuit Court is authorized to take such action as may be necessary to accomplish the purpose and intent of this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and upon the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY - TESTE: Mary H. A len, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 8/13/87 cc: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Arnold Covey, Director of Development Review Real Estate Assessor Rob Stalzer, Director of Planning r L. RICHARD PADGETT, JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW SALEM, VIRGINIA 24153 7~ 7- / ,,..:~ .,- _ , . .,~ ~ ~` ~, IN RE: i. ~ =~ BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE .,,, ~` = ~ - " . . _., ,, `i ... rJ;l. ~ ~ ~ ~, S: VACATION OF ALL OF THE LAND EMBRACED WITHIN STREETS AND ROADWAYS AND THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE RAMSGATE COURT SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN ON PLAT RECORDED ON MARCH 3, 1973, IN PLAT BOOK 8, PAGE 38 * FINAL ORDER WHEREAS, Jerry W. Bush and Janat L. Bush petitioned this Board and requested that a resolution of the County of Roanoke, Virginia be adopted in order to vacate the streets and roadways located in the Ramsgate Court Subdivision and to vacate the restrictions applicable to said subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia did, further, by its Order, direct the Clerk of this Board to set the same down for a public hearing at the July 28, 1987, meeting of this Board; and, WHEREAS, the Clerk of this Board did set the regular meeting of this Board to be held on the 28th day of July 1987, at 7:00 o'clock, p.m., as the date and time for a public hearing on the aforesaid proposed Resolution' and, WHEREAS, said public hearing was this date had on the said proposed Resolution by this Board after due notice was given to all interested parties; and, WHEREAS, this Board after giving careful consideration to said petition and hearing evidence concerning the merits of said proposed r ~1~~_~ Resolution, and finding that the dedication of the streets and roadways of the Ramsgate Court subdivision and the land restrictions shall serve no purpose or benefit either in the present or in the future, and that vacation of the same shall not cause any adverse effect on any citizen of the County of Roanoke, Virginia but may affect adversely the marketability of the realty described in Exhibit "A" of the petition heretofore filed with this Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AND ORDERED that at this regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, held on July 28, 1987, that the streets and roadways formerly dedicated to the County of Roanoke, Virginia, and the land restrictions as shown on the plat of the Ramsgate Court Subdivision recorded on March 3, 1973, in Plat Book 8, page 38, in the Office of the Clerk, Circuit Court, County of Roanoke, Virginia, be, and the same are hereby ABANDONED, VACATED, and DISCONTINUED; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Board shall L. RICHARD PAOGETT, JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW SALEM, VIRGINIA 24153 forthwith certify a copy of this Ordinance and Order to the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, for recordation, with directions to make the appropriate notations upon the plat of the Ramsgate Court Subdivision, recorded in Plat Book 8, at Page 38, as to the vacation of the streets and roadways and the land restrictions; and, to index this Order under the names of both the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and Jerry W. Bush and Janat L. Bush. The Clerk of this Board further is directed to certify a copy of this Ordinance and Order to Paul Mahoney, County Attorney, and a copy to L. Richard Padgett, Jr., Attorney for Petitioners. - 2 - ~87r / The foregoing Resolution was adopted on the Motion of Supervisor Nickens and seconded by Supervisor McGraw and on record vote the Supervisors voted as follows, to-wit: AYES• Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens NAYS : None Seen: Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors County Attorney... CC: Development Review Coordinator Director of Planning Real Estate Assessor Packet L. RICHARD PAOGETT, JR. II - ~ - ATTORNEY AT LAW SALEM, VIRGINIA 24153 ITEM NUMBER ~'~~ ~/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Amendment to Water Ordinance Section 20.1-9, Wells COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ;y~~'~'~ ~l SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At the July 14, 1987, Work Session on Water System Acquisition, the Board members expressed concern that water systems were being constructed which meet the State requirement for water supply, but at the same time, would not supply a sufficient quantity of water when the well production decreased. It was suggested that a method be developed to prevent future water systems that might have marginal water supplies. The attached revision to Section 20.1-9, Wells, of the Water Ordinance, is proposed to require more stringent well pump testing methods for new wells which are constructed as part of a public water supply. A public water supply is defined in the Water Ordinance as one that supplies three or more connections. This portion of the Ordinance does not apply to existing wells which are currently permitted by the State as public water supplies. All new wells will be test pumped using the step drawdown test method as well as the 48-hour pump test currently required by the State Health Department. The step drawdown test is a pumping method which will produce statistical data whereby well performance can be predicted over any period of time. This statistical data is gathered during a 6-8 hour test period and then is extrapolated to determine the safe yield for a period of 30 days continuous pumping. The use of the step drawdown test, in addition to the State required 48-hour continuous test, will more correctly predict the future well production during changing climatic conditions. This revision to the Water Ordinance will increase the cost to the developer by approximately $8,000. These, and other costs associated with wells, are eligible for credit against the off-site facility fee paid by the developer. The first reading on this proposed ordinance was held on July 28, 1987; the second reading is scheduled for August 11, 1987. r FISCAL IMPACT: r." ....,, ~_~ No calculable fiscal impact can be made as the result of the proposed revision. Abetter well supply for future water systems will result in less expenditures to provide additional water when the well production decreases. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the amendment to the Water Ordinance concerning wells. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: / //~X~v' C i or aig, P.E. E mer C. Ho ge Utilities Director County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Motion by: Denied ( ) Brittle Received ( ) Garrett Referred Johnson To McGraw Nickens 2 ' * ~' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF' SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 ORDINANCE NO. AMENDING CHAPTER 22 OF THE 1985 ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, "WATER" ESTABLISHING CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTING AND TESTING OF WELLS FOR PUB- LIC WATER SUPPLIES WHEREAS, the Board finds that the improper construction of wells can adversely affect aquifers as groundwater resources in Roanoke County. Consistent with the duty to protect these groundwater resources and to safeguard the public welfare, safety, and health, it is declared to be the policy of Roanoke County to require that the construction and location of wells conform to reasonable requirements; and WHEREAS, the establishment of these requirements are authorized by Section 15.1-292.2, Section 15.1-299 and Sections 15.1-341, et seq. of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on July 28, 1987, and the second reading on this ordinance was held on August 11, 1987. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as follows: 1. That Chapter 22 of the 1985 Roanoke County Code, "Water" (Chapter 20.1 of the 1971 Roanoke County Code) is hereby amended and reenacted as follows: Section 20.1-9 of the 1971 Roanoke County Code is here- by repealed: We~~s sha~~ meek s~a~e ~egt~~a~~ans e~~s~~aer as e~ Abe ~a~e e~ eess~~t~e~~ea- A~~ we~1s sha~~ be Blass ~ e~ ~~ we11s- 3 • .` ~ ..~ " / ~eea~lea of all wells shall be spews ea s ~laa of the sys~e~n- Eaeh well shall ha~*e atlal~ttx~n eae-fet~~~~t laet~ alp llae set ~e ~l~e e~eg~h of ~~e gsx~g- A lew wa~e~ level een~~el shall be g~e~~dee~: A fe~~p-e~e~h~ hett~ ~tt~etg ~es~ shall be ~ee)ttl~ee~ ea all wells- EB~~- Ale.- 151-} and amended and reenacted: Section 20.1-9. Wells. Wells shall meet state and American Waterworks Associa- tion (AWWA A-100-84) regulations/standards existing as of the date of well construction. In addition to the State regulations, the following shall also be required: Location of all wells shall be shown on a plan of the water system. A minimum of two wells must be constructed and placed in service for all public water supply systems Performance testing of wells shall be in accordance with AWWA A-100-84 Standard for water wells, Section 10. The step-drawdown and constant-rate test shall be used to determine the maximum safe yield for 30 days of continuous use. The 48 hour pump test required by the state shall be performed after the AWWA test. The actual well capacity used to determine the maximum equivalent residential connections shall be the lesser of quantity determined by the AWWA step-drawdown/constant rate test or the 48 hour state requirement test. All well pump tests shall be scheduled with and ob- served by the Utility Director or his designated representative. 2. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon adoption. 4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 ORDINANCE N0. 81187-9 AMENDING CHAPTER 22 OF THE 1985 ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, "WATER" ESTABLISHING CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTING AND TESTING OF WELLS FOR PUB- LIC WATER SUPPLIES WHEREAS, the Board finds that the improper construction of wells can adversely affect aquifers as groundwater resources in Roanoke County. Consistent with the duty to protect these groundwater resources and to safeguard the public welfare, safety, and health, it is declared to be the policy of Roanoke County to require that the construction and location of wells conform to reasonable requirements; and WHEREAS, the establishment of these requirements are authorized by Section 15.1-292.2, Section 15.1-299 and Sections 15.1-341, et seq. of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on July 28, 1987, and the second reading on this ordinance was held on August 11, 1987. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as follows: 1. That Chapter 22 of the 1985 Roanoke County Code, "Water" (Chapter 20.1 of the 1971 Roanoke County Code) is hereby amended and reenacted as follows: Section 20.1-9 of the 1971 Roanoke County Code is here- by repealed: Wells shall meet state ~egr~latlens e~lst}ng as of tY~e date of ee~strt~etle~- All wells shall be elass I er II wells- Leeatlen of all wells shall be shown en a plan of the system: ~aeh well shall have min}mam ewe-€eurth }~eh air ll~e set to the depth of the pump.- A lew water level eentrel shall be prevlded- A €erty-eight hear pamp test shall be re~slred en all wells: {erd- fie- 1512.-} and amended and reenacted: Section 20.1-9. Wells. Wells shall meet state and American Waterworks Associa- tion (AWWA A-100-84) regulations/standards existing as of the date of well construction. In addition to the State regulations, the following shall also be required: Location of all wells shall be shown on a plan of the water system. A minimum of two wells must be constructed and placed in service for all public water supply systems. Performance testing of wells shall be in accordance with AWWA A-100-84 Standard for water wells, Section 10. The step-drawdown and constant-rate test shall be used to determine the maximum safe yield for 30 days of continuous use. The 48 hour pump test required by the state shall be performed after the AWWA test. The actual well capacity used to determine the maximum equivalent residential connections shall be the lesser of quantity determined by the AWWA step-drawdown/constant rate test or the 48 hour state requirement test. All well pump tests shall be scheduled with and ob- served by the Utility Director or his designated representative. 2. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon adoption. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw, 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 8/13/87 cc: File John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator Phillip Henry, Director of Engineering Rob Stalzer, Director of Planning Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Thomas M. Blaylock, Commonwealth's Attorney Magistrate Sheriff's Department Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Ave., Roanoke Main Libary Roanoke County Code Book 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: August 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending and Reenacting the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to Revise the Floodplain Regulations COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On June 9, 1987, the Board of Supervisors held a work ses- sion to consider a drainage study. As part of this study the County staff recommended a series of actions to alleviate some of the drainage problems in Roanoke County. One of these recommenda- tions concerns an optional change in the local floodplain ordin- ance suggested by the drainage study. This amendment enlarges the definition of a "floodplain" to include areas which are not designated as floodplain by the Corps of Engineers. The engineer- ing staff has found that a drainage area of one hundred acres is likely to experience severe flood damage. By amending the definition to designate these areas as a floodplain, the County can restrict development therein. This change will lessen the damaging effects of flooding in flood prone areas not designated as either floodway or flood fringe. Since this recommendation required amending the Zoning Ordin- ance, it was reviewed by the Roanoke County Planning Commission. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on July 7, 1987, and voted to approve this amendment. After the required public notice, a public hearing and first reading of this proposed ordinance was held on July 28, 1987, and the second reading is scheduled for August 11, 1987. The effec- tive date of this ordinance is August 12, 1987, assuming favor- able consideration. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the pro- posed amending ordinance. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ 'm , Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Approved Denied Received Referred To Motion by: ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Brittle Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens r. ~..... ~~ 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, AUGUST 11, 1987 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING THE ROANOKE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TO REVISE THE FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS WHEREAS, the first reading and public hearing on this ordi- nance was held on July 28, 1987, and the second reading on this ordinance was held on August 11, 1987; and WHEREAS, the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Roanoke County require the adoption of standards and regulations to minimize adverse environmental impacts resulting from the dangers of flooding and the drainage of surface and storm waters; and WHEREAS, Section 15.1-292, 15.1-466, 15.1-486, 15.1- 489, and 15.1-490 of the of Virginia, 1950, as amended authorize the county to adopt ordinances and to exercise such general powers to prevent the pollution of water; to make, erect, and construct drains, sewers, and public ducts; to establish reason- able standards for drainage regulations of subdivisions or devel- opments; and to provide safety from flood, flood protection, and to protect against the loss of life, health, or property from flood and other similar dangers; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County and its citizens have suffered and continue to suffer the harmful effects of flooding and inade- quate drainage of surface waters, and from the volume and velo- city of storm water runoff; and ~-7--"~ WHEREAS, these hazards and dangers to public health, safety, and welfare are caused in part by climate, topography and the development of land. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Super- visors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the Roanoke County Code is amended and reenacted as follows: 1. Amend Appendix A, the Roanoke County Zoning Ordin- ance, Section 21-61, "Floodplains," by revising sub-section D, "Floodplain Area," and sub-sub-section (c) to read as follows: Section 21-61 D. Floodplain area. (c) The Approximated Floodplain shall be that flood- plain area for which no detailed flood profiles or elevations are provided, but where a e ese bt~sd~ee~ f~99~ peas ~leed}~~a~s bet~sei- a~~ kes bees apg~e~~x~a~eei the drainage area is greater than one hundred (100) acres. Such areas aye sbewn may be on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map. Where the specific 100-year flood elevation cannot be determined for this area using other sources of data such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Flood- plain Information Reports, U.S. Geological Survey Flood Prone Quadrangles, etc., then the applicant for the proposed use, devel- opment and/or activity shall determine this elevation in accor- dance with hydrologic and hydraulic engineering techniques. Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses shall be undertaken only by 2 ~~ ~ ~.F~ professional engineers or others of demonstrated qualifications, who shall certify that the technical methods used correctly re- flect currently accepted technical concepts. Calculations zor the design flood shall be related to existing land use and poten- tial development tinder existing zoning. Studies, analyses, compu- tations, etc., shall be submitted in sufficient detail to allow a thorough review by the County Engineer. 2. The effective date of this ordinance shall be August 12, 1987. ~. 3 ITEM NUMBER ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETINGT THEHROANOKE COUNTYEADMINISTRATIONNOCENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD A OrJ TUESDAY, IN ROANOKE, VA., MEETING DATE: August 11, 1987 SUB_ J_ Ordinance AmendenandntheeRoanokegCountyoSubdiv'~sion Zoning Ordina Ordinance to Adopt the Virginia Department o Transportation Drainage Manual and Road and Bridge Standards and Specifications COUNTY,/ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On June 9 , 1987 , the Board of S A e part of hthasa tudy sthe Sion to consider a drainage study. County staff recommended a nokeeCo~ntyCtlOne of theselrecommendaf the drainage problems in Roa tions suggested amending the County Code to incorporate the re- quirements contained in thManual and Roadaand Bridge Standards and Transportation Drainage Specifications. Since these recommendations required a~erelrevbiewedtby Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance, they the Roanoke County Plannhis matterlon•July P1a1987q and voted held a public hearing on t to approve this amendment. After the required public notice, a public hearing and first reading of this proposed. ordinance was held on July 28, 1987, and the second reading is scheduled for August 11, 1987. The effective date of this ordinance is August 12, 1987, assuming favorable consideration. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the pro- posed amending ordinance. ~`;? Respectfully submitted, ~~ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney ---- ----------------- ------------- VOTE ACTION No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Motion by: Brittle Denied ( > Garrett Received ( ) Johnson Referred McGraw To Nickens AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING THE ROANOKE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ROANOKE COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ADOPT THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANS- PORTATION DRAINAGE MANUAL AND ROAD AND BRIDGE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS WHEREAS, a first reading and public hearing concerning this amendment was held on July 28, 1987; the second. reading was held on August 11, 1987; and WHEREAS, the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Roanoke County require the adoption of standards and regulations to minimize adverse environmental impacts resulting from the dangers of flooding and the drainage of surface and storm waters; and WHEREAS, Section 15.1-292, 15.1-466, and 15.1-489 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, authorize the county to adopt ordinances and to exercise such general powers to prevent the pollution of water; to make, erect, and construct drains, sewers, and public ducts; to establish reasonable standards for drainage regulations of subdivisions or developments; and to pro- vide safety from flood, flood protection, and to protect against the loss of life, health, or property from flood and other simi- lar dangers; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County and its citizens have suffered. and continue to suffer the harmful effects of flooding and inade- quate drainage of surface waters, and from the volume and velo- city of storm water runoff; and f , WHEREAS, these hazards and dangers to public health, safety, and welfare are caused in part by climate, topography and the development of land. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Super- visors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the Roanoke County Code is amended and reenacted as follows: 1. Amend Appendix A, the Roanoke County Zoning Ordin- ance, Section 21-104, "Site Plan Review," by revising sub-section C, "Site Plan Preparation," to sub-section (u) to read as fol- lows: (u) Pt~b~}e storm drainage system, designed in accordance with the current edition of the Vir inia De artment of Transportation Drainage Manual. 2. Amend Appendix A, the Roanoke County Zoning Ordin- ance, Section 21-104, "Site Plan Review," to add a new sub- section (z) to read as follows: (z) Compliance with the current edition of the Vir- ginia Department of Transportation Road and Brid a Standards and Specifications. 3. Amend Appendix B, the Roanoke County Subdivision Ordinance, Article IV, "Improvements," Section 18, "Plans and specifications generally," by revising sub-section (d) as fol- lows: (1) All storm drainage facilities including on-tract and off-tract drainage and other drainage structures necessary 2 for the proper use and drainage of slopes, streets, highways, and pedestrian ways and for the public safety, shall be designed to convey the flow of surface waters without damage to persons and property. The system shall insure drainage away from buildings and on-site waste disposal sites and septic tank facilities with subsurface disposal fields. The County of Roanoke will require a primarily underground system to accommodate frequent floods and a secondary surface system to accommodate larger less frequent floods. Drainage plans shall be consistent with local regional storm drainage plans or be designed in accordance with the cur- rent edition of the Vir inia De artment of Trans ortation Drain- age Manual. The facilities shall be designed to prevent the dis- charge of excess runoff onto the adjacent properties. (2) Erosion and sediment control measures including planting. (3) Compliance with the current edition of the Vir- ginia Department of Transportation Road and Bridge Standards and Specifications. 4. The effective date of this ordinance shall be August 12, 1987. 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 ORDINANCE 81187-10 AMENDING AND REENACTING THE ROANOKE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ROANOKE COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ADOPT THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DRAINAGE MANUAL AND ROAD AND BRIDGE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS WHEREAS, a first reading and public hearing concerning this amendment was held on July 28, 1987; the second reading was held on August 11, 1987; and WHEREAS, the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Roanoke County require the adoption of standards and regulations to minimize adverse environmental impacts resulting from the dangers of flooding and the drainage of surface and storm waters; and WHEREAS, Section 15.1-292, 15.1-466, and 15.1-489 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, authorize the county to adopt ordinances and to exercise such general powers to prevent the pollution of water; to make, erect, and construct drains, sewers, and public ducts; to establish reasonable standards for drainage regulations of subdivisions or developments; and to pro- vide safety from flood, flood protection, and to protect against the loss of life, health, or property from flood and other simi- lar dangers; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County and its citizens have suffered and continue to suffer the harmful effects of flooding and inade- quate drainage of surface waters, and from the volume and velo- city of storm water runoff; and WHEREAS, these hazards and dangers to public health, safety, and welfare are caused in part by climate, topography and the development of land. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Super- visors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the Roanoke County Code is amended and reenacted as follows: 1. Amend Appendix A, the Roanoke County Zoning Ordin- ance, Section 21-104, "Site Plan Review," by revising sub-section C, "Site Plan Preparation," to sub-section (u) to read as fol- lows: (u) Publ}e storm drainage system, designed in accordance with the current edition of the Virginia Department of Transportation Draina e Manual. 2. Amend Appendix A, the Roanoke County Zoning Ordin- ance, Section 21-104, "Site Plan Review," to add a new sub- section (z) to read as follows: (z) Compliance with the current edition of the Vir- ginia Department of Transportation Road and Brid e Standards and Specifications. 3. Amend Appendix B, the Roanoke County Subdivision Ordinance, Article IV, "Improvements," Section 18, "Plans and specifications generally," by revising sub-section (d) as fol- lows: (1) All storm drainage facilities including on-tract and off-tract drainage and other drainage structures necessary for the proper use and drainage of slopes, streets, highways, and pedestrian ways and for the public safety, shall be designed to convey the flow of surface waters without damage to persons and property. The system shall insure drainage away from buildings and on-site waste disposal sites and septic tank facilities with subsurface disposal fields. The County of Roanoke will require a primarily underground system to accommodate frequent floods and a secondary surface system to accommodate larger less frequent floods. Drainage plans shall be consistent with local regional storm drainage plans or be designed in accordance with the cur- rent edition of the Virginia Department of Transportation Drain- age Manual. The facilities shall be designed to prevent the dis- charge of excess runoff onto the adjacent properties. (2) Erosion and sediment control measures including planting. (3) Compliance with the current edition of the Vir- ginia Department of Transportation Road and Bridge Standards and Specifications. 4. The effective date of this ordinance shall be August 12, 1987. 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: mod' Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 8/13/87 cc: File John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator Phillip Henry, Director of Engineering Rob Stalzer, Director of Planning Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Thomas M. Blaylock, Commonwealth's Attorney Magistrate Sheriff's Department Roanoke Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Ave., Main Libary Roanoke County Code Book 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: August 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Ordinance amending and re-enacting the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, Special Public Interest Regulations, Floodplains, in accordance with the changes mandated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management .Agency (FEMA) has mandated that all local governments participating within the federal flood insurance program make modifications to the floodplain regula- tions contained within the zoning ordinance. These required changes pertain to the following: definitions of "lowest floor, manufactured home, manufactured home park or subdivision, and start of construction"; description of "required information, zone A, service facilities, manufactured homes, area below lowest floor" within all floodplain districts; other minor wording changes such as "manufactured homes" in lieu of mobile homes. Since these recommendations required amending the Zoning Ordinance, they were reviewed by the Roanoke County Planning Com- mission. