Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/14/1989 - Regularh ;~_ Mk J C~ r J a ~ r>Ur,LI~ncR'; roc - ~"=I KU~,vG« ~~u~vtY Uu~,itu ur SUr'E~~I~U~~ 37~d,~~u, ~1~~tTUi~ JtV t_, is i X ~ '~ i~ U t~~.+1iti'vt~'C ,~,: ~4Jlu ~THTc 0~ 'JIh~I~'yIri CITY ~1= ~:~•~~vuric ni-Fi~r~VI1 i- NU;,UIC~TIu"v Ir l Tri" U'vvc'-ti1~"•3w~) Hsi HUTn~Kl~ti ~~PrZt~E~~Ti~TIV~ u~ Trit. TIN S-~vu;tL~ t.~~- ~; t '~~ ~ I :i t~ .~ ~ ~ i J' r ~~Rt~T i~~~v, l,U;~r ~1~~ 1 iu'y --~ rv r 1 1, ! ~i J , Yr l: 'l 1. r_.I-~v rrJt ~ Jf= Ti-iz_ ~U~ ~uh~. ~ I ., ;NILY ^y~sv~t~r~r'~r i'U.l.1Si-stu Iii r~Ur+laL~ t iv Tr-s'~ ~7~ri~ ~~ L'>.~UI „It„ u;. Lci:TIrY TNµt c~iTli. rv+iJ ri,~Ulsri~U iiv jialJ Trig H~ti~~'-XtV ;. ,;' f'~L tel: rr I,vL7 ~Jril LJ C )v L rY J ~' !~ ~' ~ K .) V IV G. ~ L L~ v "j i i i.~ i l l\ 1 ~`+ `~ ~vITfvi=~~, iris ~ sr<`~ JKY ur t-~':?~:U::KY I`~,.s ~y~~ I ~~ ~ ,~,UTh~1Z ILEi ___---~~YING NOTICE O ANTICIPATION REVENUE NOTES OF V RGtINIA COUNTY, f17,00f.~ On February 16 1969' fhe 0oard of SuDervlsvi~Plnle oe (the CountY.~ edoPted a resolu- ~~9oerd' ) tlon suthornot 6 tto GoexNed borrow for the Durpose of meetlnP usual dNiclts In the nvMUe of the CountY• The swntrjooau horNY Orented by fhe Code of VlrOtnls, ee amended. MshoneY Paul M. Attorney Rosnoks County (1913) _~ .;L ~:uMvEi - 3011~~9b PU~LISH~~'~ rrC - ~Z1.c7 r?OaNOrtt CGU(~TY cJr'+~U ui= :iUPEKVI3uRS 3733 8RAM3LcTG;`~ Sir P Q uGX Z980U RuA~dpKE VA 24014 :;~~.T~ CF viri~i`;i~ ITY CF Fcuhfvut\- ~FFIU~ViT C;r r'UZLiC~TIvi'd I , (TnE U`'~: EIS I O~~EU) Ajd ~UTHJiZ I LEu t2cPKESEi~TNTIVE Gr THE TIMES-vliliLi~ CUK- PuRi+TIGP~;9 ~rHiCn CUKPGn+TIU~v IS PUEI_IS>~tr~ OF THc t~UiivUKE TIMES ~ „i%tiLJ-IJE'w.S• u++ILY tiEWSPtiPciZ PUiI.ISHEU iN r~t~AivuKE9 iii THE STMTc C:F ViKVIivIA9 UC CE;~TIF~' 7HtiT THE AraNExEt~ ivUTICE WrS PU3LISHED IiJ S>aIu hC'yrSPrP~h~S GN (r~ FULLurr I~~U UHTES NOTICE OF BORROWING wIT~tSS9 THIS bTCi 17~Y lJF M,`+1<~-H 1~0~ REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES OFROANOKE I 'COUNTY, VIRGINIA ~/ J~// 1~ / , ~/y ) ~ __J~ f1~ /1 ~ {1//1~ ~, ~ S17,000,t>DO On February 14. 1989, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke V ~ / / ~ i // ( -#=~-~-- _1-ISISI~ -r-if-- "SJ- County, Vlrplnla (tha adopted a rasolu- Board".) A U T H O R I L E D t~ T U EC C S i v a . lion authorizing the County to borrow not to exceed f17,ppp,000 for the Durpoie of maetino casual deticlts In the evenue of the CountY• The r Resolution wss adopted Dur- suant to authority drented by i the Code of VIr0lnla, asj amended. Paul M. Mahoney CounW Attorney (195•M) O~ POANp~~ a ~ z ~~ ~~~~~~.~e v ~ a V' V' ~Yt~ ,~ ~ 18 ,~,a 88 SFSQVICENTENN~P~ ~ ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS A Bta u~i/ul BtKinnin~ ACTION AGENDA ~ Y FEBRUARY 14, 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 THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING DURING THIS AFTERNOON'S SESSION. A. OPENING: CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call: ALL MEMBERS PRESENT 2. Invocation: The Reverend John Boddie Our Lady of Nazareth Catholic Church 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 1. Resolution of Appreciat'2on to Deedie Kagey ,, A-21489-1 HCN/SAM TO APPROVE RESO URC 2. ECH INTRODUCED INFORMATION OFFICER ANNE MARIE FEDDER 3. BLJ INTRODUCED FORMER BOARD MEMBER GARY MINTER AND ANNOUNCED HE WILL SERVE ON COURT SERVICE UNIT ADVISORY COUNCIL/YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to purchase the Hollins Community Development water System. A-21489-2 BLJ/RR TO APPROVE ALT. ~1 URC 2. Request of schools for appropriation of additional monies from the school Federal Programs Funds. A-21489-3 HCN/SAM TO APPROVE URC 3. Authorization to execute agreement with the City of Salem for boundary line relocation. A-21489-4 RR/SAM TO APPROVE URC 4. Adoption of Eesk-Flew-Paliep Financial Improvement Program A-21489-5 HCN/SAM TO CHANGE TITLE AND APPROVE A FINANCIAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM INCORPORATING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND BOARD SUGGESTIONS AND THAT ANY SAVINGS REALIZED BE ALLOCATED TO THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE. URC 5. Authorization to settle pending litigation with John -Hall and Company. A-21489-6 HCN/RR TO APPROVE URC 6. Review of Utility Deposit Policy.. ,, A-21489-7 BLJ/LG TO APPROVE ALT. $1 - DEPOSIT POLICY TO REMAIN THE SAME URC 7. Yearly Report from Total Action Against Poverty. PRESENTED BY LARRY DESPER E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS 1. Request for Work Sessions on 1989-90 Budget WORK SESSIONS SET FOR: 3/14/89 - 2:00 P.M. AND 6:30 P.M. 3/21/89 - 3:00 P.M. 2 HCN REQUESTED CHANGE FOR 3/28/89 4/11/89 - TIME TO BE ANNOUNCED 2. Request for Work Session with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission SET FOR 2/28/89 '~ g, REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS LG DIRECTED PUBLITECH ANIDGTHE ROANOKEFVALLEYBWITHOVDOT~ECTING ROAD BETWEEN G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES NONE H, SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance by adopting the Roanoke County Street and Off-Street Design Standards and Specifications. R-21489-8 BLJ/HCN TO ADOPT RESO URC 0-21489-9 ;,~ HCN/SAM TO ADOPT ORD. ,; URC 2. Ordinance vacating a portion of the previously platted subdivision referred to as Thomas H. Beasley property on the south side of Va. Secondary Route 679 (Buck Mountain Road) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. 0-21489-10 HCN/RR TO ADOPT ORD URC 3. Ordinance amending and reenacting Chapter 16 of the Roanoke County Code, Pr ious Metals and Gems. 0-21489-11 3 HCN/SAM TO ADOPT ORD URC I , APPOINTMENTS 1. Court Corrections Resources Board. 2. League of Older Americans 3, Transportation and Safety Commission 4. Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board. BLJ NOMINATED GARY MINTER J. REPORTS: AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS SUPERVISOR JOHNSON ANNOUNCED THAT TME MEGSUPERVISORORT NOOMMISSION BUDGET WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD 0 ADDITIONAL REQUESTS ARE BEING MADE. SUPERVISOR ROBERS (1) ADVISED THERE WILL BE A MEETING ON 3/2/89 WITH CITIZENS ON COLONIAL AVENUE TO EXPRESS CONCERNS ABOUT THE ROAD (2) PLANS ARE UNDERWAY FOR VICE PRESIDENT OF GEORGE MASON UNIV. TS ANDIBUSIIJESSESOFROM NORTHERN VA NWILL ATTENDPALSO. PURPOSE 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. R-21489-12 HCN/BKJ TO APPROVE RESO URC 1. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Library Board and Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board. A-21489-12.a 2. Acknowledgment from Va. Department of Transportation that the following roads have been accepted into the Secondary System: 4 a. 0.17 miles of Highfields Farm Drive b. 0.17 miles of Red Barn Lane c. 0.10 miles of Fort Lewis Circle d. 0.11 miles of Ranchcrest Drive e. 0.21 miles of Snow Owl Drive f. 0.14 miles of Golden Eagle Lane g. 0.16 miles of Green Ridge Court A-21489-12.b 3. Resolution of Support for a feasibility study of a traditional music center to be located at Rocky Knob. R-21489-12.c_ 4. Request for a Raffle Permit from the Botetourt Jaycees. A-21489-12.d 5. Acceptance of a sanitary sewer easement being donated by Timberline Condominium Associates. A-21489-12.e 6. Acceptance of a sanitary sewer easement being donated by Clyties W. St. Clair. A-21489-12.f I,. REPORTS HCN/SAM TO RECEIVE AND FILE URC 1. 2. 3. 4. ~~ Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance General Fund Unappropriated Balance Board Contingency Fund Statement of Treasurer's Accountability M. PUBLIC HEARING 289-1 Public Hearing for citizen comment and resolution authorizing the issuance of not to exceed $17 million short-term notes for the purpose of meeting casual deficits in the revenue of the 5 County in anticipation of the collection of taxes and other revenue. R-21489-13 HCN/SAM TO APPROVE RESO URC N. WORK SESSIONS 1. 1989-90 Budget BLJ REQUESTED A REPORT BE BROUGHT BACK ON WHEN E911 TAX WILL BE DROPPED 2, Landfill Siting 3. Recycling Evaluation LG SUGGESTEODMETIpTWITH AGREEMENTTONORECYCLOINGBETWEEN ALL~DFILL BOARD TO C LOCALITIES 4. Rural Addition Priority List A-21489-14 HCN/SAM TO APPROVE RURAL ADDITION PRIORITY LIST URC Q. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 1, B. K. Cruey, representing the Clearbrook Civic League, to speak concerning Landfill Site 44 (Red Hill site) 2. KELLY WHITNEY, CLEAN VALLEY COUNCIL SPOKE CONCERNING CONTINUED EXPANSION OF THE RECYCLING PROGRAM. 3. CRAIG GOULD, 6433 CROWELL GAP ROAD, SPOKE IN OPPOSITION TO THE RED HILL LANDFILL SITE. P. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 (a) NONE Q. ADJOURNMENT SAiyI/HCN AT 6:50 P.M. _ UVV 6 O~ AOANp,Y~ ~ , ~' ~ /r' 2 ~ ,~ a C~~~~~ ~ 18 ~~ 88 SFSQUICENTENN~P~' ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS A Beauri~ul8eginning AGENDA FEBRUARY 14, 1989 Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of`Supervisors meeting. Remu;aand meetings are held on the second Tuesday of the month at 3:00 p. the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public Hearings will be heard at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING DURING THIS AFTERNOON'S SESSION. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call 2. Invocation: Our LadyrofdNazareBhdCatholic Church 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 1. Resolution of Appreciation to Deedie Kagey D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to purchase the Hollins Community Development Water System. 2. Request of schools for appropriation of additional monies from the school Federal Programs Fund 3, Authorization to execute agreement with the City of Salem for boundary line relocation. 4. Adoption of Cash Flow Policy 5. Authorization to settle pending litigation with John Hall and Company. 6. Review of Utility Deposit Policy. 7. Yearly Report from Total Action Against Poverty. E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS 1. Request for Work Sessions on 1989-90 Budget 2. Request for Work Session with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES H, SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance by adopting the Roanoke County Street and Off-Street Design Standards and Specifications. 2. Ordinance vacating a portion of the previously platted subdivision referred to as Thomas H. Beasley property on the south side of Va. Secondary Route 679 (Buck Mountain Road) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. 3, Ordinance amending and reenacting Chapter 16 of the Roanoke County Code, Precious Metals and Gems. I , APPOINTMENTS 1. Court Corrections Resources Board. 2. League of Older Americans 2 3, Transportation and Safety Commission 4. Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board. 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. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Library Board and Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board. 2. Acknowledgment from Va. Department of Transportation that the following roads have been accepted into the Secondary System: a. 0.17 miles of Highfields Farm Drive b. 0.17 miles of Red Barn Lane c. 0.10 miles of Fort Lewis Circle d. 0.11 miles of Ranchcrest Drive e. 0.21 miles of Snow Owl Drive f. 0.14 miles of Golden Eagle Lane g, 0.16 miles of Green Ridge Court 3. Resolution of Support for a feasibility study of a traditional music center to be located at Rocky Knob. 4. Request fog Jaycees. 5. Acceptance donated by 6. Acceptance donated by L. REPORTS a Raffle Permit from the Botetourt of a sanitary sewer easement being Timberline Condominium Associates. of a sanitary sewer easement being Clyties W. St. Clair. 3 1. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Statement of Treasurer's Accountability M. PUBLIC HEARING 289-1 Public Hearing for citizen comment and resolution authorizing the issuance of not to exceed $17 million short-term notes for the purpose of meeting casual deficits in the revenue of the County in anticipation of the collection of taxes and other revenue. N. WORK SESSIONS 1. 1989-90 Budget 2. Landfill Siting 3. Recycling Evaluation 4. Rural Addition Priority List 0. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 1. B. K. Cruey, representing the Clearbrook Civic League, to speak concerning Landfill Site 44 (Red Hill site) P. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 (a) Q . ADJOURNMENT 4 ~-/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE RFEBRUARYO14TY1989INISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, RESOLUTION 21489-1 OF APPRECIATION TO DEEDIE KAGEY FOR AUTHORING THE OFFICIAL SESQUICENTENNIAL HISTORY BOOK WHEREAS, in 1985, a committee was established to formulate plans for the celebration of Roanoke County's sesquicentennial birthday; and WHEREAS, the Sesquicentennial Committee determined that a written comprehensive history of Roanoke County should be one of its most important projects and commissioned Deedie Kagey to handle this responsibility; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Kagey, Assistant Principal at Penn Forest Elementary School, spent over two years of intense research including over 90 interviews and visits to libraries, colleges, universities and historical resources centers throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the culmination of her efforts is When Past is Prolo ue A History of Roanoke Count, an 800 page book which focuses on home and community life, public service, government, industrial development and agriculture; and WHEREAS, this 'book will serve to instill in present and future generation of Roanoke County citizens an appreciation of our heritage, a pride in our ancestors, and a record of events in our history that will last far beyond our sesquicentennial year. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, wishes to express its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of its citizens to Deedie Kagey for her willingness to assume this awesome responsibility, her dedication to this project, and the successful results of her efforts; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, expresses its best wishes for continued success in all her future endeavors. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, 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 Resolutions of Appreciation File ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGCENTERHONDTUESDAY,ROFEBRUARY014TY19891NISTRATION RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO DEEDIE KAGEY FOR AUTHORING THE OFFICIAL SESQUICENTENNIAL HISTORY BOOK WHEREAS, in 1985, a committee was established to formulate plans for the celebration of Roanoke County's sesquicentennial birthday; and WHEREAS, the Sesquicentennial Committee determined that a written comprehensive history of Roanoke County should be one of its most important projects and commissioned Deedie Kagey to handle this responsibility; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Kagey, Assistant Principal at Penn Forest Elementary School, spent over two years of intense research including over 90 interviews and visits to libraries, colleges, universities and historical resources centers throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the culmination of her efforts is When Past is Prologue A History of Roanoke Count, an 800 page 'nook which focuses on home and community life, public service, government, industrial development and agriculture; and WHEREAS, this book will serve to instill in present and future generation of Roanoke County citizens an appreciation of our heritage, a pride in our ancestors, and a record of events in our history that will last far beyond our sesquicentennial year. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of ~-/ Roanoke County, Virginia, wishes to express its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of its citizens to Deedie Kagey for her willingness to assume this awesome responsibility, her dedication to this project, and the successful results of her efforts; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, expresses its best wishes for continued success in all her future endeavors. ACTION # A-21489-2 ITEM NUMBER ~ '- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 14, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Acquisition of Hollins Water System COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The Hollins Water System construction is near completion, and connections are being made to serve the adjacent properties. This water system was constructed by the Hollins Community Development Corporation with funds from Farmers Home Administration. Farmers Home provided $1,304,000 in grant money and a $515,100 loan to the Corporation to fund construction costs. The $515,100 loan is scheduled to be paid by the County of Roanoke through the Hollins Community Development Corporation over a 40-year period. When the loan is fully paid, Roanoke County will purchase the water system for $l. Roanoke County supplies the water to this system at the normal water rates and also provides the financial and system management services required. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In January, 1989, the Farmers Home Administration offered to sell the $515,100 loan at a discount of approximately 50 cents on the dollar if the loan is paid off prior to May 9, 1989. This discount could save approximately $896,000 over the 40-year period of the loan. The Hollins Community Development Association has requested that Roanoke County purchase the water system at this time in order that the Farmers Home Administration loan could be paid off at the discount. The Utility and Finance Directors of the County feel that it would be in the best interest of both the County and the Corporation for the County to purchase the water system at this time in an amount equal to the discounted Farmers Home Administration loan which will be approximately $257,550. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: Alternative l: The County can purchase the water system at this time for the discount loan balance of approximately $257,550. Funds are available from the 1988 Virginia Resources Authority water revenue bond sale. No additional operational costs or ~-/ personnel will be required by this purchase since the County is responsible for the operation under a prior agreement with the Water Corporation. .Alternative 2: The County can make debt payments of $2,530 a month for the next 40 years as previously agreed to Farmers Home Administration. This alternative will require the County to maintain additional financial information and transfer money annually through the Hollins Community Development Corporation. This alternative will cost the County an additional $896,130 over the life of the loan plus the additional expense of an annual audit on the Hollins Community Development Corporation and additional insurance coverage for the Hollins Community Development Corporation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1 that the County purchase the Hollins Water System prior to May 9, 1989 at a cost of approximately $257,550. Staff further recommends that the County Administrator be authorized to execute the required documents to complete the transfer of the Hollins Water System. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, C~2C7 ~ q Clif d Craig Director of Utilities Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Approved ( x? Motion by: Bob L. Johnson/Richard Denied ( ) W Robers to approve Alterna_ Garrett Received ( ) tive #1 Johnson Referred McGraw Nickens To Robers cc: File Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Reta Busher, Director, Budget & Mgt John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Sue Palmer, Planning & Zoning VOTE No Yes Abs x x X x ACTION # A-21489-3 ITEM NUMBER ~- Z..s AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 14, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Request of Schools for Appropriation of Additional Monies from School Federal Programs Fund COUNTY ADM//INISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: (,f/~~C'r~-~'K.u~~ bL~~'~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: During the 1988-89 budget process, the School submitted its Federal Programs budget based upon their estimate of revenues to be received from the Federal government for these programs. During the fall of 1988, the Schools were notified that the actual amount of Federal funds they would receive would be higher than they had anticipated. The attached Resolution from the County School Board requests an additional appropriation of $84,851 to be appropriated as follows: Chapter I - $77,092 Title II - 1,416 Chapter II - Competitive 6,343 TOTAL 84 851 Chapter I funding needs to 'oe spent specifically for educationally deprived and disadvantaged children. Title II can be spent for any student in the science and math areas. Chapter II money can be spent for any student in a variety of areas and is currently being used in music, art, and gifted programs of the County. FISCAL IMPACT: Federal revenues for the School will be increased by $84,851. There will also be a corresponding increase in School federal expenditures. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the appropriation of these additional monies to the School Federal Programs budget. Respectfully submitted, 1 _,~ ! Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance ~-2 Approved by, 4 ~ r ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ------------------------------------------------ ACTION VOTE Approved (X) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens/ No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Steven A. Garrett x Received ( ) Johnson ~ Referred McGraw ~ To Nickens ~ Robers ~_ cc: File Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Reta Busher, Director, Mgt & Budget Ruth Wade, Clerk, School Board Dr. Bayes Wilson, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools -~ From the Minutes of the County School Board of Roanoke County Meeting in Regular Session at 7 P.M, on January 12, 1989 in the Board Room of the School Administration Building, Salem, Virginia. RESOLUTION REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO TEFE SCHOOL FEDERAL PROGRAMS FUND. WHEREAS, certain categories in the Federal Programs budget for 1988-89 were estimated amounts inasmuc}~ as actual project approvals were not received until t}ie fall of 1988; BE IT RESOLVED that the County School Board of Roanoke County on motion of Paul G. Black and duly seconded, requests an additional appropriation of $84,851.00, based on 100 percent federal reimbursement, to the Federal Programs budget to be distributed as follows: Amount Project Appropriation Project Budgeted Approval Needed Chapter 1 $490,000.00 $567,092.00 $77,092.00 Title II 10,990.00 12,406.00 1,416.00 Chapter II Competitive 20,000.00 26,343.00 6,343.G0 SS84,851.00 Adopted on the following recorded vote: AYES: Paul G. Black, Richard E. Cullinan, Charlsie S. Pafford, Barbara B. Chewni.ng, Frank E. Thomas NAYS: None TESTS: /~. ACTION # A-21489-4 ITEM NUMBER -~ - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 14, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Boundary Line Relocation City of Salem COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENT (1 ~e~~-ti~~. ~~,~-may .tom ~ e a~.:,~n~/t ,~~ ~~ ~~ ~v~-~ ~~'~ ,/ . ~ / 4 J SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The City of Salem and the County of Roanoke desire to relo- cate and change portions of the boundary line between them accord- ing to the provisions of Article II, Chapter 24 of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The City and the County believe that the relocation and change of portions of the bound- ary line between them will result in more convenience to the citi- zens and facilitate the provision of governmental services. The currently existing boundary line shall be changed in two locations: (1) to include within the corporate limits of the City of Salem three (3) parcels designated as Roanoke County Tax Map Nos. 66.04-2-4, 66.04-2-5, and 66.04-2-6; and (2) to include within the boundaries of the County of Roanoke one (1) parcel designated as Salem Tax Map Parcel 240-4-1. This legal proceeding between the City of Salem petition with the Circuit legal advertisements in the (assuming that the Circuit tions or problems with this STAFF RECOMMENDATION: calls for approval of an agreement and Roanok e County, the filing of a Court, the publication o f appropriate newspaper, and entry of a final order Court would not have any serious ques- proposal). It is recommended that the Board: (a) authorize the County Administrator to execute an agree- ment on behalf of the Board to accomplish this boundary line relo- cation; (b) authorize the County Attorney to file a Petition to Relo- cate with the Circuit Court; and "' .~ (c) authorize the County Administrator to take such other actions as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this proceeding. Respectfully submitted, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney ~ ------------- ------------------------------- ACTION --- VOTE Approved (X) Motion by: Richard W. Robers/ No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Steven A. McGraw to approve Garrett x Received ( ) staff recommendation Johnson x Referred McGraw x To Nickens x Robers x cc: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney 1 `` ' N ~ H j/ ~ ~ ~~~ .~nK CMC4 ~ _/ `ES _ 4 p~ O ~l ~ WB ,. FOREST- i ~ ~ ~k~.raciu .~'V+~ FA ~, ~' ~~ yfd~£ST _)I ".tint"' a ^~t''l _~~ ~ VICINITY MAP`~,„,~,~ ~'~. ~ ~ CURRENTLY ASSESSED IN ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT / u ANTRIM Si ~ ~7 r ~ (~! ~i t ~n ~i +e~ ^~, ' C~~; :. ~~ \ l , ST y~ ST ~ / Q~ ~ \\ 4 F \ ^~ ~ ~L ~~ / ~ MC ~~ S - ~ ~ t ~ T ~~/~4i~ MJV./l S~~;.... ~,Pa't" ~, NWFPI~ d ~~ ~' 6pN~ ~ 1p P~Pw I ~` so t~~~v~"rc~~~- ~'- 7 3'~ ~ / CA ~yt9 '.~--c/ _ ~ i ~ ~ yi O~ ~ ~~/ ~~~°~~ VICINITY MAP ~IP`'""~ "~ ~" ~~_ ~ -3 .Q NORTH COMMUNITY SERVICES CURRENTLY ASSESSED IN THE CITY OF SALEM AND DEVELOPMENT ACTION # A-21489-5 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: February 14, 1989 Adoption of C"as~ mow ~oZ'icy - Financial Improvement Plan COUNTY ADMINISTRATO~R~'~S COMMENTS.~~ ~<,f~ r~`Z' prL"-- `" `"~ ~-T/0i~'°' C^~1 °'~ ,~~G'~=r'li BACKGROUND: The Board has requested that an on-going program be instituted i_n order to improve the financial position of the County. Since the County is anticipating going to the bond market during the 1989-90 fiscal year to sell water reservoir bonds, this would be an ideal time to formalize a financial improvement plan and to begin the implementation. The goals and objectives of this program would be as follows: a. Reduce or eliminate short-term borrowing. b. Improve bond rating to AA+ or AAA. The following report outlines some of the things we will need to consider in order to meet these goals: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: For the past three years, the County has found it necessary to borrow in anticipation of tax revenues as follows: Amount Dates $10 Million February - August, 1987 $ 8 Million March - June, 1988 $ 2 Million October - December, 1988 Prior to this time, the County was allowed to use available unspent bond proceeds to supplement the cash flow shortage. Due to the changes in the Federal Tax Laws, the County is no longer able to do this. Even though the County has a balanced budget for the year, our revenue collection cycle does not correspond with our expenditures. Revenues peak in late May when personal property, decals, and the first half of real estate tax are collected. A smaller peak occurs in early December when the second half of real estate tax is due. The majority of business licenses are collected in January. County expenditures also experience highs and lows. A large portion of the County's debt payments are due in December, and a smaller concentration of debt payments are due in June. Payment of school salaries are greatly reduced in July and August. Many large capital items are purchased at the beginning of each budget year. Part-time help is higher in the summer months and around election time. In addition, the County's cash flow is affected by bond projects, grants, and Literary Loans. Under the Federal tax laws, the County must deposit bond proceeds with an escrow agent (usually a bank). The County must then expend funds from its own bank account and file for reimbursement against its bond proceeds. Grants are usually awarded on a reimbursement basis. Literary Loans also require the County to spend its own money and then file for reimbursement with the Literary Loan program. All of these instances place an added strain on the cash flow of the County. During the 1987-88 fiscal year, the County spent $275,000 on interest for short-term borrowing. This was interest on the $10 million and $8 million borrowings which both became due during this fiscal year. Also, additional expenses were involved for bond council fees and financial advisor fees. The following suggestions should be considered as a means of reducing short-term borrowing: 1. Increase Fund Balance - The greater the fund balance, the greater the cushion the County will have during the lean revenue months. The County would need an additional $10 million in fund balance to completely eliminate short-term borrowing. However, even if this goal may not be feasible, every dollar we can increase fund balance will decrease the amount we need to borrow. 2. The Board should keep in mind when approving grants and Literary Loan application that there will be a temporary effect on cash flow. 3. The County should file for reimbursement on grants, loans, and bond projects as expeditiously as possible, rather than accumulate expenses. 4. When the County issues long-term debt in the future, we should keep in mind the annual cash flow picture when establishing pay dates, if possible. 5. Schedule larger purchases and construction projects into certain quarters of the year. ~_y 6. Reduce Lease Purchases - The County increased the amount of lease/purchases over $2 million last fiscal year and will probably increase another $2 million this year. We have more flexibility for cash planning if we buy less, schedule the time of the purchase, and pay for the item in the year of purchase. We should not get in the habit of lease/purchasing vehicles that could be replaced evenly on an annual basis with a well-conceived replacement program. 7. Additional revenue could be generated during lean revenue months by actively pursuing delinquent accounts. The Treasurer's Office currently does not have sufficient staff to pursue these delinquent taxes. One additional staff person in this area could generate $140,000 annually. 8. A user fee study would pinpoint sources of additional revenue which would be collected at the same time that the expenditure of County funds occurs. This timely matching of revenues and expenditures is the ideal situation for cash flow purposes. The second phase of the Financial Improvement Plan involves the improvement of the County's bond rating. The County currently enjoys these ratings: Moody's Investors Service Aa Standard and Poor's AA In order to improve its ratings, the County should try to accomplish the following: 1. Improve the current economic mix to increase the commercial tax base. 2. Increase the fund balance to 8 - 10 percent of General Fund expenditures. Stability of the fund balance is also important, and we have been maintaining a stable balance. However, we need to start increasing the balance each year to attempt to accumulate approximately $5 million. 3. Previously, the rating agencies noted that our assessed values on real estate did not increase evenly from year to year. Annualized reassessment should alleviate this concern. ' ~.1/ ~/ 4. Prior to our next bond sale, we should invite the rating agency analyst to come to Roanoke County for a site visit so that he or she can see firsthand the developments in the County. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt a Five-Year Financial Improvement Plan which consists of the following: 1. Increase the Unappropriated Fund Balance of the County to 8 percent of the General Fund expenditures. This would be accomplished by increasing Fund Balance 1 percent per year for the next five years. Based upon the current General Fund expenditures, 1 percent would amount to a $625,000 increase in Fund Balance in the 1989-90 budget. 2. Limit the use of lease/purchase financing, particularly for the annual replacement of vehicles. Instead, a consistent number of vehicles should be replaced each year and paid for during a time of year when the County has a positive cash flow. 3. Add one position to the Treasurer's Department to actively pursue delinquent accounts. This position should be added to the 1989-90 budget. We will attempt to get Compensation Board funding for this position. 4. A user fee should be funded in the 1989-90 budget to identify new sources of revenues. This will cost approximately $25,000 and could generate $1 million to $2 million. 5. Invite the rating agencies to visit Roanoke County in conjuncture with our water revenue bond sale so that they can see the growth and development of the County. Respectfully submitted, Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance Approved by, i ~~ Elmer C. Hod e County Administrator -------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (X) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens/ No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Steven A. c raw - ee e ow Garrett x Received ( ) Johnson ~ Referred McGraw x To Nickens x Robers x Nickens/McGraw moved to adopt a financial improvement plan incorporating staff recommendations in report and board suggestions listed below, and that any savings realized from this plan be allocated to the unappropriated fund balance. 1. Add one person to handle delinquent accounts for a one-year period and compare savings to assess need for position in the future. 2. That this report be considered a goal statement rather than a policy. 3. That interest saved by not borrowing additional monies be allocated to fund balance. cc: File Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Reta Busher, Director, Mgt & Budget Assistant County Administrators Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer Dr. Bayes Wilson, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools ~ _ ~~ ACTION N0. A-21489-6 ITEM NUMBER ~ _5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 14, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Authorization with John Hall & bills to settle pending litigation Company for outstanding utility COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ,, SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In 1967, Fabricated Metals Industries, Inc, Steel Service, Inc., and John Hall and Company donated easements to a private sewer company with the understanding that they would receive free sewer connection and use of the sewer lines without charge. Roanoke County later purchased the sewer lines from Sanitary Disposal Corporation and began charging these companies for useage. They refused to pay and began legal proceedings against the County. This matter has been under litigation for almost a decade. The outstanding balance for John Hall and Company totals $3,857.90 as of December 30, 1988 and the County holds liens against their property for nonpayment. They have now indicated a willingness to settle out of court for the amount of $500.00 and the installation of a meter on their well system. They have also agreed to pay all future sewer bills if Roanoke County releases all liens placed against their property. The County Attorney's staff has research the settlement with Steel Services Inc. The issue was discussed in Executive Session and settlement was reached by Court Order entered May 19, 1987. Clifford Craig, Utility Director, also agrees with the proposed settlement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Board of Supervisors authorize the County Administrator to execute an agreement with John Hall and that the payment of $500.00 be accepted as settlement of the outstanding utility bill. ~~. A Efiner C. Hod e County Administrator -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (X) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens/Richard Yes Nosent Denied ( ) W. Robers Garrett x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred McGraw x To• Nickens x Robers x cc: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney (Check & Letter of Agreement attached) Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance .OF ROANpf~ ~« ; ti p Z _~ 2 t: a 18 ~~ 88 ~FSQUICEN7ENN~P~ t A Btauti~ulBtginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE __ ~ 3 C~vixnf~ of ~vttno~k~e ~; January 13, 1989 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPF2ING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Mr. John Hall John Hall & Company, Inc. 4925 Starkey Road, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Dear Mr. Hall: Per our discussion of today, we have reached an agreement to settle all outstanding Roanoke County utility bills ($3,847.90) for the amount of~$500.00 and the installation of a meter on your well system in order to have accurate computed sewer readings in the future. You also agree to pay all future computed sewer bills and Roanoke County will release all liens placed against your property for non-payment. Consideration was given to the fact that based on estimates of your neighbor's sewer bills as of this date, Roanoke County during the past ten years should have charged you approximately on-third of the amount billed. Also, since your operation is smaller and the amount billed you might have been even less, I am willing to accept the $500.00 negotiated settlement. This settlement is also based on your donating easements in 1967 for the installation of sewer lines and for which, you understood that you would have free use of the sewer system. If this letter accurately reflects our,'agreement, please sign one copy and return to me. Once the signed letter and check have been received, I will take this matter to the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on J anuary 24, 1989, for their approval. Sincer ly, Elmer C. Hodge ECH/bjh County Administrator o~~~ ~ ~ %~ ~ ~/~~~ Date ~;~~/. / '~ /~~~ ohn Hall ~ v P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 VENDOR: ~ • 745-99 NEGOTIATED SETTLBMENT`FOR UTILITY ACCOUNT CSEWER) :: . ,__, - nn''//++ DOMINION BANK 68-54 JOHN A. HALL & CO ~.'~E11~.r. ROANOKE, VIRGINIA - 514 CONTRACTORS ~ ~ . • .. ROANOKE, VIRGINIA _ 703-774-4441 ~~ ~ 20048 117/89 -_- ~~ ~ `_:~ ,,, .~ **Five Hundred and No/9Ofl - - - - - -Dollars** -500.00- ' .".__ -._ -. - .~:, ~: -_3~: AY County O f R O a nO k e '~~ ~ , OHN A. HALL & CO., INC. IRDEREOF P . 0. BOX 29800 _~~'_'- ~ a Roanoke, Virginia_;__231.18-0798 R _ Ir00 L99511' ~:OS ~400549~: 00~~~ 263~~~30011' ~,• ~ ~OANOKE COUNTY UTILITY BILLING BILL DATE 01/U9/89 ACCT. NO. NAME 996681 JOHN HAIL ~ C014PANY. I~dC. PERIOD READING CONSUMPTION AMOUNT FROM TO PRESENT PREVIOUS IN 1000 GALLONS WATER 51 .3 S SEWER 1/30/88 12/30/88 REFUSE --1- PREVIOUS BALANCE MAY BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY OR DISCONTINUANCE OF SERVICE TO AVOID LATE PENALTY ON CURRENT CHARGES, PAYMENT MUST BE RECEIVED IN OUR OFFICE BY: U 2 / 1 0 / 89 ~ ~ ~~~ MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: /C~~~_/C~llc~~ TREASURER OF ROANOKE COUNTY ~~ ? :1 <?iG~ P.O. BOX 21009 '~'~~ /`~~ ~ ~ '~ ROANOKE, VA 24018-0533 PREVIOUS BAL. 3 i 806. S S PAYMENT .QU PLEASE RETAIN THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS NOTE: PLEASE SEE BACK OF FORM FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. BALANCE DUE 3.857.90 PLEASE DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT ROANOKE COUNTY UTILITY BILLING BILL DAT@1/U9/89 ACCT. N0.996681 BALANCE DUE 3.857.90 09966815 0000000 03857901 ~ ~ s'~ ~~ JOHN NALI & COMPANY. INC. ~ ~,3~~~,~'j0 4925 STARKEY RD SW - ---- ROANOKE VA 24014 ~ ~ ~ o c~ . G v JENNINGS T. 81RD CARR L. KINDER, JR. DONALO W. HUFFMAN LEA L. I,AUTENSCHLAGER BIRD. KINDER Sc HUFFMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 200 126 CHURCH AVENUE. S. W. ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011 October 30, 1979 W.L. Rossie, Jr. Roanoke County Public Service Authority P.O. Box 1094 Salem, Virginia 24153 Re: Sewer Charges: Fabricated Metals Industries, Inc. Steel Service, Inc. John A. Hall Co., Inc. Dear Mr. Rossie: TELEPHONE AREA CODE 703 982.1757 ~. ,,+ /r-,1 ~.~f.