The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1/10/1989 - Regular~,OANp~. O F a w ~ ~ ~ p 2 _ 7 ~ C~u~t~t~ ~~ ~ a ,~~r~rt~r~.~ 18 «~ 88 SFSQUICEN7ENN~P~ ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 4 Rtnu~i~ul BtRinnin~ ACTION AGENDA JANUARY 10, 1989 Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday of the month at 3:00 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 (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call ALL MEMBERS PRESENT 2. Invocation: John Chambliss Assistant County Administrator 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS ECH ADDED ITEM D-7, RESOLUTION ENDORSING A SINGLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFORT UNDER THE DIRECTION OF REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ITEM E-1, REQUEST FOR WORK SESSION ON SOLID WASTE COLLECTION PLAN FOR 1989-90 - DEFERRED TO THE BUDGET PROCESS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. ANNOUNCEMENT THAT BONNIE PREAS HAS RECEIVED CERTIFICATION AS PROFESSIONAL PROCUREMENT OFFICER. 2. APPOINTMENT OF ANNE MARIE FEDDER AS INFORMATION OFFICER EFFECTIVE 2/1/89 3. INTRODUCTION OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PARKS, JIM JONES D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request of CBL Management for County participation in extension of water lines. RR/SAM TO POSTPONE TO 1/24/89 URC STAFF TO REVISE CALCULATIONS ON REVENUE PROJECTIONS TO INCLUDE COUNTY PARTICIPATION IN WATER LINE 2. Request for Planning Commission review of Special Exception Permits for Demolition and Sanitary Landfills. A11089-1 HCN/RR TO APPROVE ALT. #1 URC 3. Establishment of a Reimbursement Policy for Committees, Commission and Boards. A-11089-2 BLJ/HCN TO APPROVE ALT ~1 LETTER AND COPY OF REPORT TO BE SENT TO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS URC 4. Request for amendment to the Employee Handbook to allow overtime leave or overtime pay for nonexempt employees. A-11089-3 HCN/RR TO DENY STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND CONTINUE PRESENT OVERTIME PAY POLICY AYES-LG,HCN,RR NO - SAM, BLJ 5. New Regional Landfill Sites. A-11089-4 SAM/HCN TO ADD RED HILL SITE TO LANDFILL SITES AYES-BLJ,SAM,HCN,LG NAYS-RR 6. Approval to apply for grant to purchase CORTRAN bus. A11089-5 HCN/SAM TO APPROVE URC 7. Adoption of Resolution endorsing a single economic development effort under the direction of the Regional Partnership. R-11089-6 HCN/SAM TO APPROVE RESO URC 2 E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS 1. Request for a Work Session on January 24, 1989 on the Solid Waste Collection Plan for 1989-90. DEFERRED TO THE BUDGET PROCESS F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING ON BUDGET HAS BEEN SET FOR 1/24/89 G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance accepting an offer for and authorizing the conveyance of surplus property near the intersection of Hunting Hills Drive and Starkey Road. HCN/LG TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 1/24/89 - URC 2. Ordinance amending and reenacting the Roanoke County Code to provide for a prohibition upon the location of certain types of signs. LG/SAM TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 1/24/89 - URC ECH AND PLANNING COMMISSION TO MEET WITH MEMBERS OF THE ADVERTISING COMMUNITY SO REPRESENTATIVES MAY BE INCLUDED ON SIGN ORDINANCE COMMITTEE H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of an interest in an eight acre tract known as the North Clear Zone property in exchange for the conveyance to the City of Roanoke of a reversionary clause in the eight acre tract known as the Ida Mae Holland tract. 0-11089-7 BLJ/RR TO APPROVE ORD AYES-BLJ, RR, HCN, LG ABSTAIN-SAM I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Appointment of Board members to various Commissions, Committees and Board 3 A-11089-9 LG NOMINATED HCN TO SERVE A THREE-YEAR TERM TO THE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS POLICY BOARD ADDITIONS: LG ON THE AUDIT COMMITTEE BOB JOHNSON, HARRY NICKENS ON CONSOLIDATION NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE 2. Community Corrections Resources Board 3. Library Board 4. Transportation and Safety Commission J. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS JOHNSON: DIRECTED ECH TO BEGIN SETTING UP COMMUNITY MEETINGS WITH CITIZENS ON CONSOLIDATION ISSUES MCGRAW: GRAYSON COMMISSION HAS AGREED TO PUT FORTH SAMPLE BILLS FOR CONSIDERATION. HE HAS SET UP THREE MEETINGS IN CATAWBA DISTRICT TO EXPLAIN INITIAL CONSOLIDATION PROCESS: JAN. 17 - GLENVAR ELEM. SCHOOL, JAN. 18 - GLEN COVE ELEM. SCHOOL, JAN. 19 - MASON COVE ELEM. SCHOOL - ALL MEETINGS 7:30 - 9:00 P.M. NICKENS: MOVED, SECONDED BY JOHNSON THAT PAUL MAHONEY BE ADDED TO THE CONSOLIDATION NEGOTIATION COMMITTEE - URC. K. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. BLJ/SAM TO APPROVE RESO URC R-11089-8 1. Minutes of Meeting - July 12, 1988 2. Request for acceptance of Scarlet Oak Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. R-11089-8.a 3. Request for acceptance of Lakemont Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 4 R-11089-8.b 4. Acknowledgment from Va. Department of Transportation that the following roads have been accepted into the Secondary System: a. 0.06 miles of Route 1337 (Bear Ridge Circle) b. 0.11 miles of Route 1006 (Stonebridge Circle) A-11089-8.c 5. Acceptance of a drainage easement being dedicated by David Mangrum and Pamela Mangrum across Lot 13, Block 2, Section 2, Forest Edge. A-11089-8.d 6. Acceptance of a drainage easement donated by the U. S. Department of Interior across the Blue Ridge Parkway - Montgomery Village Subdivision. A-11089-8.e L. REPORTS BLJ/HCN TO RECEIVE AND FILE URC 1. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Income Analysis as of November 30, 1988. 5. .Statement of Expenditures as of November 30, 1.988 6. Status Report on Street Light Replacement Program. ORAL PRESENTATION WITH APPALACHIAN POWER STAFF M. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 1. PATRICK COSMATO TO SPEAK CONCERNING CONSOLIDATION AND THE REGIONAL AIRPORT N. WORK SESSIONS V 1. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 5 POSTPONED TO FIRST ITEM ON 1/24/89 O. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 (a) (7) POTENTIAL LITIGATION - CONSOLIDATION BLJ/LG AT 5:45 P.M. - URC OPEN SESSION - BLJ/HCN AT 6:20 P.M. P. ADJOURNMENT AT 6:21 P.M. 6 a F ti• 150 18 TEARS 88 SFSgU1CENTENN~P~ ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS A Bcnutijull3r~lnriir~y; AGENDA JANUARY 10, 1989 Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday of the month at 3:00 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 (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call 2. Invocation: 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request of CBL Management for County participation in extension of water lines. 2. Request for Planning Commission review of Special Exception Permits for Demolition and Sanitary Landfills. 3. Establishment of a Reimbursement Policy for Committees, Commission and Boards. 4. Request for amendment to the Employee Handbook to allow overtime leave or overtime pay for nonexempt employees. 5. New Regional Landfill Sites. 6. Approval to apply for grant to purchase CORTRAN bus. E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS 1. Request for a Work Session on January 24, 1989 on the Solid Waste Collection Plan for 1989-90. F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance accepting an offer for and authorizing the conveyance of surplus property near the intersection of Hunting Hills Drive and Starkey Road. 2. Ordinance amending and reenacting the Roanoke County Code to provide for a prohibition upon the location of certain types of signs. H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of an interest in an eight acre tract known as the North Clear Zone property in exchange for the conveyance to the City of Roanoke of a reversionary clause in the eight acre tract known as the Ida Mae Holland tract. I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Appointment of Board members to various Commissions, Committees and Board 2. Community Corrections Resources Board 3. Library Board 4. Transportation and Safety Commission 2 J. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS K. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Minutes of Meeting - July 12, 1988 2. Request for acceptance of Scarlet Oak Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 3. Request for acceptance of Lakemont Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 4. Acknowledgment from Va. Department of Transportation that the following roads have been accepted into the Secondary System: a. 0.06 miles of Route 1337 (Bear Ridge Circle) b. 0.11 miles of Route 1006 (Stonebridge Circle) 5. Acceptance of a drainage easement being dedicated by David Mangrum and Pamela Mangrum across Lot 13, Block 2, Section 2, Forest Edge. 6. Acceptance of a drainage easement donated by the U. S. Department of Interior across the Blue Ridge Parkway - Montgomery Village Subdivision. L. REPORTS 1. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Income Analysis as of November 30, 1988. 5. Statement of Expenditures as of November 30, 1988 6. Status Report on Street Light Replacement Program. 3 M. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 1. Richard Evans to speak concerning Utility Billing procedures. N. WORK SESSIONS 1. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 0. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 (a) P . ADJOURNMENT 4 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~ - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: January 10, 1989 Request of CBL Management for County participation in extension of water line COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ ~ ,~7 Cc~•`~' 1 ~~a~~!G~ie~ BACKGROUND• CBL Management, Inc., is the developer for the Penn Forest Plaza Shopping Center on Merriman Road. As part of the development of the site, CBL is required to install approximately 2500 lineal feet of 12- inch water line along Starkey Road which includes boring under the railroad and highway right-of-ways. The total construction cost of the water line is estimated to be $126,795.00. In addition, the water off-site facility fee will be $29,704.60 making the total project cost $156,499.60. The construction of this 12-inch water line will benefit other areas of Starkey Road. It will provide service and supply to the Crescent Heights water system thus reducing their upgrading cost as well as provide a portion of a supply line to a proposed water storage reservoir in Starkey. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: CBL Management, Inc., has requested that the Board of Supervisors authorize the credit of the second half of the off-site fee against the off-site water construction cost. If this credit is approved, the remaining off-site construction cost to CBL will be $97,090.40. Of this amount, they are responsible for the full cost of the first 300 feet or $15,213.00, leaving an eligible participation cost of $81,877.40. CBL has requested that the Board of Supervisors authorize participation by paying one-half this eligible cost or $40,938.70. In tabular form, the off-site costs look like this: Cost of CBL $15,213.00 first 300 feet 40,938.70 participation 29,704.60 construction in lieu of OSF's $85,856.30 Total CBL Management, Inc. Total Project Cost: $156,499.60 Cost of Roanoke County $14,852.30 one-half OSF's 14,852.30 second half OSF's 40,938.70 participation $70,643.30 Total County 1 The $15,213.00 higher cost indicated for CBL is the cost of the first 300 feet which is not eligible for credit or participation. CBL will also pay $7,801.00 as a basic connection fee for the cost of the meter vault, valves, and meters for a 6-inch fire service and a 2-inch domestic service. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACT: There are four alternatives to consider: Alternative #1 The Board of Supervisors would authorize the credit of the second half of the off-site fees and County participation in the project of up to $41,000.00. This alternative would result in the County sharing equally in the excess cost to the developer for this project. Impact of Alternative #1 The actual utility fund would decrease $55,852.30 as a result of the credit and participation. In return, the County would receive 2500 lineal feet of 12-inch water line that we would have installed eventually without the CBL project. Funds are available in the utility enterprise fund for this alternative. Alternative #2 The Board of Supervisors would authorize the credit of the second half of the off-site fees and deny any additional County participation in this project. This alternative would result in an off-site water construction cost to the developer of $126,795.00. Impact of Alternative #2 The actual utility fund would decrease $14,852.30. Additional funds are not required for this alternative. Alternative #3 The Board of Supervisors would not authorize the credit of the second half of the off-site fees and deny any County participation in the project. This alternative would result in an off-site water construction cost to the developer of $141,647.30. Impact of Alternative #3 The actual utility fund would not decrease. Additional County funds are not required for this alternative. Alternative #4 The last alternative involves the Board of Supervisors giving CBL a reimbursement contract whereby they can recover the eligible cost 2 ..~- / from future connection fees collected for connection to this water line during the next five years. CBL has stated that a reimbursement agreement would not benefit them because they need the financial assistance at this time, rather than in the future. This alternative is not viable and, therefore, has no impact. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #1 with County participation of one-half the excess cost up to an amount of $41,000.00. This participation would be in the form of a lump sum reimbursement agreement payable after of the excess cost by the Board of Supervisor a reimbursement agreem alternative. SUBMITTED BY: acceptance of the water line and verification Roanoke County. Additionally, staff recommends s authorize the County Adminstrator to execute ent with CBL Management, Inc., to effect this IY~'F~~ CZr'~ ~-~ Clifford Craig, P.E. Utility Director ACTION Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To Motion by: APPROVED BY: „~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers 3 -7 -/ NORTH ~,\\ L ACTION #11089-1 ITEM NUMBER ~-- Z AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 10, 1988 AGENDA ITEM: Board request for Planning Commission to review and make recommendations to the Board, after public notice and public hearing, on Special Exception Permit applications for Demolition and Sanitary landfills proposed in Roanoke County. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: 6G,~.(r"?'IL~Yv1..Ce~ti-~ ~i s l1',ti,`~.t-~-~ ~.°{'ti~".'L ~~»VYw..c'}~iLv-n -~'('~+2.C•;,r°`~ i/ ~ C~ `' BACKGROUND: The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance requires that a Special Exception permit be obtained for all sanitary fill methods of garbage and refuse disposal (Section 21-102-3). Currently these permit requests are processed by the Department of Planning and Zoning and sent directly to the Board of Supervisors for consideration and action. These requests are not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Two such permit requests have been received by staff and will appear on the Board's agenda on January 24th. At the same time, Section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia requires the Planning Commission to review and approve any public facility for consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The proposed regional landfill, as well as any other landfill receiving public refuse, whether publicly or privately owned, would be considered a public facility and therefore must be reviewed for consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. In considering consistency a major emphasis will be placed on the compatibility of land uses and methods of design which will mitigate any negative impacts on adjoining uses. Such mitigating design measures could be addressed through conditions attached to a project, but there are no provisions in the State Code for attaching conditions to an approval pursuant to Section 15.1-456. However, conditions can be attached to Special Exception Permits. By combining the two processes, it would allow the imposition of conditions to insure compatibility and therefore consistency with the comprehensive plan. The Planning Commission's review of special exception permits for landfills would also assist the Board in identifying the issues before presented to the Board. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: ~ -2 The current method for County approval of any landfill is through the requirement in the Zoning Ordinance that a Special Exception permit be obtained from the Board of Supervisors. At the same time, if refuse from public sources is landfilled, the Planning Commission must first determine that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. However, the Commission has no authority to review and comment on the Special Exception permit. Concurrent review by the Commission would allow attaching recommended conditions necessary to insure consistency with the Plan to any landfill proposal, and would aide the Board in arriving at a final determination on any Special Exception permit requested. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: Alternative No. 1: Formally request the Planning Commission to review and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on all Special Exception Permit applications submitted for debris and sanitary landfills. Alternative No. 2: Formally request the Planning Commission to review and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on only the proposed regional landfill sites. Alternative No. 3: No action. Independent consideration of landfills will be made by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: 1 n ~.~/ ~1 nathan W. Hartley Elmer C. Hodge ting Zoning Administrator County Administrator ACTION Approved (xj Denied { ) Received ( ) Referred To VOTE Motion by: Harry C. Nickens/ Richard W. o ers No Yes Abs Garrett x Johnson x McGraw x Nickens x Robers x cc: File Jonathan Hartley ACTION NUMBER 11089-2 ITEM NUMBER ~ - ~: AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 10, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Reimbursement Policy for Committees, Commissions, and Boards. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: -` :~CC LL',-»~n..c,.Le.~ ~'-R.c~,tixe 1? Z l~f ~•Y~.c-a~1~ BACKGROUND The Board of Supervisors recently requested that a study be conducted of all committees, commissions and boards to determine which are now receiving reimbursement for their duties and which are not. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION The committees included in this study were those which were established either by State Code provision, official board resolution or contract/agreement with other localities. All these committees must travel to the meeting place and/or travel to sites for the specific purpose of determining action or recommendations that are part of the responsibilities of the committee. The Committees which met this criteria are as follows: -- Regional Airport Commission -- Board of Zoning Appeals -- Fifth District Planning Commission -- Grievance Panel -- Industrial Development Authority -- Library Board -- Planning Commission -- Parks and Recreation Commission -- Roanoke Valley Regional Solid Waste Management Board -- Social Services Board Attached is a chart outlining the results of the study. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS '~ '~ Alternative #1• Reestablish the salaries for members of the Board of Zoning Appeals at a cost of $1250 per year ($250 per member) and continue the present policy for all other committees. For the remainder of fiscal year 1988/89, funding of $625 could be appropriated from the Board Contingency Fund. Alternative #2• Continue the present reimbursement policy adding no new committees. No additional funding would be necessary. Alternative #3• Establish a reimbursement policy for all committees, commissions and boards which meet the above criteria. Funding should be included in the 1989/90 budget process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Alternative #1. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Approved (xj Motion by: Bob L. Johnson/Harry Denied ( ) C. Nickens o approve erna ive Received ( ) an in orm oar o oning Referred ppea s o ac ion To: cc: File Committee File Jonathan Hartley M. E. Maxey, Chairman, BZA V Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers OTE Yes No Abs x x x x x Members, BZA Assistant County Administrators ~J - ,~ ~ M M In ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ° ° ° z z ~ z v w z ~~-+ n `~ o z o ~, ~ o a o~ xc z o ~ ~ ro Nam z z z y ic a ~a~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a a~ ~ a~ N N ~a ~ a ~ r+ 3~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ U ... MN f~ ~ ~ ~ -r-I ~ ~ ~ ~ -r1 O +~ a ~ U ~ - ~ '~ ~ Q a N .~..I ~ Ul O ~ b 4-+ -,-i -rl U -r-I ~ Q ~ ~ ~ . J ^ ~'^ VJ ~ ~ , 1 , YY ~ ~ r~ V o - ~ O ~ PQ w U C7 H I z I ~~`~ z° M O O r-I z° ~ ~ `~ ~~ z° ~ z a N cr N ~ N ~-i r-I ~ ~ r-I i". O -~ -,1 O U -r-I O ~ U1 -ri -r-I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O S-I ~ U U ~ ~ ~ ~J \ ! ~ ~..~ ~ ( ,~ N'1 a a a , ~ z 0 z N N r-I ~ .