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on July 7, 1987, and voted to approve this amendment. After the required public notice, a public hearing and first reading of this proposed ordinance was held on July 28, 1987, and the second reading is scheduled for August 11, 1987. The effec- tive date of this ordinance is August 12, 1987, assuming favor- able consideration. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the pro- posed amending ordinance. _,. SUBMITTED BY: ~i ~ ~-~ Rob Sta zer Director of Planning APPROVED: Elmer C. Hod e, Jr. County Administrator ---------- ----------------- --------------- ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Motion by: Brittle Denied ( ) Garrett Received ( ) Johnson Referred McGraw To _ Nickens AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 ORDINANCE 81187-11 AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE 1971 ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, "ZONING," AND APPENDIX A OF THE 1985 ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY ADDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS MANDATED BY THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY TO WIT: DEFINITIONS OF "LOWEST FLOOR," "MANUFACTURED HOME," "MANUFACTURED HOME PARK SUBDIVISION," AND "START OF CONSTRUCTION"; AND REQUIREMENT THAT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OBTAIN INFORMATION REGARDING ELEVATION AND OTHER FLOOD- RELATED FACTORS BEFORE ISSUING A ZONING PERMIT WHEREAS, the first reading and public hearing on this ordi- nance was held on July 28, 1987, and the second reading on this ordinance was held on August 11, 1987; and WHEREAS, the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Roanoke County require the adoption of standards and regulations to minimize adverse environmental impacts resulting from the dangers of flooding and the drainage of surface and storm waters; and WHEREAS, Section 15.1-292, 15.1-466, 15.1-486, 15.1- 489, and 15.1-490 of the of Virginia, 1950, as amended authorize the county to adopt ordinances and to exercise such general powers to prevent the pollution of water; to make, erect, and construct drains, sewers, and public ducts; to establish reason- able standards for drainage regulations of subdivisions or devel- opments; and to provide safety from flood, flood protection, and to protect against the loss of life, health, or property from flood and other similar dangers; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County and its citizens have suffered and continue to suffer the harmful effects of flooding and inade- quate drainage of surface waters, and from the volume and velo- city of storm water runoff; and WHEREAS, these hazards and dangers to public health, safety, and welfare are caused in part by climate, topography and the development of land. WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has mandated that the County follow the procedures contained within these amendments in order to insure continuation of federal flood insurance for certain residents of Roanoke County. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervi- sors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the Roanoke County Code is hereby amended and re-enacted as follows: 1. Amend and re-enact Appendix A of the 1985 Roanoke County Code, Zoning Ordinance, Article V, "Special Public Inter- est Regulations", as follows: ARTICLE V. SPECIAL PUBLIC INTEREST REGULATIONS § 21-61. Floodplains. The purpose of these provisions is to prevent the following hazards: the loss of life and property, the creation of health and safety hazards, the disruption of commerce and governmental services, the extraordinary and unnecessary expenditure of public funds for flood protection and relief, and the impairment of the tax base by the means provided here: (a) Regulating uses, activities, and development which, acting alone or in combination with other existing or future uses, activities, and development, will cause unacceptable increases in flood heights, velocities, and frequencies. 2 (b) Restricting or prohibiting certain uses, activities, and development from locating within areas subject to flood- ing. (c) Requiring all those uses, activities, and developments that do occur in flood-prone areas to be protected and/or flood-proofed against flooding and flood damage. (d) Protecting individuals from buying lands and structures which are unsuited for intended purposes because of flood hazards. A. Applicability. These provisions shall apply to all lands within the jurisdiction of Roanoke County and identified as being flood-prone as stipu- lated in this section. B. Compliance. (a) No land shall hereafter be developed and no structure shall be located, relocated, constructed, reconstructed, enlarged, or structurally altered except in full compli- ance with the terms and provisions of this section and any other applicable ordinances and regulations which apply to uses within the jurisdiction of this section. (b) This ordinance supersedes any regulations currently in effect in flood-prone areas. However, any underlying regu- lations shall remain in full force and effect to the ex- tent that those provisions are more restrictive. C. Definitions. For the purpose of the Floodplain Section of this ordinance these terms are defined as follows: (a) Development - any man-made change to improved or unim- proved real estate including but not limited to buildings or other structures, the placement of mobile homes, streets and other paving, utilities, filling, grading, excavation, mining, dredging, or drilling operations. (b) Flood - a general and temporary inundation of normally dry land areas. (c) Floodplain - (1) a relatively flat or low land area adjoin- ing a river, stream, or watercourse which is subject to 3 partial or complete inundation; (2) an area subject to the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source. (d) Floodway - the designated area of the floodplain required to carry and discharge flood waters of a given magnitude. (e) Lowest floor - the lowest floor includes the lowest en- closed area (including basement) of any structure. An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure usable solely for arking of vehicles, building access, or storage, in an area other than a basement area is not considered a build in 's lowest floor rovided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design requirements of this ordi- nance. (f) Manufactured home - a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the re wired utilities. The term "manu factured home" also includes park trailers, travel trail- ers, and other similar vehicles placed on a site for greater than 180 consecutive days. (g) Manufactured home park or subdivision - a parcel (or Con- ti wows arcels) of land divided into two or more manufac- tured home lots for rent or sale. (h) One Hundred Year Flood - a flood that, on the average, is likely to occur once every 100 years (i.e., that has a one percent chance of occurring each year, although the flood may occur in any year). (i) Start of construction - "start of construction" includes "substantial im rovement" and means the date the building ermit was issued rovided the actual start of construc tion, re air, reconstruction, placement, or other improve- ment was within 180 days of the permit date. The "actual start" means either the first placement of permanent con- struction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construc tion of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excava- tion; or the lacement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land Yre aration, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor_ does it include the installation of streets and/or walk- ways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of tempo rar forms; nor does it include the installation on the 4 property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. D. Floodplain area. The various floodplain areas shall include areas subject to inundation by waters of the one hundred (100) year flood. The primary basis for the delineation of these areas shall be the Flood Insurance Study for Roanoke County prepared by the H:S- Bepa~t~ter~t- ef- Het~9ing- ane7- Hrban- Beye}epmer~t;Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, dated 6eteber-l~;-19~8December 4, 1985 and subsequent amendments. (a) The Floodway is delineated for purposes of this section using the criteria that a certain area within the flood- plain must be capable of carrying the waters of the one hundred (100) year flood without increasing the water surface elevation of that flood more than one (1) foot at any point. These Floodways are specifically defined in Table 2 of the above referenced Flood Insurance Study and shown on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map accompanying that study. (b) The Flood-Fringe shall be that area of the 100-year flood- plain not included in the Floodway. The basis for the outermost boundary of the Flood-Fringe shall be the one hundred (100) year flood elevations contained in the flood profiles of the above referenced Flood Insurance Study and as shown on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map accompany- ing the study. (c) The Approximated Floodplain shall be that floodplain area for which no detailed flood profiles or elevations are provided, but where a one hundred (100) year floodplain boundary has been approximated. Such areas are shown on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map and Flood Insurance Rate Map. Where the specific 100-year flood elevation cannot be determined for this area using other sources of data such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Floodplain Information Reports, U.S. Geological Survey Flood Prone Quadrangles, etc., then the applicant for the proposed use, development and/or activity shall determine this ele- vation in accordance with hydrologic and hydraulic engi- neering techniques. Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses shall be undertaken only by professional engineers or others of demonstrated qualifications, who shall certify that the technical methods used correctly reflect current- ly accepted technical concepts. Calculations for the design flood shall be related to existing land use and 5 potential development under existing zoning. Studies, analyses, computations, etc., shall be submitted in suffi- cient detail to allow a thorough review by the County Engi- neer. E. Overlay concept. (a) The Floodplain Areas described above shall be overlays to the existing underlying Zoning Districts as shown on the Official Zoning Map, and as such, the provisions for the floodplain areas shall serve as a supplement to the under- lying Zoning District provisions. (b) Where there happens to be any conflict between the provi- sions or requirements of any of the Floodplain Areas and those of any underlying Zoning District, the more restric- tive provisions shall apply. (c) In the event any provision concerning a Floodplain Area is declared inapplicable as a result of any legislative or administrative actions or judicial discretion, the basic underlying Zoning District provisions shall remain appli- cable. F. Flood boundary and floodway map. The boundaries of the Floodplain Areas are established as shown on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map and Flood Insurance Rate M~_which are declared to be a part of this chapter and which shall be kept on file in the office of the Zoning Administrator. G. Floodplain boundary changes and interpretation. (a) The delineation of any of the floodplain areas may be revised by the Board of Supervisors where natural or man- made changes have occurred and/or made detailed studies conducted or undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers or other qualified agency, or an individual docu- ments the need for such change. However, prior to any such change, approval must be obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administra- tion. (b) Initial interpretations of the boundaries of the Flood- plain Areas shall be made by the Zoning Administrator. Should a dispute arise concerning the boundaries of any of the floodplain areas, the Board of Zoning Appeals shall make the necessary determination. The person questioning 6 or contesting the location of the floodplain area boundary shall be given an opportunity to present his case to the Board of Zoning Appeals and to submit technical evidence. H. Floodplain area provisions. All uses, activities, and development occurring within any flood- plain area shall be undertaken only upon the issuance of a zoning permit. Such development shall be undertaken only in strict com- pliance with the provisions of this section and with all other applicable codes and ordinances such as the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and the Roanoke County Subdivision Ordi- nance. Prior to the issuance of any such permit, the Zoning Administrator shall require all applications to include compli- ance with all applicable state and federal laws. Under no circumstances shall any use, activity, and/or develop- ment adversely affect the capacity of the channels or floodways of any watercourse, drainage ditch, or any other drainage facil- ity or system. Prior to any proposed alteration or relocation of any channels or floodways of any watercourse, stream, etc., within Roanoke County, approval shall be obtained from the State Water Control Board. Further notification of the proposal shall be given to all affected adjacent jurisdictions. Copies of such notification shall be forwarded to the State Water Control Board, the State Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Federal Emer- gency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration. (a) All Floodplain Districts (1) Required Information For all permits the elevation lowest f loor tially improved the Zoning Administrator shall ;in relation to mean sea leve ncluding basement) of all new structures, and whether or not tures contain a basement, (ii) obtain, if the has been floodproofed, the elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which the structure was floodproofed, and (iii) maintain a record of all such information. Where a non-residential structure is intended to be made water- tight below the base flood level, (i) a registered profes- sional engineer or architect shall develop and/or review structural design, specifications, and plans for the con- struction, and shall certify that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting the applicable provisions of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, and (ii) a SLL UG I,UL C (i) obtain 1) of the or substan- such struc- 7 record of such certificates which includes the specific elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which such structures are flood-proofed shall be maintained by the Zoning Administrator. (2) Zone A The Zonin Administrator shall obtain review and reason- ably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a Federal State or other source as cri- teria for requiring that new construction ~ substantial improvements, or other development in Zone A meets all standards noted in the Floodplain section of this ordi- nance. (3) Service Facilities Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air- conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during con ditions of flooding. (4) Manufactured Homes All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved within any floodplain district shall be elevated on a ermanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is at or above the base flood eleva- tion and shall be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system in accordance with the provi- sions of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. This provision shall apply to existing manufactured home parks, subdivisions and lots where an existing manufac- tured home is replaced, any expansion to an existing ark or subdivision and to new arks subdivisions and instal- lations constructed after the effective date of this or i- nance. (5) Area Below Lowest Floor For all new construction and substantial improvements, fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect or must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: a minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject 8 (b) (1) (2) to flooding shall be provided The bottom of all openings may be no higher than one foot above grade. Openings m~_ be egui ed with screens, louvers, or other coverings or devices rovided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. Floodway In the Floodway no development shall be permitted except where the effect of such development on flood heights is fully offset by accompanying improvements which have been approved by all appropriate authorities as required above. The placement of any meb~lemanufactured home, except in an existing meb}lemanufactured home park or subdivi- sion, within the Floodway is specifically prohibited. Permitted Uses In the Floodway the following uses and activities are permitted provided that they are in compliance with the provisions of the underlying Zoning District and are not prohibited by any other ordinance and provided that they do not require structures, fill, or storage of materials and equipment: (i) Agricultural uses such as general farming, pasture, grazing, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, truck farming, forestry, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting. (ii) Public and private recreational uses and activities such as parks, day camps, picnic grounds, golf courses, boat launching and swimming areas, hiking, and horseback riding trails, wildlife and nature preserves, game farms, fish hatcheries, trap and skeet game ranges, and hunting and fishing areas. (iii) Accessory residential uses such as yard areas, gardens, play areas, and loading areas. (iv) Accessory industrial and commercial uses such as yard areas, parking and loading areas, airport land- ing strips, etc. Uses Permitted by Special Exception The following uses and activities may be permitted by Special Exception of the governing body following a public 9 hearing provided that they are in compliance with the provisions of the underlying Zoning District and are not prohibited by this or any other ordinance: (i) Structures (except for r~el~~lemanufactured homes) accessory to the uses and activities in (1) above. (ii) Certain utilities and public facilities and improve- ments such as pipe lines, water and sewage treatment plants, and other similar or related uses. (iii) Water-related uses and activities such as marinas, docks, wharves, piers, etc. (iv) Extraction of sand, gravel, and other materials (where no increase in level of flooding or velocity is caused thereby). (v) Storage of materials and equipment provided that they are not flammable or explosive, and are not subject to major damage by flooding, or provided that such material and equipment is firmly anchored to prevent flotation or movement, and/or can be read- ily removed from the area within the time available after flood warning . (vi) Other similar uses and activities provided they cause no increase in flood heights and/or velocities. All uses, activities, and structural development, shall be undertaken in strict compliance with the flood-proofing provisions contained in all appli- cable codes and ordinances. (c) Flood-Fringe and Approximated Floodplain In the Flood-Fringe and Approximated Floodplain the devel- opment and/or use of land shall be permitted in accordance with the regulations of the underlying Zoning District provided that all such uses, activities, and/or develop- ment shall be undertaken in strict compliance with the floodproofing and related provisions contained in the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and all other applicable codes and ordinances. However, in Approximated Floodplain areas the applicant and/or developer shall evaluate the effects of the pro- posed development and/or use of land on the floodplain with current hydrologic and hydraulic engineering tech- niques. The applicant and/or developer shall submit studies, analysis, computations, etc. to show the delinea- tion of a floodway based on the requirement that all exist- ing and future development not increase the 100- year 10 flood elevation more than one (1) foot at any point. The engineering principle, equal reduction of conveyance, shall be used to make the determination of increased flood height. I. Procedures for Special Exception in Floodways. (a) Any use listed as permitted with a Special Exception in a floodway shall be allowed only after application to the County Board of Supervisors. Such application shall include the following: (1) Plans in triplicate 100' horizontally s~ contours (at 5 foot proposed structures, sanitary facilities, the proposal. drawn to scale not less than 1" to lowing the location, dimensions, and intervals) of the lot, existing and fill, storage areas, water supply, and relationship of the floodway to (2) A typical valley cross-section as necessary to adequately show the channel of the stream, elevation of land areas adjoining each side of the channel, cross-sectional areas to be occupied by the proposed development, and 100-year flood elevation. (3) A profile showing the slope of the bottom of the channel or flow line of the stream. (4) A summary report, prepared by professional engineers or others of demonstrated qualifications, evaluating the pro- posed project in relation to flood heights and velocities; the seriousness of flood damage to the use; and other per- tinent technical matters. (5) A list of names and addresses of adjoining property owners. (b) The Board shall refer the complete application including technical evaluation to the Planning Commission. The Plan- ning Commission shall conduct such investigations as it deems necessary and shall conduct a public hearing under Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. (c) In acting upon such applications, the Planning Commission and the County Board of Supervisors shall consider all relevant factors specified in other sections of this chapter and: 11 (1) The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments. No special exception shall be granted for any proposed use, develop- ment, or activity within the Floodway that will cause any increase in flood levels during the one hundred (100) year flood . (2 ) The danger that materials may be swept on to other lands or downstream to the injury of others. (3) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamina- tion, and unsanitary conditions. (4) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its con- tents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owners. (5) The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the County. (6) The requirements of the facility for a waterfront loca- tion. (7) The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use. (8) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing devel- opment and development anticipated in the foreseeable future. (9) The relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan and floodplain management program for the County. (10) The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles. (11) Such other factors which are relevant to the purpose of this section. (d) The Board shall conduct a public hearing after receipt of a recommendation from the Planning Commission and render a decision. J. Variances. Variances may be granted for the reconstruction, rehabilitation, or restoration of structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a State Inventory of Historic Places without regard to the procedures set forth in this section. 12 Variances may not be considered within any Floodway if any in- crease in flood levels during the 100-year flood would result. Variances may be considered for new construction and substantial improvements to be erected on a lot contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the 100-year flood level using the guidelines set forth in Part I (c) of this section above. The Board of Zoning Appeals may refer any application and accompa- nying documentation pertaining to any request for a variance to any engineer or other qualified person or agency for technical assistance in evaluating the proposed project in relation to flood heights and velocities, and the adequacy of the plans for protection and other related matters. Variances shall only be issued after the Board of Zoning Appeals has determined that the granting of such will not result in (a) unacceptable or prohibited increases in flood heights, (b) addi- tional threats to public safety, (c) extraordinary public expense, (d) creation of nuisances (e) fraud or victimization of the public, or (f) conflict with local laws or ordinances. Variances shall only be issued after the Board of Zoning Appeals has determined that the variance will be the minimum relief to any hardship. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall notify the applicant for a vari- ance, in writing, that the issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the one hundred (100) year flood elevation (a) increases the risks to life and property, and (b) will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance. A record of the above notification as well as all variance actions, including justification for their issuance, shall be maintained and any variances which are issued shall be noted in the annual report submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration. K. Existing structures in floodplain areas. A structure or use of a structure or premises which lawfully existed before the enactment of these provisions, but which is not in conformity with these provisions may be continued subject to the following conditions: (1) Existing structures and/or uses located in the floodway shall not be expanded or enlarged (unless the effect of the proposed expansion or enlargement on flood heights is fully offset by accompanying improvements). 13 (2) Any modification, alteration, repair, reconstruction, or improvement of any kind to a structure and/or use located in any floodplain to an extent or amount of less than fifty (50) percent of its market value, shall be evaluated and/or floodproofed in accordance with the Virginia Uni- form Statewide Building Code. (3) The modification, alteration, repair, reconstruction, or improvement of any kind to a structure and/or use regard- less of its location in a floodplain district to an extent or amount of fifty (50) percent or more of its market value shall be undertaken only in full compliance with the provisions of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. L. Liability. The degree of flood protection sought by the provisions of this section is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on acceptable engineering methods of study. Larger floods may occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by man-made or natural causes, such as ice jams and bridge openings restricted by debris. This section does not imply that areas outside floodplain areas, or that land uses permitted within such areas, will be free from flooding or flood damages. This ordinance shall not create liability on the part of Roanoke County or any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder. 2. The effective date of this ordinance shall be August 12, 1987. On motion of Supervisor McGraw, 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 8/13/87 cc: File John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator Phillip Henry, Director of Engineering 14 Rob Stalzer, Director of Planning Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Thomas M. Blaylock, Commonwealth's Attorney Magistrate Sheriff's Department Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Ave., Roanoke Main Libary Roanoke County Code Book 15 ~~ '-~`° ~ ,/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE 1971 ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, "ZONING," AND APPENDIX A OF THE 1985 ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY ADDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS MAN- DATED BY THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY TO WIT: DEFINITIONS OF "LOWEST FLOOR," "MANUFACTURED HOME," "MANUFAC- TURED HOME PARK SUBDIVISION," AND "START OF CONSTRUCTION"; AND REQUIREMENT THAT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OBTAIN INFORMA- TION REGARDING ELEVATION AND OTHER FLOOD- RELATED FACTORS BEFORE ISSUING A ZONING PERMIT WHEREAS, the first reading and public hearing on this ordi- nance was held on July 28, 1987, and the second reading on this ordinance was held on August 11, 1987; and WHEREAS, the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Roanoke County require the adoption of standards and regulations to minimize adverse environmental impacts resulting from the dangers of flooding and the drainage of surface and storm waters; and WHEREAS, Section 15.1-292, 15.1-466, 15.1-486, 15.1- 489, and 15.1-490 of the of Virginia, 1950, as amended authorize the county to adopt ordinances and to exercise such general powers to prevent the pollution of water; to make, erect, and construct drains, sewers, and public ducts; to establish reason- able standards for drainage regulations of subdivisions or devel- opments; and to provide safety from flood, flood protection, and to protect against the loss of life, health, or property from flood and other similar dangers; and ~~_ ~' WHEREAS, Roanoke County and its citizens have suffered and continue to suffer the harmful effects of flooding and inade- quate drainage of surface waters, and from the volume and velo- city of storm water runoff; and WHEREAS, these hazards and dangers to public health, safety, and welfare are caused in part by climate, topography and the development of land. WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has mandated that the County follow the procedures contained within these amendments in order to insure continuation of federal flood insurance for certain residents of Roanoke County. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervi- sors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the Roanoke County Code is hereby amended and re-enacted as follows: 1. Amend and re-enact Appendix A of the 1985 Roanoke County Code, Zoning Ordinance, Article V, "Special Public Inter- est Regulations", as follows: ARTICLE V. SPECIAL PUBLIC INTEREST REGULATIONS § 21-61. Floodplains. The purpose of these provisions is to prevent the following hazards: the loss of life and property, the creation of health and safety hazards, the disruption of commerce and governmental services, the extraordinary and unnecessary expenditure of public funds for flood protection and relief, and the impairment of the tax base by the means provided here: (a) Regulating uses, activities, and development which, acting alone or in combination with other existing or future uses, activities, and development, will cause unacceptable increases in flood heights, velocities, and frequencies. 2 ~~ (b) Restricting or prohibiting certain uses, activities, and development from locating within areas subject to flood- ing. (c) Requiring all those uses, activities, and developments that do occur in flood-prone areas to be protected and/or flood-proofed against flooding and flood damage. (d) Protecting individuals from buying lands and structures which are unsuited for intended purposes because of flood hazards. A. Applicability. These provisions shall apply to all lands within the jurisdiction of Roanoke County and identified as being flood-prone as stipu- lated in this section. B. Compliance. (a) No land shall hereafter be developed and no structure shall be located, relocated, constructed, reconstructed, enlarged, or structurally altered except in full compli- ance with the terms and provisions of this section and any other applicable ordinances and regulations which apply to uses within the jurisdiction of this section. (b) This ordinance supersedes any regulations currently in effect in flood-prone areas. However, any underlying regu- lations shall remain in full force and effect to the ex- tent that those provisions are more restrictive. C. Definitions. For the purpose of the Floodplain Section of this ordinance, these terms are defined as follows: (a) Development - any man-made change to improved or unim- proved real estate including but not limited to buildings or other structures, the placement of mobile homes, streets and other paving, utilities, filling, grading, excavation, mining, dredging, or drilling operations. (b) Flood - a general and temporary inundation of normally dry land areas. (c) Floodplain - (1) a relatively flat or low land area adjoin- ing a river, stream, or watercourse which is subject to 3 ~~ r partial or complete inundation; (2) an area subject to the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source. (d) Floodway - the designated area of the floodplain required to carry and discharge flood waters of a given magnitude. (e) Lowest floor - the lowest floor includes the lowest en- closed area (including basement) of any structure. An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage, in an_ area other than a basement area, is not considered a build ing's lowest floor, provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design requirements of this ordi- nance. (f) Manufactured home - a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities. The term "manu- factured home" also includes park trailers, travel trail- ers, and other similar vehicles placed on a site_tor greater than 180 consecutive days. (g) Manufactured home park or subdivision - a parcel (or con- tiguous parcels) of land divided into two or_more manufac- tured home lots for rent or sale. (h) One Hundred Year Flood - a flood that, on the average, is likely to occur once every 100 years (i.e., that has a one percent chance of occurring each year, although the flood may occur in any year). (i) Start of construction - "start of construction" includes "substantial improvement" and means the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construc- tion, repair, reconstruction, placement, or other improve- ment was within 180 days of the permit date. The "actual start" means either the first placement of permanent con- struction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construc- tion of columns, or any work beyond. the stage of excava- tion; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walk- ways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of tempo rary forms; nor does it include the installation on the 4 ~~^ _ • ft property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. D. Floodplain area. The various floodplain areas shall include areas subject to inundation by waters of the one hundred (100) year flood. The primary basis for the delineation of these areas shall be the Flood Insurance Study for Roanoke County prepared by the H:6- Bepe~~tnea~ of netts}ae} a~e~ 8~ban Berme}ep~ea~;Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, dated Ae~ebe~ l~; }9~$December 4, 1985 and subsequent amendments. (a) The Floodway is delineated for purposes of this section using the criteria that a certain area within the flood- plain must be capable of carrying the waters of the one hundred (100) year flood without increasing the water surface elevation of that flood more than one (1) foot at any point. These Floodways are specifically defined in Table 2 of the above referenced Flood Insurance Study and shown on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map accompanying that study. (b) The Flood-Fringe shall be that area of the 100-year flood- plain not included in the Floodway. The basis for the outermost boundary of the Flood-Fringe shall be the one hundred (100) year flood elevations contained in the flood profiles of the above referenced Flood Insurance Study and as shown on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map accompany- ing the study. (c) The Approximated Floodplain shall be that floodplain area for which no detailed flood profiles or elevations are provided, but where a one hundred (100) year floodplain boundary has been approximated. Such areas are shown on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map and Flood Insurance Rate Map. Where the specific 100-year flood elevation cannot be determined for this area using other sources of data such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Floodplain Information Reports, U.S. Geological Survey Flood Prone Quadrangles, etc., then the applicant for the proposed use, development and/or activity shall determine this ele- vation in accordance with hydrologic and hydraulic engi- neerinct techniques. Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses shall be undertaken only by professional engineers or others of demonstrated qualifications, who shall certify that the technical methods used correctly reflect current- ly accepted technical concepts. Calculations for the design flood shall be related to existing land use and 5 ~. ~ ~,A _,._.» , Y potential development under existing zoning. Studies, analyses, computations, etc., shall be submitted in suffi- cient detail to allow a thorough review by the County Engi- neer. E. Overlay concept. (a) The Floodplain Areas described above shall be overlays to the existing underlying Zoning Districts as shown on the Official Zoning Map, and as such, the provisions for the floodplain areas shall serve as a supplement to the under- lying Zoning District provisions. (b) Where there happens to be any conflict between the provi- sions or requirements of any of the Floodplain Areas and those of any underlying Zoning District, the more restric- tive provisions shall apply. (c) In the event any provision concerning a Floodplain Area is declared inapplicable as a result of any legislative or administrative actions or judicial discretion, the basic underlying Zoning District provisions shall remain appli- cable. F. Flood boundary and floodway map. The boundaries of the Floodplain Areas are established as shown on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map and Flood Insurance Rate M~which are declared to be a part of this chapter and which shall be kept on file in the office of the Zoning Administrator. G. Floodplain boundary changes and interpretation. (a) The delineation of any of the floodplain areas may be revised by the Board of Supervisors where natural or man- made changes have occurred and/or made detailed studies conducted or undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers or other qualified agency, or an individual docu- ments the need for such change. However, prior to any such change, approval must be obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administra- tion. (b) Initial interpretations of the boundaries of the Flood- plain Areas shall be made by the Zoning Administrator. Should a dispute arise concerning the boundaries of any of the floodplain areas, the Board of Zoning Appeals shall make the necessary determination. The person questioning 6 _ 1..~ __ or contesting the location of the floodplain area boundary shall be given an opportunity to present his case to the Board of Zoning Appeals and to submit technical evidence. H. Floodplain area provisions. All uses, activities, and development occurring within any flood- plain area shall be undertaken only upon the issuance of a zoning permit. Such development shall be undertaken only in strict com- pliance with the provisions of this section and with all other applicable codes and ordinances such as the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and the Roanoke County Subdivision Ordi- nance. Prior to the issuance of any such permit, the Zoning Administrator shall require all applications to include compli- ance with all applicable state and federal laws. Under no circumstances shall any use, activity, and./or develop- ment adverGely affect the capacity of the channels or floodways of any watercourse, drainage ditch, or any other drainage facil- ity or system. Prior to any proposed alteration or relocation of any channels or floodways of any watercourse, stream, etc., within Roanoke County, approval shall be obtained from the State Water Control Board. Further notification of the proposal shall be given to all affected adjacent jurisdictions. Copies of such notification shall be forwarded to the State Water Control Board, the State Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Federal Emer- gency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration. (a) All Floodplain Districts (1) Required Information For all permits the Zoning Administrator shall (i) obtain the elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new or substan- tiall im roved structures, and whether or not such struc- tures contain a basement, (ii) obtain, if the structure has been flood roofed, the elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which the structure was floodproofed, and (iii) maintain a record of all such information. Where a non-residential structure is intended to be made water- tight below the base flood level, (i) a registered profes- sional engineer or architect shall develop and/or review structural design, specifications, and plans for the con struction, and shall certify that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting the applicable provisions of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, and (ii) a 7 ~~ _ ~A record of such certificates which includes the specific elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which such structures are flood-proofed shall be maintained by the Zoning Administrator. (2) Zone A. (3) The Zonin Administrator shall obtain, review and reason- ably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a Federal, State, or other source, as cri teria for re uirin that new construction, substantial improvements, or other development in Zone A meets all standards noted in the Floodplain section of this ordi nance. Service Facilities Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and_air- conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during con ~ditions of flooding. (4) Manufactured Homes manufactured on a ermanent zounaaLi~n 5u~:ii ~,,a~ ~.__~ ~~ ~~~ ------ -- the manufactured home is at or above the base flood eleva- tion and shall be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system in accordance with the provi- sionG of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. This provision shall apply to existing manufactured home parks, subdivisions and lots where an existing manufac tured home is replaced, any expansion to an existing park or subdivision, and to new parks, subdivisions and instal ~nt;nnc rnnStrneted after the effective date of this ord.i- nance. (5) Area Below Lowest Floor For all new construction and substantial improvements, full enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect or must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: a minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject 8 (b) (1) (2) to floodin may be no be equipp~ devices pr exit of fl Floodway shall be provided The bottom of all ope aher than one foot above grade. Opening with screens ded that they .waters. ouvers, or other coverer rmit the automatic entr ;nin s s ma ids _o r v and In the Floodway no development shall be permitted except where the effect of such development on flood heights is fully offset by accompanying improvements which have been approved by all appropriate authorities as required above. The placement of any ~teb~}emanufactured home, except in an existing ~teb~}emanufactured home park or subdivi- sion, within the Floodway is specifically prohibited. Permitted Uses In the Floodway the following uses and activities are permitted provided that they are in compliance with the provisions of the underlying Zoning District and are not prohibited by any other ordinance and. provided that they do not require structures, fill, or storage of materials and equipment: (i) Agricultural uses such as general farminq, pasture, grazing, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, truck farming, forestry, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting. (ii) Public and private recreationacnics rounds,vgolf such as parks, day camps, p 9 courses, boat launching and swimming areas, hiking, and horseback riding trails, wildlife and nature preserves, game farms, fish hatcheries, trap and skeet game ranges, and hunting and. fishing areas. (iii) Accessory residential uses such as yard areas, gardens, play areas, and loading areas. (iv) Accessory industrial and commercial uses such as yard areas, parking and loading areas, airport land- ing strips, etc. Uses Permitted by Special Exception The following uses and activities may be permitted by Special Exception of the governing body following a public 9 _~ ~.. r~, hearing provided that they are in compliance with the provisions of the underlying Zoning District and are not prohibited by this or any other ordinance: (i) Structures (except for ~teb~}emanufactured homes) accessory to the uses and activities in (1) above. (ii) Certain utilities and public facilities and improve- ments such as pipe lines, water and sewage treatment plants, and other similar or related uses. (iii) Water-related uses and activities such as marinas, docks, wharves, piers, etc. (iv) Extraction of sand, gravel, and other materials (where no increase in level of flooding or velocity is caused thereby). (v) Storage of materials and equipment provided that they are not flammable or explosive, and are not subject to major damage by flooding, or provided that such material and equipment is firmly anchored to prevent flotation or movement, and/or can be read- ily removed from the area within the time available after flood warning. (vi) Other similar uses and activities provided they cause no increase in flood heights and/or velocities. All uses, activities, and structural development, shall be undertaken in strict compliance with the flood-proofing provisions contained in all appli- cable codes and ordinances. (c) Flood-Fringe and Approximated Floodplain In the Flood-Fringe and Approximated Floodplain the devel- opment and/or use of land shall be permitted in accordance with the regulations of the underlying Zoning District provided that all such uses, activities, and/or develop- ment shall be undertaken in strict compliance with the floodproofing and related provisions contained in the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and all other applicable codes and ordinances. However, in Approximated Floodplain areas the applicant and/or developer shall evaluate the effects of the pro- posed development and/or use of land on the floodplain with current hydrologic and hydraulic engineering tech- niques. The applicant and/or developer shall submit studies, analysis, computations, etc. to show the delinea- tion of a floodway based on the requirement that all exist- ing and future development not increase the 100- year 10 ,~-_ ~;~ flood elevation more than one (1) foot at any point. The engineering principle, equal reduction of conveyance, shall be used to make the determination of increased flood height. I. Procedures for Special Exception in Floodways. (a) Any use listed as permitted with a Special Exception in a floodway shall be allowed only after application to the County Board of Supervisors. Such application shall include the following: (1) Plans in triplicate drawn to scale not less than 1" to 100' horizontally showing the location, dimensions, and contours (at 5 foot intervals) of the lot, existing and proposed structures, fill, storage areas, water supply, sanitary facilities, and relationship of the floodway to the proposal. (2) A typical valley cross-section as necessary to adequately show the channel of the stream, elevation of land areas adjoining each side of the channel, cross-sectional areas to be occupied by the proposed development, and 100-year flood elevation. (3) A profile showing the slope of the bottom of the channel or flow line of the stream. (4) A summary report, prepared by professional engineers or others of demonstrated qualifications, evaluating the pro- posed project in relation to flood heights and velocities; the seriousness of flood damage to the use; and other per- tinent technical matters. (5) A list of names and addresses of adjoining property owners. (b) The Board shall refer the complete application including technical evaluation to the Planning Commission. The Plan- ning Commission shall conduct such investigations as it deems necessary and shall conduct a public hearing under Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. (c) In acting upon such applications, the Planning Commission and the County Board of Supervisors shall consider all relevant factors specified in other sections of this chapter and: 11 -..~ "" (1) The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments. No special exception shall be granted for any proposed use, develop- ment, or activity within the Floodway that will cause any increase in flood levels during the one hundred (100) year flood . (2) The danger that materials may be swept on to other lands or downstream to the injury of others. (3) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamina- tion, and unsanitary conditions. (4) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its con- tents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owners. (5) The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the County. (6) The requirements of the facility for a waterfront loca- tion. (7) The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use. (8) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing devel- opment and development anticipated in the foreseeable future. (9) The relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan and floodplain management program for the County. (10) The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles. (11) Such other factors which are relevant to the purpose of this section. (d) The Board shall conduct a public hearing after receipt of a recommendation from the Planning Commission and render a decision. J. Variances. Variances may be granted for the reconstruction, rehabilitation, or restoration of structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a State Inventory of Historic Places without regard to the procedures set forth in this section. 12 z~ - Variances may not be considered within any Floodway if any in- crease in flood levels during the 100-year flood would result. Variances may be considered for new construction and substantial improvements to be erected on a lot contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the 100-year flood level using the guidelines set forth in Part I (c) of this section above. The Board of Zoning Appeals may refer any application and accompa- nying documentation pertaining to any request for a variance to any engineer or other qualified person or agency for technical assistance in evaluating the proposed project in relation to flood heights and velocities, and the adequacy of the plans for protection and other related matters. Variances shall only be issued after the Board of Zoning Appeals has determined that the granting of such will not result in (a) unacceptable or prohibited increases in flood heights, (b) addi- tional threats to public safety, (c) extraordinary public expense, (d) creation of nuisances (e) fraud or victimization of the public, or (f) conflict with local laws or ordinances. Variances shall only be issued after the Board of Zoning Appeals has determined that the variance will be the minimum relief to any hardship. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall notify the applicant for a vari- ance, in writing, that the issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the one hundred (100) year flood elevation (a) increases the risks to life and property, and (b) will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance. A record of the above notification as well as all variance actions, including justification for their issuance, shall be maintained and any variances which are issued shall be noted in the annual report submitted to the Federal Emergency Management A enc , Federal Insurance Administration. R. Existing structures in floodplain areas. A structure or use of a structure or premises which lawfully existed before the enactment of these provisions, but which is not in conformity with these provisions may be continued subject to the following conditions: (1) Existing structures and/or uses located in the floodway shall not be expanded or enlarged (unless the effect of the proposed expansion or enlargement on flood heights is fully offset by accompanying improvements). 13 (2) Any modification, alteration, repair, reconstruction, or improvement of any kind to a structure and/or use located in any floodplain to an extent or amount of less than fifty (50) percent of its market value, shall be evaluated and/or floodproofed in accordance with the Virginia Uni- form Statewide Building Code. (3) The modification, alteration, repair, reconstruction, or improvement of any kind to a structure and/or use regard- less of its location in a floodplain district to an extent or amount of fifty (50) percent or more of its market value shall be undertaken only in full compliance with the provisions of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. L. Liability. The degree of flood protection sought by the provisions of this section is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on acceptable engineering methods of study. Larger floods may occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by man-made or natural causes, such as ice jams and bridge openings restricted by debris. This section does not imply that areas outside floodplain areas, or that land uses permitted within such areas, will be free from flooding or flood damages. This ordinance shall not create liability on the part of Roanoke County or any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder. 2. The effective date of this ordinance shall be August 12, 1987. 14 ITEM NUMBER ~%""~,_ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1 Community Corrections Resources Board The one-year term of Joseph Cronin expires August 13, 1987. Mr. Cronin is relocating in Lynchburg Virginia and will be unable to serve another term. 2 Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board Unexpired two-year term of Mr. Joseph D. Cronin. Mr. Cronin's term will expire on March 22, 1989. See attached letter of resignation. 3. Grievance Panel Two-year term of Mr. Richard Robers. Mr. Robers' term expires September 27, 1987. Three-year term of Charles L. Jennings, alternate member. Mr. Jennings' term expires September 10, 1987. 4 Virginia Western Community College Board Four-year term of Sylvia Faw. Her term expired June 30, 1987. Mrs. Faw has served two terms and is not eligible for another appointment. Please see the attached for further information on these committees . _. 1 f Submitted By: Approved by: Mary n Elmer C. Hodge Deputy Clerk County Administrator ------------------ ------------------------ ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Brittle Received ( ) Garrett Referred Johnson McGraw To Nickens 9' 11.I `~ F~l ty~! Wiley & Wilson Architects Engineers Planners -.,. r 2310 Langhorne Road P.O. Box 877 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505-0877 (804) 528-1901 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: ...'"'_J r , s? o...~'~ ! ~~'"" -t'--- 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. ,1 Very',!truly, ,;: j ~/ ~ .`Yosepl~' D. Cronin, ~~-~' r ,Senior Vice Presi,~ent ~, JDC-lg cc: Mike Lazzuri, Director of Court Services Kathryn Van Patten, Court Community Corrections Program Robert Johnson, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors 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. COURT SERVICES UNIT ADVISORY COUNCIL/YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD A. COMPOSITION Board to consist of two members from each magisterial district, and one youth member from each high school. Governing bodies of each county and city served by a court service unit may appoint one or more members to a citizen advisory council. B. DUTIES• Advises and cooperates with the court upon all matters affecting the working of this law and other laws relating to children, their care and protection and to domestic relations; Consults and confer with the court and director of the court service unit relative to the development and extension of the court service program; Encourage the members selected by the council to serve on .the central advisory council to visit as often as the member conveniently can, institutions and associations receiving children under this law and to report to the court the conditions and surroundings of the children received by or in charge of any such persons, institutions or associations. f The Council should make themselves familiar with the work of the court. Makes an annual report to the court and the participating governing bodies on the work of the council. As the Youth and Family Services Advisory Board: Establish goals and priorities for County-wide youth services; assist in coordination and planning for comprehensive youth services within the private sector. Serve in an advisory capacity and to otherwise assist the Board of Supervisors to establish goals and objectives in compliance with all "minimum Standards of the Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development Act of 1979". Assist in conducting an assessment of the needs of youth every five years and to assist in developing an annual Delinquency Prevention Plan, further to participate in evaluating the implementation of the plan and making a report thereon to the Board of Supervisors. Provide a public forum where concerns about youth may be expressed and to receive recommendations and raise concerns of public and private organizations at any regular advisory board meeting upon proper notice. Advocates necessary legislative amendments to improve community conditions for youth development and to support the development of needed services both public and private for youth in the community. C. MEETING SCHEDULE: One a quarter, the third Tuesday, beginning January; time and place determined at meetings. ~ _ := GRIEVANCE PANEL A. COMPOSITION To consist of three (3) members, appointed by the Board of Supervisors; for terms of two years. B. DUTIES The panel shall adopt such rules and procedures as it deems necessary and desirable. The panel has the responsibility to rule on the interpretation, application, and meaning of the .County's personnel policies, rules and regulations. The panel shall select for each hearing a panel chairman, set a time for the hearing which shall be held as soon as practical, but no later than fifteen (15) full working days after the grievant appeal,. C. MEETING SCHEDULE The County Administrator shall arrange a hearing with the panel members to hear the grievance. V - / ~~~ ~~ VIRGINIA WESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD A. COMPOSITION: To be as follows: minimum of nine (9) persons, not to exceed fifteen (15) includes at least one (1) person from each political subdivisi~~n sponsoring the college. County appointees to consist of three (3) persons. B• DUTIES- l. Shall perform such duties with respect to the operation of a community college. 