-~f -~ ~ ; `y , !i -, ~ ~, . Our firm represents the three above-named businesses, which the Public Service Authority has billed recently for sewer charges. It is our understanding that the charges are for sewer service through sewer lines recent- ly acquired by the PSA from Sanitary Disposal Corporation. We have discussed this matter with our clients, and we have reviewed the easements granted to Old Heritage Corporation, apparently the predecessor of Sanitary Disposal, by our clients. The easements indicate that the consideration paid by Old Heritage was "ONE DOLLAR ~~ ($1.00) and other benefits to the Grantor ... . Your letter of October 5, 1979, to J.W. Langhammer of Fabricated Metals, indicates that the total considera- tion by Sanitary Disposal (Old Heritage) was a free connec- tion -- not permanent free use of the sewer. You state that .this is based upon a reading of the easement and a discussion with the Grantee of the easement. You do not indicate with whom you spoke at Sanitary Disposal con- cerning this matter. All of our clients have advised that at the time these easements were granted, all three businesses were promised not only free connections, but perpetual use of the sewer lines without charge. So far as our clients are concerned, this agreement has been honored since the installation of the sewer lines -- the first billings for use of the lines having been received only after the PSA purchased the lines. These easements were granted in 1967, with the sewer installation being made not long after. Our clients a W.L. Rossie, Jr. ~, October 29, 1979 Page Two have not been charged for the use of the sewer service since installation ten or more years ago. It appears to us that if there had been no agreement for free use of the sewer, a charge would have been made sometime in the past ten years. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter with you and the county attorney at a mutually convenient time. Very truly yours, . BIRD, KIND R & HUFFMAN Cti. ~ .v Carr L. Kinder, r. CLK/sr ACTION # A-21489-7 ITEM NUMBER ~ "` AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 14, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Review of Utility Deposit Policy COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: On October 13, 1987, the Board of Supervisors amended the water ordinance of the County to establish security deposits as outlined on the attached schedule. These deposits were structured in such a way so that the initial deposit for new service was at a lower rate, and the deposit required to reinstitute a discontinued service was higher. Delinquent water and sewer accounts represented a major loss of County revenues. In order to curtail this revenue loss, a larger deposit was required from customers with a known history of non-payment. This deposit is the County's assurance of payment against future delinquencies of the customer. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The County currently has collected approximately $175,000 in security deposits. Of this amount, $23,375 (or 312 accounts) has been collected in reconnection deposits. Under the current County ordinance, these deposits will be held indefinitely to be applied against the final bill of the customer. If a customer should fail to pay a future utility bill, their service would be discontinued and they would be required to pay an additional re-connection deposit before service would be reinstituted. It has been requested that the Board consider the possibility of refunding these deposits after a period of timely payment by the customer. Since we are currently billing on a quarterly basis, a two-year period of time would be sufficient to establish this history. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: 1. Leave the County water ordinance as it is. The County has lost substantial revenues in the past through non-payment of utility bills. This money gives the ~~ County some security against non-payment. The County needs the additional security of the re-connection deposit in the situations where the customers have a history of non-payment. 2. Direct the County Attorney to amend the County water ordinance to include a refund of the additional re-connection security deposit after a two-year period of timely payments. This refund would be credited against the customers utility bill. Monies collected from utility deposits are not recorded as revenues but held in reseve for future non-payment. Therefore, a refund of these deposits will not have an adverse effect upon County revenues unless these customers, at a later time, are delinquent in paying their utility bills. The refund of the deposit will have an adverse effect upon the County's cash flow. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative Number 1. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, ~ , ~ ~ ~' ~ , ~ ~,~,~,~,/ ~,l Diane D. Hyatt ~ El er C. Hodge Director of Finance County Administrator ---------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson/ No YX s Abs Denied ( ) Lee Garrett to approve Garrett Johnson ~ Received ( ) Alternative #1 x Referred McGraw To Nickens ~ Robers x cc: File Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities C_.J COUI~I'Y OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA SUNY~fARY OF UTII,ITY DEPOSIT PROCEDURE On Octo'oer 13, 1987, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, amended Chapter 20.1, "Water", of the 1971 Roanoke County Code (now Chapter 22 of the 1985 Roanoke County Code), Section E - Deposits, as follows: (1) The following charges shall be imposed as security deposits when request for service is made (i.e., when new service is started): Sewer Only - $50.00 Residential Water, Water & Sewer - $ 25.00 Commercial water, Water & Sewer - $100.00 (2) If any utility customer at any time failed to keep their account current, resulting in discontinuance of service, that customer shall pay an additional deposit according to the following schedule for re-institution of service. This deposit shall be required in addition to that required by subsection (a) and the turn-on charge ($25.00) required by Section 20.1-31. Additional Connection Deposit Sewer Only $ 50.00 5/8" Connection 75.00 3/4" Connection 75.00 1" Connection 100.00 1-1/2" Connection 150.00 2" Connection 200.00 3" Connection 300.00 4" Connection 400.00 6" Connection 500.00 (3) The deposits required by subsections (a) and (b) will be refunded, without interest, within sixty (60) days of discontinuance of service provided that all charges have been paid in full. (4) The effective date of this amendment shall be January 1, 1988. ICJ Service Late Pay Penalty Reconnect Fee Deposit Number of Notices Additional Deposit if Discontinued Payment Timing Second Notice Discontinuance of Service Bad Debt Exposure COMPARISON OF UTILITY SERVICE PROCEDURES County Roanoke 10~/min. $5 None $25.00 $15.00 $ 25 Residential $9 Service Fee $100 Commercial 2 2 Yes $75 and Up 30 Days After Billing 15 Days After Yes Avg Bill + 66$ 15 Days After Billing 1 Week After 15 Days After Second Notice Due Date 1 Week After Second Notice Due Date 11.4 .5$* *City has a Full-Time Staff to Handle All Delinquent Collections on Stopped Accounts Salem $ 9.00 $10.00 $10.00 2 No 15th of Month 23rd of Month The Day After the Second Notice is Left on the Customer's Door 5$ to 10~ ACTION N0. ITEM NUMBER ~ `~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 14, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Yearly Report from Total Action Against Poverty COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Total Action Against Poverty has requested time on the agenda to update the Board of Supervisors on programs and actions they have taken for Roanoke County citizens. Larry Desper and Lynda Magee from TAP will present this information. Attached is a copy of their prepared remarks. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ----------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: Yes No Abs Denied ( ) Garrett Received ( ) Johnson Referred McGraw To• Nickens Robers TAP " Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 702 Shenandoah Avenue, N. W., P. O. Box 2868, Roanoke, Virginia 24001-2868 ~.lJ ~' T0: FtoanoKe County Board of Supervisors From: Alvin Nash ~~ Total Action Against Poverty Date: February 9, 1989 Please find attached a copy of the address we wish to maKe to the County Administrator and the Board of Supervisors on February 14, 189. I,Je have already arranged to be included an the Agenda for that date. ThanK you for Your assistance. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 345=b781, Extension ~?4. MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: h1`( NAME IS LARRY DESPER. I AM MANAGER FOR TAP'S WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM. I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE LYNDA HAGEE WHO IS MANAGER DF THE HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM. I,JE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO YOU AhJD WE WAhJTED TO SPEhJD ABOUT FIVE MINUTES SIMPLY UPDATING YOU ON SOME DF THE THINGS TAP H,=1S BEEN DOING IN THE COUNTY FOR THE PAST YEAR. FIRST, WE WOULD LIKE TO THAPJK `fOU FOR THE SUPPORT THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAS GI'JEN TAP OVER THE PAST YEAR. WE PARTICULARLY WOULD LIKE TO THANK 'YOU FOR GOMIhJG TO OUR ASSISTANCE WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO RAISE MONEY FOR THE TRANSITIONAL LIVING CENTER. I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT A FEW OF THE SERVICES THAT TAP HAS PROVIDED DURING THIS YEAR. FOR INSTANCE, DURIPJG THIS TIME PERIOD, TAP HAD 38 ROAPJOKE COUNTY RESIDENTS ON STAFF. THIS INCLUDES FULL-TIME/PART-TIME APJD SUPIMER STAFF. THE PERSOhJNEL RECORDS INDICATE THAT THESE EMPLOYEES EARNED A TOTAL OF X279,579, THS MONEY TRANSLATES INTO X559,158 IN LOCAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN YOUR COUNTY APJD INCOME TD THE COUNTY GOVERNMEPJT OF X55,918. THE TAP AGENCY HAS ALSO GENERATED PERMANENT JOBS FOR 17 ROAhJOKE COUPJT'Y RESIDENTS WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN TAP CLIEPJTS. EMPLOYMENT TRAINING OPPORTUhJITIES SUCH AS ON-THE-JOB TRAINING, SUMh1ER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS, EX-OFFENDERS, DISLOCATED ~.JGRKERS APJD OTHER t~'JEMPLOYED RESIDENTS WERE PROVIDED. ALCOHOL COUNSELING WAS PROVIDED TO 45 RESIDENTS TO HELP REDUCE ALCOHOL RELATED OFFENSES, LOSS OF JOBS AND DRIVERS LICENSES WHILE PROVIDING EMPLOYMENT FOR MANY OF THOSE OUT OF WORK. EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FOR UTILITY BILLS AhJD FOOD WAS SECURED BY TAP FOR INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES IN CRISIS. HOUSING COUNSELING RESULTED IN HELPING 20 FAMILIES IN REPJTAL DELINQUENG'Y, 3 FAMILIES WITH EMERGENCYY SHELTER AND 1? WITH RENT MONEY AVOIDIhJG FORGED RELOCATIOhJ. WEATHERIZATION I,JAS PERFORMED ON 52 HOMES IN ROANOKE COUNTY AT A COST OF $83,200 THUS PROVIDING FUEL SAVINGS, AVOIDANCE OF EMERGENCY FUEL REQUESTS, AND GREATLY MINIMIZING CGLD RELATED ILLNESSES ESPECIALL`f AMONGST THE ELDERLY. EMERGENCY HOUSING REPAIRS SUCH AS IMMEDIATE PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, ROOFING, OR OTHER SUCH NEEDS WERE PROVIDED TO HOMEOWNERS. TAP ACTED AS THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR PROVIDING HOUSING REHABILITATION ON SEVERAL OF THE HOMES IN THE HOLLINS-ROANOKE COUNTY/BOTETOURT PROJECT. A COPY OF TAP'S ANNUAL REPORT WAS PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED TO YOU AND A DOPY OF OUR ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT WILL BE MAILED TO `fOU. 6JE WILL BE GLAD TO TRY AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIDNS 'YOU MAY HAVE APdD AGAIN THANK YOU FOR 'YOUR SUPPORT AND TIME. 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: February 14, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Budget Work Sessions COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The 1989-90 budget process has been underway for several months. At present, the Department of Management and Budget is reviewing departmental budgets for accuracy and completeness in preparation for review by the County Administrator. Suggested dates and times of future work sessions and public hearings are briefly outlined below: March 14, 1989 - 2:00 p.m. Budget work session for departments to present their budget requests funded and unfunded. March 14, 1989 - 6:30 p.m. Budget work session between the County Board of Supervisors and the Volunteer Fire and Rescue Captains Boards. March 21, 1989 - 3:00 p.m. Joint work session with Board of Supervisors and the School Board. March 28 1989 - Time To Be Announced General budget work session. Topic to be determined at a later date. March 28, 1989 - 7:00 p.m. Public hearing to allow citizen discussion on the overall budget. Public hearing to allow citizen discussion on real estate, personal property, and machinery and tools tax rates. April 11, 1989 - Time To Be Announced °-~ General budget work session. Topic to be determined at a later date. See attached budget calendar for further information concerning the budget process. n nn~nnn~nwin r m r nni . Staff recommends approval of the above suggested dates. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, Reta R. Busher, Director Elmer C. Hod Management and Budget County Administrator ------------------------------------------------------------------ ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Garrett Received ( ) Johnson Referred McGraw To Nickens Robers ~V~1 COUNTY OF ROANOKE PROPOSID B[JDGE-i' CALIIQDAR FY 1989-90 Date Activity October 3, 1988 - October 13, 1988 Preparation by Budget Department of preliminary revenue estimates. December 1, 1988 - December 9, 1988 Preparation by Budget Department of budget packets for distribution to all departments. December 12, 1988 Kick-off budget meeting with all departments for review of budget procedures, distribution of budget packets, and to discuss 3-year expenditure projections. (Mention summaries and workload measurements/performance indicators, fee study.) December 12, 1988 - December 31, 1988 Finalization of revenue estimates by Department of Management and Budget. Planning for User Fee Study Evaluation. (Need to coordinate with all Departments.) January 9, 1989 General review of programs, needs, and priorities with all Department Heads and Constitutional Officers. January, 1989 Board of Supervisors meet to establish FY 1989-90 budget priorities. January 9, 1989 - January 20, 1989 Preparation by the Budget Department of departmental targets. January 23, 1989 Distribution of targets to all department heads and Constitutional Officers. January 24, 1989 Public hearing to allow citizen discussion on the overall budget. February 6, 1989 Deadline for submission of departmental budgets, workload measurements, and expenditure projections. February 6, 1989 - February 17, 1989 Budget staff to review departmental budgets for accuracy and completeness. February 14, 1989 Budget Work Session to present FY 1989-90 revenue estimates and to disclose Board priorities. `~. Date Activity February 20, 1989 - March 3, 1989 Departmental budgets to be reviewed with Department Heads, Assistant County Administrators, Constitutional Officers, and the County Administrator. March 10, 1989 Final version of departmental budgets submitted to the Department of Management and Budget (including unfunded requests.) March 14, 1989 Budget Work Session with Board of Supervisors. Departments present their budget requests funded and unfunded. March 16, 1989 School Superintendent to deliver School budget to County Administrator. March 21, 1989 Joint Budget Work Session with Board of Supervisors and School Board. County Administrator to present balanced County budget and Superintendent of Schools will present the School budget. March 28, 1989 Budget Work Session. March 28, 1989 Public hearing to allow citizen discussion on real estate, personal property, machinery and tools tax rates. March 28, 1989 Public hearing to allow citizen discussion on the overall budget. April 11, 1989 Adoption of 1989-90 real estate, personal property, machinery and tools tax rates. April 11, 1989 Budget Work Session. April 25, 1989 Adoption of budget. First reading of Budget Appropriation Ordinance. May 9, 1989 Second reading of Budget Appropriation Ordinance. Adoption of Budget Appropriation Ordinance. May 19, 1989 Adopted budget printed and distributed to Department Heads. May 22, 1989 - July 14, 1989 Preparation of budget book for printing. July 17, 1989 - July 28, 1989 Budget book sent to printers. August 7, 1989 Budget book submitted to Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). ~. a. Schools must submit their budget by April 1, 1989. The governing body may accept by May 1, 1989, or within 30 days after receiving estimate of funds . b. A notice announcing the public hearing on a tax rate must be published seven and fourteen days prior to the date of the hearing. c. A notice announcing the public hearing for the budget must be published at least ten days prior to the hearing. d. A notice announcing the public hearing for the change in real estate assessments msut be published at least seven days prior to the hearing. e. A notice of availability of the approved budget must be published no more than 30 days after the budget is approved by the Board of Supervisors. ITEM NUMBER ~- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 14, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Request for a Work Session by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND• The Parks and Recreation Advisosry Commisssion has requested a work session with the Board of Supervisors at its February 28 meeting to discuss several topics recently studied by the Commission. The topics to be discussed include: Cost-efficiency strategies for the Department of Parks and Recreation. Review of Recommended properties for sale. Status and use of the old William Byrd Intermediate School. Status of the 1985 Bond Referendum projects. The reservoir Y Camp. Status of the Ogden Senior Citizens Center. Proposed ordinance governing the operation of park facilities. The results of the Public Assessment Survey A package of materials will be forwarded to each supervisor prior to the meeting for review. Members of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission and staff will be available for question and comment on these or any other issues of interest to the Board of Supervisors. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that a work session between the Board of Supervisors and the Parks and Recreation Commission be authorized for the February 28, 1989 meeting. s.. '~..- t Respectfully submitted, Approved by, ,_ !John M. Chambli~s, Jr Elmer C. Hodge` Assistant Administrator County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( } Received ( ) Referred To Motion by: ACTION Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers VOTE No Yes Abs JMC/cw f--l-/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1989 ORDINANCE 21489-9 AMENDING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 17, SUBDIVISIONS, AND CHAPTER 21, ZONING, OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADOPTION OF STREET AND OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND TO AUTHORIZE THE ADOPTION BY RESOLUTION OF A "DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MANUAL" AND TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE DATE THEREFOR WHEREAS, the adoption of this ordinance is authorized by Chapter 11 of Title 15.1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and WHEREAS, notice of the County's intention to adopt amendments to its Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances was duly advertised in the Roanoke Times and World News on January 10, 1989, and January 17, 1989; and WHEREAS, the first reading and public hearing on this ordinance was held on January 24, 1989, and the second reading on this ordinance was held on February 14, 1989. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Chapter 17, Subdivisions, of the Roanoke County Code be, and it hereby is, amended and reenacted by amend- ing Sections 17-3 and 17-19 to read and provide as follows: Sec 17-3 Design requirements generally. (A) The owner or the proprietor of a subdivision shall observe and comply with the following general requirements and principles of land subdivision in preparing the preliminary and final subdivision plats: (22) - All streets shall conform to the duly adopted standards relating the street design and construction, established in the Design and Construction Standards Manual. Sec. 17-19. Streets and roads generally. The following improvements shall be required in subdivisions lying in whole or in part within the County which include or involve any public street or any right-of-way connecting two public streets or any easements for the foregoing: {g}- -Streets- shall- be- grae7eel- te- tl~e- wldtl~- speelflee7 by-tie-i~lrglnla-Bepartme~t-a€-~ranspertatlen; -a-ml~lmr~m-wldtl~-ef tl~lrty- {3A}- feet;- aid- gradeel- te- eress- seetlens- anel- preflle appre~ed-by-tl~e-agent- ----------{E}--Base-fer-pavement-shall-lie-at-least-twenty-{~A} feet- ln- wleltl~- anel- flame- {5}- l~eHes- }r~- depth- ac~e1- be- a€- stene; gravel- er- et~ier- satlsfaetery- staHlll~ing- xtaterlal- xteeting ~lrglnla-Bepart~tent-ef-Trar~spertatle~: ----------{B}--~avex~er~t-wldtk-s~iall-be-a-minlmt~m-e€-twenty-{~8} feet- with- a- l~ltur~l~eus- elleel- surfaee- er- lts- ee~t~lvaler~t-- - All- utllltles- shall,-- w~iere- pesslble; - be- }n- alleys- er- ln- easements previeleel- fer- that- psrpese- at- tie- rear- ef- tl~e- lets- in- tl~e se~bd}vlslens- 2 (G) All streets shall conform to the duly adopted standards relatin to the street desi n and construction, established in the Desi n and Construction Standards Manual. Sec. 17-24. Adoption, effect, contents, review and amendment of Design and Construction Standards Manual. (A) In order to effectuate the provisions of this chapter, the Board of Supervisors shall, by resolution, adopt a manual of regulations and policies entitled "Desi n and Construction Standards Manual" which shall have the force of law. This manual shall include, inter alia, standards for the implementation of the various sections of this chapter and may include other policies, criteria, standards and re ulations to implement the provisions of the subdivision ordinance and zonina ordinance. (B) Nothing contained herein shall prevent the Board from considering and adopting amendments to such manual at anv time it is deemed appropriate. 