-. O U N ~'' M '~ N O d . ~ ~ ~ ^ '' Vf I ro ~ ~ ~ o a ~ ~ N O •,i .r{ U O S-I r-I ~~~-~1 ~^i JVJ ~m1 /, ACTION NUMBER 11089-3 ITEM NUMBER ~- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 10, 1989 AGENDA ITEM : Request for Amendment to Employee Handbook to Allow Overtime Leave or Overtime Pay for Nonexempt Employees COUNTY ADMINISTRATO~R'S COMMENTS: ~ /~' d GClr'i'Yy1r..-~ dc~!J ms`s-.+-a../~ (r~- tL/L~ ~ c-t9v, c~-~ C:.~o,.r „~,./G.-t~,~ ~o~Lc. ~-v. !r~,G~ ~ i ~'~~Ut`,~~aP ~i „e, v~ ec:-»Lmd-~ ~•~.-U~t<,~ a'~ 0~._~~ " ~` r!%/~% " '~ ~ / ~~' eta-hi~.:~,~s:.z~cc y, .~" Q BACKGROUND: ;~ ./~44~ .~~/'~ ~ ~. ~r4(A /..'Ra{ i//SZI~ /~yrj(-"~_ (1'k- r The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act was applied to local governments in 1985. Among other provisions, the act offers public sector employers the option of providing time off at the time and one-half rate, or overtime leave, in lieu of time and one-half overtime pay for nonexempt employees. The present policy of Roanoke County is to provide overtime pay and not utilize overtime leave for nonexempt employees. The budgetary impact of overtime pay could be reduced by using overtime leave for nonexempt employees, at the option of the appropriate department head or constitutional officer. The Board of Supervisors received a request at the December 13, 1988, meeting to amend the Employee Handbook to permit the use of overtime leave. However, this request was deferred for thirty days to allow further study. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Attachment A contains a survey of overtime practices for a number of representative localities and state agencies throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. This study indicates that seven localities and one state agency allow their department heads the option of providing either overtime leave or overtime pay for nonexempt employees. Attachment B illustrates overtime situations in which the overtime leave option might be used. ~~ The attached amendments to the Employee Handbook allow the option of using overtime leave in lieu of overtime pay. The amendments could be incorporated into the new Employee Handbook which was approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 13, 1988. The attached amendments permit the appropriate department head or constitutional officer the option of allowing overtime leave for hours worked over 40 in a 7-day period for nonexempt employees, with the exception of law enforcement and fire protection employees. Law enforcement and fire protection employees are on a 171-hour, 28-day work period. At the option of the Sheriff or the Chief of Fire and Rescue, overtime leave could be provided for overtime hours worked over 171 in the 28-day work period. Earned overtime leave would be taken as time off by the end of the next work period. Upon termination, accrued but unused overtime leave must be paid at the employee's current hourly rate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The use of overtime leave was requested by Sheriff Michael F. Kavanaugh for law enforcement employees in an effort to reduce the budgetary impact of overtime pay. The attached handbook amendments are submitted for your consideration to allow county department heads and constitutional officers the option of using either overtime leave or overtime pay for all nonexempt employees. SUBMITTED BY: APPROV D BY: rY2Cta.~'' D. K. Coo Elmer C. odge Director of Human Resources County Administrator ------------------------------------------- ACTION Approved ( ) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens/ Denied (x) Ricahrd W. Robers to denv Received ( ) staff recommendation and Referred continue present overtime To pay policy cc: File D. K. Cook VOTE No Yes Abs Garrett x Johnson x McGraw x Nickens x Robers x 2 ~- AMENDMENT TO ROANOKE COUNTY EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK CHAPTER VII - "YOUR PAY" E. Nonexempt Compensation Those employees classified as nonexempt are compensated according to the guidelines established and described in the following paragraphs. Upon employment, your supervisor will inform you of the status (nonexempt or other) of your position. .All regular county employees work a forty-hour work week (except law enforcement and fire protection). The standard work week for payroll purposes begins on Saturday (12:01 a.m.) and ends on Friday (12:00 midnight). In order to avoid the need for additional compensation, management may reschedule employees during the work week so that no more than the normally scheduled hours are worked. Those employees whose primary duty is law enforcement or fire protection as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act are eligible for an extended work period. Upon employment, your supervisor will inform you as to whether or not your position is considered law enforcement or fire protection. Compensation for nonexempt law enforcement and fire protection personnel is described in the following section (F). Overtime compensation is provided for all hours actually worked over forty during the established work week. Sick leave, annual leave, holidays and other types of paid or unpaid leave are not considered actual work hours. When an employee has actually worked beyond their normal scheduled hours, the nonexempt employee may receive time and one-half pay for hours actually worked over forty. In some cases, at the option of the appropriate department head or constitutional officer, an employee may receive OVERTIME LEAVE in lieu of time and one-half pay for actual hours worked over forty in the week. Overtime leave is earned at a time and one-half rate, that is, one and one-half overtime leave hours for each hour actually worked over forty. (For example, if an employee has actually worked forty-eight hours, the amount of overtime leave earned would be eight hours times one and one-half for a total of twelve hours overtime leave). Accumulated overtime leave must be taken off by the end of the following work week. Upon termination, accumulated overtime leave is paid at the current hourly rate (or the average rate over the last three continuous years of employment, whichever is higher). Nonexempt employees will be notified in advance whether overtime leave will be provided in lieu of overtime pay. 3 ~'- y Additional straight time pay is provided when an employee works over the normally scheduled hours but has not actually worked more than forty hours in a work week. This may happen when a county holiday occurs or when an employee takes leave such as annual leave, sick leave, or overtime leave in the work week. 1-10-89 4 .~- y AMENDMENT TO ROANOKE COUNTY EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK CHAPTER VII - "YOUR PAY" F. Nonexempt Law Enforcement and Fire Protection Compensation Law enforcement and fire protection employees are eligible for an extended work period of twenty-eight days, beginning on Saturday (12:01 a.m.) and ending on Friday (12:00 midnight). In order to avoid the need for additional compensation, management may .reschedule employees during the twenty-eight day work period so that no more than the normally scheduled hours are worked. Overtime compensation is provided for all hours actually worked over one hundred seventy-one (171) during the established twenty-eight day work period. Sick leave, annual leave, holidays and other types of paid or unpaid leave are not considered actual work hours. When an employee has actually worked beyond their normal scheduled hours, the nonexempt law enforcement or fire protection employee may receive time and one-half pay for hours actually worked over one hundred seventy-one (171) in the work period. In some cases, at the option of the appropriate department head or constitutional officer, an employee may receive OVERTIME LEAVE in lieu of time and one-half pay for actual hours worked over one hundred seventy-one (171) in the work period. Overtime leave is earned at the time and one-half rate, that is, one and one-half overtime leave hours for each hour actually worked over one hundred seventy-one (171). Accumulated overtime leave must be taken off by the end of the next twenty-eight day work period. Upon termination, accumulated overtime leave is paid at the currently hourly rate (or the average rate over the last three continuous years of employment, whichever is higher). Nonexempt law enforcement and fire protection employees will be notified in advance whether overtime leave will be provided in lieu of overtime pay. Additional straight time pay or staight time compensatory time may be provided when an employee works over the normally scheduled hours but has not actually worked more than one hundred seventy-one (171) hours in the work period. This may occur when actually working between the normally scheduled one hundred sixty (160) hours and one hundred seventy-one (171) hours, or when an employee is not actually working due to leave such as annual leave, sick leave, holidays or overtime leave. Compensatory time must be taken off by the end of the next 28-day work period. Any accumulated compensatory leave is forfeited upon termination. 1-10-89 5 ATTACHMENT A SURVEY OF REPRESENTATIVE LOCALITIES ~- The Fair Labor Standards Act, among other provisions, offers public sector employers the option of providing time and one-half overtime leave in lieu of time and one-half overtime pay for nonexempt employees. This means that for every overtime hour worked, employees may receive one and one-half hours in time off, or overtime leave, in lieu of overtime pay. The Fair Labor Standards Act does not permit employers in the private sector to use the overtime leave option, and all hours worked over the established work period must be paid at the time and one-half rate. The Act further provides that no more than 240 hours of overtime leave may be accumulated (no more than 480 hours for law enforcement and fire protection). Once a nonexempt employee reaches this maximum, additional overtime must be paid at the time and one-half .rate. Localities may establish lower maximum accrual amounts or time periods in which an employee should take earned overtime leave off. Accumulated overtime leave must be paid at the current hourly rate when a nonexempt employee leaves employment. As a result of a survey conducted by the Department of Human Resources, the following is a description of the overtime practices of a representative group of localities and state agencies throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. The following localities and state agencies allow their department heads the option of providing either overtime leave at the time and one-half rate, or time and one-half overtime pay for nonexempt employees. City of Charlottesville - Overtime leave may accumulate up to a maximum of 40 hours. Nonexempt employees have a three-month period in which to take earned overtime leave off. City of Chesapeake - Accumulated overtime leave must be taken off within the next pay period, unless there are extenuating circumstances. At the year-end, accumulated overtime leave balances are paid off at the current hourly rate. City of Lynchburg - Use of the overtime leave option is permitted. City of Newport News - Overtime leave may accumulate up to 120 hours and must be taken off within 60 days, unless there are extenuating circumstances. Prince William County - Accumulated overtime leave must be taken off by the end of the fiscal year (June 30). Only 40 hours of accumulated overtime leave may be carried over to the next fiscal year. i ~L - City of Richmond - The overtime leave option is not widely used as it is often difficult to schedule the time off. However, there are no restrictions on amount allowed to accumulate or period of time in which accumulated overtime leave must be taken off, other than those established by federal law. City of Salem - Abides by the 240-hour maximum established by federal law (480 hours for law enforcement and fire protection). Commonwealth of Virginia - Permits overtime leave but individual state agencies must elect whether they will use the overtime leave option. Those state agencies electing to use the overtime leave option may establish maximum amounts of overtime leave allowed to accrue and a period in which overtime leave must be taken off. A survey of three state agencies indicates that the Virginia State Police allow the use of overtime leave in lieu of overtime pay, and the Department of Corrections and Virginia Western Community College do not allow use of overtime leave. The following localities have elected not to use the overtime leave option. These localities provide time and one-half overtime pay only, to those nonexempt employees working more than 40 hours in a seven-day period. Chesterfield County Henrico County City of Roanoke Stafford Count 1-10-89 2 ~-y ATTACHMENT B ILLUSTRATION OF OVERTIME LEAVE OPTION Nonexempt WEEK #1 Employee Hrs.Worked Monday 8 Tuesday 8 Wednesday 10 Thursday 9 Friday 8 WEEK #2 Hrs.Worked Monday 8 Tuesday $ Wednesday 8 Thursday 8 Friday 3-1/2 TOTAL 43 Overtime leave earned at 1-1/2 rate = 4-1/2 hrs TOTAL 35-1/2 Overtime leave taken = 4-1/2 hours (on Friday) 1-10-89 1 ATTACHMENT B (Continued) ~ , i/ ILLUSTRATION OF OVERTIME LEAVE OPTION FOR NONEXEMPT LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FIRE PROTECTION Nonexempt Law Enforcement or Fire Protection Employee: lst 28-Day Work Period: (Employees normally scheduled and paid for 160 hours. Overtime compensation provided after 171 hours in work period.) Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Hours Worked: 50 47 32 37 = 166 hrs Total Worked = 166 hrs Normally Scheduled and Paid For = 160 hrs Compensatory Time Earned (at straight time) 6 hrs Total Hours to be Taken Off in Next Work Period 6 hrs 2nd 28-Day Work Period: Week 1 We ek 2 Hours Worked: 42 51 Normally Scheduled and Paid For = 160 hrs Total Worked = 154 hrs Compensatory Time Taken 6 hrs Total Hours Taken Of f 6 hrs Week 3 Week 4 36 25 1-10-89 = 154 hrs 2 ~- ATTACHMENT B (Continued) ILLUSTRATION OF OVERTIME LEAVE OPTION FOR NONEXEMPT LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FIRE PROTECTION Nonexempt Law Enforcement or Fire Protection Em loyee: lst 28-Day Work Period: (Employees normally scheduled and paid for 160 hours. Overtime compensation provided after 171 hours in work period.) Week 1 Week 2 Hours Worked: 60 51 Total Worked Normally Scheduled and Paid For Compensatory Time Earned (straight time rate) Total Hours to be Taken Off in Next Work Period 2nd 28-Day Work Period: Week 1 Hours Worked: 35 Normally Scheduled and Paid For Total Worked Compensatory Time Taken Total Hours Taken Of f = 170 hrs = 160 hrs 10 hrs 10 hrs Week 3 Week 4 30 29 = 170 hrs Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 29 50 36 = 150 hrs = 160 hrs = 150 hrs 10 hrs 10 hrs 1-10-89 3 ATTACHMENT B (Continued) ~ " ILLUSTRATION OF OVERTIME LEAVE OPTION FOR NONEXEMPT LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FIRE PROTECTION EXAMPLE 3 Nonexempt Law Enforcement or Fire Protection Employee: lst 28-Day Work Period: (Employees normally scheduled and paid for 160 hours. Overtime compensation provided after 171 hours in work period.) Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Hours Worked: 45 50 51 Total Worked = 180 hrs Total Permitted = 171 hrs Normally Scheduled and Paid For = 160 hrs Compensatory Time Earned (at straight rate) = 11 hrs Overtime Hours = 9 hrs x 1-1/2 Overtime Leave Earned 13-1/2 hrs Total Hours to Take Off in Next Work Period 24-1/2 hrs 2nd 28-Day Work Period Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Hours Worked: 52 44 39-1 2 Normally Scheduled and Paid For = 160 hrs Total Worked = 135-1/2 hrs Compensatory Time Taken = Overtime Leave Taken = Total Compensatory and Overtime Leave Hours Taken Off = 11 hrs 13-1/2 hrs 24-1/2 hrs 1-10-89 4 Week 4 34 = 180 hrs Week 4 0 = 135-1/2 hrs ACTION # 11089-4 ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 10, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: New Regional Landfill Sites COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ Gt,.Gern2-,~L;,ti~ ~z"~-c,t..r.~~~' y~•-t-~ ..~-e~~°~ ` .~...~ ~ .~c~i;Cc„ ,n v~ . ., _i~C~_- ~~ .,~~. ~~ c.~~ ~.,-~- N ~,w-e.~.~z. ~,.~ ~a-~~ cq-.... ~~ ~ 1. e~ BACKGROUND: Over the past 18 months, the Roanoke Valley has been identifying the needs and options for the disposal of solid wastes generated by our businesses and residents. In a fina]_ report, the need of a sanitary landfill was identified as the first step in a multi-phased approach to solving the solid waste problems. The report also identified numerous potential landfill sites in the region including Botetourt, Bedford, Franklin and Roanoke counties. After the regional approach was determined to be not workable, Roanoke County was identified to be the next site for the Valley's landfill. Roanoke County assumed the role of identifying and selecting the best landfill site possible. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Fifteen sites were identified in Roanoke County as possible landfill sites. Of the fifteen sites, the top five priority sites have been reviewed and tested. An additional priority site, located in the Red Hill area of the Cave Spring Magisterial District just off State Route 220, has been identified and determined to be a good potential site. After a preliminary review of the site, the consultant and the staff feel that further testing should be performed to determine its suitability as a landfill. The report and the results of the preliminary review and testing for the initial five priority sites will be complete by January 24. If the Red Hilt site is included, the report will be delayed until February 28. ~ -5 The final report will prioritize the tested sites from which three sites will be selected for submittal to the Department of Waste Management for landfill permits. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: Alternative 1: Add Red Hill to the sites to be tested and included in the final report to be received on February 28. Alternative 2: Do not add Red Hilt to the sites to be tested and request staff to present the final report on January 24. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends Alternative 1. SUBMITTED i3Y: APPROVED: ' ~~ ~~. ~ ~ f' 7 J n R. H bard, P.E. Elmer C. Hodge Assistant County Administrator County Administrator Community Services and Development ACTION VOTE Approved (X ) Motion by: Steven A. McGraw/ No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Harry C. Garrett x Received ( ) Johnson -~ Referred McGraw ~- to Nickens _-~ Robers x cc: File John Hubbard 1 ~a a ° 6 •n ~. ~ f~ .~ • aye ae ~ •~ ~ ~ ~c~. ~a V~ ~,.. _ o ~ ~~ ~ 2p J 1 - " VICINITY MAP ~, tii'" " NORTH LANDFILL SITE COMMUNITY SERVICES RED HILL AND DEVELOPMENT L~Q, ~-S A P P E A R A N 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 : A~/~r,.~~lX ail/ ~ 2~'~G~.~'; ,/~ ~~j ADDRESS : ~ ~0~ / /~~-z ~!~~~C1a- PHONE : ~~ ~i~~ PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy Clerk. Thank you.> A P P E A R A N C E R E Q U E S T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PUBLIC HEARING ON r/~'~r~ f~i ~ ~ ,/' ~/~=~~~~~ .S(~~ ~~ ~ ~~ 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: ~~'`/~~ `U ~6'l~/~~'C~(L /~ ADDRESS : ~ ~~ 7 ~~'~~CZ~~C C Lt'~~' ~~~ ~Gr`~~C/~~~C ~TT ` L `~4l PHONE : ~~ ~ / ~(f " ~Y~ ~j PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy Clerk. Thank you.) ' ~S A P P E A R A N 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: ADDRESS: ~~ PHONE : ~ ? ~/~~~d PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy Clerk. Thank you.) ACTION # 11089-5 ITEM NUMBER ~ "' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGII~IIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 10, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Grant Application for CORTRAN Bus COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: :z ~ ~~~~,~~ ~/ v c ~~, n..- ,{~ ~~ _~~'{vi BACKGROUND: The County of Roanoke has contracted with RADAR to provide public transportation for the elderly and handicapped residents of Roanoke County. Currently, RADAR leases two buses from the County to provide this service. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: RADAR has contacted the County to notify us that they qualify for a special grant through the State which will pay for 80 percent of the cost of a new bus equipped with a handicapped lift. The bus that is currently in use by RADAR has 95,000 miles on it. The County would not qualify for this grant money directly, but as a separate agency, RADAR does qualify for this grant money and can apply in our place. In order to meet the application deadline, .RADAR must advertise its intent to apply by January 15, 1989 and complete all applications by mid-February. We would be notified by mid-summer if the application is approved, and the actual funding would not be necessary until January, 1990. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of a new bus equipped with a handicapped lift is approximately $27,000. The County's portion of this bus if the grant application is approved would be 20 percent or $5,400. This money would not be needed until January, 1990 and could be included in the 1989-90 budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors allow RADAR to apply for grant monies to purchase a bus equipped with a handicapped lift and include the funding necessary for the County's share in the 1989-90 budget process. ~~ -- ~U Respectfully submitted, .;,. ,, , Diane D. Hyatt;' Director of Finance Approved by, %~ ~~~ ~ Elmer C. Hod e County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved (X) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens/ No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Steven A. McGraw Garrett ~_ Received ( ) Johnson x Referred McGraw x To Nickens x Robers x cc: File Diane Hyatt Reta Busher AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1989 RESOLUTION 11089-6 ENDORSING A SINGLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFORT UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows: WHEREAS, the Regional Partnership was established by the Counties of Roanoke and Botetourt, the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, and the Town of Vinton to present a regional economic development approach; and WHEREAS, this organization has aided the recruitment efforts of the Roanoke Valley, but has been hampered by limited financial resources; and WHEREAS, each participating locality has continued its individual economic development endeavors, while allocating only a portion of its funds to the Regional Partnership; and WHEREAS, the economic development needs of the Roanoke Valley could be better served if the financial resources and personnel currently serving each jurisdiction could be directed by one organization, the Regional Partnership. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County endorses the concept of one regional economic development organization in the Roanoke Valley, and recommends that all participating localities in the Regional Partnership direct that their economic development financial resources and personnel be incorporated under this organization. FURTHER, The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, directs that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the governing bodies of the localities who participate in the Regional Partnership, and that they be requested to endorse this action. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and upon the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 1/11/89 CC: File Mark Heath, Executive Director, Regional Partnership The Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor, City of Roanoke The Honorable James Taliaferro, Mayor, City of Salem The Honorable Charles Hill, Mayor, Town of Vinton The Honorable G. C. Thompson, Chairman Botetourt County Board of Supervisors Timothy Gubala, Economic Development Director H°' ITEM NUMBER '" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 10, 1989 SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution endorsing a single economic development effort under the direction of the Regional Partnership COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Supervisor Harry Nickens recently proposed that all localities participating in the Regional Partnership, including the Counties of Roanoke and Botetourt, the Town of Vinton, and the Cities of Roanoke and Salem direct their economic development personnel and financial resources to the Regional Partnership. By eliminating individual economic development efforts and going forward as one entity, the perception of fragmentation would be eliminated. The trend in economic development efforts throughout the United States is to market regionally, independent from any one locality, business or chamber of commerce. One reason that is frequently voiced for the lack of economic development in the Roanoke Valley is that prospective clients become frustrated because of the number of governmental bodies they must contact regarding the potential for locating in the valley. As a result, The Regional Partnership was formed to eliminate the need for multiple contacts. While this has aided our efforts, the greatest limitation the Regional Partnership has faced has been the lack of financial resources and personnel to put forth an aggressive marketing program. A new Executive Director, Mark Heath, has now been named and additional funds are being raised from both the private and public sector to improve the ability of the Regional Partnership to recruit new business and industries for the valley. By restructuring individual economic development departments under the direction of The Regional Partnership, the organization's budget would increase from $240,000 to $690,000. These funds, along with those now being raised, would position the Roanoke Valley to be more competitive in attracting new businesse and industry. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors support Supervisor Nickens' proposal by approving the attached resolution endorsing the concept that all participating localities in the Regional Partnership direct their economic development financial resources and personnel to this regional organization. Staff further recommends that copies of the resolution be sent to the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, Town of Vinton, and the County of Botetourt, requesting their endorsement of this concept. y ~' n Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To Motion by: ACTION VOTE No Yes Ab Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers FURTHER, The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, directs that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the governing bodies of the localities who participate in the Regional Partnership, and that they be requested to endorse this action. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1989 RESOLUTION ENDORSING A SINGLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFORT UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows: WHEREAS, the Regional Partnership was established by the Counties of Roanoke and Botetourt, the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, and the Town of Vinton to present a regional economic development approach; and WHEREAS, this organization has aided the recruitment efforts of the Roanoke Valley, but has been hampered by limited financial resources; and WHEREAS, each participating locality has continued its individual economic development endeavors, while allocating only a portion of its funds to the Regional Partnership; and WHEREAS, the economic development needs of the Roanoke Valley could be better served if the financial resources and personnel currently serving each jurisdiction could be directed by one organization, the Regional Partnership. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County endorses the concept of one regional economic development organization in the Roanoke Valley, and recommends that all participating localities in the Regional Partnership direct that their economic development financial resources and personnel be incorporated under this organization. ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 10, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Solid Waste Collection Plan 1989-90 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ,~, ~ y, BACKGROUND: General Services Department has operated the Source Separa- tion Recycle Program for one year and completed Phase II of auto- mation. These programs have provided the staff with information to develop a comprehensive recycling program to reduce the residential waste flow. The Olver Report highlighted recycle alternatives that the region could take toward a regional solution to solid waste management in the 1990's. The actions of the staff incorporate appropriate recommendations from the Olver Report. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Detailed discussion is required on the alternatives facing the county for the upcoming year and the associated cost. This detailed discussion would be followed by a staff recommendation for the budget year 1989-90. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommends a work session on January 24, 1989. SUBMITTED BY: -~'~~ __ ardner W. Smith, Director Department of General Services APPROVED: ecv Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ~ -/ ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers No Yes Abs ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~ - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 10, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance accepting an offer for and authorizing the conveyance of surplus property near the inter- section of Hunting Hills Drive and Starkey Road COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Department of Transportation is in the process of acquir- ing fee simple title to that certain land which is owned or was formerly owned by Hunting Hills Land Corporation and is needed for the construction, operation, and maintenance of Route 904 (more particularly described as State Highway Project 0904-080- 215, C501). This property is located near the intersection of Hunting Hills Drive and Starkey Road. A building located on the hereinabove-described property is an abandoned pumping and valve station owned by Roanoke County. The building needs to be removed in order to allow for the suc- cessful completion of the State Highway Project, Route 904. The State has offered $1,634.00 to cover this transaction with the stipulation that Roanoke County dispose of the building within sixty (60) days from the date of the final agreement on or before February 7, 1989. Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County requires that the subject property be declared to be surplus and be made avail- able for other public uses, i.e. road improvements. Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County requires that any sale of public property be accomplished by ordinance. The first reading of this proposed ordinance was held on January 10, 1989; the second reading will be held on January 24, 1989. FISCAL IMPACTS: The State has offered $1,634.00 for the acquisition of the building. ~-/ County as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said pro- perty, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. C-/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1989 ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR AND AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF HUNTING HILLS DRIVE AND STARKEY ROAD BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That 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 is being made available for other public uses, i.e. road improvements; and 2. That 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 property was held on January 10, 1989; a second reading was held on Jan- uary 24, 1989; and 3. That this property is an abandoned pumping and valve station located on property owned or formerly owned by the Hunting Hills Land Corporation near the intersection of Hunting Hills Drive and Starkey Drive; and 4. That the offer of the Virginia Department of High- ways in the amount of $1,634.00 is hereby accepted and all other offers are rejected; and 5. That all proceeds from the sale of this property are to be allocated to the capital reserves of the County; and 6. That the County Administrator is authorized to exe- cute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff makes the following recommendations: 1. That the Board of Supervisors reaffirm that this build- ing is surplus, available for other public uses, and for sale to VDOT 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 Fund as a reserve for capi- tal improvements. 4. That the County Administrator be authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said property. Respectfully submitted, c~.~.~--~-~-~c,e~ Sarah A. Rice Assistant County Attorney --------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers A P P E A R A N C E PUBLIC HEARING ON l ~ I ~ R E Q U E S T ,~ r 0 I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to ~-a ~ 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 : _ ~(!C ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~1.! S C~ ~ ~/~~~ ~ ADDRESS: 3~~ ~ ~~C~,NI~~~lC /~t2~ ~~.v~ - ~a~Nat~C~ ~ ~/~ ~~e~ ~( PHONE : '~' ~t' Ca ~ 4 ~ Q ` ~, ~~~ ~8 6 PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy Clerk. Thank you.) A P P E A R A N C E R E Q U E S T BLIC HEARING ON / /O PU 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 ~~J ` (, l / i(/ ,j NAME : _ V ~ "`~ • ~1( ADDRESS : /'~ '~/~ S ~~ PHONE : 3 , J ~ ~~ PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy Clerk. Thank you.> C-~ ~~. A P P E A R A N C E PUBLIC HEARING ON R E Q U E S T 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 aQ 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~ ?'`+'~ /~ r'~ ~ ~ C ADDRESS : ~ d~ n, ~ ~2' ~~ '.:"~ .,~ ;~, t.~ ~- PHONE : "~ ~r ~ ~ PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy Clerk. Thank you.) A P P E A R A N C E R E Q U E S T PUBLIC HEARING ON C~ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter so that I may comment. I agree to follow the guidelines listed below. WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. 1. Each speaker will have between three and five minutes available whether speaking as an individual or representative. The chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. 2. Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. 3. All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. 4. Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times . 5. Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. 6. INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. P L E A S E W R I T E L E G I B L Y NAME: ADDRESS: 3~3Z K ~N~i~K T~ PHONE : ~ /~} Z Z ~ 2 ---- PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy Clerk. Thank you.) ~^ p, p p E A R A N C E R E Q U E S T PUBLIC HEARING ON ~~t~~~ G- mcxy ~ d~ ~ s~ e~,~ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter so that I may comment. I agree to follow the guidelines listed below. WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. 1. Each speaker will have between three and five minutes available whether speaking as an individual or representative. The chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. 2. Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. 3. All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. 4. Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times . 5. Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. 6. INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. P L E A S E W R I T E L E G I B L Y NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: ir~i PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy Clerk. Thank you.) ACTION # ITEM NUMBER (._ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 10, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance amending and reenacting the Roanoke County Code to provide for a prohibition upon the location of certain types of signs COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ ~~CTMr~t.~wnr s?L~, X04 ~ C~ / / .o+ G~l~! Cx.1 ~~v'rir.~ ;cJ~i: ~ LC~~~, E~"~'t,' ~,.,,% .~0 , ~/ ~ ~'pv~f'~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Billboard advertising is becoming a blight in Roanoke County. Billboards are a form of visual pollution intruding upon and dis- tracting from the surrounding environment. Billboards are the most intrusive form of advertising, providing few, if any, compen- sating benefits, and they devalue the public's intensive invest- ment in its commercial and residential areas. Finally, bill- boards constitute a traffic hazard adversely affecting traffic safety. Billboards are the functional equivalent of a public nuisance and as such justify strict control and regulation by the public. In April of 1988, the City of Salem adopted an ordinance prohibiting the location of general advertising signs (bill- boards) within the corporate limits of the city. Roanoke City is currently undertaking a study to review its local ordinances per- taining to signs. The proposed ordinance, which is attached to this report, prohibits the location of general advertising signs within the County. A general advertising sign is a sign which directs atten- tion to a product, commodity, or service not conducted, sold, or offered upon the same lot or parcel where such sign is located. This ordinance does not impair any vested rights to existing gen- eral advertising signs. The construction of a sign for which a permit was legally issued under the provisions of the zoning ordinance prior to the effective date of this ordinance (the effective date is January 25, 1989) may proceed and continue; however, the construction of such a sign must be completed within thirty (30) days after the effective date. Any violation of this ordinance shall constitute a Class 1 misdemeanor. In addition, the County Administrator is authorized to administer and enforce the provisions of this ordinance, including the authorization to bring appropriate legal actions to secure compliance with this ordinance. ~- This ordinance is not part of the County's Zoning Ordinance, rather, it is authorized under the general police powers of the County pursuant to Section 15.1-510 of the State Code. The first reading of this proposed ordinance is scheduled for January 10, 1989; the second reading is scheduled for January 24, 1989. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adop- tion of this proposed ordinance. Respectfully submitted, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney ------------------------------------------------------------------ ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by• No Yes Abs Denied Received Referred To Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers ~_ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1989 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO PROVIDE FOR A PROHIBITION UPON THE LOCATION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF SIGNS WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, recognizes that "general advertising" signs (bill- boards) are becoming a blight upon the County, and that this is the functional equivalent of a public nuisance, adversely affect- ing the appearance of the community, aesthetics, vitality, the enhancement of property values, as well as the value of the County's commercial and residential areas, and that such signs constitute a traffic hazard adversely affecting the traffic safe- ty in the County; and WHEREAS, Section 15.1-510 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, authorizes any county to adopt such measures as it may deem expedient to secure and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the county, and further that the provisions of Chapter 18 of Title 15.1 (Section 15.1-837 et seq.), and that Section 2.01 of the Roanoke County Charter (1986 Acts of Assembly, Chapter 617) authorize the adoption of this ordinance; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 10, 1989, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on January 24, 1989. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: Sec. 1. Definitions. ~-z Sign. Any display of any letters, words, numerals, figures, devices, emblems, pictures, or any parts or combinations thereof , by any means whereby the same are made visible for the purpose of making anything known, whether such display be made on, attached to, or as a part of a structure, surface, or any other thing, including but not limited to the ground, any rock, tree, or other natural object which display is visible beyond the boundaries of the parcel of land on which the same is made. This definition includes the supports, uprights, bracing, and frame- work of any structure, be it single-faced, double-faced, v-type or otherwise, exhibiting a sign. General advertising sign. A sign which directs atten- tion to a product, commodity, or service not conducted, sold, or offered upon the same lot or parcel where such sign is located. Sec. 2. Prohibited signs. No general advertising sign shall be located within the county. Sec. 3. Vested rights. Nothing in this ordinance shall be con- strued to authorize the impairment of any vested right to an existing general advertising sign and that those signs in use at the effective date of this ordinance may be continued. If any change in title or possession or renewal of a lease of any sign or sign structure that is the subject of this ordinance or any lot or parcel upon which a sign or sign struc- ture is located occurs, then the use of that sign or sign struc- ture may be continued. If any sign or sign structure is discon- tinued for a period exceeding two years after the effective date c' - z of this ordinance, then it shall conform to the provisions of this ordinance. The construction of a sign or sign structure for which a permit was legally issued according to the provisions of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance prior to the effective date of this ordinance may proceed and continue; provided, that the con- struction of said sign and sign structure is completed within thirty (30) days after the effective date of this ordinance. Any sign or sign structure which would otherwise be prohibited by the provisions of this ordinance may not be ex- tended or enlarged. Any sign or sign structure which is destroyed or damaged in any manner to the extent of the cost of restoration to its condition before the occurrence shall exceed fifty (50) percent of the cost of reconstruction may not be repaired or restored unless it is in compliance with the provi- sions of this ordinance. Sec. 4. Violations. Any violation of the provisions of this ordinance shall constitute a Class 1 misdemeanor and be punished as provided in Section 1-10 of this Code. In addition, the County Administrator on behalf of the Board of Supervisors shall have all necessary authority to admin- ister and enforce the provisions of this ordinance, including the bringing of legal action to insure compliance with the ordinance, including injunction, abatement or other appropriate action or proceeding. ~~ Sec. 5. Severability. In the event that any portion of this ordinance is held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other valid portions of this ordinance. Sec. 6. Effective date. The effective date of this ordinance shall be January 25, 1989. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1989 ORDINANCE 11089-7 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF AN INTEREST IN AN EIGHT (8) ACRE TRACT KNOWN AS THE NORTH CLEAR ZONE PROPERTY IN EXCHANGE FOR THE CONVEYANCE TO 'rHE CITY OF ROANOKE OF A REVERSIONARY CLAUSE IN THE EIGHT (8) ACRE TRACT KNOWN AS THE IDA MAE HOLLAND TRACT BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the acquisition of a reversionary interest from the City of Roanoke in the eight (8) acre tract known as the North Clear Zone property in exchange for the conveyance of a reversionary interest to the City of Roanoke in the eight (8) acre tract known as the Ida Mae Holland tract was held on December 13, 1988. A second reading on this matter was held on January 10, 1988. 2. That the acquisition of the reversionary interest in the eight (8) acres, more or less, known as the North Clear Zone property more particularly described as located adjacent to the Airport Clear Zone property in exchange for the conveyance of a reversionary interest to the City of Roanoke in the eight (8) acres, more or less, known as the Ida Mae Holland tract more particularly described as located adjacent to Thirlane Road and the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission property is hereby authorized and approved; and 3. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition and conveyance of the interest in said properties, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Johnson , seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor McGraw A COPY TESTE: ~a~--~, Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment Tim Gubala, Director, Economic Development Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering 2 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~ --~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 10, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of an inter- est in an eight (8) acre tract known as the North Clear Zone property in exchange for the conveyance to the City of Roanoke of a reversionary clause in the eight (8) acre tract known as the Ida Mae Holland tract COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: 7 J ~ / BACKGROUND: p~`/, ~~ r,~tt,~yyLGl.6.r Pursuant to Ordinance No. 11288-7 passed by the Board, Roa- noke County acquired eight (8) acres, more or less, of real pro- perty from the Ida Mae Holland estate. This real estate is located adjacent to Thirlane Road and the Roanoke Regional Air- port Commission property in Roanoke City. Ordinance 11288-7 also authorized the conveyance of the Ida Mae Holland tract from Roa- noke County to the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission in ex- change for the conveyance to Roanoke County of eight (8) acres, more or less, of real property located adjacent to the Airport Clear Zone property (the North Clear Zone property) from the Roa- noke Regional Airport Commission. This property is being uti- lized for industrial access or other road improvements to facili- tate the industrial and economic development of Roanoke County, i.e. the Valleypointe Project. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Roanoke Regional Airport Commission acquired the afore- mentioned eight (8) acres (the North Clear Zone property which it conveyed to Roanoke County) from Roanoke City by deed dated June 30, 1987. A provision in the deed states that should the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission at any time be dissolved in a manner consistent with Section 28 of Chapter 140 of the 1986 Acts of Assembly of Virginia, the property shall automatically revert to the City of Roanoke. (Section 28 of Chapter 140 of the 1986 Acts of Assembly provides that upon dissolution of the Airport Commis- sion, the Circuit Court shall order any real property contributed ~-/ - / to the Commission by a participating political subdivision, to- gether with any improvements thereon, be returned to such partici- pating political subdivision.) This reversionary clause in the deed would prevent Roanoke County from conveying clear title to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for the road right-of-way in connection with the industrial access road servic- ing Valleypointe Phase I. Pursuant to negotiations between representatives of Roanoke County, Roanoke City, the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission, and Lingerfelt Development Corporation, Roanoke City has agreed to release the City's reversionary clause of the eight (8) acres conveyed to Roanoke County in exchange for the imposition of a reversionary clause on the Ida Mae Holland tract conveyed to the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission, i.e. if the Airport Commis- sion dissolves the property would revert to Roanoke City. Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter requires that the acquisition or disposition of real estate or any interest therein be accomplished only by ordinance. The first reading of the proposed ordinance was held on December 13, 1988; the second reading will be held on January 10, 1988. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the County Administrator to execute such docu- ments and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition and conveyance of the interest in said properties, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. 2. Do not authorize the County Administrator to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition and conveyance of the interest in said properties, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. /~ Respectfully submitted, Sarah A. Rice Assistant County Attorney Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To Motion by: ACTION Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers 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, JANUARY 10, 1989 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF AN INTEREST IN AN EIGHT (8) ACRE TRACT KNOWN AS THE NORTH CLEAR ZONE PROPERTY IN EXCHANGE FOR THE CONVEYANCE TO THE CITY OF ROANOKE OF A REVERSIONARY CLAUSE IN THE EIGHT ( 8 ) ACRE TRACT KNOWN AS THE IDA MAE HOLLAND TRACT BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the acquisition of a reversionary interest from the City of Roanoke in the eight (8) acre tract known as the North Clear Zone property in exchange for the conveyance of a reversionary interest to the City of Roanoke in the eight (8) acre tract known as the Ida Mae Holland tract was held on December 13, 1988. A second reading on this matter was held on January 10, 1988. 2. That the acquisition of the reversionary interest in the eight (8) acres, more or less, known as the North Clear Zone property more particularly described as located adjacent to the Airport Clear Zone property in exchange for the conveyance of a reversionary interest to the City of Roanoke in the eight (8) acres, more or less, known as the Ida Mae Holland tract more particularly described as located adjacent to Thirlane Road and the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission property is hereby authorized and approved; and 3. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke ^ /-~ - / County as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition and conveyance of the interest in said properties, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. ACTION NUMBER ITEM NUMBER ~'~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 10, 1989 SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Community Corrections Resources Board One-year term of Edmund J. Kielty, Alternate. His term expired August 13, 1988. 3=~ Libra ~ Board Four-year unexpired term of Richard Kirkwood, Hollins Magisterial District. Mr. Kirkwood's term expires December 31, 1989. 4 Transportation and Safety Commission 0. S. Foster has resigned as an advisory member of the Transportation and Safety Commission. On July 28, 1988, the Board of Supervisors voted that he continue in this capacity following his retirement as Sheriff. SUBMITTED BY: Mary H. Allen Deputy Clerk APPROVED BY: ~ G d~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: Yes No Abs Denied ( ) Garrett Received ( ) Johnson Referred McGraw To• Nickens Robers -7" 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. --~ LIBRARY BOARD A. COMPOSITION (Code of Virginia 42.1-35) To consist of not less than five (5) members, appointed by the Board of Supervisors; representing each Magisterial District, members may serve 4 year terms, only two terms consecutively. B. DUTIES: For management and control of a free public library system. Has control of the expenditure of all moneys credited to the regional free library fund. Has the right to accept donations and bequests of money, personal property or real estate for the establishment and maintenance of such regional free library system or endowments for same. Has authority to execute contracts for the purpose of administering a public library service with the region. C. MEETING SCHEDULE: Fourth Wednesday of each month, 5:30 p.m., Headquarters Library Route 419. 1-I O L L I N S Hollins College Roanoke, Virginia 703-362-6000 24020 ~~ ~D E C 1 ~ 1988 December 13, 1988 Mr. Bob Johnson Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S W Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Mr. Johnson; It is with considerable regret that I submit my resignation from the Board of Trustees of the Roanoke County public Library, to be effective immediately. I have, for the past several months, been experiencing an increasing problem with my vision which makes night driving hazardous, and attendance at Board meetings, at least during the winter months, highly uncertain. I have enjoyed working with Mr. Garretson and other Board members, and wish them continued success in their administration of the library system. Sincerely, Richard E. Kirkwood .~ '/ 26 TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY COMMISSION ROANOKE COUNTY A. COMPOSITION- (Section 33.1 - 398, Code of Virginia) (Resolution 84-37 approved February 14, 1984) To consist of eleven (11) members of the Commission appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Terms shall be four years, but no members shall serve for more than two (2) full successive terms. Initial appointments to be staggered B. DUTIES: The Commission shall have the duty and responsibility to: (a) review, examine, and approve all highway safety grants and recommend same to the Board of Supervisors; (b) promote all highway and transportation safety programs; (c) make recommendations through the Board of Supervisors to VDH&T regarding signs, road improvements, and engineering improvement; and (d) develop and establish through the Board of Supervisors a safety program for the County and sponsor an annual awards banquet for persons excelling in the application of safety measures and procedures. C. MEETING SCHEDULE: Minimum of 4 meetings per year. ~~ .~ y'r ( ; 1 ~ ~ r r '~ C .~ , 8242 Webster Drive, N.W. Roanoke, Va. 24019 December 27, 1988 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Gentlemen: I am submitting my resignation from the Roanoke County Transportation Safety Commission effective December 31, 1988. I have served more than 21 years on the commission and now feel that it would be better to vacate the position to give someone else an opportunity to serve. While on the commission I served for a total of six years as chairman and two years as secretary. I hope my service helped to make Roanoke County and the valley a safer place to live. Sincerely yours, .-; ~ r/ ,~ .- - , , 0. S. Foster cc: Lt. L. J. Wade, Chairman Mrs. Elizabeth Stokes, Clerk of Court File r AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1989 RESOLUTION N0. 11089-8 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM K - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That that certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for January 10, 1989, designated as Item K - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 6, inclusive, as follows: 1. Minutes of Meeting - July 12, 1988 2. Request for acceptance of Scarlet Oak Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 3. Request for acceptance of Lakemont Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 4. Acknowledgment from Va. Department of Transportation that the following roads have been accepted into the Secondary System: a. 0.06 miles of Route 1337 (Bear Ridge Circle) b. 0.11 miles of Route 1006 (Stonebridge Circle) 5. Acceptance of a drainage easement being dedicated by David Mangrum and Pamela Mangrum across Lot 13, Block 2, Section 2, Forest Edge. 6. Acceptance of a drainage easement donated by the U. S. Department of Interior across the Blue Ridge Parkway - Montgomery Village Subdivision. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said r items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and upon the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: fah-~~, ~d . C~~ Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 1/11/89 CC: File Phillip Henry, Director of Engineering Clifford Craig, Utility Director Paul Mahoney, County Attorney John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator July 12, 1988 ~- / Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Sw Roanoke, Virginia 24018 July 12, 1988 The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday, and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of July, 1988. ~' IN RE: CALL TO ORDER I Chairman Garrett called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Lee Garrett, Vice Chairman Richard. Robers, Supervisors Bob L. Johnson, Steven A. McGraw MEMBERS ABSENT: Supervisor Harry Nickens (arrived at 2:15 p.m.) STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; John M Chambliss Assistant County Administrator for Human Services; Don Myers, Assistant County Administrator for Management Services; Joseph Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES July 12, 1988 00 2 ` iven by the Reverend Robert Wayne The invocation was g Lynn Haven Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS: A Resolution of Appreciation to Wayne Wilkerson for his work with CRINIELINE, Inc. was added. IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS co~n,,;~Pnrennial: Calvin Johnson M. S. C. Manager and Postmaster for Roanoke presented a plaque holding stamps commemorating Virginia's entry to statehood. The plaque was presented to Chairman Garrett in honor of Roanoke County's Sesquicentennial. reciation to a Wilkerson• 2, Resolution of A Wayne Wilkerson was present to receive a resolution for his work with CRIMELINE, Inc. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the resolution. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett July 12, 1988 NAYS: None RESOLUTION 71?_88-1 OF APPRECIATION TO WAYNE 0. WILKERSON FOR HIS SERVICE AS PRESIDENT OF CRIME LINE,INCORPORATED V 0 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as follows: WHEREAS, CRIME LINE Inc. was organized over three years as a unified valley-wide effort to reduce crime in the Roanoke Valley; and WHEREAS, this program, through the use of a telephone number, gives citizens an opportunity to aid in solving crimes `~ and to receive rewards for their crime deterrent assistance; and WHEREAS, Wayne 0. Wilkerson has been active in this organization since its inception, serving as President for the past two years; and WHEREAS, by volunteering his time in this program, he has served a -valuable service to the community and his .efforts with- CRIME LINE, Inc. will- be missed by all localities in the Roanoke Valley. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia expresses its deepest appreciation to Wayne 0. Wilkerson for his volunteer service to the community by serving as President of CRIME LINE, Inc., and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors extends its best wishes for a successful future as President of ASSA, Lock Manufacturing Company. pU~ July 12, 1988 IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1 Smith Mountain Lake Study: John Bradshaw with Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern, Inc. was present. He reviewed the historical data surrounding the search for a water source .for the County, and why Spring Hollow Reservoir was considered the best alternative. He advised they had completed the preliminary assessment of Smith Mountain Lake at the Hardy Ford Bridge as a potential water source for Roanoke County. He reported that the estimated capital cost using the Hardy Ford Bridge as a intake location is $73,000,000, with maintenance costs of $6,000,000. Spring Hollow reservoir is estimated to cost $70,000,000 with maintenance costs of $2,000 per year. Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern recommends that Smith Mountain Lake not be considered an alternative because of the costs, the potential for pollution, greater distance, and legal considerations such as controlling water rights, recreational usage and lakefront property development. Supervisor McGraw advised that when the Board went into session, he planned to move to go forward with the construction of the Spring Hollow Reservoir. Supervisor Johnson advised his primary concern was the potential for water contamination. Supervisor Nickens requested that a copy of the study be sent to the Friends of Roanoke River who have opposed the construction of the Spring Hollow Reservoir. July 12, 1988 2 Flood Control: Mr. Hodge advised that John Hubbard was not out of town and unable to present the work session. Mr. Hodge stated he was recommending that a formal natural disaster policy be adopted for all such tragedies. The policy would include procedures for assessors, financial staff, and fire and rescue personnel. He requested approval to bring back such a policy within 90 days. He announced that Chairman Garrett had written Mayor Noel Taylor from the City of Roanoke offering to work with them on a regional approach to flood control. The final step is to complete the study being done by the Corps of Engineers on the tributaries. Supervisor Johnson requested a cost analysis on 1 purchasing homes that are flooded by tributaries even though he advised he felt the cost would be prohibitive. He also requested that the Corps of Engineers and appropriate staff meet with the communities affected by flooding. Mr. Hodge advised he would follow up with these requests and bring back a proposed policy on natural disasters in September. 3 Radio Communication System: Mr. Hodge introduced Mike Hunter of RAM Communication who has served as a consultant to the County and has studied the new radio system. Sheriff Michael Kavanaugh, Fire Chief Tommy Fuqua, personnel from Motorola, and Director of General Services Gardner Smith also participated. Mr. Hodge reviewed the background of the purchase of the new radio communication system. Mr. Hunter reported that their task was to review and compare the old system and new system. He outlined ttze problems July 12, 1988 :0 0 with the system, including fairly long wave length, long antennas, portables and pagers are difficult to operate, and the band is susceptible to harmful interference. He felt that the 800 Mhz system provides operational features not present before such as portable coverage and mobile to mobile coverage across the County. He acknowledged there are areas in the County in which coverage from the portable radios is marginal. In response to a question from Supervisor Nickens, Mr. Hunter advised that Roanoke County made a good decision on their choice with only $2.5 million funds available. However, the system could still be enhanced. Supervisor Johnson asked if Phase II will solve the problems. Mr. Hunter responded that it would be much improved when Phase II is complete. Sheriff Kavanaugh outlined his concerns with the new system. These concerns included the bid process for the new system, and the fact that Requests for Proposal process was used instead of a bid process. Sheriff Kavanaugh felt this process could eliminate bidders. He also was concerned with the "dead" spots and lack of coverage on the present system, and the decision to go with 800 Mhz trunking. Sheriff Kavanaugh presented memos from his law enforcement personnel describing problems they have had with the new system, explaining it did not have "talk around". Mr. Clark from Motorola responded that the system did have this feature. Sheriff Kavanaugh also questioned turning in the old radios for a trade-in because they were originally purchased with grant funds. July 12, 1988 t~ 0 Supervisor Nickens requested a transcript of Sheriff Kavanaugh's comments for response by the consultant and Motorola. IN RE: RECESS At 4:40 p.m., Chairman Garrett declared a five-minute recess. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1 Request for approval of an aareement with Roanoke r City concerning the development and maintenance of a Park Access Road into Vinyard Park: Assistant County Administrator John Chambliss reported that the Parks and Recreation Department had made a request to the Department of Transportation and the State Parks Commission for a park access road into Vinyard Park. Because the park is located in the City of Roanoke, they were advised that the City of Roanoke must make the application for the grant. The city sent- a letter of intent in June so that the $26,000 money could be taken from the 1987-88 allocation. The city requested these funds, contingent upon an agreement with the County by which the County would maintain full responsibility for the road. Staff is requesting authorization for the County Administrator to execute the agreement. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the resolution. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: July 12, 1988 • O ®'S AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None RESOLUTION 71288-2 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ROANOKE CITY CONCERNING THE VINYARD PARK ACCESS ROAD WHEREAS, Vinyard Park is a recreational facility lo- Gated in Roanoke City owned and developed by Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, this park requires adequate road access; and WHEREAS, Roanoke City has agreed to recommend alloca- tion of necessary recreational access funds from the 1987-88 City allocation, pursuant to the procedure governing such allocations of recreational access funds pursuant to Section 33.1-223 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and WHEREAS, Roanoke City and Roanoke County have negoti- ated an agreement concerning this matter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervi- sors of .Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute an agreement with the City of Roanoke to provide for recreational road access to the Vinyard Park Recreational Facil- ity. 2. That the County agrees to bear all costs associated with the construction and maintenance of this access road, that the County will assume responsibility for all claims arising from the condition of said road which may be filed against the City and further that the County will certify public liability insur- ance coverage in the minimum amount of $1 million bodily injury July 12, 1988 and property damage, that the park will be subject to all police power ordinances of the City, that the park will not be lighted without the written approval of the City Manager, and that City residents will be permitted to use the park on the same basis as City residents may use County parks. 3. That the Deputy Clerk is hereby directed to mail a certified copy of this resolution to the Roanoke City Clerk. 2 Request to submit a Planning Grant Application to the Virginia Department of Housing and Communitv Development for the Pinkard Court Communitv: Planner Dale Castellow advised that the staff is presently formulating an application for a planning grant from the Department of Housing and Community Development. This grant is to fund specific advance planning activities for projects eligible for community development block grants. Acceptance of the grant does not obligate the County nor guarantee awarding of the community development block grant. Supervisor Nickens moved to submit the planning grant application. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None RESOLUTION 71288-3 AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A PLANNING GRANT APPLICATION TO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PINKARD COURT COMMUNITY LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTES 419 AND 220 IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, .~s follows: July 12, 1988 R1 WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development has reserved two percent of available Community Development Block Grant money ($385,900) for funding Planning Grants for fiscal year 1988; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Planning Grant is to fund specific advance planning activities for projects eligible for funding in the VCDBG-Community Improvement Grants Programs; and WHEREAS, the Pinkard Court community, located near the intersection of Routes 419 and 220, is in need of road improvements, upgrading and expansion of the public water system, sewer system construction, storm sewers, drainage facilities, and .housing rehabilitation; and r WHEREAS, an application for a planning grant for th~~ Pinkard County community has been prepared; and WHEREAS, Mr. Elmer C. Hodge, Jr., County Administrator can act on behalf of the County of Roanoke and will sign all necessary documents required to complete the grant transaction. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Roanoke County hereby authorizes the County Administrator to apply for a planning grant for the Pinkard Court community from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development in the amount of $9,000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that leverage funds towards the planning grant activities include VA Water Project, Inc. funds as well as Roanoke County in-kind administrative costs. IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES July 12, 1988 o~~ ~: 1 Ordinance amending and reenacting Chapter 5, Animals and Fowl of the Roanoke County Code concerning the licensing of doq and rabies control: Assistant County Attorney Joseph Obenshain advised this ordinance changes the mandatory age for rabies vacination from six months to four months and makes several other changes necessary to bring the code into compliance with the state. Supervisor Nickens moved first reading of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1 Ordinance authorizing the execution and assignment of a real estate contract to acquire approximately 600 acres of real estate located in the Vinton Magisterial District from the heirs of James E.Palmer: Mr. Obenshain stated this would authorize the acquisition of acreage in the Palmer Estate. The property will then be conveyed to the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the second reading. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett July 12, 1988 0 ~. 2 NAYS: None ORDINANCE 71288-4 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND ASSIGNMEN`P OF A REAL ESTATE CONTRACT TO ACQUIRE APPROXIMATELY 600 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE HEIRS OF JAMES E. PAI,MER BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the execu- tion of a real estate contract and assignment thereof to acquire the hereinafter-described real estate was held on June 28, 1988. A second reading on this matter was held on July 12, 1988. 2. That a real estate contract to acquire approximate- ly 600 acres of real estate located in the Vinton Magisterial District, and more particularly described as Roanoke County Tax Map Nos. 80.00-5-24, 80.00-5-16, 80.00-5-15, 80.00-5-18, 80.00-5- 25, 80.00-5-27, 80.005-29, 80.00-5-10, 80.00-4-17, 80.00-5=38, and 80.00-5-40 between Charles J: Palmer and Karen B. Palmer, his wife; Lela H. Palmer; James E. Palmer, III; and Suzanne M. Palmer, collectively known as the heirs of James E. Palmer; and the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, in the amount of $5,000.00 per acre, be, and hereby is, accepted. 3. That the execution of this contract by the County Administrator is hereby authorized, notified, confirmed, and approved. July 12, 1988 Q~ 3 4. That the assignment of Roanoke County's interests in this contract to the Virginia Recreational Facilities Autho- rity is hereby authorized. 5. 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 execution of the real estate contract and the assignment thereof, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None 2 Ordinance authorizin the convevance of an easement to David A Kinsler for driveway and landscaping purposes: Mr. Obenshain advised this ordinance will convey an easement on a county well lot to the Kinslers so that they may close on a contract to purchase the adjacent lot in Canterbury Park. The Health Department has reviewed the request and approved it with conditions. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the second reading. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None ORDINANCE 71288-5 AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO DAVID A. KINSLER FOR DRIVEWAY AND LANDSCAPING PURPOSES July 12, 1988 WHEREAS, David A. Kinsler has requested that the Board of Supervisors authorize the conveyance to him of an easement for driveway and landscaping purposes; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 28, 1988; and the second reading of this ordinance was held on July 12, 1988, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter; and WHEREAS, this property is surplus property pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County Charter; however, this property is still available for public use as a well lot, said public use not being adversely affected by this conveyance. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That an easement for driveway and landscaping pur- poses is hereby granted to David A. Kinsler, said easement being upon and across a portion of a well lot located in Canterbury Park subdivision. 2. That this easement shall be appurtenant to Lot 19, Block 2, Section 1 of Canterbury Park (Plat Book 9, page 183). The driveway turnaround encroaches over the division line between said Lot 19 and the well lot, and further the County is willing to allo:~r the driveway turnaround to remain in place and to allow Mr. Kinsler to landscape said easement area. No parking or stor- ing of automobiles will be allowed in the easement area. 3. That this easement is approximately 35.94 feet by 15.22 feet, as more particularly shown on 3 plat prepared by July 12, 1988 ~~ Buford T. Lumsden & Associates, P. C., dated June 14, 1988, Comm. #88-296. 4. That the offer of David A. Kinsler in the amount of $300.00 is hereby accepted and all other offers are rejected. That the proceeds from the conveyance of this easement are to be allocated to the capital facility accounts of the Roanoke County Utility Department. 5. That the County Administrator is authorized to exe- cute such documents and to take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this ordinance, all upon form approved by the County Attorney. IN RE; APPOINTMENTS 1. Fifth Planning District Commission :_ Supervisor Garrett nominated Charles Garrett, 5114 Castle Rock Road S. W. to a three-year term. 2. Planning Commission: Supervisor Johnson nominated Ronald Massey, 5162 Mason Park Drive to fill the unexpired four- year term of Carolyn J. Flippen, Hollins Magisterial District. IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Robers announced that Tim Gubala, Economic Development Director, will be visiting with Dr. Wade Gilley at George clason University to make arrangement for a Roanoke Valley Day in Northern Virginia. July 12, 1988 U' 1 6 Supervisor McGraw announced that the Blue Ridge Region will be meeting on July 14; that the Roanoke Valley Cooperation Committee will be meeting on July 15; and that the VACo-VML Task Force meeting will be July 22. He also announced that Sheriff Kavanaugh- had agreed to discuss expanding the extra-territorial agreement with other localities. Supervisor Garrett advised that the Landfill Board has requested that each locality nominate citizens to a Citizens Advisory Committee to work with the Landfill Board on a new landfill site. Supervisor Garrett nominated I. Boyd Overstreet. Supervisor Nickens nominated Donna Wood. IN RE: ACTION FROM THE WORK SESSIONS: 1 Smith Mountain Lake Study and Spring Hollow. Reservoir: Supervisor McGraw moved to approve construction of the Spring Hollow Reservoir and to request a response by September 1, 1988 from the cities of Salem and Roanoke on whether they will participate in the reservoir project. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Garrett and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None 2 Radio Communication Svstem: Supervisor Johnson moved to go forward with Phase II of the new radio system and July 12, 1988 `1 ~ a that a transcript be made available of Sheriff Kavanaugh's comments for the consultant and Motorola; and that the County Administrator be authorized to contact the Commonwealth's Attorney to make sure there are no improprieties in regard to the both Phase I and II of the radio communication system. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: Supervisor Robers IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None RESOLUTION N0. 71288-6 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 July 12, 1988, designated as Item L - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to •~ July 12, 1988 each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 6, inclusive, as follows: 1. Minutes of Meetings - March 22, 1988 2. Request for acceptance of Meadewood Drive and Quail Place into the VDOT Secondary System. 3. Request for acceptance of Country Lane, Old Farm Road, and Peach Tree Circle into the VDOT Secondary System. 4. Acknowledgment from Va. Department of Transportation that the following roads have been taken into the Secondary System: a. 0.38 miles of Canter Drive b. 0.20 miles of Cavalier Drive c. 0.11 miles of Chaucer's Court d. 0.03 miles of Glouster Court 5. Acceptance Paints and Land Compan 6. Acceptance Southwest System. of water facilities serving Pittsburgh a water line easement donated by F & D Y• of Commonwealth Drive located in the Industrial Park into the VDOT Secondary 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. RESOLUTION 71288-6.b REQUESTING. ACCEPTANCE OF COUNTRY LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Resolution 121587-7.c requesting acceptance of Country Lane into VDOT Secondary Road System is hereby rescinded. July 12, 1988 01g 2. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the proceedings therein and upon the application for Country Lane to be accepted and made a part of the secondary system of state highways under Section 33.1-72.1, Paragraph D and funded pursuant to Section 33.1-75.1, Paragraph A of the Code of Virginia, of 1950 as amended. 3. That this Board does guarantee the Commonwealth of Virginia an unrestricted right-of-way of 50 feet with necessary easements for drainage as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 65, dated May 19, 1978, of record in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office. 4. That this Board does certify that this road was open to public use prior to July 1, 1978, at which time it was open to and used by motor vehicles. 5. That said road known as Country Lane, which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this resolution, be, and same are hereby established as public roads to become a part of the state secondary system of highways- in Roanoke County, onlyfrom and after notification of official acceptance of said road by VDOT. On motion of Supervisor iv'ickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None RESOLUTION 71288-6.a REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF MEADEWOOD DRIVE AND QUAIL PLACE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM July 12, 1988 ~'!~ BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Resolution 121587-7f requesting acceptance of Meadewood Drive and Quail Place into the VDOT Secondary Road System is hereby rescinded. 2. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the proceedings therein and upon the application for Meadewood Drive and Quail Place sections of road extending from Quail Place (Route 1888), 0.12 miles north of Trevilian Road (Route 1413) and extending in a northerly direction 0.26 miles (Quail Place) and in an easterly and westerly direction 0.13 miles (Meadewood Drive) to cul-de-sacs, pursuant to Section 33.1-72.1, Paragraph C-1 and funded pursuant to Section 33.1-75.1, Paragraph A of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. 3. That this Board does guarantee the Commonwealth of Virginia an unrestricted right-of-way of 40 feet or 50 feet with necessary easements for drainage as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 51, dated September 1, 1965, and subsequent deeds of record in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office. 4. That this Board does certify that these roads were open to public use prior to January 1, 1976, at which time these roads were open to and used by motor vehicles. 5. That this Board does certify that speculative interests are not involved. 6. That said roads known as Meadewood Drive and Quail Place which are shown on a certain sketch accompanying this resolution, be, and the same are hereby established as publi~~ July 12, 1988 02 Y roads to become a part of the state secondary system of highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official acceptance of said roads by the Virginia Department of Transportation. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None RESOLUTION 71288-6.e REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF COMMONWEALTH 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 Commonwealth 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 street has been dedicated by virtue of certain maps known as plat showing property of Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County and dedication of road right-of-way, which map was recorded in Plat book 10, Page 25, dated September 4, 1986, and other plats and deeds of the record in the Clerk`s Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia; and that by reason of the recordation of said maps, 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. July 12, 1988 Q~.~ 3. That said street known as Commonwealth Drive and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as a public street 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 by the Virginia Department of Transportation. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Johnson moved that the following reports be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett -NAYS: None 1. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 9. Report on Water Conservation IN RE: OLD BUSINESS July 12, 1988 Q23 788-1 Petition of Hop-In Food Stores, Inc. to rezone a 2.85 acre tract from R-1 Residential to B-2 Business located north of the intersection of Wood Haven Road and Peters Creek Road in the Hollins Magisterial District This petition was heard originally on April 26, 1988 and there was no vote on the issue. On June 28, 1988 there was a tie vote on the petition and state code requires another vote when all members are present. Chairman Garrett advised that this petition was being heard today for the purposes of a vote only. Discussion would be allowed but no input from the public. Supervisor Johnson advised that he was seriously concerned about petroleum contamination to the acquifer and the lack of a street light at the intersection. The attorney for the petitioner has stated they anticipate that the City of Roanoke will install a street light, but there is no definite agreement to this. He also understood that during a previous discussion, the petitioner advised that the office corporate headquarters will be located there, but has not seen that in writing. Mr. Castellow advised that he had discussed the street light with Roanoke City but had not seen anything in writing. He also understands that t}~e house located on the property will not be ` ~ ~+ July 12, 1988 there. He was not aware of the corporate headquarters being located there. In response to a question from Supervisor Nickens, Utility Director Clifford Craig advised that wells in the Starkey area were lost as a result of petroleum contamination. Supervisor McCraw- moved to grant the petition with proffered conditions, and with the understanding that the City of Roanoke will install traffic installation at the intersection of Wood Haven and Peters Creek Road. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Robers, McGraw, Nickens NAYS: Supervisors Johnson, Garrett FINAL ORDER NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned parcel of land which is contained in the Roanoke County Tax .Maps as Parcel 26.20-4-27 and recorded in Deed Book and legally described below, be rezoned from R-1 Residential District to B-2 Business District BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be transmitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission and that he be directed to reflect that change on the official zoning map of Roanoke County. A 2.85 acre parcel of land, generally located at the northeasterly intersection of Peters Creek Road and Woodhaven D r i v e w i t h i n t h e H o l l i n s July 12, 1988 Magisterial District and recorded as Parcel #26.20-4-27 in the Roanoke County Tax Records. Q2~ PROFFER OF CONDITIONS 1. Site to be developed in substantial conformity with the site plan of T. P. Parker & Son, submitted herewith. 2. The following proffers will relate to signage: a. The sign will be in accordance with the rendering presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. b. There will be no green on the signage c. There will be no bunnies on the signage. d. signage for the Hop-In Store and the donut store '~ will not exceed a total of sixty square feet. If signage is located on a pole, the pole will not exceed twenty feet in height. e. The signage for the office building will be monument-type signage not to exceed twenty-four (24) square feet. f. There will be no free-standing advertising signs on the premises. 3. There will be a maximum of 4 multi-grade gasoline pumps placed on the property. Buffhide tanks will be utilized with a computered monitoring system. 4. As to lighting, all lighting will be directed away from adjoining residential property and the following proffers shall apply. 026 July 12, 1988 a. The Hop-In and donut building shall have direct lighting on the front and high sodium lights on the corners in the rear. b. The office building shall have direct lighting on the front and the side with parking and one high sodium light in the center of the rear portion of the building. c. The gas islands shall have direct lighting. 788-2 Petition of A. T. Williams Oil Company to amend the proffered conditions on a 1.65 acre tract to construct a convenience store with gasoline pumps located on the east side of Brambleton Avenue (Route 221) approximately 0.3 miles south of its intersection with Electric Road (Route 419) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. (PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON JUNE 28. 