2. Serve as channels of communication between the State Board for Community College and governing bodies of the local political subdivisions., 3. Shall participate with the Chancellor of the Community College System and the State Board of Community Colleges in the selection, evaluation and removal of the president of the community college. 4. Responsible for eliciting community participation in ,~- program planning and development establishing local citizens advisory committees for specialized programs and curricula and approving the appointments of all members of these committees. 5. Shall review all new curricular proposals for the community college. 6. Shall oversee the development and evaluations of the community service program for the community college. 7. Shall review and make recommendations concerning the biennial budget Program Proposal for the community college as prepared by the college president. 8. Shall review and approve a detailed local funds budget for the community college as prepared by the college president. 9. Responsible for the review and approval of a budget prepared by the college president for the expenditure of revenues from vending commissions and auxiliary enterprises, including the student activity fund. 10. Responsible for reviewing reports of audit and for reviewing the college president's response to those '.,~~b~ reports of audit. OF ~CANC~F .' ~. ~ ~, _ ti •~ % Z ~ Z1 ~..,' ,. ~ ~ a2 C~~~rt~ rt ~ rt ~ rt 18 ,so 1 ~ i-~ ~ ~l-~ ~~l-~ ~.a 88 ,:J ~~ S~SQU/CENTENN~P~ A Beauti~u/Bcginning M E M O R A N D U M TO: .{ County Board Members - Bob Johnson - Alan Brittle .~ Lee Garrett County Administrator Harry Nickens County Attorne - Elmer Hodge Y - Paul Mahoney FROM: Steven A. McGraw GC -wit' DATE: August 11, 1987 As stipulated by Board Chairman, Bob Johnson, I am submitting this report of my activities at the National Association of Counties Conference which occurred in Indianapolis, Indiana. My attendance dates were Saturday, July 11, 1987, through Monday, July 13, 1987. IntergovernmentalfAffairsea d LocalaDetermitended was the Committee at 2:00 p.m. on Saturday afternoon. nation Steering There were several discussions on on-going matters before this group which included such topics as the use of ACIR's, the problems with mandated reimbursement liability insurance (1983) case programs, the government emergency enforcement rel iefr fu aem s, a n d t h e l o c a l These items can be discussed more specifically if you so desire; however, there are some items which would specifically apply to Roanoke Count request by NACo to the Federal Governmentrtooconsiders he "repair" of census data which could be challenged by local governments and then used to justify certain funding or other positive responses from the Federal Government. A prepared resolution was passed by our committee and recommended to the full body. ;, There was an extensive disc~ission on solid waste disposal which I will include in my report for some of Sunday's activities. There was also a discussion on the "electronic bulletin board" being used in some states whereby a computer networking system between local governments allowed each to know what the other was doing in regard to all aspects of local government. I might add that I have proposed and VACo has passed, as of Sunday, a $10,000 expenditure to begin to network in Virginia certain ordinances and other information between all counties throughout the State. Once we have the initial program in force we can expand it very easily and without too much additional expense. Moving on to the rest of the activities, in regard to the intergovernmental affairs. and local determination steering committee, there was an agreeme~it by the committee to take a look at the problems with annexation on a national basis. It was pointed out to this committee that not only in the State of Virginia where there are independent cities, but throughout the nation, annexation problems do exist for counties and should be addressed. They will have to be divided into several cate ories with a special exception made for the State of Virginia due to the fact of its different local government structure. The final act of the committee was to reduce its name to the Intergovernmental Affairs Committee. On Sunday morning, I attended a very worth-while seminar which was tightly packed and had standin was entitled "America's Garba a g-room only. It county's future?" g - Is there a barge in every This particular seminar dealt with the problems of the barge that had originated in Isli down the eastern coast and into the CaPibbe n beforeareturninglto Islip for disposal. Some of the major concerns were landfills and the eternal problem for all local governments. It was specifically pointed out that counties should not readily assume this responsibility for the immediate future without looking at the long-range effects. In particular, there was a discussion surrounding the use in Babylon, New York of a "total waste disposal system" which was a public-private partnershi discussion about the Indianapolis-Mari n County experience with a disposal system using county staff to collect but private industry to dispose of the garbage which was quite successful. In both Babylon, New York and Indianapolis, the experience was that collection should be handled by the local government and actual conversion to other energy sources or other uses of the garbage should be "bid out" to private industry. 2 There was a discussion about the Martin, Mass, burn system which resulted in the generation of electricity from steam. Once again, the city delivered the garba e to a site and from that point, the private sector t ook carer of uthe conversion to energy. The program then shifted emphasis and explained how a local government or a combination of local need to proceed to develop a landfill if thatvwasmtheschoice of the government through a landfill development committee. It was explained that this was very effective in the Indianapolis experience because it included quite a large section of the population to bring about the best location for the landfill. The :speakers for this particular Johannsen, Supervisor from Black Hawk CountyC Iowaa Harvey Gershman, President of Gershman, Brickner, and Braton, in Washington, D.C.; Barbara Gole~, Director,Department of Public Works in Indianapolis; and Paul R. Morris, Waste and Energy Coordinator in Mecklenberg County, North Carolina. Mr. Morris explained that there was some increase in the tipping fees at his landfill area, and paper was recycled. Leaves, bark, tree limbs, etc. were reduced to mulch which was in high demand by residents of the area and was sold and actually made a small amount of money for the county. Mr. Morris went on to explain that low cost landfills are a thing of the past and counties in other local governments should begin to look very closely at the possibilities for conversion to energy or other products. The afternoon session that I attended was in regard to rural economic development and pointed at ways to diversify the counties economy. The one industry that was shown to be the most productive and least difficult to implement was that of tourist as we have discussed before. The creativity that is allowed to come about when citizen groups began to think about their own neighborhoods and how they can be promoted to the outside world is one of the major attributes of such a mind set. The speakers included John Kelley, Supervisor from Essex County, New York; David Glasnapp, Supervisor from Emmet County, Iowa; Michael Johns, Executive Director of Green Hill Regional Planning Commission; Tom Slator, President of the State Public Policy Group, Des Moines, Iowa; and Margaret Thomas, Senior Resource Planner, Economics and Management Sciences Department, Mid-West Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri. In regard to the tapping of local resources, the group explained how peat, wool, or wood could all be used to turn an area into a tourist industry by showing the methods for growing or producing the products. There was also a strong 3 recommendation that local governments take a look at health care, child care, mass transportation, housing and the care of the elderly due to the rapidly increasing needs for these types of services. There was also strong emphasis placed on the need for local development organizations within the private sector to involve the private sector more with the economic planning for local government. On Monday morning, several national presidential hopefuls came forth to speak about the importance of local government to them as individuals and to the country as a whole. The morning was topped off with a discussion and a speech by President Reagan. It is note-worthy that this was the largest convention of the National Association of Counties since its inception more than fifty years ago. Because of the changes in the Federal Government's structure, and the need for local governments to become more responsible for delivering their own services with less Federal help, the Federal Government is now paying more attention to how this is being done by the local governments. On Monday afternoon, I tried to attend several different meetings to get a general idea of the type of problems that were facing local governments across the country. These included risk financing and insurance for county governments, and featured speakers from PENCO which is the Public Entities National Company and is the insurance administrator for NACo. There were as diverse programs as those discussing policy and prevention of AIDS, to how to work on other aspects of solid waste disposal, environmental regulations, and these types of issues. The most note-worthy piece of information that I acquired was how dangerous it was to expand a landfill without any of the precautions that will become enforceable laws within a few years being included in such an expansion. I am particularly complimentary of our Board for standing firm on the desire not to expand our present combined landfill until the process has been completed that we forced to begin just a few months ago. I hope that the Board will look long and hard at any possibility of expanding the landfill before actually agreeing to do so. There are quite a few methods available and nothing more than a totally exhaustive search will be acceptable to the future of Roanoke County. SAM/bjh 4 .. ~°'.~. 1 - ~' A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 RESOLUTION N0. APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM L - 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 August 11, 1987, designated as Item L - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 6, inclusive, as follows: 1. Minutes of Meeting - July 14, 1987 2. Confirmation of Appointment to the Community Corrections Resources Board 3. A cceptance of a donation of a 25' x 20' lot to construct a booster pump station. 4. Approval of a Resolution of Support to bring the World Cup Soccer Matches to the United States 5. Request for increase in Youth Haven II Petty Cash Account. 6. Request for Acceptance into the Secondary System of the following roads: a. Huntridge Road, Springer Road, Britaney Road, Setter Road b. 0.03 miles of Burnham Road c. Summerset Drive, Summerset Circle and Branderwood Drive. d. 0.12 miles of Fernway Drive e. 0.06 miles of Sutherland Circle 2. That the Clerk. to the Board is hereby directed and and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said L....,.~ ` `° items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 RESOLUTION N0. 81187-12 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM L - 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 August 11, 1987, designated as Item L - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 6, inclusive, as follows: 1. Minutes of Meeting - July 14, 1987 2. Confirmation of Appointment to the Community Corrections Resources Board 3. Acceptance of a donation of a 25' x 20' lot to construct a booster pump station. 4. Approval of a Resolution of Support to bring the World Cup Soccer Matches to the United States 5. Request for increase in Youth Haven II Petty Cash Account. 6. Request for Acceptance into the Secondary System of the following roads: a. Huntridge Road, Springer Road, Britaney Road, Setter Road b. 0.03 miles of Burnham Road c. Summerset Drive, Summerset Circle and Branderwood Drive. d. 0.12 miles of Fernway Drive e. 0.06 miles of Sutherland Circle 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby directed and and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said ! ~ ' items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, 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 8/13/87 cc: File Clifford Craig, Director of Utilities Phillip Henry, Director of Engineering Bev Waldo, Youth Haven II Director John Peters, Assistant Director of Engineer Fred Anderson, County Treasurer O July 14, 1987 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 3738 Brambleton Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24018 July 14, 1987 The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of Roanoki County, Virginia, .met this day at the Roanoke Count Administration Center, this being the first Tuesday, and th first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of July, 1987. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 2:0 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 Count Administrator for Management Services; Joh R. Hubbard, Assistant County Administrato of Public Facilities; Timothy W. Gubala Assistant County Administrator fo Community Development; Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney, Mary H. Allen, Deput 0 o jz July 14, 1987 ~-.~ "° f Clerk; Gardner Smith, Director of General Services; Sheriff O. S. Foster; Captain Leonard Wade; C. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue; Phillip Henry, Director of Engineering; Clifford Craig; Director of Utilities. SIN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by the Reverend William E. Eicher, Poages Mill Church of the Brethren. The Pledge of ~~Allegiance was recited by all present. SIN RE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS County Administrator Elmer Hodge recognized John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator who introduced the newt Director of General Services, Gardner Smith. Mr. Hodge also introduced Captain Leonard Wade of the .Sheriff's Department. Captain Wade presented an achievement award to the County that was received by the Transportation Safety Commission. He also reviewed the annual report of the commission . Tim Gubala, Assistant County Administrator, was recognized to present to the Board members and Mr. Hodge plaques commemorating the street signing ceremonies. ~_, ._ ~ ~ { 0 ~ t~ JULY 14, 1987 ' ---- IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD, OR CHANGE THE ORDER 0 AGENDA ITEMS Supervisor Brittle added Item N-7 under the Consen Agenda, Confirmation of Committee Appointments. Superviso Johnson added Item L-2, Appointment of a Blue Ribbon Commissio to study the delivery of services. Mr. Hodge requested that It F-2, Old Courthouse Litigation be heard following the Executi Session. IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS Chairman Johnson presented a Resolution of Congratulations to the Roanoke County/Salem Jail personnel fo receiving 100 percent compliance from the Commonwealth o Virginia. Sheriff O. S. Foster was present to receive th Resolution. 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 'p p4 JULY 14, 1987 ,~_ ._. r` 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 iedication 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 .. , foal; 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 IN RE: WORR SESSIONS `-nn~ ll O July 14, 1987 1 Street Li ght Evaluation: Director or Engineering Phillip Henry stated that prior to 1983, street lights were requested by property owners and there wa:-~ little review process. In 1983,the Board of Supervisors approved an evaluation process which allowed for consistency in evaluating the need, based primarily on traffic safety, but also including pedestrian safety and crime. In 1986, Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern provided an independent review and found that the process was generally satisfactory. They did point out several areas of concern: One was that the process favors more rural areas, because the more urban roads have been built under better highway I~~,standards. Mr. Henry pointed out that the majority of the street lights presently in the County were not installed under the evaluation process. Based on the comments from Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern, the staff feels that the present evaluation process is satisfactory, and they do not feel it would be appropriate to remove the existing street lights. The County also needs to pursue a cost-effective program as far as change-out of the type of light fixtures in the County. Supervisor Garrett asked if projects that are underway to move individual street lights to better locations will continue. Mr. Hodge responded that individual street lights will be considered, but there will be no large relocation of street lights. Supervisor McGraw advised he was concerned about o0s July 14, 1987 ~~~ developments that have street lights installed while the property is being sold, but removed when the subdivision is completed. Supervisor Nickens was concerned that the County needs to be able to respond to the problems in urban areas such as crime, and pedestrian safety. The current policy does not address these issues . Mr. Hodge stated that the staff would prepare another report in 30 to 45 days which will include urban and rural evaluation policies, the possibility of private sector help, requiring developers to install street lights, the cost to move street lights to better locations, and the cost savings in light sions. 2. Work Session on Methods of Refuse Collection: John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator, reported that the fuse Collection operation has made many changes over the last several years, and are now serving twice as many customers with one-third the amount of staff. The staff has been studying new methods for collection including the one man-bag collection, a semi-automated collection, and an automated one-man collection. The staff recommends the automated one-man collection service. this method would use a refuse vehicle that is equipped with a hanical arm that would be operated by the driver/collector. the County would provide the residents with 98 gallon roll-out ~.~""1 nn July 14, 1987 ~ O lJ containers. This method would result in a substantia cost-saving to the County. Mr. Hubbard stated that for those who could not roll out the large containers, the C~~~unty would continue to roll those containers to the curb for the resident. These would include handicapped and elderly residents. Supervisor Johnson reported that the Board members ha been using the large containers and have had a generally positi reaction to them from their families. Supervisor Brittle inquired if the staff had studie privatization. Mr. Hubbard responded they had studied this, an the cost would be approximately $10.00 per month, but does no include 'bulk or brush collection. Supervisor McGraw pointed ou that even with privatization, the citizens would consider this county service, and would register complaints through the County. Supervisor Nickens was concerned that monthly brush and bul collection would not serve the needs of the residents. Mr. Hodge reported he had serious concerns and fel this collection service could negatively impact the citizens, and was not sure of the bottom-line savings that may be realized. He pointed out that the areas presently using this system are flat and have off-street parking regulations. However, Mr. Hodge will support the Board's decision. Mr. Hodge requested that the Board study his concerns for 30 days prior to taking a vote on the issue. o ~ s ~~ July 14, 1987 ---T~ ---- -------- --------~----- Mr. Hubbard advised they will have public meetings with the residents who will be using the one-man refuse service in. the pilot project, and that they will be working on the system until October. Supervisor Johnson stated that this issue will be voted on under the New Business section of the agenda. 3. Work Session on Water System Acquisitions: Mr. Hodge stated that due to time constraints, he would summarize (this work session, and the Board can then vote on the issue under 'New Business. The staff has studied the sources of funds available to acquire seven systems, is recommending acquisition of five of these water systems, and has identified a funding' source for the acquisition. Supervisor Johnson stated he was concerned with then County purchasing "marginal" water systems. Mr. Hodge suggested that an ordinance be adopted that would tighten restrictions on water systems. IIN RE: NEW BUSINESS: 1. Update on the Explore Project: H. Bern Ewert, Executive Director of the River Foundation was present to update the Board members on the Explore Project and a video was shown explaining the plans for the project. L -~- ~J 0 9 July 14, 1987 Supervisor Johnson moved to authorize the Chairman toy write the Governor and area legislators to express the support of the Board of Supervisors for the Explore Project. The m~~tion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None 2. Recommendation for funding of Human Services Agencies: Mr. Hodge reported this item will allocate the $20,000funds included in the budget to those agencies who have applied for funding. The requests were reviewed by the Human Services Committee, and they had expressed concern that there were no additional funds allocated. Mr. Hodge pointed out that $25,000 was allocated to Total Action Action Against Poverty and $69,984 was allocated for Mental Health Services of. the Roanoke Valley for a total of almost $115,000 allocated to human service.. agencies this year. Mr.:Hodge stated he had reviewed the requests with Betty Lucas, Director of Social Services. The, staff is recommending that the funds be allocated on the same pro rata share as last year. Supervisor Nickens stated he had no problems with the proposed allocation, but was concerned about spending an equal amount of money for cultural programs. \1 July 14, 1987 L. - Supervisor Nickens moved that the human services funding be allocated at $24,600, the same as last year, and that the funds be taken from those earmarked for cultural programs. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and failed by the following recorded vote: YES: Supervisors McGraw, Nickens, YS: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, Johnson Supervisor McGraw moved to approve .the staff recommendation allocating the $20,000 funds. .The motion was seconded by Supervisor Johnson, and carried by the following Irecorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Johnson YS: None TAIN: Supervisor Nickens 4. Request for approval of refund of Industrial t Bonds for Fralin & Waldron Commercial Rental II and Fralin and Waldron Offi _ Mr. Gubala reported that this request allows a refinancing. Fralin and Waldron have found an easier way for financing than the industrial development bond ogram. They are returning the funding back to the program. Supervisor Nickens moved to authorize the refund of the ndustrial development bonds. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Garrett, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson ~ ~- / 0 1 ~. July 14, 1987 WAYS: None RESOLUTION 71487-6 APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR FOR THE BENEFIT OF F & W OFFICE PARK 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 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 ion 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 ICode); 012 July 14, 1987 ~. - I WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approvin the issuance of the bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, record of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" wit respect to the Project have been filed with the Board; BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanok County, Virginia: 1. The Board hereby approves the issuance of the Bond 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 requir by Section 147(f) of the Code, does not constitute an endorsemen of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Partnership, but, a required by Section 15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, a amended, the Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor th Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interes thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenue sand moneys pledged therefor, and neither the faith or credit no the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County nor th Authority shall be pledged thereto. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upo its adoption. 013 July 14, 1987 ~ _ / ~_. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Garrett, and upon the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None 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 ofl 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 O July 14, 1987 WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Boarcl o 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 a mended (the Code); WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approvin the issuance of the bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, record of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" wit respect to the Project have been filed with the Board; BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanok County, Virginia: 1. The Board hereby approves the issuance of the Bond 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 require 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 015 -1 -=-, July 14, 1987 ~ +` .,._ the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County nor th Authority shall be pledged thereto. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upo 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 Petition of Tim Edmondson for Allowance of Claim: Mr. Mahoney reported that this claim exhausts the administrative remedies as provided in state code and a llows the petitioner to go forward and commence with court action. The staff recommends denial of the claim. Supervisor Johnson moved to deny the claim. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None 6. Protest of Bid by Oxford Services: Mr. Mahoney advised that Oxford Services Inc. is protesting a bid for janitorial cleaning services. Roy Nester, Director of Building and Grounds has documented complaints concerning the cleaning services provided by Oxford during the past year and based on these complaints, the bid went to American Chemical Q1~ July 14, 1987 -/ Company. Mr. Mahoney introduced Charles Center, the attorney fort Oxford Cleaning Services. Mr. Center advised that his client did not knoFr their services were deemed inadequate because they were not told. The contract for Oxford Services provided that the County would make inspections. In December 1986, a registered letter was sent to the County asking for a quality Rating Survey. The County did not respond to this request. However, there was internal county correspondence asking county staff to list where Oxford Services failed to meet contract specifications. The contract provided that the County was to make monthly inspections and unacceptable work was to be brought to the attention of the contractor and given two days to correct. Only once has the County requested a credit for services and that was because of snow when the contractor was unable to provide services. In May 1987, another Quality Rating Survey was sent to the County. There was no response to this request. All concerns were handled through!, internal memos and never communicated with Oxford. Oxford Cleaning Services was the low bidder and should receive the bid. Supervisor Johnson pointed out that the County does not always have to award the contract to the lowest bidder for lyarious reasons, and one of them is performance of duties. Supervisor Nickens asked Mr. Mahoney if there was !documented evident that Oxford was not performing. Mr. Mahoney oY7 _=-i July 14 , 19 8 7 ~ .