2. Chapter 21, Zoning, of the Roanoke County Code be, and hereby is, amended and reenacted by amending Section 21-91 to read and provide as follows: Sec. 21-91. Off-Street Parking and Loadin . A. There shall be provided at the time of erection of any main building, or at the time any main building is enlarged, minimum off-street parking spaee- with- adeguate- provisions-fer entranee- and- emit- by- standard-sired- autemeb}ies;- as- feiiews= 3 and off-street loading requirements shall conform to the duly adopted standards established in the Design and Construction Stan- dards Manual. fa}- - In-all- resldentlal- dlst~lets- tl~e~e- shall- be- pre- ~lded- see- ae~tet~eblle- pa~}~ing- space- ~e~- eael~- slr~gle-~a~tllp- r~nlt and- eael~- d~aelllr~g- r~nlt- ln- a- twe-~amlly- d~aelling-- - ~l~e-regalree7 pa~l~ing- s~iall- be-p~e~leleel- ems- tl~e-same- let- as-the- dwelling- alt ~e~- all- r~r~ltl-ta~tllp- dwelllr~gs;- lr~clr~dlr~g- high-else- apa~tr~er~ts and-l~lgl~-else-cendex~lnlar~s; -tke~e-s~iall-lie-gre~lded-ene-and-ene- ti~l~d-parklc~g-spaces-tee-eael~-d~aelll~g-t~~lt- -- - - - - - - - - Ber-all- te~an~ier~ses- lt~- an- R-~ ; - R-3 ; -and- R-5- Blstrlet thee- shall- be- pre~lded- a- minlmt~m- e~- ewe- aid- ene-half- pa~king spaees- €er- eaeh- dwelling- r~r~lt-- - ~l~e- ree~r~lred- pa~}~lr~g- shall- be p~e~lded-as-set-fe~th-ln-tl~e-~espectl~e-ssl~sectle~s-Mere}t~- B. In all residential districts, all boats, boat trailers, camping trailers, utility trailers, camping cars, vacation trailers, recreation vehicles, etc., shall be parked behind the front line of the main building, unless space is provided in a completely enclosed garage or carport. No vehicle exceeding seventy-five hundred pounds gross weight shall be parked overnight in any residential district. C. In all districts, any inoperative motor vehicle, as defined in Chapter 12, Section 12-122 of the Roanoke County Code, must be kept within a fully enclosed building or structure or be kept completely screened or shielded from public view in accordance with Chapter 12. 4 {el}- - ~et~~~s~- ~ie~es- a~~- ~e~e~s- sl~a~~- ~~e~*~e~e- ems- ~k~e ~e~;-~a~k~r~~-s~aee-~e~-ewe-aa~eme~~~e-€e~-eae~-se~a~a~e~p-~e~~eel aeeer~rt~eda~~er~- -- - - - - - - - - {e}- - ~'e~- e~ir~~el~; - l~~~l~- sel~ee~ ; - ee}}ege- aid- s~~~e~s~~~ ar~el~~e~~t~ms ; - aid- ~e~- ~~iea~e~s ; - ~e~e~a~- ar~el~~e~~a~s ; - s~ad~ams- a~e1 e~l~e~-s~~~~a~-p~aees-e~-assem~~~--a~-~eas~-ewe-ga~}~~~g-spaee-~e~ e~e~~-~~~e-~~~eel-sews-p~e~~ded-~~-~l~e-~t~~~~~~~- ----------{~}--ge~-~ies~~~a~s-ar~el-~t~~s~r~g-l~e~nes; -a~-~eas~-ewe-~a~k- ~~~- s~aee- ~e~- eael~- ~~ae- l~eds1- ea~ae~~~; - ~~e~~d~~~- ~n~a~~s'-- e~}l~s a~el-el~}~el~e~1s-~eds- ----------{g}--~e~-med~ea~-asel-ele~~a~-e~~~~es;-a~-~eas~-~e~-~a~l~- ~~g- spaees-- - ~~i~ee- add~~~e~a~-~a~k~ng- s~aees- sl~a~~- fie- ~r~~r~~sl~ee7 ~e~- eael~- dee~e~- e~- den~~s~- l~a~a~~g- e~~~ees- ~~- sael~- e~~~~e- ~~ e~eess-a€-~l~~ee-~ee~e~s-e~-der~~~s~s: ----------{~}--~e~-~ea~~s~-eer~~~s;-r~e~e~s;-apa~~men~s-a~e7-a~a~~- mend-r~e~e}s;-a~-~eas~-ewe-~a~k~~~-s~aee-~e~-eae~-~~el~~~dr~a~-s~ee~- ~~~- e~- ~~~a~n~- t~~~~-- - ~s~- l~e~e~s- aid- a~a~~~+e~~- l~e~e~s; - a~- }easy erne-pay}~~~g-s~aee-~e~-eael~-ewe-s~ee~}erg-~se~s; -ap-~e-a~~-~~e~r~~- ~~~- ~l~e- fir=s~- ~~aer3~p- s~eeg~r~~- r?eems; - arid- er3e- ~a~l~~r~g- s~aee- €er? eael~-~l~r=ee-s~eep~r3g-r=sexes-e~e~-~~aer3~~- ----------{~}--her=-xjer=~r~a~~es-aigd-}}gr~er=-s~e~es ; -a~-}easy-~1~~~~~ ~a~}~~r3~-sgaees- ----------{~}--far=-r=e~a~~-s~e~es-se~~~rig-d~r=ee~~~-~e-~~ie-pr~b~~e; erne- ~a~l~~r~~- spaee- ~e~- eael~- ~~ae- l~r~r3d~ed- s~r~a~e- €ee~- e~- ~e~a~~ ~~ee~-spaee-~~-~l~e-btt~~d~ri~- ----------{~}--far=}~}~~-s~aee-as-~egrr~~ed-~n-~~ie-~e~ege~r~~-sk~a}} be-ea-~l~e-sane-}e~-~a~~~-~~ie-xia~r3-~~~~d~r~g---~n-~~ie-ease-e~-ba~~d- 5 }~~s- a€l~e~- €l~a~- d~ae}}}cgs ; - sgaee- t~a~- be- }eea~ed- ~a}~~}~- s}~- l~e~- e7~ed-€ee€ ----------{.}}--~~e~~-~a~ee~-e€-~aed-l~e~ea€~e~-eseel-as-a-pr~b~€e ~a~}~}~~-area-s~ia}}-lie-say€aeee7-~a}€~i-e~ss~ed-~ee}~; -g~a~e}; -as~l~a}~ e~- eeae~e€e : - - ~€- sl~a}}- l~a~e- app~e~~€a~e- ~r~~~e~- gr~a~ds- wl~e~e r~eeelee7- as- de€e~r~}wed- ~~- ~l~e- t~e1r~}~}s€~a~e~-- - ~~p- }}g~i€s- aseel- €e .}}}~~}~a~e- €~e-~a~k}~~- areas- spa}}- lie- se- a~~a~~ed- as- €e- ~e€}ee€ €l~e~- }}~1~~- away- €~ex~- adze€~}~~- p~ex~€ses- €c~- app- yes}deny€a}- d}s- ~~}e€- -- - - - - - - - - f xt}- - ~n~- e€l~e~- ee~x~e~e€a}- ~~€}d}r~~- ne€- }}shed- abe~e l~e~ea€€e~- epee€ed ; - ee~~*e~€ed ; - e~- s€~r~e€t~~a}}p- a}~e~ed- sl~a}}-~~e- ~}de-ene-park}n~-s~aee-€e~-eael~-€we-~r~nel~eel-se~r~a~e-€ee~-a€-bras}- Hess- €}ee~- s~aee- }a- ~~ie- ~a}}e]}~~-- - ~~p- es€al~~}sl~r~e~~- l~e~ea€~e~ epee€ed- ~l~a~- se~~es- r~ea}s ; - }r~ne~es- e~- d~}n3~s- €e-~a€~ens ; - e}~~ie~ }~-€die€~-ears-e~-}~-~l~e-~~}}d}ng; -sl~a}}-p~e~€de-ene-~a~l~}erg-spaee €e~- eael~- ewe- l~and~ed- se~e~a~e- €ee~- a€- has}mess- €}ee~- sgaee- }~- ~l~e ~~€}d}n~; - ~~e~}ded; - ~l~a~- ~l~e~e- s~ia}}- fie- a~- }easy- ene- pa~l~}a~ spaee-€e~-eae~-se~~}ng-ran}€---~~-yes€aa~an~s-a-se~~}ng-tin}~-sl~a}} fie- €we- s€ee}s;- ene- fee€l~- e~- ewe- €ab}e:- - ~e~- danee- lea}}s- ar~d ~ee~ea€}ena}-areas; -ene-pay}}a~-spaee-€e~-eae~i-ewe-l~t~n~~eel-sq~a~e €eel-s€-€}ee~-area---'~~ae-e~-x~e~e-es~ab}€9k~e~€s-xta~-~~e~}e1e-aeees- sa~~-park}n~-spaee-en-a-s}a~}e-~a~ee}-e€-~a~d- -- - - - - - - - - {~}- - Re~tt}red- pa~}~~r~~- s~aees- sl~a€~- He- tea}~~a~aed- }n eenaee~}ems-w}€~-€lie-~~}}d}ngs-wl~}e~-€~e~-aye-€e-se~~e-aid-}n-~~e manner- }nd}ea€ed-1~~-€~e-x~}~}r~r~x~- ~ee~~}~e~e~€s- e€-e€€-s~~ee€-pa~k- }n~-aad-spaee-~eg~}a€}ens---Se~bs~}~r~~~en-e€-eq~~~a~e~~-s~aees-gin 6 eenferm~ty-w~~h-the-e€f-street-pa~kiag-regula~~ens-map-be-a~lecaed by-a-variac~ee-granted-by-the-Beard-ef-~en~ng-Appeal9- ----------f e}--Spaee-shall-He-prev~eleel-€er-the-leading-and-unlead- ing-ef-trueks-and-eemmereial-vehieles-eer~~ng-malti-€amilp;-eem- mereial-aad-~adsstr}al-ba}ldiags: 3. That these amendments, additions, and reenactments shall be in full force and effect from and after February 15, 1989, and that this effective date for the Design and Construction Standards Manual shall apply to development plans which have not been accepted for review by the Department of Development and Inspections prior to February 1, 1989; provided said plans in the review process receive final approval by the County within sixty (60) days of February 15, 1989. 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 A COPY TESTE: ~~~~ Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Inspections & Development Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering Tim Gubala, Director, Economic Development John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney Magistrate Sheriff's Department 7 Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, S.W. Rke, 24016 Main Library Roanoke County Code Book Roanoke County J&D Court, Intake Counsellor 8 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1989 RESOLUTION 21489-8 ADOPTING A MANUAL OF REGULATIONS AND POLICIES ENTITLED "DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL" TO ASSIST THE PUBLIC IN THE CLARIFICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF RULES, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES APPLICABLE TO LAND DEVELOPMENT IN ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, the Department of Development is in the pro- cess of preparing a manual to assist the public, and especially the development community, for clarification of rules, regula- tions, and policies applicable to land development in Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, a Design and Construction Standards Committee composed of area engineers, surveyors, members of the Roanoke Valley Homebuilders Association, and County staff was assembled to develop the content of the manual and the design standards; and WHEREAS, it was the consensus of the committee to address the areas of water, sewer, street and parking, and drain- age in the manual. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervi- sors of Roanoke County adopt a manual of regulations and policies entitled "Design and Construction Standards Manual" to assist the public in the clarification and interpretation of rules, regula- tions, and policies applicable to land development in Roanoke County and, in particular, the areas of water, sewer, street and parking, and drainage which shall have the force of. law. FURTHER, the water design standards having previously been completed and adopted, and the second component of said man- ual, the "Street and Parking Design Standards and Specifications" is hereby adopted. AND FURTHER, this manual shall be in full force and effect from and after February 15, 1989, and that this effective date shall apply to development plans which have not been accepted for review by the Department of Development and Inspec- tions prior to February 1, 1989; provided said plans in the re- view process receive final approval by the County within sixty (60) days of February 15, 1989. Nothing contained herein shall prevent the Board from considering and adopting amendments to such manual at any time it is deemed appropriate. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator Tim Gubala, Director, Economic Development Paul Mahoney, County Attorney 2 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER /7 -l AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 14, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Amendment to the Roanoke County's Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances to adopt the street and parking portion of the Roanoke County Design and Construction Standards Manual. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors assigned the Department of Development with the task to develop a manual to assist the public, and especially the development community, for clarification of rules, regulations and policies which apply to land development in Roanoke County. A committee composed of area engineers, surveyors, members of the Roanoke Valley Homebuilders, and county staff was assembled to develop the content of the manual and the design standards. It was the consensus of the committee to address the following major components: water, sewer, street and parking, and drainage. As of this date, the only component of the manual which has been completed and adopted is the water design standards. The second component of the manual, which is being presented for your approval, is entitled "Street and Parking Design Standards and Specifications." The Design and Construction Standards Committee in developing these standards tried to address these areas which needed to be further regulated such as pavement design, curb and gutter, street connections, parking and loading requirements. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of Roanoke County held on the 3rd of January, 1989, the Planning Commission after careful consideration of the proposed amendments to the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and, after consideration of the Street and Parking Design and Specifications, moved that H-f the following changes to the Parking Standards should be recommended: 1. Section 201.01 B. - To include "and that such spaces do not require pedestrian traffic to cross a minor arterial or greater highway." 2. Section 201.13 (4) C. - To be revised from one space per 3 seats to "one space per 4 seats." Being no further changes, the Roanoke County Planning Commission recommended the approval of the following amendments to the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and the adoption of the Street and Parking Standards and Specifications. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE: a. Section 17-3 (A> 22 - All streets shall conform to the duly adopted standards relating to the street design and construction, established in the Design and Construction Standard Manual. b. Section 17-19 - Repeal (B)(C) and (D) and adopt item (G) which will read, "All streets shall conform to the duly adopted standards relating to the street design and construction, established in the Design and Construction Standards Manual. c. Section 17-24 - Adoption, effect, contents, review and amendment of Design and Construction Standard Manual. - (a) - In order to achieve the provisions of this chapter, the Board of Supervisors shall, by resolution, adopt a manual of regulations and policies, entitled "Design and Construction Standards Manual" which shall have the force of law. This manual shall include, inter alia, standards for the implementation of the various sections of this chapter, and may include other policies, criteria, standards and regulations to implement the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. (b) - Nothing contained herein shall prevent the Board from considering and adopting amendments to such manual at any time it is deemed appropriate. ZONING ORDINANCE a. Repeal Section 21-91 (A),(a),(d),(e),(f>,(g),(h),(i) (j),(k),(1),(m),(n),and (o) and adopt the following: Section 21-91 (a) - Generally. There shall be provided at the time of erection of any main buildings, or at the time any main building is enlarged, mimimum off-street parking and off -street ~' .~. _.._ loading requirements shall conform to the duly adopted standards established in the Design and Construction Standards Manual. Please note that the Private Street Standards are not a part of the proposed (Street and Parking Design and Specifications) but will be presented at a later date. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the proposed amendments to the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and the adoption of the Street and Parking Standards and Specifications as amended by the Roanoke County Planning Commission be approved. The effective date of the standards will apply to development plans which have not been accepted for review by the Department of Development and Inspections prior to February 1, 1989; provided said plans, in the review process, receive final approval, by the County, within sixty days of the effective date of these standards. The first reading of the Ordinance was held on January 24, 1989; staff recommends approval of Ordinance after second reading to be held on February 14, 1989. TTED: APPROVED: r Development Review/Ins Director ,~`~f E er C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: VOTE NO YES ABS Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT `1'HE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINIS`fRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1989 RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MANUAL OF REGULA- TIONS AND POLICIES ENTITLED DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL" TO ASSIST THE PUBLIC IN THE CLARIFICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF RULES, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES APPLI- CABLE TO LAND DEVELOPMENT IN ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, the Department of Development is in the pro- cess of preparing a manual to assist the public, and especially the development community, for clarification of rules, regula- tions, and policies applicable to land development in Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, a Design and Construction Standards Committee composed of area engineers, surveyors, members of the Roanoke Valley Homebuilders Association, and County staff was assembled to develop the content of the manual and the design standards; and WHEREAS, it was the consensus of the committee to address the areas of water, sewer, street and parking, and drain- age in the manual. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervi- sors of Roanoke County adopt a manual of regulations and policies entitled "Design and Construction Standards Manual" to assist the public in the clarification and interpretation of rules, regula- tions, and policies applicable to land development in Roanoke County and, in particular, the areas of water, sewer, street and parking, and drainage which shall have the force of law. .~. ~~~f FURTHER, the water design standards having previously been completed and adopted, and the second component of said man- ual, the "Street and Parking Design Standards and Specifications" is hereby adopted. AND FURTHER, this manual shall be in full force and effect from and after February 15, 1989, and that this effective date shall apply to development plans which have not been accepted for review by the Department of Development and Inspec- tions prior to February 1, 1989; provided said plans in the re- view process receive final approval by the County within sixty (60) days of February 15, 1989. Nothing contained herein shall prevent the Board from considering and adopting amendments to such manual at any time it is deemed appropriate. ~/-i AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COtTNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKF COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FET3RUARY 14, 1989 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 17, SUT3DIVISIODIS, AND CHAPTER 21, ZONING, OF THE ROANOKF COTJNTY CODE TO PROVIDE FOR. THE ADOPTION OF STREET ARID OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS .AND TO AUTHORIZE THE ADOPTION BY RESOLUTION OF A "DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MANUAL" AND TO PROVIDE AN EFFTi;CTIVE DATE THEREFOR. WHEREAS, the adoption of this ordinance is authorized by Chapter 11 of Title 15.1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and WHEREAS, notice of the County's intention to adopt amendments to its Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances was duly advertised in the Roanoke Times and World News on January 10, 1989, and January 17, 1989; and WHEREAS, the first reading and public hearing on this ordinance was held on January 24, 1989, and the second reading on this ordinance was held on February 14, 19A9. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Chapter 17, Subdivisions, of the Roanoke County Code be, and it hereby is, amended and reenacted by amend- ing Sections 17-3 and 17-19 to read and provide as follows: Sec 17-3 Design requirements generally. (A) The owner or the proprietor of a subdivision shall observe and comply with the following general requirements and principles of land subdivision in preparing the preliminary and final subdivision plats: 1 ~~~ (22) - A71 streets shall conform to the duly adopted standards relat.ina the street design and construction, established in the Design and Construction Standards Manual. Sec. 17-19. Streets and roads generally. The following improvements shall be required in subdivisions lying in who]_e or in part within the County which include or in~~ol.ve any public street or any right-of-way connecting two public streets or any easements for the foregoing: FB} Sheets shad} be e~~aeled to tl~e va~e]i-1~ sgee~€~eel b~ the 8~~e~~s~a Beryaetxtest et ~~aasae~tat~esi a x~~rt~~sx~ va~elth et t~t~et~ ~-3A} feet; art el e~eaeleel to e~ess seet~ens asc~ }~eet~}e app~e~ed by t~?e ae~eat- fE} Base tee pa~e~teat sha}} k~e at feast tweat~t f~{}} feet ~a va~dtl~ anel t~*ae f~} ~aehes ~a eleptl~ aael 3~e et ster~e; a~a*ae~ e~ ether sat~staetee~ stabs}~g~a~ ~nate~~a~ ~teet~ae~ ~~~e~~a~a Bepa~t~test et ~~aaspe~tat~es- fB} Pa~ex~eat w~elth ska}} be a m~a~~te~t et twe~tt~ fig} feet w~t~t a b~ttt~~t~et~s ei}eel sr~~taee e~ its ee~tt~~a~er~t- ~}} t~t~l•~t~es ska~~; w}~e~e pess~l~}e; lie ~a a}~e~s ee ~s ease~+er~ts p~e~~eleel tee that pt~~pese at the ~ea~ et tie bets ~t~ tl~e sttbel~*a~s~eas- (G) All streets shall conform to the duly adopted standards relating to the street design and construction, 2 N- I established in the Design and Construction Standards Manual. Sec 17-24. Adoption, effect,. contents, review and amendment of Design and Construction Standards Manual. (A) In order to effectuate the provisions of this chapter, the Board of Su ervisors shall, by resolution, adopt a manual of regulations and policies entitled "Design and Construction Standards Manual" which shall have the force of. law. This manual shall include, inter alia, standards for the implementation of the various sections of this chapter and. may include other olicies, criteria, standards and regulations to implement the rovisions of the subdivision ordinance and zoning ordinance. (B) Nothing contained herein shall prevent the Board. from considering and ad.optina amendments to such manual at any time it is deemed appropriate. 