1988) Mr. Castellow reported that he had spoken with the petitioner regarding concerns of the residents about the buffer. A 35 foot buffer yard is required by ordinance, rather than a 30 foot buffer as proffered. July 12, 1988 Q 2 "7 Mr. Castellow advised that the public hearing was not a rezoning request, but was for the purposes of determining whether there is one or two entrances. There are, however, other proffers for the rear portion that have been eliminated dealing with the screening and buffering and the mini warehouses. The petitioner has agreed to come back to the Board prior to any development of the rear portion of the site. Supervisor Nickens pointed out that this was not a request for rezoning, but only a decision on the number of entrances to the site. Even if voted down, the petitioner can move forward. Supervisor Nickens moved to grant the petition The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Robers, McGraw, Nickens NAYS: Supervisors Johnson, Garrett FINAL ORDER NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED that the conditions on the aforementioned parcel of land which is contained in the Roanoke County Tax Maps as Parcel 17.17-5-22 and recorded in Deed Book and legally described below, be amended as hereinafter set out. BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be transmitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission and that he be directed to reflect that change on the official zoning map of Roanoke County. July 12, 1988 ~2~ _ _ _ _-- -- - --- --A---~-~ ~5-$-c-re-p-a ~C e I o 1 and generally located on the east side of Brambleton Avenue (Route 221) within the Cave Spring Magisterial District and recorded as Parcel No. 17.17-5-22 in the Roanoke County Tax Records. 1. Construction of a convenience store with gasoline pumps will be substantial conformity with the site plan prepared by A. T. Williams, and submitted herewith. 2. The mini-warehouses as set forth in the original proffers are deleted; the zoning on the rear portion is to remain M-1, Light Industrial District, but there will be no development on the M-1 portion until there is submission to and approval of a concept plan for such development by the governing body. 3. That the hours of operations hall be from 5:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. IN RE: CITIZEN COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Orrie Lee, a resident of the Peters Creek Road area spoke in opposition to the Hop-In rezoning petition. He felt that the screening of trees would not be adequate buffering for the convenience store. IN RE: EXECUTIVE SESSION At 5:20 p.m., Supervisor Garrett moved to go into Executive Session pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1- 344 (a) (2) to discuss a real estate matter. The motion was July 12, 1988 ,... 029 seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None IN RE: OPEN SESSION At 6:15 p.m. Supervisor Garrett moved to return to Open Session. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None IN RE: ADJOURNMENT At 6:16 P.M. Supervisor Garrett adjourned the meeting. Lee Garrett, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1989 RESOLUTION 1089-8.a REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF SCARLET OAK 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 Scarlet Oak Drive from its intersection with Wood Haven Road (Route 628) to the existing Falls Development for a distance of 0.20 miles, 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 if ty ( 50 ) foot right-of-way for said road have been dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Extension of Scarlet Oak Drive recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 76, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on December 21, 1988 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 Scarlet Oak 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 McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections, and copy for Virginia Department of Transportation 2 ITEM NUMBER ~'] '"~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 10, 1989 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Scarlet Oak Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Strauss Construction Company, the developer of The Falls, request that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation requesting that they accept 0.2 miles of Scarlet Oak Drive. The staff has inspected this road along with representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation and finds the road to be acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT: No County funding is required. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation requesting that they accept Scarlet Oak Drive into the Secondary Road System. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: C~~ ~ ~~ ' ~ ~,~ ~ Ph-i~ip T. Henry, P E. Elmer C. Hodge Director of Engineering County Administrator ~ j - .~. Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers 2 ~ +~'@rt - C ea ~ - R.v2vt) O 4 a' ~'~ ry /P/IMi I <- - AifR 7 Oe :i~ ~C[M[R e.ooMS~.r F P J _- ~` ~` ~ `7p} \ .. A_ ~ ~ ' OOk`iJE (plF h~4a9~i S ~ + ~ ) I ~ ~ ~ ` ~ / < VICINI?'Y MAP i Q aue 1 4 ,. _ • ) _ ~,. ^••^ NORTB ..K ~ ?[en. •. :.e, . 2~ a '~ 1' N ~ ., N ~' .6 3 K e R ~2 y ! 1~. O 9a. G ' I -'~M ~~ ~ Opn1; c -" P/0 2620.2-37 - 9 ~ ~ s e n :~S..Iw IC[4 Le9u oee 941CI 12 ,;,~.. l u4 I ,.,, ~... 3 a M "~. - U I...e ~r._ ~ e.cOV•. roil R[e. _ ~ ~• PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN M'o.9 Moran Ro.G + ~. ++n ».. IN GRAY ., i ~./ / DESCRIPTION: /~ q. / (1)Scarlet Oak Drive, from the 22 ~. intersection of Wood Haven °"` ; •~• ~ Road (Rt. 628) North 0.2 ~ :~ ! ••ro ~ Miles to the existing Falls \\ '27t ~ Development .\ H ~~ ~ 9 9 i~ i.a4 ~ \ i~ ~ s LENGTH: (1) 0.2 Miles ~~ 1'"4 RIGHT OF WAY: (1) 50 Feet " ROADWAY WIDTH: (1) 36 Feet SURFACE WIDTH: (1) 22 Feet SERVICE: (1) 75 Homes IMPROVEMENT NECESSARY: RECOMMENDATION: Acceptance of Scarlet Oak Drive into COMMUNITY SERVICES the Virginia Department of Transportation AND DEVELOPMENT Secondary System J /) "'~ AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1989 RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF SCARLET OAK 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 Scarlet Oak Drive from its intersection with Wood Haven Road (Route 628) to the existing Falls Development for a distance of 0.20 miles, 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 been dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Extension of Scarlet Oak Drive recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 76, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on December 21, 1988 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. 4 /~- .2 3. That said road known as Scarlet Oak 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. 5 t AMENDED 3/1/89 AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1989 RESOLUTION 11089-8.b REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF LAKEMONT 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 Resolution 2988-7.k requesting acceptance of Lakemont Drive into the VDOT Secondary Road System is rescinded. 2. That this matter came this day to 'qe heard upon the proceedings therein and upon the application for Lakemont Drive, a section of road extending from Club Lane (Route 1443), 0.15 miles west of Valley Drive (Route 1442), and extending in a westerly and then easterly direction 0.69 miles to the cul-de-sac pursuant to Section 33.1-72.1, Paragraph C-1 and funded pursuant to Section 33.1-75.1, Paragraph A of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. 3. That this Board does guarantee the Commonwealth of Virginia an unrestricted right-of-way of 40 feet with necessary easements for drainage as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 5, dated August 13, 1974 and other deeds of record in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office. 4. That this Board does certify that this road was open to public use prior to January 1, 1976, at which time it was open to and used by motor vehicles. 5. That this Board does certify that speculative interests are not involved. 6. That said road known as Lakemont Drive and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as a public road to become a part of the state secondary system of highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTS: l°~' Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections, and copy for Virginia Department of Transportation 2 Og SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE TgE BOLD COUNTY ADMINISTRATION ,TING OF ~OKE 10- 1989 THE ROAN fI A - HELD AT JANUARY OF Lp,KEMONT CENTER ON TUESDAY, `ESTING ACCEPTANCE ~ OS9-~•~ RE4~ AgTMENT OF TRANSPORTp,TION ~ 4~OLUTION THE VI STEM p, DES ~ ~ o~IVE INTO 4' C SECONDARY ROAD SY of Roanoke he $Oard of Supervisprs t IT RESOLVED by ,E lance °f as follows requesting accep .nty - Virginia - 7 • k lut1On 2986- rescinded. That Reso - d System is 1• into the VDOT Secondary ROa to be heard up°n the mont Drive came this day Lake t s tte ica kemo t Driver ma r La n Tha thi lion for 2• the appl 1443), 0.15 therein and uP°n (Route Club Lane a proceedings f rom ndi ng i n road extending 1442), and exte a section °f (Route the cul-de-sac of Valley Drive miles to miles west .lion 0.56 direc h C-1 and funded pursuant westerly and then easterly Paragrap of Virginia of 1-72.1, Code the pursuant to Section 33. h A of ect1On 33.1-75.1, ParagraP to S wealth of as amended• the Common 1950, $Oard dpes guarantee ssarY with nece t this 40 feet 3• Tha way ° dated ht- °f - Page 5 - unrestricted rig Plat Book 9- Virginia an e as recorded in the Rpan°ke County drainag in easements for record 1974 and other deeds pf August 13, to ~s Office• that this road was open Court Clerk Circuit dpes certify to That this Board time it was open 4• 1976, at which tic use prior to January 1- pub interests vehicles• that speculative motor and used by does certify That this Board 5. are not involved. 6. That said road known as Lakemont Drive and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as a public road to become a part of the state secondary system of highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. A len, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections, and copy for Virginia Department of Transportation 2 ITEM NUMBER ~_~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 10, 1989 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Lakemont Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System using the 1985 Road Bond. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff has previously submitted a Board Report and Resolution to the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Supervisors has approved a Resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation accept Lakemont Drive into the State Secondary System. This road is to be upgraded using the 1985 Road Bond Fund. During the review of the package submitted on this street by the County to VDOT, it has been determined that certain provisions of the Resolution do not adequately address State Statutes. Therefore, it is necessary to rescind this resolution and adopt a new resolution requesting acceptance of this road into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary Road System FISCAL IMPACT: This road will be reconstructed and improved utilizing the 1985 Roanoke County Road Bond. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Resolution 2988-7.k for Lakemont Drive hereby be rescinded and the attached Resolution for the same road be approved to request VDOT to accept this road into the Secondary Road System. _~ SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: ~~~j ~~~,~ . ~~ Phillip T. enry, P Elmer C. Hodge Director of Engineering County Administrator ------------------------------------------------------------------ ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Garrett Received ( ) Johnson Referred McGraw To Nickens Robers 2 r - ---__.. _ . ~ ._ .a- --c_ _. _.._ _ _ ~_ ~ ,` .~ __-_ - -- r... ~-- -- ~t NI/V)FN , ' ,~ colxv~ aue I ~ - -- - - ' ) ~ ~•.. ~n ~ _~ N 3 ,r 1 0 - N , a Fi , ' ~j~'~.,&~ ~ ~ .- -- - - VICINITY MAP _. - --~ ."~ .:4 NORTH __ ____ --~ / e j . D ~,r 12 ~ raww• 13 ~. ~ 8 fa • M p .. .f ~ J ~ ,P f b MA ee rw_ r +. •. .+a , S 8 • 22 5 p~° r s +` li „s yo o ' s ~ ~~ G ' ~ i t i u ~` 5 2 {° ~ .. k~ 21 a w n 4 ~ yt ,n , 13 CIAO ~ ~ a• D G~ o~Q a 'q n ~ ~>• a eor j ;it..::. .. a .~~ 0 M aaa a wed fir. w« r ~?~;y P ._.-,'~'.~~/ 19 I I fo ~ -~-a t •~~ ~.•r+ K..wL s ~ '. 2~ 2Q 4 ~• ACBS IB . ~ IS ~ B , ae n w q b M s ~ ,,~ a °' / F e n • f6 ~ t~, ., ., .. lk . ` _ ( ~ aM • n. w + f, I ~ a» ~a r ^ ~ ~_` N.••sru ' ~ f tJ ff Y ~• M 18 J I\ ti,,~ ry m 19 ~' .~ °. _ \ ,,~ is q m Iz e. • ,.~ 1 ~f ~ b, ~ \ g 26 21 ' ` g It .. Y ?)~4 f .` f 1 r ib '1 O f u '/ , « I3 t 'ham ' .o. + ,.o ~ II 10 - ro Q t ` S \ 261 y~ ~;~ r• 9 " / I ..B k ~ O ., w ~ ` ,~ ` ~ "- a . ~ L W h ~ ..,,. 1f.., i:. I~.1 S 23 Q - ,y tt.0 - 7 r J f 'a0 27 q 00 Ac X31] Ac DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC FACILITIES Acceptance of Lakemo nt Drive 3 ~." AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1989 RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OFD 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 Resolution 2988-7.k requesting acceptance of Lakemont Drive into the VDOT Secondary Road System is rescinded. 2. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the proceedings therein and upon the application for Lakemont Drive, a section of road extending from Club Lane (Route 1443), 0.15 miles west of Valley Drive (Route 1442), and extending in a westerly and then easterly direction 0.56 miles to the cul-de-sac pursuant to Section 33.1-72.1, Paragraph C-1 and funded pursuant to Section 33.1-75.1, Paragraph A of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. 3. That this Board does guarantee the Commonwealth of Virginia an unrestricted right-of-way of 40 feet with necessary easements for drainage as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 5, dated August 13, 1974 and other deeds of record in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office. 4. That this Board does certify that this road was open to public use prior to January 1, 1976, at which time it was open to and used by motor vehicles. 5. That this Board does certi.f_y that speculative interests are not involved. 4 5. That said road known as Lakemont Drive and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as a public road to become a part of the state secondary system of highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 5 ACTION N0. 11089-8.c ITEM NUMBERK- ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 10, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Addition to Va. Department of Transportation Secondary System COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County has received notification from the Virginia Department of Transportation that the following roads have been accepted into the Secondary System. a. 0.06 miles of Bear Ridge Circle (Route 1337) b. 0.11 miles of Stonebridge Circle (Route 1006) ~/. ~' ~ l~ Mary H. Allen Elmer C. Hodge Deputy Clerk County Administrator -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ~ Motion by: Bob L. Johnson/Steven Yes No Abs Denied ( ) A. McGraw Garrett x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred McGraw x To• Nickens x Robers x cc: File Phillip Henry .~4 CBpt~ .I I ~~,~: ~4~vmt0. sY0.~~= ~~ `,! ~. ~~, ,1. ~, #~4~7~ ~®1~111D'JL®~ ~YY 1L~°~~~1[1l ®~ D~ IL~~~A~III~ RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 OSCAR K. MABRY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER December 12, 1988 Secondary System Addition Roanoke County Board of Supervisors County of Roanoke P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: As requested in your resolution dated November 9, 1988, the following addition to the Secondary Ssytem of Roanoke County is hereby approved, effective December 12, 1988. If 7lTTTT/lAT MEADOWCREEK - SECTION III Route 1337 (Bear Ridge Circle) - From Route 1336 to Southwest cul-de-sac. Sincerely, Oscar K. Mabry` Deputy Commissioner TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY LENGTH 0.06 Mi. - ~~LU~ ~ ~ 199 , do ~H~o~ , ~:~ 0 ~,, ~_ ~f' ~c ,, °~~rmaa , ~ ~. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RAY D. PETHTEL RICHMOND, 23219 OSCAR K. MABRY COMMISSIONER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER December 5, 1988 Secondary System Addition Roanoke County Board of Supervisors County of Roanoke P. 0. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: As requested in your resolution dated September 13, 1988, the following addition to the Secondary System of Roanoke County is hereby approved, effective December 5, 1988. ADDITION STONEBRIDGE COURT Route 1006 (Stonebridge Circle) - From Route 1007 to west cul-de-sac. Sincerely, /`~ Oscar K. Mabry Deputy Commissioner LENGTH 0.11 Mi. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ACTION # 11089-8.d ITEM NUMBER --.~„~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: January 10, 1989 Acceptance of a drainage easement being dedicated by David M. Mangrum and Pamela B. Mangrum across Lot 13, Block 2, Section 2, Forest Edge COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: David M. Mangrum and Pamela B. Mangrum have agreed to dedi- cate, grant, and convey to the County of Roanoke a twenty (20) foot wide easement for the location of a drainage facility. This easement is located in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District across Lot 13, Block 2, Section 2, Forest Edge. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 1987, the Board authorized the donations or dedications of matters. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1027874, adopted on October 27, County Administrator to accept non-controversial real estate It is recommended that the Board favorably consider this acceptance by resolution under the consent agenda. Respectfully submitted, /~GG~~ Sarah A. Rice Assistant County Attorney .~ ,..3 Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To Motion by: A. McGraw ACTION Bob L. Johnson/Steven VOTE No Yes Abs Garrett x Johnson x McGraw x Nickens x Robers x cc: File Paul Mahoney Phillip Henry Cliff Craig ]'. .. 1 ~~1 i W~ 'T / 11 h. 11 c ~ /" V ~ •' Q ~ ~u~l~nb a, ha ~~6 •. .+. ~ i 1 1 BGOGK 2, 5EG(tON~'1 " FORc~il' EQGE ~, \ ° g l0 pG. 29 ~~' G01' 13 ~ I tZ ~ ' ~ IZ ~ ~L ,r -~ ~ ' N tv ~~ ? D a ~ ~~. u, lA •p ~., c> ;i. ~ Q ' ~ , ~ ~ z S Z c ~ i ~+ (u r ,~, `!~ ~~ < 0 v, ~7 ~ ~ o" ~ NEW ~RAlNAGc AGE O. ~~Ya~, g~ra S o ~. sr~ - ~tibi. 2ri.h:,.,. Z \ t(~ '~~4. 3p' g (.. ~ r ~'J ~3~ ~uav: A ; q: t6~ 85' r rota ; f \ GEr~q~ E~JGE RO~~, ~ ~~ _- Gtl2~'E 'h"' T = db 6~' R = Z'S.00' A = t3~ d~' GX = .'b3 ?6' PLAT SHOWING Gy8 f+'dt'96~53'~ NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT GU.26"c 'a.!" BEING GRANTED TO ,7 ~~.19 3~" THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA r f~99 BY a = ?'S OC' .~ = 27.9u' DAVID M, MANGRUM & ~y = ~°95' PAMELA B. MANGRUM ~y.?.= 5B•l~ t4'IZ"E ACROSS LOT 13, BLOCK 2, SECTION #2, FOREST EDGE (P.B. 10, PG. 69) WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA sc~~E: I" = 50 ~ DATE: 1 MARCf{ 1988 EiUFORD T. LUMSDEN Et ASSOCIATES, P. C. ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS ROANONE, VIRGINIA /~ COMM. ~ B5• Q ACTION # 11089-8.e ITEM NUMBER i AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: January 10, 1989 Acceptance for a drainage easement being donated by the United States Department of Interior across the Blue Ridge Parkway - Montgomery Village Subdi- vision COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~~r'tY a-~C~ (,yr/Lt/l SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The County has applied to the United States of America for a drainage easement to construct a paved waterway across lands with- in the boundaries of the Blue Ridge Parkway, a unit of the Nation- al Park System, U. S. Department of the Interior. The drainage easement will be located on Parkway lands for a distance of approximately 387 feet. The purpose and intent of the drainage easement is to create a waterway to provide a proper- ty channel for surface water runoff from Elizabeth Drive in the Montgomery Village Subdivision. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 1987, the Board authorized the donations or dedications of matters. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1027874, adopted on October 27, County Administrator to accept non-controversial real estate It is recommended that the Board favorably consider this acceptance by resolution under the consent agenda. fi Respectfully submitted, ~' 4p ~, ~~~ ~~~. Sarah A. Rice Assistant County Attorney ------------------------------------------------------------------ ACTION VOTE A roved ( ~ Motion b Bob L. Johnson/Steven PP Denied ( ) A. McGraw Garrett No Xes Abs Received ( ) Johnson x Referred McGraw x To Nickens x Robers x cc: File Paul Mahoney Phillip Henry Cliff Craig ACTION N0. 