-~ -- / responded that he has testimony from Roy Nester, Director of Buildings and Grounds. Supervisor Garrett asked if the contractor had to be notified in writing, and Mr. Mahoney responded that the contract only specified notification, and did. not specify the manner. Supervisor Garrett moved to deny the bid protest. Thel motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and carried by thel following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None 6. Protest of Bid by Valley Communications: Mr. Mahoney announced that he has received notification from Pat Whitescarver, who is representing Valley Communications, and he has requested that this item be postponed until August 11, 19871 because he will be out of town. Supervisor Brittle moved to postpone until August 11, 1987. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by a unanimous voice vote. 7. Ap royal of One-Man Refuse Collection Service: This items was discussed under the work session earlier during the meeting. Supervisor McGraw moved to approve the One-Man Refuse Collection System. The motion was seconded by Supervisor ~Nickens, and carried by the following recorded vote: ;; 18 July 14, 1987 ~-/ AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None 8. Ap royal for Acquisition of Water Systems: Cliff Craig, Director of Utilities was present to answer questions. This was discussed under the work session earlier in the meeting. Supervisor Nickens asked about the cost to upgrade the systems to a level that would provide service to the citizens.,) and will that upgrade include adequate piping for pressure for fire protection, and are there legal problems in acquiring an inadequate system. Mr. Craig responded that Sherry Court is the only inadequate system, and the other systems compare with the average County system as far as quality, fire flow service and) source. Sherry Court is totally inadequate and would require money to connect to our system. Supervisor Brittle moved to approve the acquisition of the Cherokee Hills, Crescent Heights, Sherry Court, Forest Edge and Carriage Hills Water System. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Johnson NAYS: Supervisor Nickens IIN RE: REPORTS: 019 July 14, 1987 ~ ~~ r---- - ----_- ---------------- Commissioner of the Revenue C. Wayne Compton was present to give an oral report concerning proration of Personal Property tax. Mr. Hodge commended Mr. Compton and his staff, Treasurer ~IAlfred Anderson and his staff, and the Data Processing Staff for ~itheir work on instituting this new program. The following written reports were received and filed: 1. Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability of Investments and Portfolio Policy. 2. Youth Haven II Project Status Report. IN RE: REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Mahoney advised that at the last board meeting a~ public hearing was tabled concerning vacation of a subdivision 'plat for Ramsgate Court, because it was thought this could be handled administratively. It is been discovered that this cannot be done, and the attorney for the petitioners has requested that ,this be heard on July 28, 1987 IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS 787-1 PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 15.1-238(3) AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION AND RIGHT-OF ENTRY FOR NORTH LAKES WATER INTERCONNECTION p2p ~-/ July 14, 1987 Mr. Mahoney advised that this public hearing involves the interconnection of the water line at North Lakes. There were two properties to acquire, but the County had successfully negotiated on one. The staff has reached an agreement with the second property, Green Market, but have not yet received the agreement. Mr. Mahoney suggested that the resolution be adopted even though ~it appears the problem will be solved. If there is a problem,I they may continue with condemnation. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the prepared resolution. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens, and carried by the following recorded vote: . AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson INAYS: None 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. Tha t 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 02~. ___~ July 14, 1987 ~ ~_ .....~.~' City, in addition to the higher quality wells in the area. This reservoir supplies water to the North Lakes subdivision and othe r development in this area; and 2. That in order to complete this construction, a~ certain right-of-way is needed and more particularly described asl 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 toy 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-I 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 ~0 2~2 July 14, 1987 ~ ~-~ ~~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 IIN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1. Blue Ribbon. Commission on Delivery of Services Supervisor Johnson announced that he is proposing that a commission on the delivery of services be established which would include Mr. Joe C. Thomas, Mr. Jack Shelton, Mr. Joe Handerhand,~ hand Mr. Ned La Gard. Another appointment will be made at the next meeting. Supervisor Johnson explained that he is establishing this commission because of the duplicity of services throughout the County such as janitorial service, procurement, and others that are duplicated. The purpose of the commission will be to '..combine such services when this would be effective. Ms. Reta Busher, Director of the Budget will serve as a liaison to they commission. Mr. Johnson has also discussed this with members ofl the school administration. He asked that this commission report back to the Board in October, and that a work session with they 023 July 14, 1987 ~ .. a~' ------ -- _, - - ---- i 1f-- ---- ------ ------ -- -- School Board be set in November to discuss changes or possib implementation of policies. Supervisor Johnson moved to establish this commission.~~. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens, and carried by t (following recorded vote: I~,AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA Supervisor Brittle asked that Item N-7, Confirmation of ,:; !appointment to the Recreation Commission be added, and that Item IN-3, Acceptance of Water and Sewer Facilities serving Branderwood Section I, be removed for a separate vote so that he i may abstain. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the Consent Agenda .with the exception of item N-3 and the addition of Item N-7. The 'motion was seconded by Supervisor Johnson, and carried by the Ilfollowing recorded vote: 'AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None Supervisor McGraw moved to approve item N-3. The motion .was seconded by Supervisor Johnson, and carried by the following recorded vote: ~: 024 July 14, 1987 ~ ``"`~ `~ - / AYES: Supervisors Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Brittle 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 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 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. July 14, 1987 02~ ~ -~ 7. Confirmation of Appointment to the Recreation j Commission . 'i i 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereb~~ 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. IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor McGraw advised he will present a written report on his activities at the NACo Conference prior to the next, board meting. ._, ~ I IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Hugh Key, 5355 Black Bear Lane S. W., announced that the committee involved in litigation over the old Roanoke County Courthouse have met with Mr. Hodge and Mr. Mahoney. They have revised their bill of complaint to include thirteen of the sales of real estate that have occurred under the County Charter and to remove the use of funds from the sale of real estate. IN RE: EXECUTIVE SESSION '0 2~6 July 14, 1987 ~--r At 5:20 p.m., Supervisor Johnson moved to go into Executive Session pursuant to the Code of Virginia pursuant to the Code of Virginia 2.1-344 (a) (1) to consider a personnel matter, the evaluation of the County Attorney and County IlAdministrator, (2) to consider a real estate matter, the airport lclear zone; and (6) to consider a legal matter, the old lcourthouse litigation. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Garrett, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson !NAYS: None SIN RE: OPEN SESSION The Board returned to open session at 6:20 p.m. SIN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Old Courthouse Litigation: Mr. Mahoney advised that the Board of Supervisors is being sued by a group of citizens concerning the sale of the old Courthouse. Mr. Mahonevi advised that three actions should be taken in regard to this action. One issue concerns whether the building was surplus and whether the Board considered other uses for that structure, and he had researched the previous discussions concerning these ~ July 14, 1987 0 2 '7 ~..._ °,,.. l matters. The County Attorney recommended that the Board rati that the Courthouse is surplus, and that the Board consider other uses for the structure which are being contemplated by th Extension Office, the Registrar and hopefully the Court o Appeals. Supervisor Johnson moved to ratify and confirm that th old courthouse is surplus in relation to the use for whic acquired, and that the old courthouse has been made available f other public uses by contract with Roanoke College through leas for the Extension Service, the Registrar and the intent negotiate a lease for the Court of Appeals; and that other publi uses were considered in comparison to the costs, need an limitations to the County. This ratification that the propert is surplus, and confirmation that other public uses fo property have been considered by the Board are apparent from th procedures followed and the actions taken by the County, not onl for this transaction, but also for all real estate conveyances The motion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens, and carried by th following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors~Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None Mr. Mahoney stated the second issue is the use of th funds from the sale of the old Courthouse. To correct this, th County Attorney recommended that this be identified for a capital facility project and amend the original budget appropriation. Supervisor Garrett moved 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 197-88. This additional $25,000 appropriation is from the fund balance. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson NAYS : None Mr. Mahoney advised the third action would ratify tha any future receipts be allocated to the Capital Facilities Fund. Mr. Hodge asked that the motion exclude those transaction made b~ prior commitments. Mr. Mahoney agreed, stating there wer contain commitments such as sale of property for the schoo hoard, for volunteer rescue squads, and industrial developmen purposes. 4 t . oz9 July 14, 1987 ~ Supervisor McGraw moved to ratify that any futur receipts from sales of capital facilities will be appropriated t the Capital Facilities Fund to be expended for tl-e acquisition construction, maintenance or replacement of other capita facilities projects unless another disposition is required b prior contractual commitment. The motion was seconded b Supervisor Garrett, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None Mr. Mahoney recommended that he could now go forward a request that the court dismiss the suit because the Board o Supervisors has now responded to the concerns raised an corrected any problems that were identified. 2. Establishment of Salaries of County Administr~ and County Attorney: Supervisor Johnson moved that the salary of the Count Administrator be raised five percent from his 1986/87 salary an that the increase be effective July 1, 1987. The motion wa seconded by Supervisor Garrett, and carried by the followin recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None Supervisor Johnson moved that the salary of the Count Attorney be raised five percent from his 1986/87 salary and tha ~' 0 ~ ~ July 14, 1987 ~ ~ ~~' - --- -------- --------------- - II---- - ---~ ~~the increase be effective July 1, 1987. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson ~~NAYS: None The Salary of the County Administrator for 1987/88 will be $73,028, and the salary of the County Attorney will be ($53,928. SIN RE: ADJOURNMENT At 6:37 p.m., Chairman Johnson adjourned the meeting. Bob L. Johnson, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors A-81187-12a ITEM NUMBER ~ R~°-~-` AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 11, 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. Community Corrections Resources Board Mr. Bernard Hairston been nominated by Supervisor Alan Brittle to serve a one-year term. His term will expire August 13, 1988. SUBMITTED BY: -/ ;r°-.~-_.e..?-, _ std - ~y~._~~_~r-> Mary H. Allen Deputy Clerk APPROVED BY: ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ----------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson/Lee arrett No Yes Abs Denied ( ) to approve Brittle ~ Received ( ) Garrett -~ Referred Johnson ~ To McGraw -~ Nickens _~ cc: File Committee File A-81187-12b 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: August 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Acceptance of a donation of a 25'x20' lot to construct a booster pump station. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Warren W. Grisso and Mavis R. Grisso have agreed to donate a 25'x20' lot to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County in order for the County to construct a booster pump station to raise the low water pressure on Archer Drive. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 6987-9 , adopted on June 9, 1987, the Board authorized the County Administrator to accept donations or dedications of noncontroversial real estate matters. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider this acceptance by resolution under the consent agenda. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: ~ , ~ ~'~ 1Q Paul M. Mahoney Elmer C. Hodge County Attorney ------ -------------------------ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson/L~€_ Brittle No YXS Abs Denied ( ) Garrett to approve _ Received ( ) Garrett x Referred Johnson x To McGraw x Nickens x cc: File Paul Mahoney Cliff Craig ITEM NUMBER L- " "7 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Approval of Resolution of Support to bring the World Cup Soccer Matches to the United States COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: `~ ~~ C~ - 1~Q 7 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION : /(/ ~5{ Motion by: The United States Soccer Federation has established the goal of bringing the World Cup soccer matches to the United States in 1994. The World Cup is held every four years and consists of 52 games leading up to a championship match. I been asked to bring this resolution of support before the Board of Supervisors for approval. The federation is requesting that local governments throughout the country pass this resolution, and that they request support from their state government also. Attached is information about the growth of soccer in this county and statistics showing the potential benefits of bringing the World Cup to the United States. APPROVED BY: Treasurer Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To ACTION ~,,~ ,,;, ct~ ,~ i,,t.~i Elmer C. H ge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Brittle Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens SUBMITTED BY: ~- - ~/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT TO BRING THE 1994 WORLD CUP SOCCER GAMES TO THE UNITED STATES BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: WHEREAS, Soccer is one of the world's most popular sports, and. is the fastest growing team sport in the United States; and WHEREAS, The United States Soccer Federation is an organization supporting and promoting soccer at all levels; and WHEREAS, Soccer provides an excellent opportunity for our youth to develop team and individual athletic skills; and WHEREAS, the 1994 World Cup will be a major sporting and tourism event; and WHEREAS, World-wide interest in the 1994 World Cup will focus world attention and interest in our nation, and would greatly encourage the continued growth of soccer in the United States . NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia declares its full support of the efforts of the United States Soccer Federation in bringing the 1994 World Cup to the United States, and offers it enthusiastic support to the United States Soccer Federation in all its actions before the Federation Internationale de Football Association, with the goal of bringing the 1994 World Cup to our nation; and L ~ ~~ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to The Virginia General Assembly and the Virginia Association of Counties requesting their support for this effort. -. L United States Soccer Federation Office of the President ONE VILLAGE ROAD • P.O. BOX 129 HORSHAM, PA 19044 The United States Soccer Federation (USSF) is committed to the goal of bringing the World Cup soccer matches to this country. That objective presents numerous challenges, but it is a worthy goal that will focus the international sports spotlight on the United States, like the Olympics has, and generate enormous financial rewards for this country. Soccer is by far the most popular sport around the world except for the United States. The World Cup is held every four years and it consists of 52 games leading up to a championship match four weeks after the games start. During the last World Cup, held in Mexico in 1986, the final match was televised live to a world-wide audience of 600 million people. These ratings, which are five times higher than the 1986 Super Bowl between the Chicago Bears and the New England Patriots, are also the best ratings ever for a televised event. Soccer is flourishing at all levels and has become the fastest- growing team sport in America's colleges. In fact, the number of institutions which currently sponsor soccer programs exceeds the number of those which sponsor football programs. Soccer has also experienced a remarkable increase in popularity among the young people of America. Not only does the game teach discipline and teamwork, but it is also a great form of recreation and physical fitness. Nearly half of the 5 million Americans now playing soccer are under the age of 20 and the number of youngsters playing soccer has increased ten-fold in the last 12 years. Soccer is also big business and the economic gains from hosting the 1994 World Cup would be staggering. Currently, soccer is a $1 billion a year business in this country. When you multiply that figure times the gate receipts, marketing and advertising revenues, tourist dollars and many other benefits associated with the World Cup, it is easy to see why so many nations are battling to host this international event. In addition to all the financial rewards, this country would also benefit a great deal from all the favorable international publicity, and the good feelings which would naturally result _ _ .. ~~~` from such a wholesome occasion. Hosting the World Cup in 1994 would produce positive repercussions lasting well into the 21st century. To win the right to host the World Cup, the United States Soccer Federation must prove to the international governing body, the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), that there is a huge amount of grassroots support for soccer in this country. The USSF must convince FIFA that the World Cup will be played before packed stadiums of enthusiastic fans. Resolutions promoting soccer and supporting the World Cup bid enacted by County Governing Boards is vital to USSF's successful demonstration of that support. The Resolution would be a type of "welcome mat" to FIFA, as well as the soccer teams, coaches, and officials who will participate in the matches. You can help by enacting a Resolution from your county and sending it to World Cup USA 1994 by July 15th so it can be included in the USSF's official presentation to the FIFA in September. Attached is a sample Resolution for your consideration. For Further information contact Donna Givens at: World Cup USA 1994 300 Eye STreet, N.E. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-9715 SOC00100.071 r 1986 World Cup Statistics o First-round matches in Mexico drew almost 1.3 million to the various stadia, an average of 36,000 per game compared to an average of just under 34,000 for the entire 52 matches of the last World Cup in Spain. o Second round matches attracted 430,000 spectators to 8 games, making for an average of 54,000. o In the quarter-finals, 285,000 fans saw 4 matches, an average of 71,000 per game. o The overall total number of spectators in the first 3 stages of the tournament alone was just over 2.4 million. An average of 46,150 per game. o The 1986 games drew a total television audience of 12.8 billion - more than any previous World Cup. o The Final match drew one of the largest TV audiences ever recorded: approximately 580 million people, from 160 countries. o In West Germany, 17 million people saw their team play Mexico, live, in the quarter-final -- even though it was broadcast between midnight and 2 in the morning -- thus setting another TV record (for the largest ever television audience during this time segment). o The Final achieved a TV rating of 4.1 making it the highest scoring sports event on that day, despite heavy competition from traditional American sports. 40.01185.054 L - ~f Background and rationale for the United States to Host the 1994 World Cup, Soccer's World Championship for National Teams At the 1984 Olympics held in the United States, soccer achieved the distinction of attracting 1.4 million spectators for its games, representing 25~ of the total Olympic attendance, the largest attendance of all sports. The artistic, sporting and financial success of the 1984 Olympics and, in particular, the soccer program, has provided convincing evidence that the United States is now in a position to successfully host the 1994 World Cup on behalf of the world governing body for soccer; the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), for the following reasons: 1. The United States sporting public, and its media, corporate and civic structure are "big event" oriented, as indicated not only by the support of the 1984 Olympics, but also by the enthusiasm and interest in the Super Bowl, World Series, College Bowls and other National Championship events, and they would therefore respond and benefit substantially from a range of opportunities for involvement in the 1994 World Cup. 2. The facilities available throughout the nation meet the basic requirement that the 52 "World Cup '94" soccer games shall he played in 12 stadia, each of which is capable of seating 60,000 - 100,000 spectators, selected from more than 20 such facilities in existence in or near major urban communities. 3. The structure of American society and the importance of the World Cup, regarded as the major sporting event in the world based on attendance, media coverage and public interest and awareness, would be expected to produce the most successful World Cup event staged to date in terms of attendance, profits, and international corporate and media support. 4. Having qualified more than any other nation in the world for the World Youth Championships for under 16 and under 20 year old players, the American players who would be available for selection for the U.S. National Team, an automatic qualifier for World Cup '94 as host nation, have proven that they have the necessary skill and will have had sufficient international experience to compete effectively in World Cup '94. 5. The announcement of the award of World Cup '94 to the United States, which would be made on June 30, 1988, would further stimulate the growth of the sport at the youth, amateur and professional levels, and provide a broad range of L-~ opportunities for staging events and promoting the sport, particularly during the remaining 6 year period leading up to World Cup '94. 6. The world wide interest in the World Cup, with games held in 12 major metropolitan areas throughout the United States would provide the reason and opportunity to promote and substantially increase tourism across the nation, including the attraction of thousands of visitors from other countries, for at least the 4 week duration of this major sporting event. 7. By playing the games in 12 locations distributed throughout the United States, the majority of the American public would have the opportunity to experience and participate in the international good will and friendship which prevails at this major sporting event throughout the four weeks of competition. 8. The build up in interest and enthusiasm for World Cup '94 would provide the United States with a broad range of opportunities to engage in international relations and diplomatic activities for many years prior to and also during the event, involving the political and business leadership of the United States and nations throughout the World. 9. The hosting of the World Cup would provide the political leadership of the United States with the opportunity, commencing in June 1988, to unite the interests of and communicate effectively with so many diverse segments of the United States population in the common cause of warmly welcoming the world to our country, thereby creating greater harmony and understanding among our people who originate from varied ethnic backgrounds. 10. The 12 metropolitan locations in which World Cup games would be played would enjoy similar benefits to those experienced by Los Angeles, the host city for the 1984 Olympics, including the opportunity to stage supporting activities of particular appeal to the local residents, the visiting teams and their fans. 11. The staging of World Cup '94 under the auspices of the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) would produce substantial profits, 25$ of which would be retained by the USSF, in addition to the profits generated in years prior to World Cup '94 by staging special events, all of which would be allocated by the USSF to the continued development of_ soccer in the iJnited States. 12. The award of World Cup '94 to the United States would: a. establish soccer as a truly major sport in the United States, thereby making the United States a_leader in the world sport, among all other nations in the world; and b. generate stronger U.S. corporate, television and other media participation in soccer and, in particular, provide a much greater inner city awareness for a sport that has, to date, developed in the grass roots of_ suburban America. Summary International sports, and particularly soccer as the most popular sport in the world, really have no barriers among the people of the world. Activities staged amidst the comradery of major sporting events such as the World Cup therefore experience an atmosphere of friendship and understanding. The staging of the World Cup in the United States over a 4 week period in 1994 would be expected to do more good for our nation in regard to international relationships in business and politics over the next seven years than any other single activity. There is not segment of American society which would not benefit from this undertaking, and it would play major part in closing any gap in human, business and political understanding which exists between the United States and the rest of the world. 