2. Chapter 21, Zoning, of the Roanoke County Code be, and hereby is, amended. and reenacted by amending Section 21-91 to read and provide as follows: Sec. ?_1-91. Off-Street Parking and Loading. A. There shall be provided at the time of erection of any main building, or at the time any main building is enlarged, minimum off-street parking spaee w€€h ae~egt~e€e fl~e*a~s€e~s €e~ e~t~enee ar~d e~€t b~ stane7e~e~-a~$ee~ at~~e~neb€les; as €el~ews- and off-street loading requirements shall conform to the duly adopted. standards established. in the Design and Construction Stan- dards Manual. 3 ~~1 fa} is all ~esle~eatlal dlst~lets these shall he »~e- *aleled ese at~te~eblle pa~l~l~t~ spaee €e~ eaeh slsgle-taxtll~ halt aae7 eaeh elwelling t~~tlt la a tae-ta~llp elwelling- the ~ee~ttl~ed pa~l~lag shall lie p~et~leleel es the same let as the e~welllag t~alt- Rey all ~+sltl-€a~tlly e7welllaas; lnelr~e7lsg high-else apa~txter~ts aae~ hle~h-else eeae~extlalt~ats; these shall lie g~et~lelee~ eae aae7 eae- thl~el ea~l~lae~ s~aees ~e~ eaeh elwelllae~ t~rtlt- Rey all tewahettses la as R-~; R-3; aae~ R-5 Rlst~let these shall ire ~S~e*ale7ee~ a ~lalx~e~ e€ ese asd eae-halt pa~i~lse~ spaees tee eaeh e~Welllae~ halt.- the ~eQtzl~eel rya~3~lae~ shall lie p~e~aleleel as set €e~th In the ~esg~eetl~e sabseetleas he~ela- F3. In all residential districts, all boats, boat trailers, camping trailers, utility tr_ai.lers, camping cars, vacation trailers, recreation vehicles, etc., shall be parked. behind the front line of the main building, unless space is provided in a completely enclosed garage or carport. No vehicle exceeding seventy-five hundred pounds gross weight shall be parked overnight in any residential district. C. In all. districts, any inoperative motor vvehicle, as defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.-12~ of_ the Roanoke County Code, must be kept within a fully enclosed building or structure or be kept completely screened or shielded. from public view in accordance with Chapter 12. fd} ~et~~lst hextes aae7 xtetels shall »~e~le~e etz the let; pa~l~lr~~ sgaee €e~ eae at~tex~eblle tee eaeh sega~atelq ~eateel aeeex~tee~atlea- 4 6 ~~~ fe} ~e~ e~t~~ek; 3~~e}~ se~ee~; ee~~ee~e ane7 ttn~~e~s~~p at~~~te~~t~tns; ane~ ~e~ tl~ea~ees; e~ene~a} at~e~~~e~~t~~ts; s~ae}~ttxts ane~ e~~e~ s~~n~~a~ p}sees e€ asset~b}~; a~ }easy ene ~a~~~ng s»aee ~e~ e~e~~ ~~~e ~~~ee~ seals ryee~~e~e~ ~n ~l~e ~tz~~~~n~- f~} ~e~ ~es~~~a}s ane~ nt~~s~n~ l~e~tes; a~ ~eas~ ese ga~3~- Ong s~aee €e~ eae~ twe ~ee~sl ea~ae~~~; ~ne~tze~~ne~ ~n~antsl e~~bs and el~~~e~~enls bee~s- ~~} ~e~ x~ee~~ea} and e7en~a~ e~}noes; a~ }easy den ~a~~- ~n~ s~aees- ~~~ee a~e~~~~ena} rya~~~ne~ s~aees sl~a}~ be ~t~~n~s~ee~ ~e~ eae~ e~ee~e~ e~ elen~~st ka~~ne~ e~€~ees ~n st~el~ e~~n~e ~n e~eess of ~~~ee c~ee~e~s e~ e7en~~s~s- f}~} fee ~et~~~s~ eet~~ts; me~e~s; a~a~tmen~s ane~ a}~a~~- ~nen~ ate~e~s; a~ }easy ese pay#~ne~ s~aee €ee eae~ ~ne~~~~elrza} s}ee}~- ~sg e~ }~*a~n~ tza~~- ~~+~ ~e~e}s ane~ a}~a~t~+en~ ~e~e}s; a~ ~eas~ ene ~a~3~~ne} s~aee €e~ eael~ ewe s}eery~ne~ ~eexts; t~~ to ane~ ~ne~se~- ~n~ tl~e ~~~s~ ~wen~p s}ee~~ne~ ~eex~s; ane~ ese ryas#~ne~ sgaee fey eae~ ~~~ee s}ee~~ne ~ee~-s e~e~ ~went~- F~} ~e~ xten~tta~~es ane~ ~~e{tte~ s~eees; a~ ~eas~ t~~~~p }~a~3~~ne~ s~aees- f~} ~e~ ~e~a~} ste~es se}}ene} e7~~ee~~~ ~e ~~e }~t~b~~e; ene }~a~~~ne~ s~aee ~e~ eae~ ewe ~t~ne~~ee~ sQrxa~e ~ee~ e€ ~e~a~~ ~~ee~ spaee ~n ~i~e kr~~}e~~net- f~} ~a~~}net s~aee as ~eQtt~~ee~ ~n t#~e €e~eee~nef spa}} be en eke same }e~ ~v~~~ ~~e ~ta~n btt~}e7~ng- ~n tie ease of btt~}e~- ~n~s e~~e~ ~~an e~we~~~ne~s; sflaee mad ~e ~eea~ee~ ~~~~~n s~~ I~txn- e~~ee~ ~ee~- 5 - }-1- ~}} ~~re~p }~a~e.e} e€ }ase~ ~ze~ea€te~ ese as a ~t~b}€e ~a~~}sg area sk~a}} be st~~€aeee~ ~v€tb e~t~sl~ee~ ~ee3~; g~a~e}= as~ka}t e~ eese~ete- ~t s#~a}} l~a~e ap~~e»~}ate btt~+}~e~ e#tza~e7s wbe~e Reee~ee~ as e~ete~m€see~ by the Ae~tet€s}st~ate~- Asp }€e~i~ts t~see) to €}}x~~}sate the pa~~}s~ areas sba}} be Qe ae~ase~eel as to ~e€}eat tl~e }}gbt swap €~e~+ ae~~e€s€se} gem€ses €s ar~p yes€e~er~t}a} ~€s- to€et- f~} A~t~* etbe~ eentme~e€a} btu€}d€r~~ eet }€stee7 abe~e l~e~ea€te~ e~eetee~= eer~~e~tee~; e~ st~t~ett~~a}}p a}te~ee~ sl~a}} }~~e- ~}e7e erte ~a~3~€s~ s~aee €e~ eaeb tae bt~r~eleed se~tta~e €eet e€ bc~s€- aess €}ee~ spaee €s t#~e btu€}e~€r~e- Asp estab}}s~itne~tt be~ea€te~ e~eetee~ that se~~aes mea}s; }t~aebes e~ ~~}sl~s to »at~er~s; a€tl~e~ €s tl~e€~ ears e~ €s tke btu}}~€a~: sba}} »~e~€ese ese pa~~€r~e~ s~aee €ee eaeb ene l~tzr~d~ee7 sgt~a~e €eet e€ bns€ness €}ee~ spaee €a the gs€}~}~ze~; g~e*~€e~ee~; that ti~ere sba}} be at }east ene pa~3~€s~ seaee €e~ eaeb se~~€t~e~ tin€t- ~s ~estan~asts a se~*a}a~ tin}t sba}} be twe stee}s; erne beetle e~ ese tab}e- ~e~ e~ar~ee eta}}s ane~ eee~eat€ena} areas; ese ~a~i~€s~ sgaee €e~ eaeb ese t~ttad~ee~ sgtta~e €eet e€ €}ee~ area- 'Fuse e~ x~e~e estab}€sbr~er~ts map }~~e*a€ese aeees- sa~~ ga~~}a~ spaee erg a s€e~~}e ~a~ee} e€ }asr~- fa} Regt~}peel ~a~~€r~e s-~aees sl~a}} be x+a€ata€r~ee} €s eesaeet}eec ~a€tb the btu€}el€t~e~s wt€eb tbep aye to se~~e arty €a the ~tasae~ €t~el€eateel by the ~n€s€x~t~xt ~eert~}~e~teats e€ a€€-street pa~3~- €se~ art el s~aee ~e~r~}at€eas- Gt~bst€tt~t€es e€ ee<t~€*aa}er~t s»aees €s eei4€et<x~€tp w€t~t t#~e a€€-street ~a~#€sg ~egtt}at€etgs snap be a}}eweel by a ~a~€ar~ee e~i`artteel 1~p the Eea~el e€ ~ei4€ae Apnea}s- 6 . J I { "~ fed Epaee shec~~ be p~e~*~e~ee1 fey the ~eae~~ne~ a~te~ ttn~eae~- Ong e€ t~t~e3~s a~e~ ee~txte~e~a~ ~el~~e~es se~*a~se~ x~t~~t}-~am~~p; eem- ~te~e~a~ aeel ~~te~tts~~~a~ btt~~e~~ae~s- 3. That these amendments, additions, and reenactments shall be in full force and effect from and after February 15, 1989, and that this effective date for the Design and Construction Standards Manual shall apply to development plans which have not been a.cce?~ted for review by the Department of Development and Inspections prior to February 1, 1989; provided. said plans in the review process receive final approval by the County within sixty (fif?) days of February 15, 1989. 7 O~ POANp~~ - a w i aZ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ 1~ ~~"~ 88 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT SFSDUICENTENN~P~ ~ DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND INSPECTIONS A Beauti~ul Beginning DIRECTOR. ARNOLD COVEY CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL. JAMES T. NININGER. JR. M E M O R A N D U M T0: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BUILDING INSPECTIONS Roanoke County Board of Supervisors FROM: Arnold Covey, Director Development Review and Inspections ~+ DATE: February 9, 1989 SUBJ.: Proposed Public Street Standards and Specifications This memorandum is in response to Mr. Alford Powell's comments to 'the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors on January 24, 1989. The only design standards that the County staff is presenting which is more stringent, than the present Virginia Department of Transporation standards, is the mimimum base and pavement design, street connections and the requirement of curb and gutter in the urban service area. All other geometric design guides for subdivision roads and streets, as required by Virginia Department of Transportation, will still apply. If I can be of further assistance,_please let me know. srd P.O. BOX 29600. ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24016 (703) 772-2065 N - ;~~ AMENDED AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1989 ORDINANCE 21489-10 VACATING A PORTION OF A SUBDIVISION PLAT, SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY OF THOMAS H. BEASLEY, PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 61; VACATING LOTS 1 THROUGH 11, INCLUSIVE, AND A 50-FOOT ROAD LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 679 WHEREAS, Fralin & Waldron Inc. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, to vacate a portion of a previously platted subdivision identified as a portion of the property of Thomas H. Beasley; and WHEREAS, Section 15.1-482(b) of the 1950 Code of Virgin- ia, as amended, requires that such a request be accomplished by ordinance of the governing body; and WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.1-431 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and a public hearing and first reading of this ordinance was held on January 24, 1989, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on February 14, 1989. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That a portion of a plat (being subdivision portion of property of Thomas H. Beasley) showing Lots 1 through 11, in- clusive, and a 50 foot road on the south side of Virginia Second- ary Route 679 as recorded in Plat Book 3, page 61 in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. 2. That upon vacation of Lots 1 through 11, inclusive, and the 50 foot road, all located on the south side of Virginia Secondary Route No. 679 as recorded in Plat Book 3, page 61 in the aforesaid Clerk's Office, title to same shall be vested in Fralin & Waldron Inc. 3. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. 4. That Fralin & Waldron Inc. shall record a certified copy of this ordinance with the Clerk of the Circuit Court, and shall pay all fees required to accomplish this transaction. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Robers 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 Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering Cliff, Craig, Director, Utilities Paul Mahoney, County Attorney John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment 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: February 14, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Vacation of a portion showing lots 1 through 11 inclusive, according to Plat showing subdivision Thomas H. Beasley. of Plat Book 3, Page 61, and a 50 foot right-of-way, portion of property of COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: Fralin & Waldron is requesting the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, by ordinance, to vacate a portion of the previously platted subdivision referred to as Thomas H. Beasley property, recorded on September 29, 1949. The portion of the Plat being vacated is located on the south side of Va. Secondary Rd. 679 (Buck Mountain Rd.) and involves lots 1 through 11 inclusive, and a 50 foot right-of-way. The vacation is necessary to abolish any encumbrance such as right-of-ways, easements, and lot lines that may effect the development of their property. Fralin & Waldron's present plan is to develop the property with the adjoining 23 acres as a single family subdivision. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County is requesting prior to final approval of the subdivision's plans that the Thomas H. Beasley Plat be vacated in accordance with Chapter 11, Title 15.1-482 (b), Code of Virgina, 1950 (as amended), by the adoption of the attached ordinance. ~ «~-, ~ ~ ~ .._. . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: First reading of Ordinance was held on January 24, 1989; staff recommends approval of Ordinance after second reading, which is scheduled for February 14, 1989. ITTED BY: Afnold Covey Development Review an Inspections Director' APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator --------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion bv: __ No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers d ~~ _... AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRCENTER ONLDUESDAYE FOEBROUARYCO14NT1989MINISTRATION ORDINANCE VACATING APPROXIMATELY NINETY (90) FEET OF AN EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT ON LOT 11 AND APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED (100) FEET OF AN EXISTING SANI- TARY SEWER EASEMENT ON LOTS 2 AND 3 OF STONEBRIDGE COURT SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, George Marshall, the developer of Stonebridge Court Subdivision, has petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, to vacate approximately ninety (90) feet of an existing sanitary sewer easement on Lot 11 and approxi- mately one hundred (100) feet of an existing sanitary sewer ease- ment on Lots 2 and 3 of Stonebridge Court Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 9, page 304 in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, Section 15.1-482(b) of the 1950 Code of Virgin- ia, as amended, requires that such a request be accomplished by ordinance of the governing body; and WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.1-431 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and a public hearing and first reading of this ordinance was held on January 24, 1989, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on February 14, 1989. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That approximately ninety (90) feet of an existing sanitary sewer easement on Lot 11 and approximately one hundred (100) feet of an existing sanitary sewer easement on Lots 2 and 3 of Stonebridge Court Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 9, page ~, ~ `~ 304 in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, hereby are vacated, pursuant to Section 15.1- 482(b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. 3. That petitioner shall record a certified copy of this ordinance with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and shall pay all fees required to accomplish this transaction. ~1 ... AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1989 ORDINANCE 21489-11 AMENDING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 16 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, PRECIOUS METALS AND GEMS WHEREAS, by Ordinance 3099, adopted on Tuesday, April 13, 1982, Roanoke County initially undertook to regulate persons who are in the business of purchasing or dealing in precious metals or gems; and WHEREAS, subsequent amendments to the enabling legisla- tion contained in Chapter 23.2 of Title 54 of the Code of Virgin- ia, 1950, as amended, and the experience of the Sheriff's Depart- ment of Roanoke County in administering this Chapter has necessi- tated certain additions and amendments to the County's ordinance regulating this area; and WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on January 24, 1989; the second reading on this ordinance was held on February 14, 1989. BE TT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. Chapter 16, Precious Metals and Gems, of the Roa- noke County Code be, and it hereby is, amended and reenacted by amending Sections 16-21, 16-25, 16-28, 16-29, 16-30, 16-32, 16- 41, 16-42, 16-43 and 16-44 to read and provide as follows: Sec. 16-21. Definitions. The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: "Coin" means any piece of gold, silver, or other metal fashioned into a prescribed shape, weight, and degree of fineness, stamped by authority of a government with certain marks and devices, and having a certain fixed value as money. "Dealer" means any person, firm, partnership, or corporation engaged in the business of purchasing secondhand precious metals or gems, removing in any manner precious metals or gems from manufactured articles not then owned by such person, firm, partnership, or corporation buying, acquiring, or selling precious metals or gems removed from such manufactured articles. "Dealer" shall mean any employer or principal on whose behalf a purchase is made and any employee or agent who makes any such purchase for or on behalf of his employer or principal. This definition shall not be construed so as to include persons en- gaged in the following: (1) Purchases of precious metals or gems directly from other dealers, manufacturers or wholesalers for retail or wholesale inventories, provided the sell- ing dealer has complied with the provisions of this chapter. (2) Purchases of precious metals or gems from a duly qualified fiduciary who is disposing of the assets of the estate being administered by such fiduciary in the administration of an estate. (3) Acceptance by a retail merchant of trade-in mer- chandise previously sold by such retail merchant to the person presenting that merchandise for trade-in. (4) Repairing, restoring, or designing jewelry by a retail merchant, if such activities are within his normal course of business. (5) Purchases of precious metals or gems by industrial refiners and manufacturers, insofar as such pur- chases are made directly from retail merchants, wholesalers, or dealers or by mail originating outside the Commonwealth of Virginia. (6) Persons regularly engaged in the business of pur- chasing and processing nonprecious scrap metals which incidentally may contain traces of precious metals recoverable as a by-product. "Gems" means precious or semiprecious stones customarily used in jewelry whether loose or in a setting. "Precious metals" means any item, except coins, composed in whole or in part of gold, silver, platinum or platinum alloys. 2 Sec. 16-25. Inspection of records required by article and of articles listed in such records. Every dealer shall admit to his premises, during regu- lar business hours, the sheriff or his sworn deputies and any law-enforcement official of the state or federal governments, and shall permit such a~t~ele law-enforcement officer to examine all records required by this article, and to examine any article listed in such a record which is believed by the officer to be missing or stolen. Sec. 16-28. Identification of persons from whom purchases made. No dealer shall purchase precious metals or gems, with- out first ascertaining the identity of the seller, by requiring an identification car or document issued by a governmental agency, with a photograph of the seller thereon, and at least one other corroborating means of identification, and obtaining a statement of ownership from the seller. Sec. 16-29. Record of Purchases. (a) Every dealer shall keep, at his place of business, an accurate and legible record of each purchase of precious metals or gems. The record of each such purchase shall be re- tained by the dealer for not less than twenty-four (24) months. These records shall set forth the following: (1) A complete description of all precious metals or gems purchased from each seller. The description shall include all names, initials, serial numbers or other identifying marks or monograms on each item purchased, the true weight or carat of any gem and the price paid for each item. (2) The date and time €e~ of receiving the items purchased. (3) The name, address, age, sex, race, driver's license number or social security number and signa- ture of the seller. (4) A statement of ownership from the seller. (b) The information required by subseetion- fa} subdivisions 1 through 3 of subsection (a) above shall appear on each bill of sale for all precious metals and gems purchased by a dealer and a copy shall be mailed or delivered, within twenty- four (24) hours of the time of purchase, to the sheriff. 