11089-9 ITEM NUMBER ~ Y AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 10, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: 1989 Board of Supervisors Committee Assignments COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Attached is a copy of the 1988 assignments for members of the Board of Supervisors. Please note that several positions are automatically assigned to the Chairman, and that several others have regular expiration dates and are not appointed at this meeting. <~ ~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ------------------------------------------------ ACTION Approved (x) Motion by: Lee Garrett nominated Denied ( ) HCN to serve three-year term on Received ( ) Community Corrections Policy Board; Referred Additions: LG to Audit Committee; To• BLJ and HCN to Consolidation Negotiating Committee ---------------------- VOTE Yes No Abs Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers cc: File Committee Book BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS Lee Garrett -- State Emergency Services Committee (As Chairman) -- Regional Partnership (As Chairman) -- Social Services Board (4-year term expires 1/1/90) -- Regional Airport Commission -- Audit Committee Bob L. Johnson -- Fifth Planning District Commission (3-year term expires 6/30/90) --Audit Committee -- Regional Airport Commission -- Consolidation Negotiating Committee Steven A. McGraw -- Cablevision Committee -- Blue Ridge Region Commission -- Roanoke Valley Cooperation Committee Dr. Harry C. Nickens -- Cablevision Committee -- Transportation and Safety Commission (4-year term expires 4/1/91) -- Court Community Corrections Policy Board ( 3-year term expires 12/21/91) -- Consolidation Negotiation Committee Richard W. Robers -- Western Virginia Development Corporation -- Fifth Planning District Commission (2-year term expires 6/30/89) -- Clean Valley Committee -- Roanoke Valley Cooperation Committee ~- COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CAPITAL FUND - UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE Beginning Balance at July 1, 1988 512,644 Additional Amount from 1988-89 Budget 50,000 November 22, 1988 Improvements at Administrative Center (6,450) Balance as of January 10, 1989 56 194 Submitted by Diane D. Hyatt S~.t~~ Director of Finance L- ,~.. COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE - GENERAL FUND Balance at July 1, 1988 August 9, 1988 Dixie Caverns Landfill Cleanup September 13, 1988 Transfer to Board Contingency September 26, 1988 Design Phase of Spring Hollow Reservoir October 25, 1988 Funding for Public Information Officer November 9, 1988 Dixie Caverns Landfill Cleanup November 22, 1988 Lease Additional Office Space Balance as of January 10, 1989 $3,037,141 (400,000) (50,000) (175,000) (46,500) (260,000) (34,783) $2,070,858 The recommended level for fund balance for 1988-89 is a minimum of $1,748,124, which is 3 percent of the total General Fund budget. Submitted by ~~~. Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance ~ _ COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY Original Budget at July 1, 1988 550,000 June 28, 1988 Funding of Length of Service Benefit for Volunteer Fire, Rescue, and Auxiliary Sheriff's Deputies (9,000) July 26, 1988 Tweed's Access Road (39,405) September 13, 1988 Add to Board Contingency from Unappropriated Balance 50,000 September 26, 1988 Beautification of Brambleton Avenue (3,500) September 28, 1988 Economic Development Trip to Northern Virginia (Approved Administratively) (1,000) October 6, 1988 Typewriter for Clerk of Courts (Approved Administratively) (966) October 6, 1988 Economic Development Promotion (Approved Administratively) (1,025) October 11, 1988 Safekeeping of Securities (2,000) October 20, 1988 Informational Brochure for November Election (Approved Administratively) (6,500) October 25, 1988 Additional Allocation to Total Action Against Poverty (TAP) (10,000) November 3, 1988 Survey Fees - Safety Center and Forensics Lab Site (Approved Administratively) (2,473) November 9, 1988 Bushdale Road (1,000) December 13, 1988 C. L. & 0. Investors (365) December 20, 1988 Stonebridge Park Parking Lot (Approved Administratively) (5,000) Balance as of January 10, 1989 17 766 Submitted by Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance ~`'~~-- r •_ • _. ( J urP N1 N n P J P Ili li I !1 I II a (0 T 1 rOi I V r b W I V I r d ~ 9 ` ~_ ! II~~ 1 f~ U 4 U N ~~O VIP U Pu ri ~n b to P U H fA O H~ y Y !'~ "~l O N z x o m x `~ nr n a r-f ~~ r~ryny ~ ~ ap. ~:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [cRyi ~. fin' ~ ~i' c~'~ a ', yN y f~yyl M > KI f"f ~ V~ f'+y1 ' ~ ~ [n {(+~~y O A ~r f[yf y [+ '~] O 7,ddW [~] [H*1 T ~' y ~ ~G S y O ~ qqI O H t~l V1 2 [~~f ~ ~ ~ c0 H. H X .~.f ~j [A H M ^7 ^1 iT ~ ln~l ~~f.y~~ 'V C ~ ~q fMn ~i !O'a {ffyy+ f~rCyyy) ~ Vl N y PU H M ~ ~ Z t^ Ln Kl ~ fT M j O n 'O O th t~l ~ ~L C ~ y ~ m ~y n a ~ ~ y S i ~ y a f.~ 'd [n ~ [n H m f,y v O [y[~ I.nj V] O N ~ N ~ a+ y P m lmn ~ N N m N~ N N > fT f0 m rP O N N~ N U O U O [..> NO m ~O In fT r O ~/ O O V O~ A ~ W tVn O `0 0 0~~ T m I O W V O W m O~ b W O P O O W~ I--. ~ ~ I u y ~--' VHfI r m ~ 1Vif O N d r~ V~~ r O~ m N m V U lT O V A p .G W m, f0 N .P N V N O V O V (T N O~ r~+~ O~ N N m I O P V V O ~-' V m m V V ~O V m l b '~ W P j fT J W V W In N y U m N O W Y ~ w u m ~ .o m wm ~ r~ .n o p. b m m I 0 0 W O m m 0 O ~ U r V .P N U fG 1 O O O m b N U N' U '-" fT O a f m 1 m /~ Y V N N A N ~ fVJ ~ N fP+ fVi .Vp 0 0 0 P 0 r I b A P O` m ?i O W O D U I m O t m ~ A V I-+ ~ W 1 O N ~O O r W U' O O C N 1 m O T y V m~ N lP+ tT I .P A V W W m~ A N O 1 W m tA.f 4Ui fAn NI fAif r N~~ V O O O U W O O m N W~ W m C N W r O N O O N O A~ V O N .> O N m J V m m N Ja O U O~ m .a m to V A U o w o ~ V. m > m V 0 OWO V O m J ~p fT mm]~ f~ ~ W V U J O O I O O O O V T an ~ l~n Oo / fW.~ P > A f N V fT N `+ ~ ~ t N I-~ U m ~ O N O O O f V V N ~ N N + V N P V N f V r < O W V O~ y P N .N N N r A o m J ~ ~ o w v u. V ~O fr A to m rf i J ~+ 1' f P P a m y O H °"~~~~E ftify t0~1 y 9i 'O n In x O m ~ yy CC^-~ M f~f~rOf~~ N [ I N W Z all N K [" 7 ~fjieJ O N ~ M .~ N A r f0 a U N O r U< ~ O r O A ~O C U O U r O f) N V A A b ~O V P I--` ~ r N 1P+ W < Jd P W O N b C ryN fT m ~-' ~1 ~P f~ A b r m N fAif < A O~ A N nn4 r+ N .P I-~ O U a W U N + 0 0 0 V O C ~' A m fT A ~O r V N Oo b A O m V N V O C ~~- P N N O K A b W N m o ,IN ~ r N O C f~,-. m C I N C O c H I x c I yO S [1 fn m C 1 O v 2 c y Q y a Z V ~~OyQ I S C c I ~ 1 .. 9 ' > yny ~. d I f ~ 9 Hnf.~ ~ C a r 1 I fA ~ C Y r Y C r M < C Y G a n f'l I I _. .~ ~; ~~FI n~ n O i m K Z I y M ~. ~/ ""~' COUNTY OF ROANOKE STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES FIVE MONTHS ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1988 BUDGET EXPENDED z GENERAL ADMINISTRATION ------------ ------------ ----- ------- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS S 179,742 S 86,624 48 BOUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 186,961 52,261 28 PERSONNEL 206,067 76,620 37 COUNTY ATTORNEY 173,554 78,316 45 COMMISSIONER bF~REVENU 499,629 179,407 36 TREASURER 461,441 161,516 35 ELECTIONS 168,374 82,590 49 SESQUICE:~PENNIAL 86,116 37,544 44 FISCAL MANAGEMENT , AIiAGEMEN T- 8, 204 23.274 40 COUNTY ASSESSOR 609,855 211,830 - 35 CEATRAL ACCOUNTING 357,939 152,997 43 PROCUREPlENT 212,881 85,699 40 MANAGEMENT & BUDGET 97,052 36,860 38 RISK MANAGEMENT 1,136,037 646,092 57 JUDICIAL. ADMINISTRATION CIRCUIT COURT 149,366 8,917 6 ~E ERAL DISTRICT COURT 18,740 3,884 21 MAGISTRATES 730 209 29 J & D DISTRICT COURT 8,621 2,503 29 38 COMMONBEALTH'S ATTORNEY 288,589 116,783 40 PROBATION OFFICE ~ 39,175 4,983 13 -VTC-TIM FATNESS 3,330 1,270 38 ` PUBLIC SAFETY -POLTCING-&~IAUESTIGATIN ,~6~396 1,566,225 40 HIGHRAY SAFETY COMMISSION 960 110 11 FIRE ---- 2,222,889 627,545 28 R~SCOE SQUAD 484,421 149,187 31 EMERGENCY SERVICES & HAZ MAT RESPONSE 47,192 15,306 32 CONFINEMENT/CARE OF PRISONERS 1,882,680 797,825 42 ANIIiA~CD ~ 9 PUBLIC FACILITIES __ -~UPERIRTEHDEH'1'~F-PUBLTC-FACILITIE ~~ 112,309 40,550 36 STREET LIGHTS 125,788 32,467 26 ENGINEERING 536,714 244,938 46 .GENERAL SERVICES--'--- ---~g0, 3IZ- ~74, 433- -39 ~^~_ -' -- DRAINAGE 0 586 0 BUILDINGS fi GROUNDS 793,582 249,799 31 PARKS-&-RECREATION- 451,4b~0 361,254 _ 38 ...._.__._ REFUSE 1,663,312 802,002 48 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 60,000 22,318 37 GROUNDS-PtATNTENA 57,679 -- -ADO-.638 __.~___ _ -~ COUNTY OF ROANOKE STA?EMEN? OF EXPENDITURES FIVE MONTHS ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1988 HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH ___ _ -- --- - X97-37 , SOCIAL SERVICES ADMOMOSTRATOPM 1,791,157 752,664 42 PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 802,285 288,496 36 TNST~TUTIONAL CARE 36,000 6,571 18 SOCIAL SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS 94,984 47,492 50 - DEVELOPt7EN - ---- - SUPERINTENDENT OF DEVELOPMENT 0 20 0 PLANNING & ZONING 307,054 110,476 36 ECOBOMIC DEVELOPMENT 226,208 126,024 56 DEVELOPMENT REVIESi 113,438 46,542 41 PLANNING COMMISSION 17,933 6,922 39 ~ 2~~95 83,607 4I NON-DEPARTME.KTAL _ ASST. CO. ADM. HUMAN SERVICES 99,286 39,127 39 LIBRARY 1,145,612 434,484 38 EXTENSION & CONTINUING EDUCATION 96,326 22,740 24 ~MPLOYEE._BENEF 741,392. 61,558 8 CONTRIBUTIONS TO SERVICE. ORGANIZATIONS 20,000 18,252. 91 MISCELLANEOUS 796,.343 49,461 6 ------------ - ----------- --- --------- TOTAL 26,364,876 9,865,949 37 ------------ ------------ ------------ TRANSFERS AND RESERVES REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURES 0 1962) 0 TRANSFER TO DEBT SERVICE 4,806,-542 448,861 9 TRANSFER TO INTERNAL SERVICE 332,905 112,763 34 TRANSFER TO SCHOOL OPERATING FUND 26,666,000 4,112,529 15 ~'RAASFER-TO-UTILITY-CAPITA 40,000 O 0 TRANSFER TO CAPITAL PROJECTS 1,807,214 0 0 TBANSGER TO YOUTH HAVEN 75,768 25,256 33 TRANSFER TO GRANT FUND 0 0 0 UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE (931,500) 0 0 RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY 33,132 0 0 TOTAL TRANSFER ITEMS 32,830,061 4,698,447 92 GRAND TOTAL S 59,194,937 8 14,564,396 25 ITEM NUMBER ~ " +Gp AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD A'r THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 10, 1989 SUBJECT: Status Report of Street Light Replacement Program COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: /'~ ~ , ~~~~ Gv`c/U' ~ a ~~~x.v~,~~ n. BACKGROUND: By Board action in June, 1987, the Street Light Replacement Program was established using funds resulting from rate reductions for the last APCO contract. County Staff and representatives from Appalachian Power Company will be at the meeting to provide additional information and answer any questions. The attached letter to Appalachian Power Company may be of interest to the members of the Board of Supervisors. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACT: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None SUBMITTED BY: Phillip Henry, .E. Director of Engineering APPROVED: Elmer_ C. odge County Administrator G~ '° Approved ( ) Denied ( > Received ( ) Referred To ACTION Motion by: 2 Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers VOTE No Yes Abs fi`t`' L -- ~ u~ ~,~~rt~~.~e C~~~~~ ,a ~ sa aE$QUICfMTENN,'~ COMMUNITY SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT A Buat,~JBtginning ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT July 12, 19 $$ PHILLIP T. HENRr. P.E. aaecroa Mr. Robert W. Glenn, Jr. Marketing & Customers Services Manager Appalachian Power Company P. O. Box 2021 Roanoke, VA 24022 - 2121 Re: Street Light Replacement Program Dear Mr. Glenn: The Engineering Department Staff appreciated very much the opportunity of meeting with you and APCO Staff concerning the referenced subject. I thought it was a good meeting and the basic ground rules for direction and approach were established. To assist in your scheduling and to confirm some of the various discussions, the following are my understandings of several of the items of discussion. 1) Roanoke County does have within the approved FY88-89 Budget from $28,000 to $30,000 which can be allocated toward street light replacement. This money can be made available to APCO upon final definition of the program and the need to acquire the replacement units. 2) The replacement program will be based on using a remaining life value plus a removal cost of $45 per street light. It is satisfactory with Roanoke County for APCO to use an average remaining life value in computations. The intent of the program would be for Roanoke County to pay for a specific number of street light locations, paying the total cost involved, with any remaining lights to be replaced to be considered in the following fiscal year budget. 3) Since Roanoke County's emphasis is on replacement of 7,000 lumen and 21,000 lumen mercury vapor, it was our understanding that APCO would first develop a program for replacement of the 21,000 lumen and include within this program possible replacements along the major thoroughfares within the County (possible upgrade). Mr. Dick Sn de ar will be working up a program on the replacement of the 21,000 lumen and will coordinate this with Mr. Todd Booth of Roanoke County ~7 Mr. Robert W. Glenn, Jr. 7/12/88 Page 2 4) The estimated time frame for actual street light replacement would be approximately December 1, 1988, with the time period between now and then being utilized to develop the specific program and for APCO to order the necessary materials involved in the replacements. 5) It was stated by APCO representatives that they believed the minimum light size that should be considered for new lights and/or replacements is the 9,500 lumen high pressure sodium. 6) Todd Booth of the Engineering Department will supply APCO with a set of current tax maps and these will be used to provide a record of street light locations during the replacement program. APCO will provide Roanoke County a copy of the current street light maps. 7) APCO will review the metered electric and gas lights in Hunting Hills and provide recommended size and type of pole. I am enclosing information on location of the facilities. Roanoke County looks forward to the start of this street light replacement program and will make every effort to provide a smooth and coordinated working relationship with APCO during this program. As a first step, we look forward to working meetings with Dick on developing the specific replacement programs. Yours truly, ~~~~ Phillip T. Henry, P.E. Director of Engineering jr Enclosure pc: Elmer Hodge, County Administrator John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator of Community Services and Development Todd Booth, Engineering Technician 4 A P P E A R A N C E R E Q U E S T PUBLIC HEARING ON C l ~z~~s G?S~f[ ~%,(~ ~> 0 ak5~l~-k}70 I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter so that I may comment. I agree to follow the guidelines listed below. WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. 1. Each speaker will have between three and five minutes available whether speaking as an individual or representative. The chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. 2. Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. 3. All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. 4. Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times . 5. Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. 6. INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. P L E A S E W R I T.E. L E G I B L Y NAME: ADDRESS: \~ ~ /mil l ~ V ! `'( ~ ICJ ` PHONE : ~ ~ D ~6G~ SZ~~ ~~~~ ~-~~ . PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy Clerk. Thank you.) _.. ~ D- C>ffice of the Ciry Manager vi~auw. cw.~rucD reap ~N AL ~~3a!"- I Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor and, Members of Council: Subject: Proposed Airport Commission Please allow me to make a few comments regarding the proposed Airport Commission. I will follow the old journalist's rule of answering the questions of who, what, when, where, how and why but not necessarily in that order. 1, What - The Roanoke Regional~~'r;'r ommiasion, an e e oli- y~~yF~h e=G'ammonwe a 1 t h, w o u l d ~5f~* ~~ ++ r-"'"-' r+~e Airport. ,,,,and c c~~,:.~ _ .. This Commission will be only as gooc as _r. r_ __ajority vote of the Commissioners and the staff that supports it. ~l:~na'~tor_.d+ec~sion will ~"Che a)ipo~~weq~y,of Commissioners and their views, either in support or conflict, with the Valley and the governments they represent. 2, ~ - Fundin Please note the attached estimates from the draft Master Plan. The Master Plan initially requires ru::ding for a new terminal building complex (Phase I) and ultimately nor a new General Aviation Complex (Phase II) and expanded terminal, parking, new access road (Phase III). Other governments, namely Roanoke County and Salem, have agreed in concept to provide certain financial support for [he Terminal Complex (Phase I). Simply put, the only way I know to have a 'new terminal building with the financial support of Roanoke County is to create an independent Commission. The airport cannot generate cuf- ficient revenues to finance a new terminal complex. Therefore, one or more local governments must underwrite oc provide financial support for that terminal building complex funding. 3, Who - Roanoke City, Roanoke County and perhaas the City of Salem ini- tially with the option being open to any o.:~er local g wernment hithin a 60 mile radius. f~oorn Jb4 ~AUnKippl Oudding 21 S Church Avenue. 5. W. Roonok~. Vuginio 240t 1 (70J) 981-ZJJJ D-2 Honorable Mayor and City Council Page 2 q. How - Several steps are involved: a. Enactment by General Assembly of er.~~:ing legislation outlining the powers and authorities of the commission. b. Formal creation of the Commission by adoption of resolutions by ..~.•<_ the participating political subdivisions and ~ACJUer,.~:,~oi Cammisaionera. c. Negotiation of agreements between the local governments and [he Commission addressing initial contribution of each locality, con- tinuing financial support to be provided by each locality, handling of existing debt of Airport, services to be provided to the Commission by member localities, et-. d. Deed and other legal documents transferring title to real estate, assigning rights under and to leases, grants, concession agreements, airport use agreements, etc. to t..~ Commission for nominal consideration. e. Approval by [he State and Federal governments of ownership and operation of the Airport by the Commission, rather than the City. f. Establishment of effective dates for the above steps to occur. Since nothing of substance can occur without all steps having been success' fully completed, all steps are very and equally important. The ultimate answer to the question how is that participating local governments agree and be~ieve in the importance of the airport to the Valley [ha[ they make it happen (with the support and concurrence of the Cocnmonweaith.) 5. When - The answer to initiating step one (enabling legislation) is that Council has already authorized drafting of the bill, presumably tie' n~y C its Gouncii~aad--the-~Roairo~e "Cain6.Qa~i1~-- ~3up~~rs-yes-'Mlvada~-S°i~~;--Fcihe introduced to the Gen~.~1 AsSembl e r n o c °'B aTi1 e s- orr4Tues~ty~, i.,.~,~'~ k ...fir oL 8 h the efforts and support of our City Attorney and elected State representatives. The answer ae to when all steps are to be completed is as soon as practical mutual agreements can be reached. 6. Where - The Commission will be empowered to operate any airport within aay of the participating political subdivisions; however, the obvious intent is to operate Roanoke Regional Airport, Woodrum Field, at its present location. Honorable Mayor and City Council Page 3 What does the City Gain - Funding support for a new [erg:.,: , resulting improvements. -,~mo_ex, •aith ~~~~-=~tL.~•o,e - Sole control and ownership of the existing airport property. he ~,iaaion.,~ggtls~thia-loss .L`.~uPPor~:.C~9.::.Counc.i,;i<-~:ma j on ty ~84a •~ What does the County Gain - The right and mechanism t- do the ''right thing" by providing funding sup^-~-- and vote for the future of the Airport ur:n the Roanoke Region. I believe the County would gain community and self-respect. What does the County Lose - Funds that could be used for other County neecs and the option to blame the operation, ~_anning and control of the Airport of the City. In summary, there remains several important steps, ~:hich must be approached in good faith to enable a bona fide Commission and a new ";t Century Airport complex. The above is provided for informational purposes. Please call me if you have questions or suggestions. The CiCy Attorney has prepared dram ' ::~d it is my hope we will be able to act on this document in a timely fashion. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, ~~ . . Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/KBK/ga' Attachment cc: Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Finance Director D-3 rl ',I E 1 ~~ ACTION # ITEM NUMBER /~`y~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRA'T'ION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: January 10, 1989 Work Session on the County's Financial Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 1988 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At the Board of Supervisors request, there will be a work session at this time related to the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the County of Roanoke for the Year Ended June 30, 1988. A brief presentation will be made along with written responses to any questions directed to the Finance Office from the Board of Supervisors. A handout will be provided at the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, ~,~.r ~_ - mow, '~ ~,~. ,~__ Diane D. Hyat Elmer C. Hodge Director of Finance County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers O~ POANps-F ti ' A A Z ~ ~ 2 J a ^ . ~ rt `fir/ l', lr^ ~~~ ~~ 1/1r' ^-~~~~~~ 18 X50 88 SFSQUICEN7ENN~P~ A Beauti~ul8eginnin~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RIC HARD W. BORERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ELMER C. HODGE BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT January 1 1 , 198 9 HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT The Honorable James Taliaferro Mayor, City of Salem 114 North Broad Street Salem, Virginia 24153 Dear Mayor Taliaferro: Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 11089-6 endorsing a single economic development effort under the direction of the Regional Partnership. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, January 10, 1989. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Attachment P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 O~ ROANp~~ ti ' ~' A ~' Z ~ ~~ ~u~~tu~~e v a Z C~~~~~ i $ E50 8$ SFSQUICEN7ENN~P~ A Benuti/ulBeginnin~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ELMER C. HODGE BOB L. JOHNSON January 11 , 1989 HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT The Honorable Noel C. Taylor Mayor, City of Roanoke 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Dear Mayor Taylor: Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 11089-6 endorsing a single economic development effort under the direction of the Regional Partnership. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, January 10, 1989. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~• Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Attachment PO. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 O~ ROANp,1.~ l~ ' ~ 9 ~ v a Z C~~~~~ 1 a E5~ 88 SFSQUICEN7ENN~P~ A Bcauti(ulBeginning BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MNGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ELMER C. HODGE BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW January 11 , 19 8 9 CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT The Honorable Charles Hill Mayor, Town of Vinton P. 0. Box 338 Vinton, Virginia 24179 Dear Mayor Hill: Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 11089-6 endorsing a single economic development effort under the direction of the Regional Partnership. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, January 10, 1989. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, .~ - Mary H. .Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Attachment P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 O~ ROANO,y-F ~ ' ~ 9 /r Z ~ ~~ ~u~~t~r~~e 18 E50 $$ SFSQUICENTENN~P~ ABcautiful8eginnin~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ELMER C. HODGE BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW Januar 11 19 8 9 CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT y / HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT The Honorable G. C. Thompson, Chairman Botetourt County Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 279 Fincastle, Virginia 24090 Dear Mr. Thompson: Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 11089-6 endorsing a single economic development effort under the direction of the Regional Partnership. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, January 10, 1989. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~- Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Attachment P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 OF POANO,f-F a I~ ti p Z °v a 18 E~ 88 SFSQUICENTENN~P~ A Beautiful Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Januar 11 1989 STEVEN A. MCGRAW y ~ CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Mr. Mark Heath, Executive Director The Regional Partnership of Roanoke Valley 716 Dominion Bank Building Roanoke, Virginia 24001 Dear Mr. Heath: Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 11089-6 endorsing a single economic development effort under the direction of the Regional Partnership. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, January 10, 1989. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, bjh Attachment C~n~tn~~ of ~nttnvk~e BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ...~ Mary. H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 O~ POANpy-F ti '~ p ~ a ,,tt ~K~~ ~~ ~~ ~RR rt i~~ ~~i~ ~~ 1$ E50 as SFSQUICEN7ENN~P~ A Beauti/ulBeginning BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR NILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ELMER C HODGE BOB L. JOHNSON NOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT January 12, 1989 STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VIN TON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Mr. M. E. Maxey Chairman, Board of Zoning Appeals 2674 Parkview Drive Vinton, Virginia 24179 Dear Mr. Maxey: At their meeting on January 10, 1989, the Board of Supervisors approved the establishment of a salary of $250.00 per year for each member of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Attached is a copy of the report presented to the Board members. For the six months remaining in the 1988/89 fiscal budget, the money was allocated from the Board of Supervisors' Contingency Fund. In the future, these funds will be included in the Planning Department budget. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors CC: Members, Board of Zoning Appeals Claude Lee, Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals Reta Busher, Director of Management and Budget P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 o~ aoaNO,~~ ~~ F, p a ~~~~# ~~ ~~~.~u~.~e Q ,~ 1$ r[~ws ~~ SFSDUICENTENN~P~ A Beauti~ul Redinning M E M O R A N D U M T0: John Hubbard Assistant County Administrator FROM: Mary H. Allen ~rYL-~--G`~ Deputy Clerk DATE: January 11, 1989 SUBJECT: WORK SESSION - SOLID WASTE COLLECTION PLAN Mr. Hodge would like you and Gardner Smith to prepare an informational report for the February 14, 1989 board agenda. This will be placed under "REPORTS". He would also like to have a copy of all the information you have so he may review it . Following the report on February 14th, a work session can then be scheduled. mha H ~ O Hollins College i ~.. a.' L L I Roanoke, Virginia 24020 N S 703-362-6000 _.~ December 13, 1988 Mr. Bob Johnson Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S W Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Mr. Johnson; It is with considerable regret that I submit the Board of Trustees of the Roanoke County Public L~rtion from effective immediately. I have, for the ~'Y• to be experiencing an increasin past several months, been night driving hazardous g problem with my vision which makes and attendance at Board meetings, at least during the winter months, highly uncertain. I have enjoyed working with Mr, Garretson and other Board members, and wish them continued success in their administration of the library system. S~erely, Richard E. Kirkwood ~~ m u a i ~ a I, f ~r, o~. ~I .,~ 1 .. <. < ~ ~ - ~ I. u ~ u u 1'~ `; `rl n m I ~~ u ii I i su N... m.. i 1 m ~. _ -__ _ H q O O N W [n K ~ a m VI .'O 9 R+ H 9 [n cn M C z n u''+ M d N z O .r-.) ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~~ s = nl ma rzr .°' ~~c~~ ~ m ° .~-. °z ~'a I~d~y a~~' ~ ~ H N 9~ ~ z d O ~9~jj ~l~i a z a ~ ~ d . i ~~a u'1 O O ~ ~y y x of C H Ali m m i ~ ~ y+-~ y W Ca' H' O ~ ~~ X 5 y I [y a y ~ [ ' p . C9-' ~ W bm y L~- M .N 2 z ~ ~ H m m .1 Z H m x~ O h1 fA Vf m u~ y m ^~ ~-1 m ~ y .'D ~ (fi' 91 ,. ~ 2 i ^ 1yS C9"y~ C H yT~ M N O 9 [ n~ ,~ ~ G t~ M y ~ M ~ [ *1 R] N ~ 2 C^ "• ~ m ~ R~ r CmO ,~ .e ny I + M m x st z ~ cmn cmn n ~ ~. Ir ~I n w V ~• u P LI I~ -' ~' :;•~ ~ + N A ~ 1--~ ~p ~q i I ~O i I--~ A W 1 -+ W 1- f ~ C b N m O+ N N ~' V m r W N N O ~~ U r G~ A ~D V G] ; ; i O~ I .P T t~A ~ m~ O N V f..> In O , ~ O W I N m ~O V1 ~ r-~ O ` m O V N A ~ 1 ~ I (J~ A O m O W V m T N N A m (.J.) ~ OI O O O ~O O O O rP r l~n 00 'P I~-~ O O W 1 rp O Vm ~` O. O ~ W V O T W ~~ m V, W O O~ O O W i I O V I `O CD W ~ V r to P W W N N P~ V N OVD W V t~A O~ _ O V I~ N W b V P r o N m r b~ nr m 1~ 1 2 Oi ' i 1 t A I ~ W I n t O O N V ~p Ja A W~ N I + V ~~ N~ N C NN ~ m N ~ V N O V V~ , V V~` . ~ ~' O N O~ W O . . 1~~ O ~G N ~p P H m !A m . Y C~ W 1 O m I U V V O COI V t ..~ ~G D O 1 f0 ii ~o i ~ i '• :r A ~ r i s 1 A i n II V ~ V i I~ Lj V ~ W 111 tWi~ ~ N r UAi {PJI ~ .0 W N O O V r O m O 1 ~~ I d ~ I r II H I O O W ; O OmD m 0 10 b b r VNi r tml~ ~ N J A N lmA ~ l/~ b rm+ m ~ lAll OI 1 N V I 11 N 1 II IA 1 I ~ [~~a i 1 A OmD O~ i ~ IN i O~ 1 O O W II I 1 N b W II O 1 O O 1 1 1 H I ~ ~V W W N W ll~ A A A N N ~p O O m b N lWI1 N~ ~"' ~` O O~ 1-' N V O~ N A A t/1 A N O~ A N 1 1 {tea to 1 hti A r-+ N A r O U 1 m ; W • " ; IA i Ip ~+ V N N A N ~' r A W N N V C / I V ~O V hP. 1Va ~ 0 0 0 P 0 N N lA/1 1~+ O ~p Ul 0 m' O N I W~~ ~ po to 0 0 0 V 0 0 I 41_ 1 ~ O rP ~ A O W O V` {n N O O O NI O A N O O In~ll b ~~ O A m~ O O A V O m 0 0 0 N~ O O ~O ~G O O W 1 O N 10 O M-' W an O W VI ~p 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 O~ O O N W O ~G 1 1 U F~"-~ 9 N i `~ [v 1 1 i ~ ,p V N V V Hm ~ r O 1 O H 1 -pmi i A S V 6PJ W m O~mP m N N J N~ N N A A O~ A ~O 1 .~ O 9 1 j W ~ .o- a,rl .o ~v w Y o~ A o m m m m V A cn in s m r 1 ',.G m W W ~ W N T to V O P J N O~ ~O A O~ VI ~O V m O (r W O O m N I" W m O V N N m 1-' O V N m ~O A 0` I tl~ N Y N ll~ r A O W V N K 1 N t/1 O~ ~O V W O (I~ A b N O O N O A V O N A O O m P m yy 1 ~ 1 2 b N A r A 1--~ I-+ A 1~ O In 1 typo i 2 W w O O N O m ~' m 1 A~ N~ V A b V N V 0 0 W O N N i 9G ~ N N 1 In rn~ 0 l~il m W m O~ A U~ N P ~+ N N r+ 1 m b m V A N N ~p A A W w N N O V H 9C g ~~ O w T~ 0 A V Oo r W 1 O W~ O OD V O IN m V 0 m T 1 ~ O t'r1 Q ~ r .-. C W H p. ; P V G~ W lOn ~+ A N ~-+ O .i+ (~J V VI r m N Oo O C Y ii 10 m V ~O O~ V F W 1-' W V to ~ OI Y~ 1"' ~ d A i p 1 0~ {On OIV P ~Ir ~ mlv W P A OWO N J N rO+ r+ A r N O O 1 ~ m ~. O A Z P1 Z ~ a da 2 N M ~s,; _,_~ J / ~Q I ~ \ l) v n; Q ~° ~~ nb , ~-'. ~ ,, ~ g i '~, gGOGK. Z. SEGT~ON ~~._ '' FoacSr FnG~= o .a , .g. ~0 P~. Zq r~ ~ ~ o r ~3 ~~, ,~ ~ ~, :r - .~ ~ ~ -' ~ ,o ~ ~ o ~ 0 ~ i 'L N ~ ~ 2 u, r l7 ~~ O \b, ~ ~ ~ ,~ , NEw ~RArNA~c h~~~A~K ~I1, ~ \~ (~a ~ ~~~a EAh~MENT ,~~yp„~ `../ s2°, ~r ~ - art - ~xlhT . 45_ ~.-- ~p, ~ ST 30' M g L C.~. ~~ GUar,~ ,. „ , ~ 5 , ~~ A , A 6 8 rrora: ~ G _--- X50' R;~w) .--_ -__ u p /~. ~ /7 ~'~„~ ' '~~. ~-~, c.,l-~ L SI~IOIZKOINIILQWOO Q1~IK SZ1~I3y~U~tOO ~SN3ZIZI0 'O AIKS-IQI~IZS~I 9Z ' MOH ' 2i2i 'r'Ig- S 3~~I 68/OT/T - QrIZ JIQIQFI32i zsT 3noxaa~t os NOH/rig •~~~~s pu2TTog auW epI auk se uMOUx ~ouz~ a.zou ~ubta auk uz asn2To ~i.zuuo-rs.zana~ ~ ~o uOTSSTiuuIO~ ~.zod,zz~ TPUOtbaH axouuox auk o~ aou~~anuoo aq~ .zoo abu~uoxa uz ~~,zado~d auoZ .zEaTO u~~oN aq~ sE uMOUx ~o~~~ a.zo~ ~ubza uu uz ~sa.za~uz u~ ~o uoz~zsznbou auk buzzz.zou~n~ aou~u-rp.zp • j S3ON~drIIQ2iO 30 JNIQK32I ZS2iI3 ' IQ O2i11 OS3Zi 3AO2iddK OZ MOH/2i2i OZOZ-88~ZT-2i • uoz~~e~.zodsuEas ~o ~uau~~.z~daQ • gn auk ~Iq ~oaCoad uoi~on.z~suoo 2 zoo (L68 a~noH a~E~s) p,z~naTnog ~sa.zo3 uuad PuE (b06 a~noH a~~~S) p~o2i ~ax.z~~S ~o buzsoTo ~I.z~.zodu~a~ auk uz buz.z.znouoo uoz~nTosaH • Z +~ ~ 1. ~.0 ,~ `~ ~ ~.! ., ~ 1 ~\~ r ,` ~` ~ ~ ~, ~,~ ~, ~ ~~~ 0/8~ E• REQUEST FOR WORK SESSIONS 1/10/88 - WOE SESSION ON COMPREMENSIVE 2/14/88 - WORK SESSION ON RURAL ADDITION PRIORITYNLISI~ REPORT F• REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC TING HEARINGS G - APPOINTMENTS 1• Community Corrections Resources Board 3 OF POANp~ F ~ •~ Z ~ A ~ o a 18 ~S0 88 SFSgV~CENTENN~P~ ~I 13, au h~ul R; 1,nr~; ~ •~,, C O N F I D E N T I A L M E M O R A N D U M T0: John Hubbard i! FROM: Steven A. McGraw ,C~~/ ~C -6ivl-~'~.E1'~ DATE: December 29, 1988 SUBJECT: YOUR CONFIDENTIAL MEMO IN REGARD TO LANDFILL SITES John, I have reviewed Dick Robers' concerns in regard to the possible siting of yet another location for the landfill in Roanoke County in the Cave Spring District. As I explained to Mr. Robers, and I will reiterate to you in this memo, I believe that we need to go ahead and identify any other potential sites regardless of their location in Roanoke County to allow for the best possible site selection process. Thanks for your concern in regard to this matter. SAM/bjh cc: Members, Board of Supervisors Mr. Hodge ~kec. ~~,SS/C~~ >'~ ~ ~~ ,'~ ` ' { ` s'~ ,,Y ,, ~` r` C~uunf~ of ~u~tnui;~> ~ ':r V ~' _ ~ .rR ,:F za ~ k ~¢ ~ ~;, .~ o~ aoaNO,~~ ., p _ a C~u~n~~ u~ ~~~~~t~t~h~e ;~ ~ 18 ~f.~ 88 SFSQUICENTENN~P~ A fii ~i uli~ul l{i ~inrri ri,~ C O N F I D E N T I A L M E M O R A N D U M T0: John Hubbard /~ ~~ ' r ~/ FROM: R. W. Robers ~~ DATE: December 29, 1988 SUBJECT: YOUR CONFIDENTIAL MEMO OF 12/28/88 John: Regarding the new potential landfill site located off Route 220, it is not in the Windsor Hills District but rather it is in the Cave Spring District. I am opposed to reviewing this site until the information is in on the first five sites that we have selected as our top five choices. It seems to me that if we have five possibilities already and each of them qualifies, our selection should be made from these top five sites as opposed to searching another site prior to knowing exactly how the first five sites will rank. Before any further process is undertaken regarding this new site, I would like to have discussions with you and all board members. Thank you very-much. RWR/bjh cc: Members, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Mr. Hodge C O N F I D ENT I A L M E M O R A N D U M T0: Board Members Elmer C. Hodge FROM: John Hubbard ~o~ DATE: December 28, 1988 RE: Landfill Sites The staff has now completed the preliminary testing of the top five sites which include Buck Mountain, Bradshaw 1, Mount Pleasant, Boones Chapel 1, and Fort Lewis. An analysis and reranking will be completed by mid-January at which time we will discuss the results with the Board. In the process of reviewing the sites, an additional site was identified as a good potential location. The staff and the consultant viewed the site and performed a preliminary ranking. The preliminary ranking indicated it is a favorable site and would compare to the preliminary rankings of the top sites. With this additional information, the staff and the consultant feel that the site should be pursued for further testing. The site is located just off U. S. Route 220 in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District (near Red Hill). The site contains approxi- mately 560 acres and contains 13 separately-owned tracts. The preliminary review indicates good soil characteristics with good woodland buffers and excellent access. With your concurrence, we will proceed to notify the Landfill Board and the property owners of Roanoke County's interest to enter for testing. JRH:wr Attachment t ..- - u~~ 1I - oo ` \ i. /~ _ ~\~' / , -'I ~~ _, 1. ~~ ,,~ ,~/ .~, ~_ ,. 6<B .~ ~~. ,.. ~% i i I ,~ ~ ! ~' jai ~ ~ l~ ~ i ~_ / ~ ~ - 1 -~ _ C - `~~ ~ ~ ~ _~ . "a v.~~~ ~~:c it ~~ ~ i ~ ~ ~t./ 175 ~ ~ ~ r ' ~ r - - n ~ - ~ ~ 4s-_ s ~ I~ ~ 1 F q, ~ 1 I ~ ~~ \~~- ~~ ~ ~l ~,~'\~~~~ > ` ~.'_' "~~\~..y \ ~ ~Cti~j-~`_~- _ ~ ~Jr~U~-' ~: ~ ~,~~ ~z~~l 11 1,/ ~_ .~s ~ ~ ~.r i r_ .` ~ ~ t _. ~- u / _~~ 4~--. ~ ~ it ~~~~~~ .v ~ ~~' 'J- ) ~~ )111 ~,' ~~~ ~~~~ '~'_.'~ ~r'~ ~, `~ J ~~ ~ ~ ~ e ° art ~ ~~~ ~ 'i R _ 8l _i ~ ~ - ~ ~ %~~ L I ~" ~~ ~\~ -;•' ~ ~~ r - ~ i - ~,~1 ~ 1 A ~ ~L ~ ~~ I ~~ _ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~r - - ~ ~~~- _ _ - - '-~~ ?<o017~a 111- x1133 1 ., Q_ ^_ - ~ _ ~, ~-- ,\IaAZ - ~ ~~I _ ~ ~ ~i_ ~ ~ ~.A d ~= _~~ ~ ~l ~ ~-i ~ ~ ', ~ _ ~ I ~~~~~~~ .d ~ 1, ,g. ~'S -~~ ~ ~ - ~ lit, ~~ ` : , _~ ~~ ~ '\' ' ~-~ c __-_ ~ , _ 117? ~ ~. i''~~Q l ~~ ! _ ,+~ i:, 1 /` ~ _ ~ t =- ~~ ~ _ -v ti 1~ ~ - - q~ _ :\ ' ~ ( ~~ -~J ~/~- 1~/ ~ A~ ~~ ,iCl~ ,//;~//~~ i~ ~ l'- ~ ~ ,~~,~ ~ (~,~~y, ~ ~ ~'~~ ~I~,~'~,~,%,,;~~w~, -~ /l(f~~[J~-sue ~i~~~~~ ~, ~~ r~,'~- ~- ~ \ ,l ~~ ~~ ~\ iii' -~ ~ 1 a-.~ ~ I ~ ~ "' ~ ~~ ~~ /~~~ ~" ~ ~ 3l~"~~=~ ~~~/~ ~ ti to 'l ~. -_~~~ ~/, i~'~ iY~ _ -\ ti- ~\'~ ~' ~ i~ ~lii y.; \ ~_ ~ / / ~ ~ ~ \\ 15777 / 1\ 1~~' ~'\ ~ it ~ ~ ' y 1 "~( 1! ~ ,. ~ ~~_ - J ,~~` ~~~\~ ~11~~.1 !F ~ ~~~ ~ i! ~`~ ' DAL ~~ ~ .988 O~ pOANp~,~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~~~n~ ~a~ ~u~n~r~.~ Z ~ v a 18 E~ 88 SFSCIUICENTENNIP~ A Brauti~ul8r~inning FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT KENNETH R. SHARP FlI~E MARYFIAL TO: All Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department Personnel All Roanoke County Departments FROM: K. R. Sharp, Fire Marshal ~~,~1-~y~ DATE: December 21, 1988 SOBJECT: Assistant Fire Marshal Resignation As of February 1, 1989, Neil P. Daugherty will no longer be associated with Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department. He has accepted a position with INS Investigations Bureau, Inc. Neil has served Roanoke County as a volunteer for the past 14 years and as a career firefighter, fire inspector, and assistant fire marshal for the past nine years. He has displayed dedication and professionalism throughout his tenure with Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department. We wish him well in his new endeavor. js 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, NW, ROANOKE. VA 24019 (703) 561-6100 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER '°-~~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: January 10, 1989 Request of CBL Management for County participation in extension of water line COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: CBL Management, Inc., is the developer for the Penn Forest Plaza Shopping Center on Merriman Road. As part of the development of the site, CBL is required to install approximately 2500 lineal feet of 12- inch water line along Starkey Road which includes boring under the railroad and highway right-of-ways. The total construction cost of the water line is estimated to be $126,795.00. In addition, the water off-site facility fee will be $29,704.60 making the total project cost $156,499.60. The construction of this 12-inch water line will benefit other areas of Starkey Road. It will provide service and supply to the Crescent Heights water system thus reducing their upgrading cost as well as provide a portion of a supply line to a proposed water storage reservoir in Starkey. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: CBL Management, Inc., has requested that the Board of Supervisors authorize the credit of the second half of the off-site fee against the off-site water construction cost. If this credit is approved, the remaining off-site construction cost to CBL will be $97,090.40. Of this amount, they are responsible for the full cost of the first 300 feet or $15,213.00, leaving an eligible participation cost of $81,877.40. CBL has requested that the Board of Supervisors authorize participation by paying one-half this eligible cost or $40,938.70. In tabular form, the off-site costs look like this: Cost of CBL Cost of Roanoke County $15,213.00 first 300 feet $14,852.30 one-half OSF's 40,938.70 participation 14,852.30 second half OSF's 29,704.60 construction in lieu of OSF's 40,938.70 participation $85,856.30 Total CBL Management, Inc. $70,643.30 Total County Total Project Cost: $156,499.60 1 The $15,213.00 higher cost indicated for CBL is the cost of the first 300 feet which is not eligible for credit or participation. CBL will also pay $7,801.00 as a basic connection fee for the cost of the meter vault, valves, and meters for a 6-inch fire service and a 2-inch domestic service. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACT: There are four alternatives to consider: Alternative #1 The Board of Supervisors would authorize the credit of the second half of the off-site fees and County participation in the project of up to $41,000.00. This alternative would result in the County sharing equally in the excess cost to the developer for this project. Impact of Alternative #1 The actual utility fund would decrease $55,852.30 as a result of the credit and participation. In return, the County would receive 2500 lineal feet of 12-inch water line that we would have installed eventually without the CBL project. Funds are available in the utility enterprise fund for this alternative. Alternative #2 The Board of Supervisors would authorize the credit of the second half of the off-site fees and deny any additional County participation in this project. This alternative would result in an off-site water construction cost to the developer of $126,795.00. Impact of Alternative #2 The actual utility fund would decrease $14,852.30 and the cost of off-site water may make the project unfeasible. Additional funds are not required for this alternative. Alternative #3 The Board of Supervisors would not authorize the credit of the second half of the off-site fees and deny any County participation in the project. This alternative would result in an off-site water construction cost to the developer of $141,647.30. Impact of Alternative #3 The actual utility fund would not decrease. The cost of the off-site water would likely cancel this project. Additional County funds are not required for this alternative. Alternative #4 The last alternative involves the Board of Supervisors giving CBL a reimbursement contract whereby they can recover the eligible cost 2 from future connection fees collected for connection to this water line during the next five years. CBL has stated that a reimbursement agreement would not benefit them because they need the financial assistance at this time, rather than in the future. This alternative is not viable and, therefore, has no impact. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #1 with County participation of one-half the excess cost up to an amount of $41,000.00. This participation would be in the form of a lump sum reimbursement agreement payable after acceptance of the water line and verification of the excess cost by Roanoke County. Additionally, staff recommends the Board of Supervisors authorize the County Adminstrator to execute a reimbursement agreement with CBL Management, Inc., to effect this alternative. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Cliffo raig, P.E. Elmer C. Hodge Utility Director County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Ref erred To Motion by: Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers 3