4B.01262.062 . - ~ ~~ United States Soccer Federation Offica of the President ONE VILLAGE ROAD • P.O. BOX t29 HORSHAM. PA 19044 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE U.S. SOCCER FEDERATION ANNOUNCES THAT IT HAS BEGUN THE BID PROCESS IN AN EFFORT TO HOST SOCCER'S 1994 WORLD CUP COLORADO SPRINGS, CO--April 15, 1987--Werner Fricker, President of the United States Soccer Federation (USSF), American soccer's national governing body, announced today in a letter sent to its membership that the Federation had begun the process of preparing a bid for the United States to hest soccer's 1994 World CuD. Soccer's World Cup, held every four years, is the world's most talked about and watched sports event. Last held in 1986 in Mexico. the 52 game, month-long tournament involved two dozen national teams that represented the best soccer-playing countries from around the world. It drew a cumulative, world-wide television audience of 12.8 BILLION, including a viewing audience of over 600 million for the June 29, 1986 Championship Final between West Germany and Argentina that was watched by an in- stadium crowd of 114,000 in Mexico City and televised to 160 countries. America's most watched telecast of all time was the 1986 NFL Superbowl Game between Chicago and New England that drew 127 million television viewers. Fricker, a suburban Philadelphia, ?A builder, wrote the letter at the direction of the soccer Federation's six person Executive Committee which unanimously voted on April 5, 1987 to advise FIFA (the Federation Internationale de Football Association, soccer's international governing body) of its intention to submit a proposal to the world body for hosting the event. Soccer's 1990 World Cup has been scheduled for Italy. Fricker indicated the Federation and the United States is well equipped to handle the challenge of staging the world's biggest sporting event. "Soccer is the world's most popular sport and, although the United States has never hosted a World Cup, the increasing participation and enthusiasm in LT.S. soccer combined with the commitment of corporate sponsors, government officials and the general public provide the best opportunity ever for our selection by FIFA," Fricker said. Ir. was further stated by Fricker that "the huge success of soccer as the ton spectator attraction at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games is convincing evidence that this big-event oriented nation is ready to host the most closely followed and most highly publicized world event, the FIFA World CuD. Should the United States he fortunate to become the host nation for 1994, soccer at all levels in this country would become a mayor focal point f.or local, national and international media during its six-year build-up and this would he of great benefit to the game and the country as a whole as soccer continues to develop throughout the United States." Soccer at the 1984 L.A. Olympics drew a cumulative audience of 1,422,605 spectators--almost one-third of the entire ticket- buying audience at the Games--and outdistanced the more visible sports of athletics (track ~ field), basketball, swimming and volleyball in the process. Included in that total was a Rose Bowl crowd of 101,799 for the Gold Medal matchup between France and Brazil. The tJ.S. Soccer Federation's Executive Committee acted in advance of the organization's annual meeting scheduled for the July 4th weekend in Colorado Springs, so that reports could be made to the membership at that time on the progress of obtaining the necessary stadium and corporate financial commitments. Fricker said that he and the Executive Committee are "confident that the United States bid will generate the enthusiastic support needed to meet the overall criteria required by FIFA for hosting of the tournament." Soccer's world Cup championship brines together 24 qualifying national teams with the host country's team gainine7 an automatic berth in the tournament. Scheduled over a 25- to 30- day period, the 52 games of the tournament to be played in the 1994 World Cup would probably be held during the month of June if held in the United States. Three other countries, Chile, Brazil and Morocco, are also vying for the r'_ght to host the 1994 World Cup. FZFA's decision on the country selected will be announced June 30, 1988. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGO LATER ONLTUESDAY,E AUGUSOTKII CO 987Y P'DMINISTRATION RESOLUTION 81187-12.c OF SUPPORT TO BRING THE 1994 WORLD CUP SOCCER GAMES TO THE UNITED STATES BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: WHEREAS, Soccer is one of the world's most popular sports, and is the fastest growing team sport in the United States; and WHEREAS, The United States Soccer Federation is an organization supporting and promoting soccer at all levels; and WHEREAS, Soccer provides an excellent opportunity for our youth to develop team and individual athletic skills; and WHEREAS, the 1994 World Cup will be a major sporting and tourism event; and WHEREAS, World-wide interest in the 1994 World Cup will focus world attention and interest in our nation, and would greatly encourage the continued growth of soccer in the United States . NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia declares its full support of the efforts of the United States Soccer Federation in bringing the 1994 World Cup to the United States, and offers it enthusiastic support to the United States Soccer Federation in all its actions before the Federation Internationale de Football Association, with the goal of bringing the 1994 World Cup to our nation; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to The Virginia General Assembly and the Virginia Association of Counties requesting their support for this effort. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, 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 8/13/87 cc: File Alfred Anderson, County Treasurer Virginia Association of Counties Virginia General Assembly U. S. Soccer Federation World Cup USA A-81187-12d ITEM NUMBER ~ ~ . AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE• August 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Request for an Increase in the Y~UTH HAVEN II Petty Cash Account COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On December 12, 1986, the Board approved the establishment of a petty cash fund in the amount of $200 to cover residents' allowances and emergency purchases or reimbursements on a cash basis. Since that time, we have found that we also have to draw money for our recreational activities from our petty cash fund. The reason for this is that we cannot obtain an advance check from our recreation budget because we do not know the exact amount to be spent or have a receipt for the expenditure before engaging in the activity. Therefore, I am requesting that our petty cash fund be increased to $300. This additional $100 will be charged back to our recreation account and aFlow a sufficient cash flow to cover these activities. F I SCAL I MPAC~: - None - RECOMMENDATION: -Staff recommends an increase in the amount of the Y~UTH HAVEN II petty cash fund from $200 to $300. This change requires a specific action of the Board of Supervisors and is audited annually by our independent auditors. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: T ~~ta~ everly T. Waldo, MSW Program Manager, Y~UTH HAVEN II (, ~P~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (X) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson/Lee No Yes Abs Denied ( > Garrett to approve Brittle x Received ( > Referred To Garrett x Johnson x --~ McGraw Nickens x cc: File, Reta Busher, Bev Wa o 1 ITEM NUMBER ~--f ~~-~---- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Huntridge Road, Springer Road, Britaney Road, and Setter Road into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ ~~.k~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County Land Venture, Inc., the developer of Huntridge, requests that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation requesting that they accept 0.28, 0.12, 0.08, and 0.19 miles of Huntridge Road, Springer Road, Britaney Road and Setter Road, respectively. The staff has inspected this road along with representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation and find the road is acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT: No County funding is required. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to the VDOT requesting that they accept Huntridge Road, Springer Road, Britaney Road and Setter Road into the Secondary Road System. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: ~~ ~ Phillip Henry, .E. Elmer C. Hodge Director of Engineering County Administrator 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Brittle Received ( ) Garrett Referred Johnson to McGraw Nickens Z AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF HUNTRIDGE ROAD, SPRINGER ROAD, BRITANEY ROAD AND SETTER ROAD 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 Huntridge Road, Springer Road, Britaney Road and Setter Road 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/maps known as Huntridge Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 200, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on August 17, 1981 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 Huntridge Road, Springer Road, Britaney Road and Setter Road and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby 3 r - _ -_ . ~: established as 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. 4 ,~ o~~ t~~y,-p ~s`4 ~\ ~ \ _ ~, `~-?/~ _ ,`•. 610 ~+~'~'. ~,' . ~' ~ +J' 4JCSt ~~ \ \ ~ \ ~ ~~y~~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ \ ~~~\ ~ Site ~~;= °' ~ s ~~ `~~ VICINITY MAP "°~---= - ,. Lam.. ~,~"? q _~ ~ ~ ~ro pN. r~ ( ...v .wo yy .«o ~~ nne t t r I "~ I t Q ~' _ ~ t .~ '~ ~ • V , tr o r ~ s a T 2 n }• s e ~ • M ~ ~ n w ~ ' ~~ .- » • ~ ~ ~ ' Y p ~ ~ • O 1 • _ w ~ ~ y t ~ ,M p / t 0 ~ e o // n ~ 9 ` ~ / ' ,N tl / ' t1 N / K ~a oO ~ asI 4 ~w ~ / a !s / ~ ..rr / oO / / 1 _ ~ // s.e. J 4 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC FACILITIES H U N T RID G E S E C T 1 0 N i NORTH AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 RESOLUTION 81187-12.e REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF HUNTRIDGE ROAD, SPRINGER ROAD, BRITANEY ROAD AND SETTER ROAD 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 Huntridge Road, Springer Road, Britaney Road and Setter Road 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/maps known as Huntridge Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 200, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on August 17, 1981 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 Huntridge Road, Springer Road, Britaney Road and Setter Road and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as 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 NAYS: None A COPY - TESTS: l~ Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk 8/13/87 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File John A. Peters, Assistant Director of Engineering John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator Arnold Covey, Director of Development Review Va. Department of Transportation ITEM NUMBER ~~-~°~ ~~~ ~ AT A REGULAR MEELDNp6TOTHEHROANORE COUNTYEADMINISTRP,TIONNCENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA HE MEETING DATE: August 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Acceptment of TransportataonnSecondaryrSystem. Depa COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ o-~ry`~" ~'G~~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: William P. Wallace, Inc., the developer of Castleo Re ca West, Section 3, requests that the Board of Supervisors app resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation requesting that they accept 0.03 miles of Burnham Road. The staff has inmenttoa Transportationgandtfindp the nroad vis of the Virginia Depart acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT: No County funding is required. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to the VDOT requesting that they accept Burnham Road into the Secondary Road System. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: ~~ ~ (, t Phillip T.//Henry, .E. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Director of Engineering 1 ~.. F C~ ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( > Brittle Received ( ) Garrett Referred to Johnson McGraw Nickens AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF BURNHAM ROAD 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 Burnham Road 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/maps known as Castle Rock West, Section 3 Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 319, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on April 15, 1985 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 Burnham Road and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as 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. 3 :~ 1.d - -~,:,~~ • _r- n,- -~ _ _ _ ~ °r@ca,d~1 -.:: ~` NORTH VICINITY MAP " ;',r E~'0' r~ so 4 64 AC :>9 ,~ 82 313Ac 83 2.37Ac 1 p° Jq o 2 I~cltNeh°1~ na~az.ooo ~ O .,z 46 i t-44 _ - 43 ° •z 3 ~, '^. °F ~ ~ - ~ as 47 2 ., o.• "_ ,~ •~„ ', , s 5 / 4 .\/ .13 0' 'Op $~ ' 7 ~ 1 ti~'41 - 6 >. ROB II 'z ~~ 424Ac ,. / •43 4' •a` ~b •~ ~ t 7 ° .y 10 9 6~ ~ C~ ~ 7 y N e . 39 6 s. a ~ _. 10 198 A .y. • •5 z z 38 r h,~ 7 ~ I I h ., ~` c 44 • t. -'• ~ : 9 ~ ~ .,b~ ?'- 37 ' ~ s w ~ ~ ,t z 13 •» p` I ,~ ~ 4 " ~~ AgDd ''34' a b~`. (4 ,r `pr •I ~ `~ 48 s ~• t ~ ~7'.°, 33 ` 32~~ % s IS 's . 49 ' +• P i` a ,,' 18 8 ~ r • ~ 32 ~ t •~ ,,• , O c r e •~ b B ° P 31 •+e ` ••31 ~r • ~ ,, •z ,; ~ r'• . ~! 70 bz ~ a~ • 52 f y ,°a4ie ( ~' '~ ,,• e - v - b s • • 32.19 Ac(D) 65 a ~• ~ ''~ • ¢ .'; '~ \ a 27 a •,.., \x ~ 29 48 Ac. lCl e• ~, , b S ,,. 4 b ,' 28 a "s ay• 3 \wcw{ a +~ -~ ,+• , S° ? ''~24~ i~ ~ t ,a,. ~ ~Eti's 73 ~ ~ ;r ''~ 3r+ c ~' -+es ~,•' 1 ; ~ b ,, zS ~~27~~`+` /' •" 2.32 Ac s a $ .,,55a ~e i b ~• +. ~~ • , ,~ 7 ~, ~~ ,A ,i S A iNb ~~.N 3 .t 'r a y ~w '°- •78 ~ `"' e... ..a ,.. '°~3 • I 56 .~ ~° ,d 9 t .~,~ a 4 ~ L b r ,,,ti ~ ,,.a a z s ~ 69 + 71 ,, s ' ~ 7 x : s6 ~: 76 . 2 ~ b s '4 70.1 ° '~ 57 + , ~ 9 ~~' w', ~ 6 1 ' ..a' s~~ +cs.s . +• ~ ,•• ~ ~a ~ v GtK~s11e75~~ ,q l°na•~„~' /67~~ -'•~7n67t1 59 59 I '''~ ~2~ •''•s0 ° ~° ' 1 ,a a. ~ 'r,3 ~ ~4. g5 . 56 57 ... ' ,• ~ ,e ~ .~.. `• ,'27 b ~ a.•,'+ Is ,,~2 p1.3'' :(C `r, jo.•, ~ ,. .,1 23.2 / ~ 61 ~ 60's : is 59 ,,, ~ . 24 ~ '~`~ I .I 9 Act I , r '~ ~. roe +64 . ; 28 a ~ C d , 'b-9~ : I ..-~ H. , KI : . i 47 ~ s ~ c ~ ~'6+• 51 ~ 1 9.18 Ac ~ / 14.31Ac <, r" ~ ~ _ DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC FACILITIES B U R N H A M R O A D /M) ~ ,~ ~...y w. I AT THE REGULAR MEETING OD ATETHEAROANOKEUCOUNTYOADMOINISTRATION COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HEL AUGUST 11, 1987 CENTER ON TUESDAY, RESOLUTION 81187-12.f REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF BURNHAM ROAD INNDARY ROADISYSTEMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECO 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 Burnham Road 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/maps known as Castle Rock West, Section 3 Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 319, of the records of the Clerk's Office of Vir inia, on April 15, 1985 g the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, 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 for drainage. guarantees said right-of-way 3, That said road known as Burnham Road and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as public road to become a part of the from State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only 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 A COPY - TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 8/13/87 cc: File John A. Peters, Assistant Director of Engineering John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator Arnold Covey, Director of Development Review Va. Department of Transportation ITEM NUMBER L'" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Summerset Drive, Summerset Circle and Branderwood Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~,AMV,w~wd~ a~~~""./ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Boone, Boone and Loeb, the developer of Branderwood, Sections 1, 2 and 3, requests that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation requesting that they accept 0.27, 0.08 and 0.05 miles of Summerset Drive, Summerset Circle and Branderwood Drive, respectively. The staff has inspected this road along with representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation and find the road is acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT: No County funding is required. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to the VDOT requesting that they accept Summerset Drive, Summerset Circle and Branderwood Drive into the Secondary Road System. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ Phillip Henry, .E. Elmer C. Hodge Director of Engineering County Administrator 1 ~... ~ l~1 _ _ - - - - - - --------- VOTE --------- - ACTION No YeS Abs Approved ( ) Motion by: Brittle Denied ( ) Garrett Received ( ) Johnson Referred McGraw to Nickens 2 AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR ' COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINIS S OF ROANOKE CENTER ON TUESDAY, August 11 TRATION 1987 RESOLUTION SUMMERSET CIRCLE AND BRANDERWOODNDRIVEEINTOCTHEF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROA SYSTEM D BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanok County, Virginia e as follows: 1• That this matter came this da y to be heard upon the proceedings herein, and upon the application of Summerse Summerset Circle and Branderwood Drive to t Drive, be accepted and made a part of the Secondar Y 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_wa y for said road have heretofore deed dedicated by virtue of a certain map/maps know Branderwood n as Sections 1, 2 and 3 Subdivision which ma recorded in Plat Books 9 and A was 10, Pages 351, 5 and 19, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of County, Virginia Roanoke on December 4, 1985, May 7, 1986 and July 31, 1986 and that by reason of the recordation of said m from a Board of Viewers ap no report nor consent or donation of right-of_way from the abutting property owners is necessary. Th guarantees said right-of-wa e Board hereby y for drainage, 3• That said road known as Summerset Drive , Sum Circle and Branderwood Drive and which is shown on merset sketch accom a certain panying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereb Y 3 ~~~ established as public road to become a _e .. ~ part of the State Secondary System of Hi hwa s in Roanoke Count 9 y after notification of official acceptance of y. only from and ~ said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 4 AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKEUCOUNTY AD OF ROANORE CENTER ON TUESDAY MINISTRATION AUGUST 11, 1987 RESOLUTION 81187-12 g _REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE SUMMERSET CIRCLE AND BRANDERWOOD VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SYSTEM OF TRANSPORTATIONRSECONDARY ROAD 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 a pplication of Summerset Drive, Summerset Circle and Branderwood Drive to be accepted and made a part of the Secondar Y System of State Highwa 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Ys under Section Code. 2 • That it appears to the Board that drainage eas and a fifty (50) foot ri ements ght-of-way for said road have heretofore deed dedicated by virtue of a certain map/maps known Branderwood, Sections as 1~ 2 and 3 Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Books 9 and 10, Pages 351, 5 records of the ~ and 19, of the Clerk s Office of the Count Circuit Court of Roanoke Y. Virginia, on December 4 . 1985, May 7, 1986 and July 31, 1986 and that by reason of the recordation from a Board of Viewers of said map no report nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the a butting property owners is necessa guarantees said ri rY• The Board hereby ght-of-way for drainage, 3- That said road known as Summerset Drive Summerset Circle and Branderwood Drive and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, an established d the same is hereby as public road to become a part of the St ate 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 A COPY - TESTE: Td' Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk 8/13/87 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File John A. Peters, Assistant Director of Engineering John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator Arnold Covey, Director of Development Review Va. Department of Transportation .- ITEM NUMBER '~_~ ~~~ ~~` AT A REGULAR MEETING OTHEHROANOKE COUNTYEADMINISTRATIONNCENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT MEETING DATE: August 11, 1987 SUB_ J~_ Acceptance of TransporDationlSecondarylSystem. Department COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~,~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Loeb Construction Corp. the develepvisorsCapprove Hills, Section 3, requests that the Board of Sup a resolution to the Virgin12 miles f Fernway Dr Vesportation requesting that they accept 0. The staff has inspected Transrortationgandtfindp theeriroad vis of the Virginia Department o P acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT: No County funding is required. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to the VDOT requesting that they accept Fernway Drive into the Secondary Road System. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: ~~ ~~ ~ '~~ Elmer C. Hodge Phillip Henry, P County Administrator Director of Engineering 1 Denieded ~ ~ Motion bys ACTION VOTE Received ( ~ Brittle No Yes Abs Referred Garrett to Johnson McGraw Nickens 2 AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD ' COUNTY, VIRGINIA OF SUPERVISORS ~~~ (~w:~ . HELD AT THE ROANOKE OF ROANOKE CENTER ON TUESDAY COUNTY ADMINISTRATION AUGUST 11, 1987 RESOLUTION FERNWAy DRIVE REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF TRANSPORTATION ISEOONDARYIROADISySTPARTMENT OF EM BE IT RESOLVED b Y the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows; 1• That this matter came this da proceedin s Y tO be heard upon the 9 herein, and upon the a PPlication of Fernway Drive to be accepted and made a part of the Secondar Hi hway Y System of State g s under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia St 2• That It ate Code. aPPears to the Board that drainage easements and a fifty (50~ foot ri ght-of-way for said road have heretofore deed dedicated by virtue of a certain ma Carria P~maps known as 9e Hills, Section 3 Subdivision Plat Book which map was recorded in 10, Page l~ of the records of the Clerk's Of ' Circuit Court of Roanoke flCe of the County, Virginia, on March 6, 1986 and that by reason of the recordation of said map no report from Board of Viewers a nor consent or donation of right_of-way from the abutting property owners is necess guarantees said ri arY• The Board hereby ght-of-way for drainage, 3• That said road known as Fernway Drive a shown on a certain nd which is sketch accompanyin the same 9 this Resolution, be, and is hereby established as public road to be the State Secondar come a part of Y System of Highways in Roanoke County, onl from and after notification Y of official acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 3 ~ ,~ Y--1GGY[= = 1 Y~~W~iYfO • ~ ~~~~~~~~~ ' ~ / ~~~~ P`~ ' 6i2 ~. I ~~t '~~• r7 IOST n O I ~O~ 9~6 6 I ~ \~~l M ' ~ ~~ 6i2 70 ~~ ~ ~ C r 1 W I ~~yo `' VICINITY (yAp ~ ~„ NORTH ~ GRnrvAY DRIVE ~ \/ ~~~ ~V6 ~ 6 ' - ~ /" 1 , Whys e~~~ ~"« ./ AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 RESOLUTION 81187-12.h REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF FERNWAY 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 Fernway 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/maps known as Carriage Hills, Section 3 Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 1, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on March 6, 1986 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 Fernway Drive and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as 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 NAYS: None A COPY - TESTE: ~~~~ Mary H. A len, Deputy Clerk 8/13/87 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File John A. Peters, Assistant Director of Engineering John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator Arnold Covey, Director of Development Review Va. Department of Transportation AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE MEETING DATE: August 11, 1987 ITEM NUMBER ~-- ~ ~' -----__ OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER SUB-. Jam? Acceptance of Sutherland Circle into the Vir ' Department of Transportation Secondar 91nia y System. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~w..,,.,,.J~ y~f^.w / SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Thomas Bros., Inc., the develo er of Section 3, requests that the Board of P Campbell Hills, resolution to the Supervisors requesting that the Virginia Department of approve a y accept 0.06 miles of Sutherland Circle tation The staff has inspected this road along with represent of the Virginia Department of Transportation and find t acceptable. atives he road is ~ FISCAL IMPACT: No Count y funding is required. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends that the Board a the VDOT requesting that they acce t PProve a resolution to Secondary Road System. P Sutherland Circle into the SUBMITTED BY: //~i~~~Y Phillip Henr Director of Engineering APPROVED: C ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator 1 ' ~ ---- ------- -------------------- ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Motion by: Brittle - Denied ( ) Garrett Received ( ) Johnson Referred McGraw to Nickens 2 AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF SUTHERLAND CIRCLE 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 Sutherland Circle 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/maps known as Campbell Hills, Section 3 Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 179, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on November 18, 1980 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 Sutherland Circle and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as 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. 3 NORTH w N 336,000 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC FACILITIES S U T H E R L A N D C! R C L E AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1987 RESOLUTION 81187-12.i REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF SUTHERLAND CIRCLE 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 Sutherland Circle 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 f i f ty ( 50 ) foot right-of-way for said road have heretofore deed dedicated by virtue of a certain map/maps known as Campbell Hills, Section 3 Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 179, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on November 18, 1980 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 Sutherland Circle and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as 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 Garrett, and upon the followin by Supervisor g recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Brittle, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson NAYS : None A COPY - TESTS: 8/13/87 cc: File John A. Peters John Hubbard ' Assistant Director of En Arnold Assistant County Administratorering Covey, Director of Develo Va. Department of TransportationAment Review Yy~ Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ITEM NUMBER ! "" t' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING _DATE: August 4, 1987 SUBJECT: Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investments and Portfolio Policy, as of June 30, 1987. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Dominion Concentration Sovran Savings Signet Bank - CD Central Fidelity Bank - CD Sovran Bank - CD Southwest Virginia Savings & Loan - CD Signet Bank - CP Sovran Bank - CP Dominion Bank - CP Craigie Inc. - CP - Scott & Stringfellow - CP Signet Bank - BA Central Fidelity Bank -BA Sovran Bank - BA ---_ - -- Dominion Bank - BA _ - - - Craigie Inc. - BA - SUBMITTED BY: r' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: _ No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To APPROVED BY: 976,005.03 100.00 800,000.00 4,000,000.00 500,000.00 100,000.00 2,956,922.78 985,868.06 1,971,016.67 989,98$.89 981,231.25 2,968,970.83 984,192.22 5,926,4X.12 985,143.61 5,904,824.37 - ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Brittle Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens ITEM NUMBER ~_~~` " A REC;+.11r~(t MEETING OF T[IE ilOARD OF SUPERVI ~OItS OF KOANOKE AI COUN'i"f, VIitGINIA fiELD AT TEES ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENT MEI•:'i' I tJG DA'I~I:_ August 1 1 , 1987 SUi3.JI•:C'I': Y~UTH HAVEN I I Project Status Report COUrt'i'Y ADMIN LSTRATOR' S COMMENTS SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Buildtn - On July 28, 1987, we received written approval for reimbursement of our basement renovations by U.S.D.A., contingent upon the availability of funds. Construction is planned to begin in August. During July, the Department of Corrections health inspector inspected Y~UTH HAVEN Ii. We have been told by the DypartmeoUt homeotneouroregtont(Regton I). received the highest rating ever received b a g p Pro ram Development and Administration: Our census remains at six and we will begin pre-screening new applicants to August. During theopthtweoetfnapproprtatecforaY~UTH HAVEN Iitdue tontheares Indicated that these y need fora more restr-active environment. In my report last .month, I stated that Roanoke Ctty owed Roanoke County $88.00 for placements. This was jncorrect snd I apologize for this error. The foilowtng information is correct: 1) Month of May--Roanoke County owed Roanoke City $88.00; 2) Month of June--Roanoke County owed Roanoke City $660.72; 3) Month of July--tt appears that Roanoke Ctty will owe Roanoke County money. Preparation workVeas600 standardsr IMuchsofeAugdust andSSeptember wwllwbel be reviewed on well o spent getting ready for this review. Public Relations: This month we held a luncheon honoring Mrs. Helen VanRensselaer. Mr. Johnson, Mr. Hodge, Dr. Bowers, Y UTH HAVEN it staff and residents attended. Mrs. VanRensselaer was presented a Roanoke ~ounty Certifochetedfafehan,iboth.madeebyaouriresPdentsted roses, a huge thank-you card and a cr 9 A good time was had by all. , Y~UTH HAVEN II also hosted the Youth Haven I, Y~UTH HAVEN il, Sanctuary Advisory Board meeting this month. r ,. .