3 Sec. 16-30. Prohibited purchases. (a) No dealer shall purchase precious metals or gems from any person who is under the age of eighteen (18) years. (b) No dealer shall purchase precious metals or gems from any person who the dealer believes, or has reason to be- lieve, is not the owner of such items, unless such person has written and duly authenticated authorization from the owner per- mitting and directing such sale. (c) No dealer shall purchase or sell any precious metals or gems except at the place of business as identified in the application required by Section 16-42. DIVISION 2. PERMIT Sec. 16-41. Required; posting. No person shall engage in the activities of a dealer in the county as defined by Section 16.21, unless he has a current permit so to do issued by the sheriff pursuant to this division. No purchase or sale permitted by this chapter shall be lawful unless and until such permit is prominently posted at the dealer's place of business. Sec. 16-42. Application fee. Any person desiring a permit required by this division shall file with the sheriff an application form, which shall in- clude the dealer's full name and any aliases and his address, date of birth, age, social security number, sex, and finger- prints; the name, address, and telephone number of the appli- cant's employer, if any; and the location of the applicant's place of business. Such application shall be accompanied by an application fee of two hundred dollars ($200.00), payable to "Treasurer, Roanoke County." Sec. 16-43. Applicant's weighing devices to be inspected and approved. Before a permit required by this division may be issued, the applicant must have all weighing devices used in his business inspected and approved by county or state weights and measures officials and present written evidence of such approval to the sheriff. As a condition for renewal of any permit, as permitted under Section 16-46, each dealer shall provide written evidence of an inspection and approval within thirty (30) days prior to such renewal date. 4 Sec. 16-44. Issuance or denial. Upon the filing of a proper application for a permit under this division and compliance with the provisions of this division and of Section 16-26, the applicant shall be issued a permit by the sheriff, provided the applicant has not been con- victed of a felony or crime or moral turpitude within seven (7) years prior to the date of the application. The permit shall be denied, if the applicant has been denied a permit or has had a permit revoked under this article or any ordinance of this county or another jurisdiction similar in substance to the provisions of this article. Any false or misleading information provided on the a plication form required by Section 16-42, may be grounds for denial of a permit. 2. Chapter 16, Precious Metals and Gems, of the Roa- noke County Code be, and it hereby is, amended and reenacted by adding Division 3. Severability, Section 26-48, to read and pro- vide as follows: Sec. 16-48. Severability. The sections ara ra hs sentences clauses and hrases of this cha ter are severable, and if any phrase, clause sentence ara ra h or section of this cha ter shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid by the valid judgment or decree of a court of com etent urisdiction, the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragra hs, and sections of this chapter shall remain valid. 3. That these amendments, additions, and reenactments shall be in full force and effect on and after 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 A COPY TESTS: 5 Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File R. Wayne Compton, Corrrtnissioner of Revenue Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Skip Burkart, Cortmmonwealth Attorney Magistrate Sheriff's Department Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, S.W., Rke, 24016 Main Library Roanoke County Code Book Roanoke County J&D Court, Intake Counsellor 6 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER !7 "' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 14, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance amending and reenacting Chapter 16 of the Roanoke County Code, Precious Metals and Gems COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S C~OMM~ENTS: /~ ~n-2t~-m..rz-~at~~ U.~^(/~7!'`'1~;/~ ~. /~..~~!-~u'~~I;u-w, BACKGROUND: Roanoke County first undertook to regulate persons in the business of purchasing precious metals and gems by the passage of Ordinance 3099 on April 13, 1982. Subsequent enforcement efforts by the Sheriff's Department have revealed some deficiencies in the current county ordinance contained in Chapter 16 of the Roa- noke County Code. Furthermore, amendments by the General Assembly to the enabling legislation contained in Chapter 23.2 of Title 54 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, necessitates certain changes to the County ordinance. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Virginia law now requires that a dealer obtain a statement of ownership for any precious metals or gems being offered for sale to him. Sections 16-28 and 16-29 have been amended to add this requirement. While not a part of this ordinance, the County Attorney's office has worked with the Sheriff's Department to review the application form and to develop form letters for pro- cessing these applications to insure that the bonding require- ments as well as Roanoke County business license ordinance has been complied with. Sections 16-30 and 16-41 have been amended to insure that dealers will only conduct business at their place of business and after their permit is issued and posted. Section 16-44 will now make explicit that providing false or misleading information on an application may be grounds for denial of a per- mit. Finally, Section 16-43 has been amended to require re- inspection of a dealer's weighing devices prior to any permit renewal. The current requirement of Section 16-46 of an annual Two Hundred Dollar ($200) fee for both initial permit and renewals is retained. f1 `..-" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: r'~ The prepared amendments to Chapter 16 are necessary to close certain loop-holes in the County's present ordinance and to bring it into compliance with Virginia law. The County Attorney's office recommends approval of the amended ordinance. Respectfully submitted, Jo eph bbenshain S Ass t. County Attorney -------------------------------------- ACTION Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To Motion by: -------------------------- VOTE No Yes Abs 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, FEBRUARY 14, 1989 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 16 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, PRECIOUS METALS AND GEMS WHEREAS, by Ordinance 3099, adopted on Tuesday, April 13, 1982, Roanoke County initially undertook to regulate persons who are in the business of purchasing or dealing in precious metals or gems; and WHEREAS, subsequent amendments to the enabling legisla- tion contained in Chapter 23.2 of Title 54 of the Code of Virgin- ia, 1950, as amended, and the experience of the Sheriff's Depart- ment of Roanoke County in administering this Chapter has necessi- tated certain additions and amendments to the County's ordinance regulating this area; and WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on January 24, 1989; the second reading on this ordinance was held on February 14, 1989. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. Chapter 16, Precious Metals and Gems, of the Roa- noke County Code be, and it hereby is, amended and reenacted by amending Sections 16-21, 16-25, 16-28, 16-29, 16-30, 16-32, 16- 41, 16-42, 16-43 and 16-44 to read and provide as follows: Sec. 16-21. Definitions. The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: /~ ` ..~~ "Coin" means any piece of gold, silver, or other metal fashioned into a prescribed shape, weight, and degree of fineness, stamped by authority of a government with certain marks and devices, and having a certain fixed value as money. "Dealer" means any person, firm, partnership, or corporation engaged in the business of purchasing secondhand precious metals or gems, removing in any manner precious metals or gems from manufactured articles not then owned by such person, firm, partnership, or corporation buying, acquiring, or selling precious metals or gems removed from such manufactured articles. "Dealer" shall mean any employer or principal on whose behalf a purchase is made and any employee or agent who makes any such purchase for or on behalf of his employer or principal. This definition shall not be construed so as to include persons en- gaged in the following: (1) Purchases of precious metals or gems directly from other dealers, manufacturers or wholesalers for retail or wholesale inventories, provided the sell- ing dealer has complied with the provisions of this chapter. (2) Purchases of precious metals or gems from a duly qualified fiduciary who is disposing of the assets of the estate being administered by such fiduciary in the administration of an estate. (3) Acceptance by a retail merchant of trade-in mer- chandise previously sold by such retail merchant to the person presenting that merchandise for trade-in. (4) Repairing, restoring, or designing jewelry by a retail merchant, if such activities are within his normal course of business. (5) Purchases of precious metals or gems by industrial refiners and manufacturers, insofar as such pur- chases are made directly from retail merchants, wholesalers, or dealers or by mail originating outside the Commonwealth of Virginia. (6) Persons regularly engaged in the business of pur- chasing and processing nonprecious scrap metals which incidentally may contain traces of precious metals recoverable as a by-product. "Gems" means precious or semiprecious stones customarily used in jewelry whether loose or in a setting. "Precious metals" means any item, except coins, composed in whole or in part of gold, silver, platinum or platinum alloys. ~~ Sec. 16-25. Inspection t dren°sd~hrrecords. by article and of articles li Every dealer shall admit to his premises, during regu- lar business hours, the sheriff or his sworn deputies and any law-enforcement officials}e tlawsenforcemenae off g~er r to nexamine shall permit such a~t~ all records required by twhschrisc believedt by the nofficer rtocbe listed in such a record missing or stolen. Sec. 16-28. Identification of persons from whom purchases made. No dealer shall purchase precious metals or gems, with- out first ascertaining the identity of the seller, by requiring an identification car or document issued by a governmental agency, with a photograph of the seller thereon, and at least one other corroborating means of identification, and obtaining a statement of ownership from the seller. Sec. 16-29. Record of Purchases. (a) Every dealer shall keep, at his place of business, an accurate and legible record of each purchase of precious metals or gems . lee for not olessa t an t enty four ( 24 )1 months . tained by the dea These records shall set forth the following: (1) A complete description of all precious metals or gems purchased from each seller. The description shall include all names, initials, serial numbers or otherchas d if theg truekwe~ght oo~gcaratoof eany item pur , gem and the price paid for each item. (2) The date and time fer of receiving the items purchased. (3) The name, address, age, sex, race, driver's license number or social security number and signa- ture of the seller. (4) A statement of ownershi from the seller. (b) The information required by subsestle~- fad subdivisions 1 throu h 3 of subsection (a) above shall appear on each bill of sale f shalll be emailedmora delivered s pithhnstdebtya dealer and a copy to the sheriff. four (24) hours of the time of purchase, ~/ Sec. 16-30. Prohibited purchases. (a) No dealer shall purchase precious metals or gems from any person who is under the age of eighteen (18) years. (b) No dealer shall purchase precious metals or gems from any person who the dealer believes, or has reason to be- lieve, is not the owner of such items, unless such person has written and duly authenticated authorization from the owner per- mitting and directing such sale. (c) No dealer shall~urchase or sell any precious metals or ems exce t at the lace of business as identified in the application required by Section 16-42. DIVISION 2. PERMIT Sec. 16-41. Required; posting. No person shall engage in the activities of a dealer in the county as defined by Section 16.21, unless he has a current permit so to do issued by the sheriff pursuant to this division. No purchase or sale permitted by this chapter shall be lawful unless and until such permit is prominently posted at the dealer's place. of business. Sec. 16-42. Application fee. Any person desiring a permit required by this division shall file with the sheriff an application form, which shall in- clude the dealer's full name and any aliases and his address, date of birth, age, social security number, sex, and finger- prints; the name, address, and telephone number of the appli- cant's employer, if any; and the location of the applicant's place of business. Such application shall be accompanied by an p application fee of two hundred dollars ($200.00), ayable to ~, "Treasurer, Roanoke County. Sec. 16-43. Applicant's weighing devices to be inspected and approved. Before a permit required by this division may be issued, the applicant must have all weighing devices used in his business inspected and approved by county or state weights and measures officials and present written evidence of such approval to the sheriff. As a condition for renewal of any permit, as permitted under Section 16-46, each dealer shall provide written evidence of an inspection and approval within thirty (30) days prior to such renewal date. ~-'~ Sec. 16-44. Issuance or denial. Upon the filing of a proper application for a permit under this division and compliance with the provisions of this division and of Section 16-26, the applicant shall be issued a permit by the sheriff, provided the applicant has not been con- victed of a felony or crime or moral turpitude within seven (7) years prior to the date of the application. The permit shall be denied, if the applicant has been denied a permit or has had a permit revoked under this article or any ordinance of this county or another jurisdiction similar in substance to the provisions of this article. Any false or misleading information provided on the application form required by Section 16-42, may be grounds for denial of a permit. 2. Chapter 16, Precious Metals and Gems, of the Roa- noke County Code be, and it hereby is, amended and reenacted by adding Division 3. Severability, Section 26-48, to read and pro- vide as follows: Sec. 16-48. Severability. The sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, and phrases of this chapter are severable, and if any phrase, clause sentence, paragraph or section of this chapter shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid by the valid judgment or decree of a court of competent -jurisdiction, the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, and sections of this chapter shall remain valid. 3. That these amendments, additions, and reenactments shall be in full force and effect on and after ACTION NUMBER ITEM NUMBER ~ t~,- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 14, 1989 SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1 Communitv Corrections Resources Board One-year term of Edmund J. Kielty, Alternate. His term expired August 13, 1988. 2 Leactue of Older Americans Advisorv Board One-year term of Webb Johnson will expire March 31, 1989. 3 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: APPROVED BY: /„ ~ ~Z.C~z-~2-'~-~ ~ ,e.~. J,' ~',. Mary H. Allen Elmer C. Hodge Deputy Clerk County Administrator --------------------------------- ACTION ----------------------------------------- VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: Yes No Abs Denied ( ) Garrett Received ( ) Johnson Referred McGraw To• Nickens Robers ~~ , 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. ~~~ LEAGUE OF OLDER AMERICANS: ADVISORY COUNCIL A. COMPOSITION: To consist of nine (9> members on the Board of Director, representing the entire 5th Planning District. ADVISORY COUNCIL: To consist of twenty-seven (27) members; one (1) Roanoke County .appointee; to serve a one (1) year term, and may be re-appointed . B. DUTIES: To assure that a system of services for the aging be developed; To coordinate and evaluate existing services; To identify unmet needs of older persons; ~ To serve as a strong advocate for the aging population; To educate the general public of the conditions of the elderly citizenry; To advise local planning bodies on all aging issues; Act as grantee and the the administering agency for programs and services. Serve as the Area Agency on Aging: Provide elderly persons and handicapped persons with housing facilities, and services specially designed to meet their physical, ,social and psychological needs. To buy, own, sell, assign, mortgage or,lease any interest in real estate and personal property and to construct, maintain and operate improvements thereon necessary or incident to the accomplishments of the purposes set forth in the Articles. The Board of Directors shall: Carry out the policies and instructions of the League in a manner consistent with the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. Create committees and delegate authority to the committees for carrying out the objectives of this organization. C. MEETING SCHEDULE: Board and Advisory Council meet on alternate months. ~-3 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,.,~or 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. ~~ ~pEC 3 0 1988 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 fake Roanoke County and the valley a safer place to live. Sincerely yours, L' ` ~~ ~' ~ 0. S. Foster cc: Lt. L. J. Wade, Chairman Mrs. Elizabeth Stokes, Clerk of Court File ACTION N0. ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 14, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Appointments to the Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On December 13, 1988, the Board of Supervisors voted to continue this Board and appoint new members. Michael Lazzuri, Director of Court Services has contacted the present members of the Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board to determine whether they wished to continue serving. The following terms expired in 1988 or will expire in 1989. Appointments to this committee are not made by magisterial district; however, the magisterial district is listed for each member. Two-year term of James L. Trout, Vinton Magisterial District, will expire March 22, 1989. Mr. Trout has not responded to Mr. Lazzuri's letter. Two-year term of Ted R. Powell, Cave Spring Magisterial District, will expire March 22, 1989. Mr. Powell would like to be reappointed. Two-year term of Marilyn Morehead, Hollins Magisterial District, expired March 22, 1988. Mr. Lazzuri has been unable to contact Ms. Morehead. Two-year term of Hoyt C. Rath, Vinton Magisterial District, will expire March 22, 1989. Mr. Rath does not wish to serve another term. Two-year term of Dr. Andrew Archer, Vinton Magisterial District expired March 22, 1988. Dr. Archer does not wish to be reappointed. ~- In addition to the appointments listed above, it is necessary to appoint four youth members, one each from Cave Spring High School, Northside High School, Glenvar High School, William Byrd High School. Mr. Lazzuri recommends that these appointments run from September through September. Therefore, appointment made in 1989 will expire September 1, 1989. Thereafter all terms will expire September 1, coinciding with the school year. SUBMITTED BY: Mary H. llen Deputy Clerk Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To: ACTION Motion by: _ APPROVED BY: ~~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE Yes No Abs Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers _ ~,, COURT SERVICES UNIT ADVISORY COUNCI FAMILY SERVICES ADVISORY BOA (Resolution 3046 - 1/26/82 Amended 11/13/85 to include Youth Members) A. COMPOSITION Board to consist of ten members, and one youth member from each high school. Governing bodies of each county and city served by a court service unit may appoint one or more members to a citizen advisory council. Judges may appoint the tenth-member- at their discretion. B. DUTIES: Advises and cooperates with the court upon-all matters affecting the working of this law and other laws relating to children, their care and protection and to domestic relations. Consults and confer with the court and director of the court service. unit relative to the devel-opment and extension of the court service program, Encourage the members selected by the council to serve on the central advisory council to visit as often as the member conveniently can, institutions and associations receiving children under this law and to report to the court the conditi=ons and surroundings of the children received by or in charge of any such persons, institutions or associations. The Council should make themselves familiar with the work of the court. Makes an annual report to the court and the participating governing bodies on the work of the council. As the Youth and Family Services Advisory Board z_ Establish goals and priorities for County-wide youth services; assist_i=n coordination and planning for comprehensive youth services w-thin the private sector. Serve in an advisory capacity and to otherwise assist the Board of Supervisors to :.