µ ~A, ~.'J.~ _. 1 Ms. Waldo has been selected to serve on the Executive Board of the Virginia Community Residential Care Association. She will represent the Valley group homes on this statewide Board. Personnel: Interviews for additional relief staff have been completed. We are waiting for results of criminal history checks before making hiring recommendations. Hopefully, this will be completed by mid-August. SUBhfITTED BY: 7, APPROVED BY: ~e,0 Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( > Motion bY: _ No Yes Abs Denied ( > Received ( ) Referred To Brittle Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens ... AT A REGULAR MEETING OF COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THEHROANOKE IN ROANOKE, VA., ON MEETING DATE: Auqust 11~ 1987 I TEM NUMBER ,a~ ~ ' rJ`_:~ OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER TUESDAY, SS U--~?' ~ 911 Pu bl i c Awareness Campaign COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ~S COMMENTS: SUMMARY pF INFORMATION: awareness and In order to develo boundaries understanding of the P Public and implementation and media Roanoke date 911 system, operational and Salem, the Town of C&P Telephone created a 911 publicit Vinton, and the the cities Y task force. County of Ro of Early publicity, media , wi 11 desgenerally in the for anoke have Implementation crlbe the system m of press releases Peak date. Progress re and the October to local publicity will occur Ports will be issued 5' 1987 cutover and for four the last two weeks Periodically. weeks thereafter, before the October Specific 5 attached, activities, tentative dates and responsibilities are FISCAL IMPACT: Minimal radio stations as costs are involved. public service well as Roanoke Times and Wo~1dlNewseVision and Advertisin announcements. Valley Metro g will publicize Buses and provide free valleywide activities will the cutover date at Lamar monies available for be shared b cost. Costs of publicit Y all localities. County bond Y and advertising. RECOMMENDATION; Staff recommends approval. SUBMITTED 8Y: ~. -~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Rob Stalze Director of Planning APPROV D; mer C. Hod e Jr. ------------------------------------County Administrator APProved ( ) Motion ACTION --------"-------__ ___ __ Denied ( ) by= VOTE - Received ( ) No Yes Abs Referred Brittle To Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens 8/11/8'1 E55 CA~YAIG~ nsibilit LZC AWP'ggN n ges ° 911 pvB Simi C&4 ~Une Actyvlt f°~matwreze. zc) • n/C&Y al in ren~ yes°u Vint° C&Y er w as em/ 1 e '~ wro ne d a . poach • m°st 9//~ Ro C° tY ~ COY JP c to o s Hated aP t e°Qle ions • 9 / 2~ g° Y ~o a co jai tats°n wi ~ q est 9/ 1 C& ,`House P be to zom C Y • SeQt 0 2• likely Nation 1ciPalitY C&p hem°ns cr ,gun ,~°use ~ at e wing in 8/11 sim'lla ek .~°11° kiast e ea 3 • £o erita i°n. nfe~en t°/Y? al eo ~is:t°rY Pres ess co d edi Outlin ans. ule Pz eala a ti°n • city P s 5cred ews m °Peza publlcente~ COY '1/29) ~ • w it ra lZe sY stem isPatcl~ e . 1 t° COY by 5mtat~s too rs °~ d e~ C°vezag lean s eP°~ts COY 8/28) O~ fe~° i TV ~ ~ewsPaP lncl~aing lPzogzes 9 /l its to COY b`I gads Releas ~ 911• ss ~eQo 5• a• ae~lniti°n ° e Indicating ~Pzogre go Co eas ~ pzesz s5 nn°~ncements• 9/21 g° City b• Prog c 5e~vice A 11/2 Yu~ll ids °' `1) Bi ~~o°BUSe `C,~annWo ia.tsews e ~2) CoX Ca el Times s r n languag l3 ) g°an°k 5tatio lose sig abed) W°°d ~~) adio °ns imP ~Ing ~ 5 ) Tv Sta o ~ ~eax s ~ • e • d g°C ~6) als° f sign levy°o `~) Fla ce n of ~ e ang ivities • SePt/ 8 ) galem Cabl s gelea eSt w/ f l e als . Oct ~ Pres inter cY °i pvg ntensi£te media eme~gen d• Ste sl~ith key Museum• v1 cience at 5 Display 6• .~ ~: e/11/s~ 911 PUBLIC AWARENESS CAMPAIGN 7. Talks and Presentations. Ongoing C&P a. Schools b. Service Groups includes puppet shows, c. Churches coloring books for kids d. Civic Associations e. Two Television Talk Shows 8. Special Letters (requesting 911 be placed in in-house telephone directories and newsletters>. a. Businesses b. Civic Associations c. Hotels d. Valley Rescue Fund Drive 9. Contact Utilities for bill inserts and postage meter notices. 10. Distribution of Materials. 3x5 cards w/emergency and administrative phone numbers for each locality. 11. Stickers/Decals on Vehicles. Sept Participating Jurisdictions ASAP Participating Jurisdictions Ongoing C&P & Participating Jurisdictions Oct 5 Participating Jurisdictions OF ROANC~F ~~ . G 2 A 2 a~ 18 ,~.~ 88 s~s~VlCENTEN-'~~ P~ A Btauli/ulBeginning COUNTY gpMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE March 12, 1987 Mr. Walter Rugaber Roanoke Symphon President P•, 0• Box 2433 Y Orchestra Roanoke, Virginia 24010 Dear Walter: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOB JOHNSON. CHAIRMAN HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT W N s RARR s A VIS R AL DISTR CN CAVE SPRING 'ALAN H. BRITTLE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN q. (HCGRAyV CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VIN TON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Thank you for Board of Su Your z•ecent letter Symphon pervisors consider request=ng Y Orchestr contributin hat the Roanoke to include a, I have asked g $5.000 County reviewed b that figure in the °ur Director of tO the Roanoke of Y the Supervisors, preliminary 1987_88 budagement and Budget your letter. I am also s get that ending the Su will be Past pervisors a copy service g practice had been Su Centerr~npthebSquarethe cu~renttbudute as much as available t pervisors That certain~et we were able o human cultural are willing to consider y indicates tO donate $15,000 organizations, financial su that the County PP°rt for community You will be promptly notified request, If I can be of further assistanCeupervisors' • Please let meh cc - Board of ~',.Ms • Reta Supervisors R,,Busher~ ~II1IYi~,l~j A~ ~l7ttYCi1~tP Very truly yours, ~~ Elmer C, Hodge County Administrator decision on your me know. P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRC~In~I~ .. ~4. THE ARTS co L.TNCIL O F R O A N O K E V A L L E Y March 10, 1987 Ms. Reta R. Busher Director of Management and Budget P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Dear Ms. Busher, '3" ~~\ FFr 1981 ~', RECE~vED Finance Dept ~: Peanoke Co. The Arts Council of Roanoke Valley has begun its 11th year of service as a promoter, fiscal agent, occasional (under and supporter of all arts groups in the Valley. Although we are based at Center in the Square, we increasingly see our mission as one of service, support and advocacy for cultural groups, large-.and smsll,:throughout the area, This past year, for example, we have made small financial awards for neW projects to ~fcur arts groups: . Artemis and The~Acting Co~apany for a collaboration in April; the Roanoke S;~mphony, for a future special per- f~rmance for hearing and sight-impaired children, and the Virginia Water- color Society . for its v.ery..successful Walter_ Biggs exhibit _in._Pecember ~t Roanoke College. Our current activities include the third annual Perry F. Kend~b Award to ?;e held May 7 at Roanoke College (with awards this year to a business .for outstanding support of the arts and to a teacher for lifetime service to the arts); the City Art Show in Roanoke, open to all Valley artists and the hanging of past art show winners at the Roanoke City Courthouse. We produce a monthly calendar of cultural events that covers the entire area. Our 55 members include virtually all local arts groups, as well as business, college, school, church, medical and library groups with interests in the arcs, Through our library, ae provide information ranging from grants an3 foundation applications to the calendars and activities o` a wide variety of Virginia ar*_s groups. We share our artist' list of some 800 names with our member,;, daily answer dozers of queries or. every aspect of the a=ts, and mail prospectuses for a variety of art coW..retitions all over the state. To spun up, we provide a focal point for local. arts activities and offer a broad range of arts information. We intend tc e:.co::rage even more participation in and a~areness of th` grcaing r.;:mbe, o* arts re:.csrces we have in the Roanoke Valley. One Market Square• Roanoke, ~a. 24011• (703) 342-5790 -- ; page 2 With the imminent hiring of a new executive director, we hope to work more closely with local governments and local and regional business groups to aggressively promote the dazzling array of cultural activities going on all over our valley. Therefore, we are seeking some financial assistance from local gov- ernments. (We continue to apply for and receive grant money from the Virginia Commission for the Arts.) We..ar~``respectfti7ly~ asking that Roanoke County consider a request from The°~rts Council of $3,300, based on a pro-rated share of the valley popu- ;.~~"lation. For your information, we have.~requested $5,000 from the City of :,, _ Roanoke Yand $1, 750 from the,..City~~'o"f~~Salem. Thank you for your serious consideration of our request. Enclosed is a list of our Board of Directors, member organizations and recent activities. Respectfully submitted, Sally Rugaber President The Arts Council of Roanoke Valley Enclosures 9 CENTER INOTHE S6~UARE ONE MARKET SQUARE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011 703/342-5700 WESTERN VIRGINIA FOUNDATION FOR THE ARTS AND SCIENCES February 2, 1987 Mr. Bob L. Johnson, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 3800 Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Dear Bob: We have completed our third successful year of operation here at Center in the Square. Attached is a brief summary of some of our 1986 highlights. We are particularly pleased that last year we served more than 12,000 Roanoke County school students in expanding their educational horizons. Our needs for the coming fiscal year are more demanding than in the present year. One obvious reason is the increase in expenses due to the effects of inflation. In addition, as you likely know, we have recently purchased the Phelps Armistead furniture .building on Church Avenue. This building will permit us. to expand the programs currently being offered here, with perhaps other programs being added. We will need to -raise capital funds of well over $1,000,000.00 to pay for this building and its remodeling. Further, our operating costs for this new facility will increase our operating costs approximately $100,000.00 a year. We surely would not be able to offer the superb programs of our three museums, theatre and planetarium without the generous support of the County of Roanoke.. We respectfully ask that the County continue its grant support~to us for our fiscal year commencing July 1, 1987.- In view of our significantly increased capital and operating costs, we would appreciate your increasin your support- to $58,000.OQ_ Attached are (1) our audited Financial Statements for the fiscal year 1985-86, and (2) our financial statement for the period July-December 1986. If you need further information or would like for our representative to appear before the Board of Supervisors at its budget studies, please let me know. cc-Mr. Elmer C. Hodge, County Sincerely, ~~ Richard F. Dunlap Chairman Administrator CENTER IN THE SQUARE 198c HIGHLIGHTS A total of 20,403 Roanoke City Schools students were directly served b,y the Center's five resident organizations, through tours and programs for their classes. CENTER SCHOLARS PROGRAM in the performing arts completed its third .year as a cooperative venture with Roanoke City, Roanoke County and Salem Schools. completed the intensive eolle a level 9TweekY coursestudents incorporated all aspects of g which to Mill Mountain Theatre, performing arts and field trips performances. Roanoke Ballet and Gpera Society Next .year., Center Scholars will expand to include a program in the Visual Arts, sponsored b,y Roanoke Museum of Fine Arts.. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE - organizations Center in the Square resident provided speakers to three "Career Days;" j udges for Roanoke Ci t, Roanoke Arts CommissionyHighoSchool1ArteExhibition~-sponsored host site Roanoke City Schools PTA "Reflections" provided provided host site for receptions and theatre exhibition; honoring 1300 Roanoke Cit, performances provided host Y Schools volunteers and teachers; adult artists site for City High School graduation. the Arts Council co-sponsored the Cit, For Show with the City of Roanoke, at Roanoke Public Library, Arts AMERICAN EDUCATION WEER - For the second and displays b.y Roanoke City Schools elementar, performances students celebrated American Education week inyCentereinndthe Square. Filling the Atrium were: chess demonstrations, Choirs, string ensembles, care, studies of ancient filay rehearsal, exhibits on child posters gyp( and native American Indians, songs and essays on patriotism. Approximately 350 students were showcased. PROJECT SELF-SUFFICIENCY - for the first time, Square served as host site for a rece tion honorinnter in the of Project Self Sufficient, p g graduates y and their teachers. "HENRY ST!" One component of Center in the Square's overall 1986 celebration of Black. Heritage month was a play staged at Mill Mountain Theatre, commemorating the historic heart Roanoke's Black Community. So successful were the four sold-out performances in February, that an additional five shows (again, total sell-outs) were scheduled in late May -early June. Fifty volunteers and three volunteer directors .~ donated their Blue time Ridge Be and tale verage Co rats; unde Corporation. mpany~ Ban rwriti Street Revival A total of f vir91nia and provided by $10 k ° efforts. The COmmitt for , 000 was Times-Hor ee use therstreeta t Id Public Telev• play and subse on o the Henry quent s rich histor is1On elev lc video rest irate Y and pots ated publ• aware program b.Y Bluerat1On rnationa11Y on ntiall• Hess Rid U. P, I. Y grand future of Henry Street 9s yyuare REGISTRATION _ were servlCe, Story was carr1ed S SIS served as host siterforevoternd Cents .Year deleER CITIES, etc, registration. r in the bus gates from Center i menlninsmen in October~u Korea rain he Square hosted Offi and Y, Ootober, S°ut Jul 186, a tour of ce of Economi Center continueAfri~an young Japanese Convention Bgre$u ~ Develo profess 1 Infor pment, Roanoke work with i ono motto oanoke S yalle the City educat• n tonal officer to pecial Events Y Visitors and tours for ltinCOprdinate eCOmmittee and Cit• vi s g groups ntertainment Y and -2- Roanoke ~ i.~n~a~ TOWN OF BLACKSBURG 300 South Main Street, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060 June 30, 1987 Elmer Hodge County Administrator County of Roanoke P.O. Box 38 Roanoke, VA 24015 Dear Elmer: Blacksburg and the Roanoke Valley are moving closer together every day. I have been over your way the past few weeks encouraging support for a project that should move us even closer, a better road connection. You can expect to be hearing from Roanoke Valley citizens soon. This letter is meant to fill you in on what we have in mind. As I may have mentioned to you, the town of Blacksburg, in cooperation with Virginia Tech and The River Foundation, has employed Mattern and Craig to provide us with preliminary engineering information evaluating various alter- native methods to reduce the travel time between Blacksburg and the Roanoke Valley. They looked at three basic alternatives (see enclosed map). The three alternatives would not only reduce travel time to the Roanoke Valley but would also relieve congestion in the Route 460 corridor between Blacksburg and Christiansburg, a rapidly growing area of Montgomery County. Based on the results of an origin and destination study Mattern and Craig completed in February, over one-fourth of the traffic on Route 460 is moving to and from I-81 (see Table 1). Table 1 Origin and Destination Study Results Total traffic count 29,900 vehicles per day Direct traffic Blacksburg - I-81 7,863 vehicles per day (26.37) Total survey sent 14,000 Surveys returned 4,750 (36~) Using this data as a base, Mattern and Craig developed the traffic volumes for each of the three alternatives shown on the map (see Table 2). Elmer Hodge page 2 June 30, 1987 Alternative Existing A B C Existing Road Cu-- r~ t Yea~~7 35,975 14,550 25, 750 26,600 Mattern and Craig also and distance saved (Table 4 Table 4 Alternative Descri _~i_ A B Christiansburg pro 0 C Route 641 P sal Route 603 Alternati Total Miles to Ironto Exchange fro ve m South Blacksbur g (Miles) Existing A 17.5 B 16.93 C 13.62 11.36 114) Cu-_.~-Ne~R Yea-~07 Estimated Construction Exclusive of Cost Right_of_Wa $ 40 million 115 million 120 million Distance Saved Existin from (Miles) .57 3,gg Distance Saved from Alternative A (Miles) At first 6.14 3.31 Alternatives glance the significant 5.57 B and C would cost difference burg TOE Council seem to make between Alter the existin Prefers Alternative the choice native A and mental g Corridor B because an easy one. The B problems, congestion, and Alter Alternative A is lacks- native C has significanto Close to As Route 460 environ_ will lose efficienaevelops, the address y as ram grade-separated reducin Ps become interchanges in the constr g travel distance Congested. Alternative Alternative A on retion of four grade-se(~ust over one-half A does impact ducin Parated mile saved little to g travel time, interchanges would ) but through At 55 miles per hour have a larger the four to six miles Current and p Table 2 Route 460 rOJected Traffic Counts (South Limits, Blacksbur (ADT) g to Route 23,250 21,450 41,100 34,200 42,450 10 250 9,400 16,350 develo 15,000 ped constnativen cost estimates (Table 3 for each alter Table 3 Construction Costs Elmer Hodge Page 3 June 30, 1987 saved by Alternatives B and C and the cost per mile may seem expensive. Why spend $115-120 million to save five minutes? We are not really talking about five minutes. When you are not actually on I-81 between Blacksburg and Roanoke, you cannot go 55 miles per hour. During peak hours you sometimes do not move at all. Alternatives B and C move the Roanoke Valley traffic out of the local corridor and provide a direct four-lane divided highway between Blacksburg and I-81. Both B and C also provide direct links to the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. We see the project as a major economic development pipeline between your valley and Virginia Tech. Aside from cost, distance and time saved, economic impacts, and ability to address congestion problems, each alternative has environmental impacts. Table 5 summarizes the impact of the alternatives on business and residential relocations. Table 5 Relocations Alternative peo~e Residences Busies A C 39 13 10 162 54 2 Alternative C will also have to meet significant environmental tests because it follows the path of the North Fork of the Roanoke River and will be in flood plain areas. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has included $1.2 million in their six-year plan to begin their own study of the problem. We welcome this decision but are concerned that VDOT will not look at the long- range solutions and will not give much weight to the economic development impacts. We are also bothered that both the Christiansburg Town Council and the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors endorsed Alternative A before Mattern and Craig developed the origin and destination data. Christiansburg would, of course, benefit economically from Alternative A and are not too concerned about whether Blacksburg residents can move quickly to I-81 and points beyond. I know that this is a lot of information to absorb and we are only at the preliminary stages of the project, but in talking strategy with Jack Hancock and Dick Cranwell, we believe that early support by Roanoke Valley leaders can assist us in overcoming the objections of VDOT and Christiansburg's narrow concerns. We might want to arrange private meetings between Blacksburg and Roanoke Valley elected local government officials to set the stage for public positions. TOWN OF BLACKSBURG 300 South Main Street, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060 July 31, 1987 Mr. Bob Johnson, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 38 Roanoke, VA 24015 Dear Bob: Thank you for your continuing support in our efforts to bring the Roanoke Valley, Blacksburg and Virginia Tech cloieresoectfully requestnthatsyou ask the goal to narrow the distance between us, P Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution endorsing the Blacksburg solution to our mutual transportation needs. It is vital thectourAn friends in the Roanoke Valley join us in expediting this important proj early decision is needed on the highway alignment that best meets all our needs and the most effective way of achieving that objective is enthusiastic support for a reasonable alternative. I have taken the liberty of enclosing a copy of the resolution adopted by the Blacksburg Town Council and a working draft of pa similar resolutiongthaou to might be adopted by the Roanoke County Board of Su ervisors. I encoura e y modify the draft resolution (as you see fit). I look forward to working with you on this project and others in our growing partnership. Sincerely, ~a~.~_~ Roger E. Hedgepeth Mayor REH/dbc Enclosures TOWN OF BLACKSBURG 300 South Main Street, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060 AMEn?DED RESOLUTION 4~7-F-87 A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE IMPROVEMENTS OF BLACKSBURG'S ACCESS TO INTERSTATE 81. WHEREAS, direct access between Blacksburg and Virginia Tech, and the Roanoke Valley is a key ingredient in Southwest Virginia's ability to compete for economic development opportunities; WHEREAS, the Governor of Virginia has recognized adequate transportation facilities as an important part of the State's economic development strategy; WHEREAS, the Governor has emphasized his commitment to supporting proj- ects which will assist Southwest Virginia in creating jobs for its citizens; WHEREAS, the existing highway corridor between the Interstate 81 inter- change at Route 11 in Christiansburg and U.S. 460 at South Main Street in Blacksburg is greatly overcrowded, inefficient, and burdensome to commerce and the traveling public; WHEREAS, the town of Blacksburg has commissioned studies of alternative solutions to these problems; WHEREAS, these studies show that a new road leading from the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center east to a point near the existing intersection of Route 641 with Interstate 81 will provide the direct access necessary to ensure the long-term economic success of the region and is the best solution to the problems associated with the access of Blacksburg and Virginia Tech to Interstate 81; WHEREAS, this new road will also remove a significant volume of traffic from the existing Route 460 Corridor resulting in a safer, less congested highway for local use; WHEREAS, the new highway will also provide more convenient access to the Roanoke Valley and points east for other counties such as Giles, Bland, and Tazewell; TOWN OF B L A B U G 300 South Main Street, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060 July 27, 1987 Elmer Hodge County Administrator County of Roanoke P.0. Box 38 Roanoke, VA 24015 Dear Elmer: I am enclosing for your information a co on the proposed new highway between Blacksburgyand therRoanokeoValle Council soon as the Council has adopted a resolution on this issue, I will forward you a copy and make a formal request for endorsement by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, ~c~ C. Robert Stripling Town Manager CRS:kae Enclosure LIST OF FIGURES r be ~__9_~ 1• Alternate Study Lines..., .......................3 2• 1985 Average Daily Traffic. .....................6 3• Summary Form for Vehicular Volume 7-Day Average--Eastbound Lanes....., .~ 2-2-87 thru 2-8-87 ........... 4• Summary Form for Vehicular Volume ~-Day Average--Westbound Lan_es., 2-2-87 thru 2-8- ................8 87 5, , Summary Form for Vehicular Volume 7-Day Average--Eastbound Lanes.,,,,, ,9 2-4-87 thru 2-15-87 ~.~~~~~~~~ ~• Summary Form for Vehicular Volume 7-Day Average--Westbound Lanes......, 2-9-87 thru 2-15-87 " " '••10 ~• Traffic Clarification Counts Eastbound Lanes..,,,, ..........................11 8• Traffic Clarification Counts Westbound Lanes.,,,,, ..........................12 9• License Plate Surv " eY Form.,. ...................14 ROUTE 460 CORRIDOR STUDY MONTGOMERY COUNTY, VIRGINIA l • ] NTRnni irT r ~~~ A • 9ACK6R0 iNn The Town of Blacksburg, Virginia, is located approximately 40 miles west of Roanoke in Montgomery County. It is the home of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) with an enrollment of approximately 20,000 students, The overall population of Blacksburg, including the Tech students, is 32,000, The mayor highutay transportation link serving Blacksburg anfi Virginia Tech is U.S, Route 460. It connects with Interstate Route 81 about 7.5 miles south of town in Christiansburg, Virginia. Route 460 is classified as an arterial route in the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) highway system and is a 4-lane facility, During the last few years the Route 460 corridor has become more congested with traffic as new development has occured and Virginia Tech has grown in size. As a result, the Charnbers of Commerce, Virginia Tech and the local governing bodies, Mont omer g Y County and the Towns of Blacksburg and Christiansbur g. have coined together and requested the VDOT to take steps to help alleviate the traffic problem. Since no ma or included in the Department's Six-YearpPlanctohhel been p C, ALTERNATE B....., ...............................25 D• ALTERNATE C..,,,, ...............................25 V. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATES,,, ..........................26 A• DESIGN FEATURES.,,,, ............................26 B, TRAFFIC PATTERNS...., ...........................27 C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, ..........................27 D, ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS.,,,,,, .............31 This Study is Just one ste in the lannin p p 9 process. Its intent is to provide preliminary information on traffic volumes, environmental impacts, and construction costs for a Route 460 Corridor Study in Montgomery County, Virginia. Concern over traffic congestion on existing Route 460 and the desire for a more direct route of travel between Blacksburg--Virginia Tech and the Roanoke Valley led to this study, The results of an Origin and Destination Survey conducted in con)uction with the study revealed there were aRproximately 9,400 vehicles per day in 1986 traveling between Blacksburg and Roanoke, This figure is projected to increase to 15,000 vehicles per day in the design year • selected for the study as 2007. Three alternative corridors previously considered for providing a more direct route between Blacksburg--Virginia Tech and the Roanoke Valley were included in the study. Alternate A, developed by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), is estimated to have a construction cost of X40,000,000 excluding right-of-way and relocation assistance and is the least expensive of the three alternates studied, Alternates B (641 Plan) and C (603 Plan) are estimated to have construction costs of ~115,G00,000 and $120,000,000, respectively, i B• SCOPE OF ~Tiinv The scope of the study includes the following, - Assembly of existing data relative to previous studies, traffic data, and mapping. - Preparation of 1"=400' scale aerial mosaic scrolls for corridor study alignments. - Collection of traffic data through an origin-destination survey. - Development of functional plan alignments, grades and construction cost estimates for the VDOT, 603. and 641 plans, - Evaluation of the three alternates with respect to design features, traffic data, and construction costs. - Submittal of letter report on preliminary findings,, evaluations, and construction costs along with i"=400' scale mapping scrolls depicting alignments and grades of alternates studied. II. EXISTING CONDITinN~ A. ROUT_ E 460 From the southern tip of Blacksburg where the Route 460 Bypass and Route 460 Business Route intersect to the intersection of I-81 in Christiansburg, Route 460 consists of four lanes. From Blacksburg to the split between Route 460 Business and Route 460 Bypass of 4 Christiansburg, a distance of about 3.2 miles, Route 460 is a four-lane divided, uncontrolled access facility with three signalized at-grade intersections. The 460 Bypass of Christiansburg is a four-lane divided, controlled access facility, This section of Route 4b0 is about 2.7 miles in length. It terminates at Route 11 with a signalized at-grade intersection. Frorn this intersection to route I-81 is approximately 1,5 miles. The roadway is four lanes with a flush median to accommodate left turning vehicles into strip commercial development. B • TRAFF I C VO I IMF, Data relative to present traffic volumes on the existing highway system was obtained from the VDOT publication entitled. "Average Daily Traffic Y0liimr~g nn Interstate. Arterial and Pr9marv RouteR 1985 The publication containing 1986 volumes will not be available until June 1987. Figure 2 depicts the 1985 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes on .the major routes in the study area. To supplement these volumes, 24-hour automatic recorder counts were made over a two week period on U.S, Route 460 immediately south of the Montgomery Regional HosRital in Blacksburg. Figures 3 thru 6 summarize these hourly volume directional counts for the eastbound and westbound lanes. In addition to the automatic recorder counts, vehicle classification counts were made over a 24-hour period to determine the characteristics of the traffic. Figures 7 and 8 show the make-up of the traffic volumes for the eastbound and westbound lanes as recorded on March 3, 1987. 5 MATTERN & CRAIG SUM MARY FORM FOR VEHICU LAR V OLUME 7 -Day Aire rage COUNT Y M~a ( ~ GoJ~~c-2 DAILY y FACTOR- LOCATION E AST~30U~c/D G-4,vF Between ~~,5 4~~ .~~.,d, And ~t //¢- MON. Date TUE. WED, ~` THU FRI. ~„ SAT. SUN. T IME 2-2-87 2-3 g? 2-4-87 2-S- a7 2-~-8) Z-I-g7 2-$-J7 7-DAY AVG. AM 7-8 e 83c' 8Z3 85 (D 85Z ~luS 3~5 ISCo 702 -9 = 74u 7S'B oa-o 7&I 8SB 52.1 Z2C s to X84 74a 747 ~sl 8ZS v4o o S34 ~o7Co to-II ?43 84Ca BoZ 815 SAS 53Z S~7 733 I I- li 7a7 870 87G 5S° /oSl //3S G~3 8oCD P M 503 12 - I I_2 S3Z. 534 $S$ 5'B° //ZZ //// 537 983 ~4o b'S4 581 ~oo¢ ;/ ~o /oS7 ioZg z - s l0 47 ~• 9Si 1115 ic33 /37C, ~oSZ to 4-S l o / 4- s-4 /3Z/ /38c~ /3 /: /42~ ~~c~7 /Q7¢ 574 1091 4-s /5~3 /SG+ /S7S / CJ4 / io I //70 13~~ s-6 /570 /S54 1~3t~ 1053 l~,$ X031 1~.7c. l~~l 6-' 80- 881 91r 9Z8 //7,S' 9ZS ~1~ X68 143 ~-g ~7Z ~~3 G45 L3 z. 8e7 X58 QSS 902 • B-s _ Q_IS 4~~ 53S ~~3 ~ Z S"rl S 3 ~- ~,~ ~. 0 377 423 ; 440 /orj .rc3 4Gi 3 C ~ 7 10-1 II ~~S 'LPI s?o 37~ 34S 3?C~ ° ~ ZQ~ SIB -12 277 3Z~~ 3~4- 3?? ~3~ 2s3 3r I A-M I~Z, 31v • 12-I Ic$ /~7 X31 18~ /9~ 23S 210 I-2 2 ~8 84 7Z /5 i -, :5 z/4- I~ o 17'~- -s 3 4S `I Z oZ 71 C / ~S , SI (G.S -4 - 47 72 7g s 4~ ~ 4s 4s SS 54. ~ sS 47 s-s s-~ /43 /41 _ - 1~4- -~ I~ 1 ------ --~4i //3 53 ,~<1 /34 32co I 337 ~ .,C.Z ~ 35? .385 ~ l~3 q3 ---- TOTAL /~,~7) 15,3oco 15 ~~CD4 I(D 3~c~ 118 745 14 3 6c I` 1 7- DAY , ~ / , /,oic FACTOR ~ /.OS /•0f I ~•~7 o.i¢ i o,? ~Z 1. v 4- 1.4 ° ~ ~ J I ec ~u~SV~~(c ~~ckct~c/~ ~c.,,c r ,. t ~~ i .- :t 7 / ; cz~ !.' rti l . Figure 3 MATTERN d~ CRAIG SUM MARY FORM FOR VEHICULAR VOLUME 7 -Day Ave rage _ (DAILY FACTORI COUNTY /~oN~~OMC,2y LOCATION ~'AST~OU-u~ GA,V~ BetweenUs~ 4(00 SUS. And ~/E. //¢ MON. TUE, WED, THU FRI, SAT. SUN. Date T IME 2-9-~7 2-10-81 2-11-b7 2-~~-g~ Z-i3-~~ 2-/4-;'7 I '~-rS-~;% AM 7-8 e-s s= to to-II I I- 12 P M 12-I 1-2 2-3 3 -4 a-s s-s s-~ ~-8 s-s s- to lo- II II-12 A-M 12-I I -2 2-3 3-4 a-s s-s - 6-7 TOTAL 7-DAY FACTOR 7-DAY AVG. G s4 9~8 ~3 9.30 X38 307 /27 ~ ~ r 7/0 C l 7 7~8 X4 79Z 797 ~8o S2/ 203 G52 p ~ 7 7/9 737 3 805 g93 Saf ¢~5 725 G 8 82 831P /oo/ /009 5/~ i 79 8/ 85B 985 /030 /092 572 g 905 954 9/5 ~~7 /Z~o ll4¢ 905 1008 S i2 io z~ q/3 5'~7 9/0 /0~8 983 g l 2~4 / 25 89 /oo¢ l2 4 c~ 1359 /~ / /o 4 1385 /373 /732 /os7 995 /082_ 44.5 1549 10 30 / 7 2/ 2020 /o~ 3 /o ~0 9~v4 175 i _ l2 9/ /4 79 /CooCo /~02 /~28 /7002 /85~ Z9 9~4 /¢7 ~ 887 9410 974 X52 /2i 3 qo~ &o/ . 954 5~o 4/4 C039 - 1037 1081 F~~ 7`1/0 X77 ~-7/ 3~0 480 ~9~ 51.8 ~/o X45 4 j2 S`~ 2103 ~ 3¢l ~7~ ~~;¢ 5~Co ~l~ ~~~0 _ ¢~3 274 0 3/9 304 295 3~~ 30/ ¢l<~ 3/S 275 3 3c~ 502 29g 202 3/3 /3/ 89 /¢5" /Cv(v /55 ~ 37 273 Zc? I /7¢ 55 88 9¢ /io /oo /42 /~~/ -- //C - 73 ~/ 40 70 ~7 79 85 /3/ ~3 ~ o - 8¢ 38 5 ~ 7 45 :07 74 7~ ~ ~0 3G _ Coco /25 35/ /S8 i --~ /8¢ _ l~l l 73 93 4/ ss i 34--- - -- 389 _ ~?~ --+ ---3~3 X77 I _ /l~ 9 -- ~ B~ -- ---~03 - ----~ , /9,492 /¢ 395 /o,9fi2 ~ /~-,zlCo /•08 0,98 I o,97 ~ 0,~2 0,79 /•oCo I /•40 Figure 5 9 MATTERN & CRAIG ~~ 0 TRAFFIC CLASSIFI CATION CO UNTS Route Number g~ Date MAf:Cµ 3 19 EA~T6ou,vo Day TU6$~AY INBOUND OUTBOUND) Weather CLF/'1/Z f $4r.1rJ`( S' PASSENGER CARS COMMERCI AL VEHICLES TIM E TRUCKS BUSES PERIOD Virginia Other i P Other 2-Axle State P ck-U g_Axle Total or Single Dual Sin le g Combi- Regular Other Vehicles Ta i Pane l Rear Rear Unit nations C. C. x A M /3(0 '-2 33 5 ~ z - - rZ - - - S~ 2-3 20 8 ~0 4- - ~ ' I - _ _ 7 ~ ~ 3-a fZ 2 I ~ 2 - 11 _ - - 3f a- s 13 I ~ - ~ - ,o _ _ j -- ~ _ j 3~ S-s S~ ~ r4 2 - - ~~ - _ I _ ' So s- ~ 155 2 ~ 7~ g - - ~ ~ r 3 _ - - ~ , 3 r ~. ~- s 7 2 ~ -- ~--4-5- ~ i? Z - 2 Z - - !3 ~ _ _ ~~ f I ;i ~ 3S a-s 5~:~ ! ~ 53 74 3 i i - r 2 - ~I --- . i 3 ~ 74 7 s-,o S~~ ~ S7 ~ - ~S 44 - - 29 ---- ~ - ~~ I ~ ~ r i ; 7 73 10-1, S3~L' Co Cc ~~ _ ~~ `-- ~ _ 3 Z - ~' ~ ~ - 7S5 „-,2 5~4 8Z ~ C~~ ZS ~ - - 25 _ i I~ 77 ~ , ? M ~ t i __,--- -- 2 1 - 7Z ~--- ~ I i ~s ~! _ 37 j ~ - 4Z - - - Ii /c37 ,-2 - I Sr co I - Si j 17S 1 35 i - - 2S _ - I ~~ ~---- __ ---- - -. ~ ~ - _ f ~ 2 - 3 I ~ a ~ ~ / 4S ~ 1^/ i i 37 ~ - - - ----------- t -- ----- I _ _ __ ~ _ - 1 ~ 3o - - ~--- 3 - - '~ 9 3 3 s- a ~ S 7 SS' Zz i - 44- ~ - 2S ~ -- ---~ - - - ~ 4 - ij !2 I4- a- s / / Q Co ~ 4 Z 3 3 ---- -- -- ------ --- I - 3 i _ ZZ _ ( r ! - ji /495 2S - 1 - ~ ii iSZo s-~ G8S ~° ~ 53 ,, ~., S - - I ~ I ~_ ~ - ~Q Z ~-s 4 S 8 ~ 27 ~ 8~ .3 - - 5 - - - e-g ~ 3 00 ~ ~ ~j 583 37 87 4- , - _ r4 II _ 9 -1 O ~ ~ (o ~ -.---~- 3S i `,~ ~ -- Z - - 4 _ I~ s z z --~-- - ---ft----~ ---r --------r------ - ' -- ~j 3Co ) y ' 1 2 4 7 - I I - 12 Z J'0 p / ~ ~ I z __ --- - _. - f ~o -" - - 257 TOTAL f0, (ooFS ~ ~~Z 2~f3Z 353 - - ~ s a 4 - ~s ' I i 4, 572 Recor der ~ ~ (Siyna;ure) C. TRAFFIC PATT RNS Other than the number of vehicles on the existing roadways, no information was available on the origin or destination of the traffic. This type of data is necessary for planning purposes and particularly in the location, design, and programming of new or improved highway facilities. To obtain this type of information for the study, a license plate origin-destination (0 & D) survey was conducted. A roadside interview 0 & D was originally planned, but the VDOT felt the magnitude of the traffic volumes might cause some public relations and safety problems for them. Therefore, it was agreed that the license plate survey method should be utilized to collect the data, Tuesday, March 3, 1987, was selected as the day for conducting the survey. The observation point chosen for the survey was the signalized intersection on Route 460 with State Secondary Route 775, the entrance into the Montgomery Regional Hospital. The survey was basically conducted during the daylight hours (7s00 A.M. 700 P.M.). Working in cooperation with Virginia Tech, the student chapter of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) provided 41 students to assist in the survey. The license plate technique involved recording the full license plate numbers, identifying vechicle ownership from registration records, and sending a mail-back questionnaire to each owner. A copy of the form used to record the license plate data is shown in Figure 9, The VDOT and the Division of Motor Vehicles assisted in 13 matching license plate numbers with vehicle owners. The questionnaire sent to the owners is shown in Figures 10 and 11. On the day of the survey, 23.849 vehicles were physically counted passing the survey station during the observation period. Of this number, 13,254 (56%) identifiable vehicles had their license plate numbers recorded and the vehicle owners subsequently sent questionnaires. A total of 4,750 questionnaires were returned before the cut-off date established as Monday, April 10, 1987, arrived. This represented a return of approximately 36 percent. A total of 4,413, or about 93 percent, of the returned questionnaires were usable in the survey tabulation. In an effort to improve upon the accuracy of the data collected, additional questionnaires were sent to students at Virginia Tech who were observed passing r through the survey station. In the case of most students, their vehicle is registered in their home town, the address to which the questionnaire was sent. To elirninate the possibility of a student not receiving a questionnaire, Virginia Tech cooperated in matching license plate numbers obtained in the survey to license plate numbers registered to students on campus. This process resulted in 840 questionnaires being sent to Tech students. A cony of the questionnaire sent to the students on campus in shown In Figure 12. Accompanying this questionnaire was a letter from W. R. Van Dresser, Vice President for Administration and Operations urging the students to cooperate in the traffic survey. Apnrox.imately 21 fiercent (177) of the questionnaires were returned of which 138 were used in the tabulations. The difference of 39 were students who had returned questionnaires received at their home 15 ROUTE 460 CORRIDOR S1UDY MONTGOMERY COUNTY TRIP QUESTIONNAIRE A vehicle registered in your name was observed traveling on Route 460 OFFICE USE O~JI_Y South of the Blacksburg Town Limits on Tuesday, March 3, 1987. It would be appreciated if you or the person who drove on the trip would please answer the following questions: A. Where did this trip begin? lty, tate, lp B• Where did this trip end? Clty, State, lp V I I I C. How many persons (including driver) were in your vehicle on this trip? D. The reason for this auto trip was: (circle one) 1. Work 3. Shopping 2. School 5. Pleasure 4. Personal Business 6. Other E. Major Route Used: To Enter Observation Location (Circle One) o L ~l• Route 460 Bypass ~ z 2. Route 460 Bus. 3. I-81 from Bristol Direction 4. I-81 from Roanoke Direction o ? 5. Route 114 Radford Direction i O ~- N 6. Other To Leave Observation ^ Location (Circle One) - °'~ `11 . Route 460 Bypass z° 12. Route 460 Bus. 13. I-81 to Bristol Direction 14. I-81 to Roanoke Direction ~ ~ 15. Route 114 Radford Direction ~ ~° 16. Other Errors in recording license plate numbers do occur and if this form was sent to you by error, please check here and return Thank you for your time and cooperation T~ W . ~/,A N RTE ago 3Y P.4 ~ r, E N,ApF^Ftp RTE. 114 v ~ o F~RIrjT~l. ~ ~ ~ INTERSTATE ROUTE B I RTE. 4G0 Bus, BLACKS BURG O~SERVaTIC7.,~ LOCATION ROANC~E INTER STATE ~ CHRISTI.~,N',~UR;a ROUTE BI 17 Finiirr~ 11 address. The students response to the survey was less than that of the general public (21% vs. 36%). There is no apparent reason why but may be due to apathy of college students involved in so many other activities. Of the 4,551 questionnaires returned and tabulated, 1,198, or 26.33 percent, represented traffic that was traveling between Blacksburg and I-81 towards the Roanoke Valley. Expanding this to an ADT count results in approximately 9,400 trips per day in 1986 traveling between Blacksburg and Roanoke and beyond. Likewise, about 850 vehicles per day travel between Blacksburg and I-81 to the south. Although the average number of trips traveling between Blacksburg and Roanoke was revealed to be 9,400 vehicles per day through the license plate survey, the figure could range between a low of 6,600 and a high of 14,200 depending upon the season of the year. 19 A • DEVELOPMENT OF D Sir,N YFeQ VOl IIMF~ Design year traffic for the corridor study has been based on the year 2007 traffic volumes. A period of 20 years is widely used as the basis for design. Year 2007 volumes have been developed by applying a five percent growth factor compounded annually to the 1986 volumes. H • ASSIGNMENT OF D ~ t r,N Y AR VO I IMF4 Protected year 2007 traffic volumes have been assigned to three alternates under study. Figures 13 thru 15 depict the 1986 and pro)ected 2007 ADT volumes on each of the study alternates, Traffic destined south on I-81 would utilize Alternate A (VDOT Plan) and Alternate H (641 Plan) but would not use the Alternate C (603 Planl alignment. 20 o c~ o °6 s,_ ~~ S ~~ o0 _~ ~~ _~ .~ ~/'z~-, ~ _J ~ j ~ ~ ~~~ a V" 4 C~ m 151 '4~~ O O S O ~ ~ ~ O N ~ O ~ ~ N a- ~~ cam, m ~O S~, Oss ~~J Tsj O W O W ~ Q ~ J O _ ~ ~ ti O Z W N Z W t7 2 ~ W ~ W U ~ W f' J ~ ~ 4 O ) ~ ~ O W d ~ d O ® O O S O °D p d ,-~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~~ ~~ A ti~ ~ ~apl ~~~' ti k W / ~O L9~~ N Q ~. ~ o ~m i 0 o ~ 0 ~_ o w ~ ~ 1 os`.Ss_ 6~ F ao U a a ~_ C W ?~ ~ ~ J aQ oZC ° ~~ J a a cc w a ~, ap g- , _~ ~- ~ O O O ~ ~ N_ ~ S ~ N ~o ~o~ ~m ~1N~ ~ ~_ / - ~.-f ~ ~ ~'~~ fool ~ moo, OS~ ~ /~J ~ ~ S~ m J (Ll~v tJf~ t ~ m l Q . fc w J V 0 cn W ~ W J U O ~ Q _ CC ti ~ W O W F" O W N Z ~ ~ W ~ Z O U ~ W ''" 44 ~ J N O ~ O X ~ m ~ W d ?) d ~ ®p g O O O °D d .- 0 0 o ~- o~ o f °s o ~' 0 ~_ m W 0 0 0 0 N ~= O g °s_ ~ - %, 6~ U ~ r ~ Q a o W ``~ H J a za oc ° W W I- C7 J Q a ~ w Q 22 .- m o ~ 0 6- ~ S ~ /W 8d /` O _~ _~ I W ~ ~ I W ~ J ~ O Q ~ > 1 = cr r \ ~ H O W Z W N \` O O = W W (9 W -1 -- ~ Z O ~ W W ''" ~ \ J N ~ m O \ W d ~ d o ~ ®° 8 o ~ ~ o O ~~J O .-, ~l~ \ o o ° _ 0 °-\ .~ _ ~ \ ~_ ~` W 1 ~) _ / ~~~- ,q,~°° ~ 3 o g J~' ~s~z ~O,Ja ~J .9~ m \~p ~ W -~ Y ~~, ~~l ~~ o ~ o ao v fib ~ ~ r~~ o os,- a lti ~~-- ~ 'r, ~~ Q7 ~ ~ 6 J - ~ U -. ti r-- W U Q L Q' W ~ ~ ~ J a4 ~ ~ W W F- ~ J Q Q ~ W a 23 IV. DESCRIPTION OF A TFRNATFR A . GEN RAI Three basic corridors have been identified as potential locations for a better connecting route for a major arterial highway between Blacksburg--Virginia Tech and Interstate Route 81. All elements of the proposed new road have been developed in accordance with the VDOT "Geometric Design Standards for Rural Principal Arterial System GS-1" with a design speed of 60 miles per hour, The development of these routes are discussed hereafter. B • ALTERNAT(iA Alternate A is a plan developed by the VDOT. It begins with a facility on a new location near the southern tip of Blacksburg and continues south to tie into the Route 460 Bypass around Christiansburg, A portion of the Route 460 Bypass would be used until it intersects with Route 11. At this point, it is proposed to continue with Route 460 straight on across Route 11 to intersect with I-81 approximately one mile south of fhe existing Route 11--460 interchange with I-81. Faur interchanges are proposed to be constructed with this alignments one with existing Route 460 as it leaves Blacksburg, another at the intersection with the Route 460 Bypass of Christiansburg, a third at the intersection of Route 11, and a fourth at the intersection with I-81. A total of 3.6 miles of new construction is involved with this alternate. 24 C• ALTERNAT B Alternate B has been referred to as the 641 Plan. This concept consists of about 6.6 miles of new construction all on a new location. It begins just north of the Route 460 Bypass--Route 460 Business interchange on the south end of Blacksburg and continues in a southeasternly direction to connect with I-81 in the vicinity of the I-81 crossing of Route 641. An interchange is proposed at each terminal point and with Business Route 4b0. No other access point is proposed for this concept. The terrain, rather than existing development, influences the location of the roadway in this particular corridor. This concept parallels Route 641 for about 1.7 miles Just before it ties into I-81. D• A_LTERNAT This concept, known locally as the 603 Plan, would require about 11.3 miles of new construction but would provide the most direct route of travel between Blacksburg--Virginia Tech and the Roanoke Valley. This route would also be the most environmentally sensitive corridor of the three studied. It would take more single family homes and involve more relocation assistance than Alternates A and B. Alternate C crosses the North Fork of the Roanoke River four times and, in each case, would be involved with the flood plain, 25 V. EVAIIIAT1nti OF A TFRNAT~S A . DESIGN FFATIIRF~ All three alternates would provide a four-lane divided, fully controlled access facility between Blacksburg--Virginia Tech and Interstate Route 81. The distance from Point A to Point B (see Figure 1) is 17.50 miles via the existing roadways. The construction of any one of the three alternates would reduce the travel distance between points A and Bj Alternate A by 0.57 mile, Alternate B by 3.88 miles, and Alternate C by 6.14 miles. By utilizing a significant portion of an existing roadway, Alternate A would require only 3.6 miles of new construction. Alternates 8 and C would necessitate construction on a new location of 6.6 miles and 11.3 miles, respectively, Four interchanges would be constructed with Alternate A and three each with Alternates B and C. With Alternate C, three at-grade intersections are also proposed to provide access to Route 603. The Alternate A alignment intersects I-81 less than one mile south of the existing interchange between Routes ii--460 and I-81 (Exit 37). The desired spacings between interchanges such as this is 2 miles. Alternate B would require building a new interchange on I-81 approximately 2.5 miles north of the Routes 1i--460 and I-&i interchange. The diamond interchange between Routes 603 and I-81 at the Ironto exit (Exit 26 38) would have to be completely rebuilt with the Alternate C alignment. The construction impact of all three alternates will be disruptive, but Alternate A will cause the most inconvenience for vehicular traffic. B. TRAFFIC PATTFRN~ A comparison of 2007 design year volumes reveals that Alternate A would serve the most traffic and provide the greatest amount of relief for traffic on existing Route 460. Alternate C would serve the least volume of daily traffic but would provide the most direct and shortest route between Blacksburg--Virginia Tech and the Roanoke Valley, The distance between points A and B via alternates A, B, and C is 16.93, 13.62, and 11.36 miles respectively, It can be noted that Alternate C would save 5,57 miles of travel between Blacksburg--Virginia Tech and Roanoke when compared to Alternate A and 2.2~ miles as compared to Alternate B. Traffic between Blacksburg-Virginia Tech and I-81 to the south could be expected to use Alternates A and B but would use existing routes rather than utilize Alternate C. C• ENVIRONM NTA IMPArTR Subsepuent to the construction of any of the alternates, the environmental concerns will need to be addressed provided federal funds are involved with the pro)ect. A preliminary evaluation of some of the environmental impacts is as follows 27 1. SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACTS - The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Alternate has a significant impact on development as it leaves Route 460 in Blacksburg and at its crossing of Route 11-460 fn Christiansburg. - The 603 and 641 Alternates have similar effects on development on Routes 642 and Route 723. - Route 603 Alternate has a disruptive effect on development throughout its length, skirting the community of Flagg but still taking several residences. - The community of Ironto is bisected by the Alternate. The alignment skirts in such manner as to affect the community and take several residences. Several houses not taken will require septic system revisions. - Access to the school in Ironto will be affected because the existing roads in the vicinity of the new facility will be realigned in some instances and severed in other cases. 2. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS - The Route 603 Alternate will be the most energy efficient and have the least amount of road user costs associated with it for traffic destined between Blacksburg and Roanoke due to being the most direct and 2B shortest route. The 641 Alternate would be the better of the two remaining alternates. - The VDOT Alternate is the best one suited for construction phasing. Alternates involving the 641 and 603 corridors do not have the potential for constructing the project in phases. - The construction of any new alternate should result in safer operating conditions. The operating conditions for traffic traveling between Blacksburg and Roanoke on Alternate B and C should be better than the VDOT Alternate by virtue of greater spacing between interchanges. Alternate C (Route 603 corridor) requires less travel, thereby, theoretically, making it the safest route. - All alternates will provide better level of service operations than present conditions. Alternates B and C will have•the best level of service for the alternate itself but Alternate A will result in the greatest improvements in operating levels of service for the existing Route 460 roadway. 3. NOISE IMPACTS (ALTERNATES B AND C ONLY) - Adds heavy truck traffic to an existing rural area with virtually no truck traffic presently. 29 4, WATER QUALITY - Alternate B (Route 641 corridor) parallels a relatively minor creek (Den Creek). Impacts on this stream will occur during the construction phase, and in the future with some contaminates. - The Route 603 Alternate (C) is involved with construction phase impacts and future contaminants, Mayor impact is on the North Fork of the Roanoke River floodplain. - Alternate C crosses the River four (4) times. It encroaches upon the floodplain in one other location as it parallels the River. Each involvement would require hydraulic studies and permits, The four crossings would require structures. ,, 5. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS (Similar for all alternates except longer Alternates will involve more impacts.) - Road severance and temporary accessibility problems & inconvenience. - Erosion & siltation considerably more of a problem on Route 603 Alternate because of structures over River and proximity to River throughout its length, - Construction noise and air quality for local residents presents a problem. There are fewer residents along Route 641 corridor. 30 Table 1 depicts the number of residential and business units that would be displaced and the amount of land required based in the alignments studied. TABLE 1 Re id ntia n s s x8 lain Ga Inita ~F2eaid n iai Ilnito Alternate A (VDOT) it 25 Alternate B (641) 0 13 Alternate C (603) 2 54 These represent counts taken from 1"=400' scale aerial photcgraphs and knowledge of area. To make adequate comparisons, detailed environmental studies should be undertaken. These comments are the result of a cursory review and are to be used with that understanding. D ~ SST I MA TED CONSTRi irT r n~~ rn~ ~ ~ Estimated construction costs were determined by applying unit costs based on 1986 unit prices to construction item quantities obtained from functional plans developed for each of the three corridors. An allowance of 15 percent was added to the construction cost of each alternate to cover costs for engineering design. An additional 15 percent was added to cover costs for administration and contingencies. The construction costs exclude costs associated with right-of-way and relocation assistance. 31 The estimated construction cost for the three alternates is: Alternate A tVDOT) $40,000,000 Alternate B (641) Alternate C (603) $115,000,000 $120,000,000 Alternates B and C are estimated to cost approximately three times as much as Alternate A for construction items. The significant differences in costs are related to lengths of construction and earthwork quantities, 32 MATTERN & CRAIG QUANT 1 T Y ~ GOST CONSULTING ENGINEER: PROJECT TE. "t'tot7 C'fl221 Do ESTI M AT E ~- S7"L! d y COMM. N0. ~f Z t~ q ~ i E,e~vA TE' ,a LOCATION f SHEET NO TG o m ~R Y C. o u 1JT ~1 V~ 'SUMMARY BY~~ ~75~ PRICES 8Y ~-y~ s,~ GATE ¢ - Z S - '~ ITEM CHECKED 8Y G~C. NQ DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL O(3/~IZA7'/ON f"~ L.S, / L.S. l~ooooo 1~ C c.~ ~a~- ~ C a ~J cc r a~ ' cz vt. C.Y. 3oaa~ 3, 00 . 9aoooo 0 ~ Q L ~lt~G /~lQrt • rc` To,J gooap o.on 9r~ooo~ P3'~ C•OnG. ~-3 Tou ~G !'Zo 0 3 0, o o /~ 3 G DD D C ~ S-s ToN /2aoo 4-tO.oO ~~ODO i~vA G E O Tl214FFIL L~~' ~"S~ 80$ob0 tN ~ s, / OS/O/V L•s• SbO~bO~ AA ~ ~SEdir»ENT .Co~/Treoc_ L.S, / L. S • o o., cK S ,C~ L // SO O O vel ~a L. S'. / L.S. 2~nooo S s { St nark L.S, / L• S ~ o00 T Su6~~o~~. ~, o ~NGtDE~7i4Lt ~ - I~ /Lo~000 l59~Gbo ~~kc-~cc~~ '•r . ~~~' / S.F 2O6O0Q J'r"o,OD ~D000~000 u5~~rrterl ,S L.S. / ~ • S ~so:ood ~ orl sfruc rb.~ C o s ~s ' ~ ,• L z7g5~~o~ ConT.l ~H[.r~.T X 30/. 3s7,2~o ~_ ~ T ~- . . ~o,vs.T kc.~ on/.. CosT'~ ;, ; :3 G• n~,, .~ :~:s .~~~s ho i~~ vt! ~ ~Ga inn. ,/~ / ~ SG'. QUANTITY ~ MATI'ERN & CRAIG COST CONSULTi1~iG ENGINEER PROJECT TE, ~o~ ep ESTI M AT E 2 21 D o 12 S?u y 5/ ~j+ L ,E'~Q J(/p 7-~' ~ COMM. NO / L LOCATION ~^ SMEET NQ. TG O ~ ESQ y (, o SIT y ~~ 8UMMARY gy~~~ ~ `.yJS~ GATE ¢ - ~ B - '~ PRICES BY /'Y! S~ CHECKED BY GI~~', ITEM NQ DESCRIPTION fy~ UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL L.S, C avct ~o~ e. Y. 2035oooi7 a vt 3.00. G/oSc~ooo t a G ``~ /~a ~L rc` To N 102000 ~-3 _ O.oo /b2oooo GOn~' Tor. 8/ooa C ~ $~_S 30.00 2 ¢3ocao /IV A E To N 1 !o l oo Q~p, o p (~ ¢¢ 0 00 L.S' <<S. /023500 2r4 FF-~ ~/~/ ~ S / °s~ON ~ ~ EDi/l7ENT C ~. S • 500 000 r,~ oN7,eoc.. G.S'. / L.S. Z/Sovo ~C o a.cQ s `c~ e~ ve ~ m S s ~ Sr ~ a~s C. S~. / L , s . .~85cov / ~.. S, ~• L.. S S 3o abO Su6•~o~~ /YGtDE~C/Ti4Gs ~ isa. s' 722~750a u6~ ~ ID o C:~. / L•S. 7~2~75ro ~k c ~cui^ ~ _ . / S•F /832op .5',a.ca 9/lcooop ~ ~ ~ ~57"H7erI S ~ C.'s' ~• S 400,000 ~ orJ Sfruc ion Co s Ts a i~1c r'~ita 89o3Z 25C Co.,~:~genc.i~S~X 3GO% 2~~09~ s ;:-~ ,T ~_ . Vows T~1c. onJ "~ Gosr- .~ ~~ 1~7 q2~ ~, 2 .~,%s ,, ~r ~o~s Rol oGo-fi~~. ~ SSis tCc ~tC.~ COST 5 ~.C. S e. /~S, ODO ODO MATTERN & CRAIG QUANTITY 8c COST CONSULTING ENGINEER; ,/~ ESTIMATE PROJECT_ RTES `t'foD Ca221 Dort ~ S-~-ud y COMM. No. - 7Z~o - L 7E,p N~ T,E G SHEET N,/0. LOCATION-L!_/DNTGD/Y/ERY C. o(,t/J"Y~jl Vi~, OATE_ `f"Z.e'Qj7 8UMMAIiY gY~,Lj ~$/.~ PRICES BY /!'7 S.~y _ CHECKED BY G~PC A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE IMPROVEMENT OF ACCESS BETWEEN THE ROANOKE VALLEY AND VIRGINIA TECH WHEREAS, the Governor of Virginia has included as a part of his economic development strategy for the Commonwealth the improvement of transportation facilities; and, WHEREAS, the lack of direct access to Virginia Tech from the Roanoke Valley is an obstacle to the continued economic development potential of the region; and, WHEREAS, a study commissioned by the Town of Blacksburg shows that a new road leading from the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center east to a point near the existing intersection of Route 641 with Interstate 81 is the best solution to the problems associated with the access of the Roanoke Valley to Blacksburg and Virginia Tech. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors that: 1. The Board joins with the Town of Blacksburg and Virginia Tech in requesting that the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation accept the corridor solution the Town of Blacksburg has identified as the best answer to the needs of the Commonwealth and provide the funds necessary for timely completion of the projec t 2. The Clerk to the Board is directed to mail copies of this resolution to members of the Commonwealth Transportation Board. O~ ROANp~,~ ~ ,A ~ 2 p 7 '~ J a 18 E50 88 SFSQ!/ICENTENN~P~ A Beauti~ulBeginninp COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE C~u~tnt~ n~ ~nttnnke April 27, 1987 The Reverend David L. Wade .3 '`~ Jr' - S ~I ~.S Bonsack United Methodist Church 4661 Bonsack Road N. E. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Dear Reverend Wade: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS B08 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 VIN 70N MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, I would like to thank you for giving the invocation at the Board of Supervisors' meeting in the past. We would again like to call on you to present the invocation on Tuesday, August 11, 1987 at 2:00 p.m. If you are unable to- do this, please call me at 772-2005. Someone from this office will be calling you soon to see if this time is acceptable to you, or if you would prefer another date. The Board members are aware of how busy your schedule is, and they appreciate your volunteering the time to offer God's blessing at their meetings. Sincerely,- ~. Mary H. Allen Deputy Clerk ~ C~-~ ~ - s~ P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 2408-0798 (703) 77~=~nnn ~S ~ S ~ Vv "SS~~(L~~S ~YSI4~ ~ ~J~h . ~Jt.l4.~ri~ '~r ~- W vv~C~ l cl ~ Qs~~s~c~ ~f~ ~~fcti~c y~ ~ti ~ ~~,~ ~ ~~~~1 ~Q~sF~ ~ ~ ~+~o ~~~~C £ ~~y m.N yv flu i ~ y ~~~, ~~ ~s Eddie Mahe, Ir & Associates, Inc. 300 Eye Street N.E. X202) 546-9715 ,Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20002 FROM THE MINUTES OF THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE VIRGINIA MEETING IN REGULAR SESSION ON JUNE 30, 1987 AT THE BOARD ROOM OF COUNTY, VIRGINIA. THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING P~M' IN ~ SALEM, RESOLUTION REQUESTING APPROPRIATION OF ADDITIONAL BALANCE IN THE 1986-87 SCHOOL OPERATING FUND TO THE 1987-8$ SCHOOL OPERATING FUND WHEREAS, an additional balance of in the School Operating Fund for 1986-87. $26,000.00 remains BE IT RESOLVED that the County School Board of Roanoke County, on motion of Charlsie S. Pafford and duly seconded, requests the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to appropriate said additional balance of $26,000.00 to the School Operatin 1987-88 g Fund for the purpose of sponsoring additional student positions to the Governor s School and meeting other school operating expenses. Motion was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Paul G. Black S. Pafford, Barbara hg rd E. Cullinan, Charlsie Frank E. Thomas Chewning, NAYS: None TES ~-~- C~ ~', , _