~. establish. goals and objective§.in~compliance with all "minimum.. Standards of~the Delinquency Prevention and-Youth Development Act~~ of 1979". Assist in conducting an assessment of the needs of youth every five years and to assist in developing an annual Delinquency Prevention Plan, further to .participate in evaluating the implementation of the plan and making a report thereon to the Board of Supervisors. Provide a public forum where concerns about youth may be expressed and to receive recommendations and-- raise concerns of public and private organizations at any regular advisory board meeting. upon proper notice. Advocates necessary legislative amendments to improve community conditions for youth development .and to support the development of needed service s both public and private for youth in the community. C. MEETING SCHEDULE: YOUTH AND One a quarter, the third Tuesday, beginning January; time and place determined at meetings. f ~, ~:./'" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1989 RESOLUTION N0. 21489-12 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 February 14, 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. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Library Board and Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board. 2. Acknowledgment from Va. Department of Transportation that the following roads have been accepted into the Secondary System: a. 0.17 miles of Highfields Farm Drive b. 0.17 miles of Red Barn Lane c. 0.10 miles of Fort Lewis Circle d. 0.11 miles of Ranchcrest Drive e. 0.21 miles of Snow Owl Drive f. 0.14 miles of Golden Eagle Lane g. 0.16 miles of Green Ridge Court 3. Resolution of Support for a feasibility study of a traditional music center to be located at Rocky Knob. 4. Request for a Raffle Permit from the Botetourt Jaycees. 5. Acceptance of a sanitary sewer easement being donated by Timberline Condominium Associates. 6. Acceptance of a sanitary sewer easement being donated by Clyties W. St. Clair. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Johnson and upon the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None ~~~.~/ Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 2/15/89 CC: File Phillip Henry, Director of Engineering Clifford Craig, Director of Utilities "_ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1989 RESOLUTION N0. 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 February 14, 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. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Library Board and Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board. 2. Acknowledgment from Va. Department of Transportation that the following roads have been accepted into the Secondary System: a. 0.17 miles of Highfields Farm Drive b. 0.17 miles of Red Barn Lane c. 0.10 miles of Fort Lewis Circle d. 0.11 miles of Ranchcrest Drive e. 0.21 miles of Snow Owl Drive f. 0.14 miles of Golden Eagle Lane g. 0.16 miles of Green Ridge Court 3. Resolution of Support for a feasibility study of a traditional music center to be located at Rocky Knob. 4. Request for a Raffle Permit from the Botetourt Jaycees. 5. Acceptance of a sanitary sewer easement being donated by Timberline Condominium Associates. 6. Acceptance of a sanitary sewer easement being donated by Clyties W. St. Clair. ~~"`(~ 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. ACTION # A-21489-12. ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 14, 1989 SUBJECT: Confirmation of Committee Appointments the the Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board and the Library Board COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The following nominations were made at the previous board meeting and must now be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. The nominee has agreed to serve. Court Service Unit Advisory County/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board Supervisor Garrett nominated James K. Sanders and Sherry Robinson to serve another two-year term. ~ Mr. Sanders term will expire March 22, 1991 and Ms. Robinson's term will expire March 22, 1990. Library Board Supervisor Johnson nominated Dr. Norma Jean Peters to serve the unexpired four-year term of Richard Kirkwood. The term will expire December 31, 1989. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Mary H. Allen Deputy Clerk Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator K- I ------------------- ------------------ ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Harr~~ ~ Nickens/Bob Yes No Abs Denied ( ) L 7ohnGOn Garrett x Received ( ) Johnson ~_ Referred McGraw x Nickens ~_ To• Robers x cc: File Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board File Library Board File ACTION N0. A-21489-12.b ITEM NUMBER ~' °`o AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 14, 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 effective January 18. 1989: a. 017 miles of Highfields Farm Drive b. 0.17 miles of Red Barn Lane c. 0.10 miles of Fort Lewis Circle d. 0.11 miles of Ranchcrest Drive e. 0.21 miles of Snow Owl Drive f. 0.14 miles of Golden Eagle Lane g. 0.16 miles of Green Ridge Court SUBMITTED BY: .~_ a~~ Mary H. Allen Deputy Clerk APPROVED BY: ~ ~ l~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: u_~ r rT~ ~ken~~ ~~Ya Yes No Abs Denied ( ) L. Johnson Garrett x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred McGraw x To• Nickens x Robers ~ cc: File Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering ~a ~~ . . DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER January 19, 1989 Secondary System Addition Roanoke County Board of Supervisors County of Roanoke P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: k ~... OSCAR K. MABRY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER As requested in your resolution dated November 9, 1988, the following additionfective Januaryrl8,glgg9m of Roanoke County is hereby approved, of LENGTH ADDITION HIG IFH ELDS FARM ESTATES - SECTION 3 Route 1200 (Highfields Farm Drive) - From Route 1201 to West cul-de-sac. Sincerely, C3~~`~ Oscar K. Mabry Deputy Commissioner 0.17 Mi. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ~+ ~ ~ n I I +~p~- RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 OSCAR K. MABRY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER January 19, 1989 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 August 23, 1988, the following addition to the Secondary System of Roanoke County is hereby approved, effective January 18, 1989. ADDITION LITTLE TREE ACRES - SECTION 2 Route 1094 (Red Barn Lane) - From Route 1096 to Northeast cul-de-sac. Sincerely, ~,~~~~~~ Oscar K. Mabry Deputy Commissioner TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY LENGTH 0.17 Mi. Zy ~,, '.~ it ~, &. 9., DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RAY D. PETHTEL RICHMOND, 23219 COMMISSIONER ,7anuary 19, 1989 Secondary System Additions Roanoke County Board of Supervisors County of Roanoke P. 0. sox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ~~ OSCAR K. MABRY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: As requested in your resolutions dated November 22, 1988, the following additions to the Secondary System of Roanoke County are hereby approved, effective Janauary 18, 1989. LENGTH ADDITIONS FORT LEWIS VILLAGE Route 1210 (Fort Lewis Circle) - From Route 1110 0.10 Mi. to East cul-de-sac. PENN FOREST HILLS Route 907 ( Ranchcrest Drive ) - Fr^rt Ro1~te 513 to 0.11 Mi. Route 1470. Route 1470 (Snow Owl Drive) - From Route 1471 to 0.21 Mi. South cul-de-sac. Route 1471 (Golden Eagle Lane) - From 0.07 mile 0.14 Mi. North Route 1470 to 0.07 mile South Route 1470. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ~~ Board of Supervisors January 19, 1989 Page Two GREEN RIDGE VILLAGE Route 1970 (Green Ridge Court) - From Route 628 to 0,16 Mi. North cul-de-sac. Sincerely, Oscar K. Mabry Deputy Commissioner AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1989 RESOLUTION 21489-12.C ENDORSING THAT A STUDY BE CONDUCTED TO DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF A TRADITIONAL MUSIC CENTER LOCATED ON THE ROCKY KNOB SITE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: WHEREAS, The United States Park Services has identified two sites along the Blue Ridge Parkway for the location of a traditional music center; and WHEREAS, a United States Congressional study has identified Fisher Peak as the proposed site for the center and the Rocky Knob site as an alternative; and WHEREAS, the Fisher Peak site may present environmental and developmental limitations and a feasibility study on that site alone would not offer a comparison in costs and limitations to the Rocky Knob site. THEREFORE, The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia endorses Floyd County's request that a feasibility study be conducted on both the Rocky Knob site and the Fisher Peak site. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors requests that a copy of this resolution of support be directed to the appropriate congressional delegates and to the Board of Supervisors of Floyd County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Johnson, and upon the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None %~ Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 2/15/89 CC: File The Honorable Frederick C. Boucher, U. S. Congress The Honorable Jim Olin, U. S. Congress Floyd County Board of Supervisors ACTION N0. ITEM NUMBER `~'" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE~BOK~ OUNTY Up1DMINI OTRA ~ OrJ ROPE,NDER COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE RO MEETING DATE: February 14, 1989 AcE~ITEM: Resolution of Support for a Feasibility Study for a traditional music center at the Rocky Knob site. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The United States Park Service otentialn locatd~onwoof lae trad g oval Blue Ridge Parkway for the p music center. The primary site is Fisher Peak, located south of of Galax. The alternate site is Rocky Knob, located on the city at the confluence of the Patrick and Floyd the Blue Ridge Parkway study is planned on the Fisher Peak County line. A feasibility Knob site. site, but no study is planned for the Rocky recommends that a feasibility study be conducted of Floyd County believe the developmental limitations and both sites because they less at the Rocky Knob site. They are an costs may be substantially requesting that the goverdorseboaesoluti ns Nof Rsupport for a the Roanoke Val ofyboth the Rocky Knob site and the Fisher Peak feasibility study site STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Boar feasibilp y vstudy of dthe eRocky attached resolution supporting Knob site as well as the Fisher Peak site for a traditional music center. ~-3 ~- f~ ~~-" Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator --------------------------------- Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To: ACTION Motion by: _ VOTE Yes No Abs Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers ~- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF TH THE pp,NOKES COUNTY OADM NISTRATOION COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT 1989 CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, RESOLUTION ENDORSING THAT A STUDY BE CONDUCTE DIT ONALT MUSICE CENTERF LOCATED I ON OF A TRA THE ROCKY KNOB SITE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: WHEREAS, The United States Park Services has identified two sites along the Blue Ridge Parkway for the location of a traditional music center; and WHEREAS, a United States Congressional study has identified Fisher Peak as the proposed site for the center and the Rocky Knob site as an alternative; and WHEREAS, the Fisher Peak site may present environmental and developmental limitations and a feasibility study on that site alone would not offer a comparison in costs and limitations to the Rocky Knob site. THEREFORE, The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia endorses Floyd County's request that a feasibility study be conducted on both the Rocky Knob site and the Fisher Peak site. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors requests that a copy of this resolution of support be directed to the appropriate congressional delegates and to the Board of Supervisors of Floyd County, Virginia. A-81 DISTRICT DAVID W. INGRAM ~* ~ lOYj~ 1~jjuri~~ >1~r~ of ~u~Pr~tsors RANDAL E. ARNO ~~jj CO. ADMIN. 8-81 DISTRICT WILLIAM L. WHITLOCK ~ ~- ~UX z LS TERRI W. MORRIS CO. ADMIN. ASST C-81 DISTRICT - . LOWELL H. SOOTHE D-81 DISTRICT `~1D~~~ ~TX~tTttM " (703) 745-2028 W. HOWARD DICKERSON C ~ E-8t DISTRICT z`~II~L REECE McPEAK,JR. December 9, 1988 The Honorable Frederick C. Boucher Member, United State House of Representatives 9th Congressional District Commonwealth of Virginia 428 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Boucher: The Floyd County Board of Supervisors is delighted to know of your strong support for the creation within our U.S. Congressional DFloydcCounty has long traditional music center along the Blue Ridge Parkway• promoted the recreational use of the Blue Ridge Parkw~heaParkwaytwouldlenhance asset of our area. A traditional music center along our area's recreational attractiveness and be an outstanding addition to our already natural beauty. While Floyd County wholeheartedly supports a traditional music center along the Blue Ridge Parkway, it is disconcerting that only the Fisher Peak studied as a music center site by the U.S. Park Service. site has been closely Although the Fisher Peak onfrontingtitsdfulltdevelopmentypotentialaare environmental obstacles c 1 compelling. As you point out, another very squally, if not overwhelming y, attractive site for a traditifits ofsalternativeXSitesaforoaktraditional or er to compare the costs and bene music center, Floyd County would like to see a similar study completed by t e National Park Service for the Rocky Knob site. Our request for an alternative d County's support for site study at Rocky Knob is not meant to diminish Floy the establishment of a traditionatrictlc ThetBoardosimply f eelsRthat thekRockdy within our U.S. Congressional D>_s otential shoul Knob site represents foracomparison with thetFisherePeak sitep be similarly studie VIRGEL H. ALLEN RALPH A. YEAROU7 ROBERT L. BRITT ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER SANITATION SUPERINTENDENT BUILDING OFFICIAI. (703) 745-2840 (7031745-2530 (7p3174S-4101 i~_~ The Honorable Frederick Boucher December 9, 1988 Page 2 Your kind consideration of our suggestion would certainly make us feel ective site selection process was made and that the best that a more obj all our existing limited natural alternative was selected from among resources. Thank you. Sincerely, /~ Randal Arno County Administrator tm A-81 DISTRICT DAVIDW.INGRAM ,{Qr~Q~~ ~YLII~YL~~ QMX~ QL ~~~Ex'VC~3,QXQ B-81 DISTRICT ~~ RANDAL E. ARNO WILLIAM L. WHITLOCK CO. ADMIN. C-81 DISTRICT ~. ~, ~iT~( ~~$ TERRI W. MORRIS LOWELL H. BOOTHE ASST. CO. ADMIN. D-81 DISTRICT r W. HOWARD DICKERSON ~~II~~i ~Tr$TYTL2T (703) 745-2028 E-81 DISTRICT REECE McPEAK, JR. z4II91 TODAY,IS JANUARY 24, 1989._....ANOTHER BEAUTIFUL DA'Y IN FLOYD COUNTY, VIRGINIA Mr. Elmer Hodge - P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke~Virgi-nia 24018 Dear -P9g:'~~'rouge: As you may know, the United States Park Service has identified two sites along the Blue Ridge Parkway for the location of an interpretative music center. Although an interpretative music center has been proposed by many diverse groups for more than 20-30 years, a United States Congressional study of the Fisher Peak site was authorized in 1987 largely through the efforts of U. S. Congressman Rick Boucher. The Fisher Peak site, located immediately South of the city of Galax, along the Parkway, appears to be the location preferred by the Park Service and Congressman Boucher but it has some compelling environmental and development limitations. If these limitations prove to be insurmountable, the alternate site preferred by Congressman Boucher and the Park Service is Rocky Knob, located on the Parkway approximately twenty-five miles North of the Fishers Peak site at the confluence of the Patrick and Floyd County ling. Floyd County believes the developmental limitations and costs would be substantially less at the Rocky Knob site and it would attract many, many more visitors from and through the Roanoke and the New River Valley's. Our approach with Congressman Boucher has been to advocate a similar site feasiblity study of Rocky Knob for development cost/limitation comparisons with the Fishers Peak site (see attached letter). We would very much appreciate support of this position and the Rocky Knob site by resolutions directed to your U. S. Congressional delegation from governing bodies throughout the New River Valley and the Roanoke Valley. Time is of critical importance - Congressman Boucher has requested that Galax and the Park Service resolve their negotiations by early February, 1989. Your timely and active endorsement of a feasibility study at Rocky Knob would be of tremendous help. Your past and continued interest in our area is very much appreciated. Sincerely yours, andal E Arno County A ministrator CC: Floyd County Board of Supervisors ROBERT L. BRITT VIRGEL H. ALLEN RALPH A. YEAROUT BUILDING OFFICIAI. ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER SANITATION SUPERINTENDENT (7031745-4101 (703)745-2530 (703)745-2640 ACTION N0. A-21489-12.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: February 14, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Request for approval of a Raffle Permit from the Botetourt Jaycees COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Botetourt Jaycees has requested a Raffle Permit. This application has been reviewed by the Commissioner of Revenue and he recommends that it be approved. While this is a Botetourt County organization, they hold their meetings and the raffle in Roanoke County. The organization has paid the $25.00 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the application for a Raffle Permit be approved. SUBMITTED BY: 'yYlc,x~y .~ Mary H. Allen Deputy Clerk APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ----------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (~1 Motion by• Harry C. Nickens/ Bob Yes No Abs L. Johnson Garrett x Denied ( ) Johnson x Received ( ) McGraw x Referred Nickens x To• Robers x cc: File Bingo/Raffle File ~~ ~.~ r COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO CONDUCT RAFFLES OR BINGO Application is hereby made for a bingo game or raffle permit. This application is made su'oject to all County and State laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations now in force, or ttlat may be enacted hereafter and which are hereby agreed to by the under- sig ned applicant and which shall be deemed a condition under which this permit is issued. All applicants should exercise extreme care to ensure the accura- cy of their responses to the following questions. Bingo games and raffles are strictly regulated by Title 18.2-340.1 et. s_g. of the criminal statutes of the Virginia Code, and by Section 4-86 et. seg. of the Roanoke County Code. These laws authorize the County Board of Supervisors to conduct a reasonable investiga- tion prior to granting a bingo or raffle permit. The Board has sixty days from the filing of an application to grant or deny the permit. The Board may deny, suspend, or revoke the Permit of any organization found not to be in strict compliance with county and state law. Any person violating county or state regulations concerning these permits shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Any person who uses any part of the gross receipts from bingo or raffles for any purpose other than the lawful religious, charitable, community, or educational purposes for which the organization is specifi- cally organized, except for reasonable operating expenses, shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. THIS APPLICATION IS FOR: (check one) RAFFLE PERMIT ~_ BINGO GAMES Name of organization 1:'~c'~t~:~fr~~~_-t "l.ar'~~t,c '~ ~ 1~~~,•~~c 1 '~ 7 _, Street Address Mailing Address j ( I~Gx j ~'~ City, State, Zip Code I,J~~~r=~ r J,,~~ ~1,~1 ~~.~tC~~ ~ Purp/ose and Type of Organization ~~, - ~~,.~, {' ~ ~~y,}~~,;~.SJ~,,, When was the organization founded? J~(~S 1 ~~ ~. Roanoke County meeting place? j1~,~~~_Nff /-~„~~U~~t Has organization been i existence in Roanoke County for two con- tinuous years? YES ~ NO Is the organization non-profit? YES~_ NO Indicate Federal Identification Number # '~'~-- 7'~~' G'~^~.~ Attach copy of IRS Tax Exemption letter. Gh ~.~~. Officers of the Organization: President: rzrc~ :~?,n~~)~ Address : ~: (; , ~ux Secretary : j ti ~,~ ~-,,~~ Address : ~~ ~"~~•i ~~,~Ar~r4~r.1; i~ ~. Vice-President ~~ ,N' Lec ~t Address: ~ --~ Treasurer: j'~, J_~J~, Address: ~'~ ;;S 116r~n~ , !~/~ Member authorized to be responsible for Raffle or Bingo opera- tions: Name ~, ~ r s~,•^ Y~ -:.; c: x Home Address~_~ ~ta~~i~ ~ ~~~. _ )~r;-~-~~,k~; ~ ~~i~ - •~ik%1 Phone ,~~"~-> ~L~ I 1 Bus . Phone ~f~s ~ - ~,'~~ ~ A COMPLETE LIST OF THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF CURRENT MEMBER- SHIP MUST BE FURNISHED WITH THIS APPLICATION. ~y~- ~'-, ~,~_ Specific location where Raffle or Bingo Game is to be conducted. RAFFLES: Date of Drawing )~~~}~,~~~ ~~ Time of Drawing X. L~• ,,.,~~ BINGO: Days of Week & Hours of Activity: Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday From To From To From To From To From To From To From To 2 K-y State specifically how the proceeds from the Bingo/Raffle will be used. List in detail the planned or intended use of the proceeds. Use estimates amounts if necessary. ~''i~uC' e t ~~ w ~ ~ ~ I-~ c ~ S t. ~ #"a i'v ~~\ i ~~ l't; lam; i i~ C10 ~i\IZ,i'i~-i~1-35 fiGli. ~~~\~~z-~ja~~,;~;~;~tc~ ~~\~'G~ri~~ ~ at I ~L~'. YYI , I~ ~~ ~ ,~ c o r11~N~~-1 ~-~~n~l+~ I~5'i~-c: l.. ~F~~ aN ~e.~m~~~;1~2 ~ ~~~r-sc. y'GG , vC ~1.1ti'kirl~~ ~~i ~~F1~~sti ~~ . ~'(. e 3 - BINGO: Complete the following: Legal owner(s) of the building where BINGO is to be conducted: Name: Address: County State Zip Is the 'ouildinq owned by a SOl-C non-profit organization?_ Seating capacity for each location: Parking spaces for each location: ALL RAFFLE AND BINGO APPLICANTS MUST ANSWER QUESTIONS 1 - 19 1. Gross receipts from all sources related to the operation of Bingo games or T.nstant Bingo by calendar quarter for prior calen- dar year period. INSTANT BINGO BINGO 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter lst Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Total Total 2. Does your organization understand that it is a violation of law to enter into a contract with any person or firm, associa- tion, organization, partnership, or corporation of any classifica- tion whatsoever, for the purpose of organizing, managing, or con- ducting Bingo Games or Raffles? ~'=S - 3. Does your organization understand that it must maintain and file complete records of receipts and disbursements pertaining to Bingo games and Raffles, and that such records are subject to audit by the Commissioner of the Revenue? .~ ~S 4. Does your organization understand that the Commissioner of the Revenue or his designee has the right to go upon the premises on which any organization is conducting a Bingo game or raffle, to perform unannounced audits, and to secure for audit all re- cords required to be maintained for Bingo games or raffles? ~~ t~ ~ 4 5. Does your organization understand that a Financial Report must be filed with the Commissioner of the Revenue on or before the first day of November of each calendar year for which a per- mit has been issued? =5 6. Does your organization understand that if gross receipts ex- ceed fifty thousand dollars during any calendar quarter, an addi- tional Financial Report must be filed for such quarter no later than sixty days following the last day of such quarter?~~S 7. Does your organization understand that the failure to file financial reports when due shall cause automatic revocation of the permit, and no such organization shall conduct any Bingo game or raffle thereafter until such report is properly filed and a new permit is obtained? ~~5 8. Does your organization understand that each Financial Report must be accompanied by a Certificate, verified under oath by the Board of Directors, that the proceeds of any Bingo game or raffle have been used for these lawful, religious, charitable, commu- nity, or educational purposes for which the organization is spe- cifically chartered or organized, and that the operation of Bingo games or raffles have been in accordance with the provisions of Article 1.1 of Chapter 8, Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia?--~5 9. Does your organization understand that a one percent audit fee of theission of thesannualbfinancial re~o todueyonfor before upon subm the first of November? 10. Does your organization understand that this permit is valid only in the County of Roanoke and only at such locations, and for such dates, as are designated in the permit application? -S 11. Does your organization understand that no person, except a bona fide member of any such organization who shall have been a member of such organization for at least ninety days prior to such participation, shall participate in the management, opera- tion, or conduct of any bingo game or raffle, and no person shall receive any remuneration for participating in management, operation, or conduct of any such game or raffle? °`S 12. Has heuamountnofa$25n00tpayable toet e Countyaof Roanoket fee in t Virginia? •= f 13. Does your organization understand that any organization found in violation of the County Bingo and Raffle Ordinance or §18.2- 340.10 of the Code of Virginia authorizing this permit is subject to having such permit revoked and any person, shareholder, agent, member o.r employee of such organization who violates the above to having such permit revoked and any person, shareholder, agent, member or employee of such organization who violates the above referenced Codes may be guilty of a felony? -5 5 €., ~~ 14. Has your organization attached a complete list of its member- ship to this application form? °S 15. Has your organization attached a copy of its bylaws to this application form? tS 1f' +~~ ~ 16. Has the organization been declared exempt from property taxa- tion under the Virginia Constitution or statute ers n 1 roperty, If yes, state whether exemption is for real, p p or both and identify exempt property. ~= ~. , „ 17. State the specific type and purpose of the11organization. 18. Is this organization incorporated in Virginia? .S If yes, name and address of Registered Agent: ~~ ~ «. - ;, '~ ~ ~tvi 19. Is the organization registered with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs pursuant to the Charitable Solicitations Act, Section 57-48 of the Virginia Code? ~!~ ~=,~~ (If so, attach copy of registration.) Has the organization been granted an exemption from registration by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs? (If so, attach copy of exemption.) ALL RAFFLE APPLICANTS DESCRIBE THE ARTICLES TO BE RAFFLED, VALUE OF SUCH ARTICLES, AND PROCEED TO NOTARIZATION. Article Description t~;~~i ~y~d,ll~~ Fair Market Value /~ 2C;, G (~ L ,c u 6 G"`' __~~ ALL BINGO APPLICANTS MUST ANSWER QUESTIONS 20 - 27 BEFORE NOTARIZATION RAFFLE APPLICANTS, GO TO NOTARIZATION. 20. Does your organization understand that the bingo games shall not be conducted more frequently than two calendar days in any calendar week? 21. Does your organization understand that it is required to keep complete records of the bingo game. These records based on §18.2- 340.6 of the Code of Virginia and §4.98 of Roanoke County Code must include the following: a, A record of the date, quantity, and card value of instant bingo supplies purchased, as well as the name and address of the supplier of such instant bingo supplies, and written invoice or receipt is also required for each purchase of in- stant bingo supplies? b. A record in writing of the dates on which Bingo ismplayed, the number of people in attendance on each date, and the amount of receipts and prizes on each day? (These records must be retained for three years.) c. A record of the name and address of each individual to whom a door prize, regular or special Bingo game prize or jackpot from the playing of Bingo is awarded? d. A complete and itemized record of all receipts and disburse- ments which support, and that agree with, the quarterly and annual reports required to be filed, and that these records must 'oe maintained in reasonable order to permit audit? 22. Does your organization understand that instant Bingo may only be conducted at such time as regular Bingo game is in progress, and only at such locations and at such times as are specified in this application? 23. Does your organization understand that the gross receipts in the course of a reporting year from the playing of instant Bingo may not exceed 33 1/3$ of the gross receipts of an organization's Bingo operation? 24. Does your organization understand it may not sell an instant Bingo card to an individual below sixteen years of age? 25. Does your organization understand that an organization whose gross receipts from all bingo operations that exceed or are ex- pected to exceed $75,000 in any calendar year shall have been granted tax-exempt status pursuant to Section 501 C of the United States Internal Revenue Service? (Certificate must be attached.) 7 t! -~f 26. Does your organization understand that a Certificate of Occu- pancy must be obtained or be on file which authorizes this use at the proposed location? 27. Does your organization understand that awards or prize money or merchandise valued in excess of the following amounts are illegal? a. No door prize shall exceed twenty-five dollars. b. No regular Bingo or special Bingo game shall exceed One Hund- red dollars. c. No jackpot of any nature whatsoever shall exceed One Thousand Dollars, nor shall the total amount of jackpot prizes awarded in any one calendar day exceed One Thousand Dollars. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NOTARIZATION: THE FOLLOWING OATH MUST BE TAKEN BY ALL APPLICANTS I hereby swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury as set forth in §18.2 of the Code of Virginia, that all of the above statements are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and beliefs. All questions have been answered. Signed by: i f " Name Title Subscribed and sworn before me, this My commission expires: Tl 12L' }1 1 ct 19 ~ LI RETURN THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION T0: Notary Public COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE P.O. Box 20409 Roanoke, VA 24018-0513 H,.om~e Address J day of ~1"~ (-~ 19 ~f 8 t i~, ~`_~ NOT VALID UNLESS COUNTERSIGNED The above application, having been found in due form, is approved and issued to the applicant to have effect until December 31st of this calendar year. n ' ~ ~~ ~~ Date Commissi er the evenue The above application is not approved. ' Date Commissioner of the Revenue 9 ACTION # A-21489-12.e ITEM NUMBER I~ AT A REGULAR MEETINGTOTHEHROANOKE OCOUNTYEADMINISTRATIONNCENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD A MEETING DATE: February 14, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of a sanitary sewer easement being do- nated by Timbero tionnofmLotul5AsSections3 t Mapuof the westerly p Southern Pines COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Timberline Condominan easement for the locati n andtcono the County for public use struction of a fain Road20COlle~torlde sanitary sewer line as par of the Buck Mount The easement is located in the Cave Spring Magisterial Dis- trict, through the westerly portion of Lot 15, Section 3, Map of Southern Pines across the property of Timberline Condominium Asso- ~iates. Pursuant to Ordinance 1987, the Board authorized donations or dedications matters. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. No. 1027874, adopted on October 27, the County Administrator to accept of non-controversial real estate STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended thdertthe B onsent agendaly consider this acceptance by resolution un ~- Respectfully submitted, ~~-~- ~~ Sarah A. Rice Assistant County Attorney ----------------------------- VOTE -------------- ACTION Motion by: -- r~•^,~°n~~ Approved (x) Garrett Denied ~ ) Bob L. Johnson Received ( ) McGraw Referred Nickens To Robers cc: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering No Yes Abs X x x x A-21489-12.f ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANOKE oOUNTYEADMINISTRATIONNOENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE RO MEETING DATE: February 14, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of a sans Clair throughstheneasterg donated by Clyties W Ma of Southern ly portion of Lot 15, Section 3, P Pines COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Clyties W. St.Clair has ag locatio d and construct onyofoa public use an easement for the art of the Buck twenty (20) foot wide sanitary sewer line as p Mountain Road Collector. The easement is located in thoefCLot 15r, Sectgont 3, Maplof trict through the easterly portion Southern Pines across the property of Clyties W. St.Clair. t ber 27 Pursuant to Ordinance No. 1987, the Board authorized the donations or dedications of matters. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. 1027874, adopted on Oc o , County Administrator to accept non-controversial real estate STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the B onsentaagendaly consider this acceptance by resolution under the .~ ~-~O Respectfully submitted, ~/~t~ ~~~ Sarah A. Rice Assistant County Attorney ------------------------------------------------------------------ ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens/ No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Bob L. o nson Garrett x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred McGraw x To Nickens x Robers x cc: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering L -- / COUNTY OF ROANOKE, ~7IRGINIA CAPITAL FLJI`ID - ~ppPROPRIATID BADE 1 1988 $12,644 Beginning Balance at July , 50,000 Additional Amount from 1988-89 Budget (6,450) November 22, 198$ Improvements at Administrative Center 5~ 6. 194 Balance as of February 14, 1989 Submitted by (~1 ~~ ~, ~~ . ~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance L- ~, August 9, 1988 September 13, 1988 September 26, 1988 October 25, 1988 November 9, 1988 November 22, 1988 Balance as of ' COUIJI.'Y OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA UNAPPROPRIATED BASE - G ~~ Balance at July 1, 1988 Dixie Caverns Landfill Cleanup Transfer to Board Contingency Design Phase of Spring Hollow Reservoir minding for Public Information Officer Dixie Caverns Landfill Cleanup Lease Additional Office Space February 14, 1989 $3,037,141 (400,000) (50,000) (175,000) (46,500) (260,000) (34,783) 52 0- 7 8 The recommended level for fund bad t 1 Genera88~dlbudget lmum of $1,748,124, which is 3 percent of the Submitted by r~ / ' ~~ . ~'~ 1 ~~_~_, Y2.4,_.,~ ~~..- Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance ~° COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA RESERVE FOR BOARD CONI'INGE~xY 1988 $50,000 Original Budget at July 1, June 28, 1988 Funding of Length of Service Benefit for Volunteer Fire, Rescue, and (9,000) Auxiliary Sheriff's Deputies (39,405) July 26, 1988 Tweed's Access Road September 13, 1988 Add to Board Contingency from 50,000 Unappropriated Balance (3,500) September 26, 1988 Beautification of Brambleton Avenue September 28, 1988 Economic Development Trip to Northern (1,000) Virginia (Approved Administratively) October 6, 1988 Typewriter for Clerk of Courts (966) (Approved Administratively) October 6, 1988 Economic Development Promotion (1,025) (Approved Administratively) (2,000) Safekeeping of Securities October 11, 1988 October 20, 1988 Informational Brochure for November (6,500) Election (Approved Administratively) October 25, 1988 Additional Allocation to Total Action (10,000) Against Poverty (TAP) November 3, 1988 Survey Fees - Safety Cen~eoV~ d Forensics Lab Site (App (2,473) Administratively) (1,000) November 9, 1988 Bushdale Road (365) December 13, 1988 C. L. & 0. Investors December 20, 1988 Stonebridge Park Parking Lot (5,000) (Approved Administratively) (625) January 10, 1989 Salaries for Board of Zoning Appeals (1,000) January 24, 1989 Contribution to Arts Festival 1_x-6 Balance as of February 14, 1989 Submitted by .~ ~~,~ ,~~Q_, ~ ~ , /J Diane D. Hyatt ITEM NUMBER ! AT A REGULAR MEETATGTHE ROANOKERCOUNTYUADMINIOSTRATIONOCENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD MEETING DATE: February 14, 1989 SUBJECT: Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investments and po io Policy, as of January 1989. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Dominion Concentration First Virginia Concentration Sovran Savings Colonial American National Bank - CD Southwest Virginia Savings & Loan - CD First Virginia Bank - RA Sovran Bank - Government Fund SUBMITTED BY: ~ Alf ed C. Anderson Co my Treasurer 672.15 517,776.67 55,222.73 1,000,000.00 100,000.00 3,137,000.00 107,647.42 APPROVED BY: ~ ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -VOTE - - - --_'-- - _ _ _ ACTION No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Motion by: Brittle ,_ Denied ( ) Garret Received ( ) Johnson _ .-- Referred McGraw - To ~ _ , Nickens ~~~~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1988 RESOLUTION 21489-13 APPROVING SHORT-TERM BORROWING OF NOT TO EXCEED $17,000,000 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: WHEREAS, Section 15.1-545 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Code"), authorizes the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("Board") to borrow money for the purpose of meeting casual deficits in the revenue of the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County"); WHEREAS, the Board desires to approve the borrowing by the County of not to exceed $17,000,000 in anticipation of the collection of revenues and the issuance of the County's revenue anticipation notes therefor; WHEREAS, such borrowing is for the purpose of meeting casual deficits in the revenues of the County for the current calendar year, in anticipation of the collection of the taxes and revenues for the current calendar year; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the contracting of a debt and issuance and sale of the County's revenue anticipation notes (the "Notes") in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $17,000,000 pursuant to the authorization granted in Section 15.1-545 of the Code. Outstanding Notes may be paid by the County and new Notes issued from time to time in accordance with this Resolution so long as the outstanding aggregate principal amount of Notes at any time during the current calendar Further, the outstanding aggregate year not exceed $17,000,000. principal amount of Notes issued pursuant to this Resolution shall not exceed the limitations contained in Section 15.1 545 of the Code. Within such limitation, the County Administrator is such authorized to approve the final amount of the borrowing, approval to be evidenced by his execution and delivery of the Notes. The issuance and sale of the Notes are hereby authorized. 2. The Notes shall be issued in such form and upon such terms as may be approved by subsequent resolution of the Board. 3, The revenues to be received by the County from the current year's tax levy are hereby pledged to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Notes when due. 4, The County Administrator and Treasurer of the County are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Notes, and the Treasurer is hereby authorized to affix or imprint the seal of the County (or a facsimile thereof) on the Notes. The be by manner of execution and affixation of the seal may facsimile, provided that if the signature of the County Administrator and the Treasurer are both by facsimile, the Notes shall not be valid until signed manually by the registrar. The officers and agents of the County are further authorized and the Notes and by this directed to do all acts required by Resolution for the full, punctual and complete performance of all things necessary for this borrowing. 2 5. The appropriate officers and agents of the County are authorized and directed to execute a Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Notes and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to comply with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("IRC"), including the provisions of Section 148 of the IRC and applicable regulations relating to "arbitrage bonds." The County agrees that the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Notes will be invested and expended as set forth in the County's Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants, to be delivered simultaneously with the issuance and delivery of the Notes and that the County shall comply with the other covenants and representations contained therein. 6. The officers and agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to prepare, execute and deliver an appropriate official statement, notice of sale or such other disclosure documents as may be necessary to expedite the sale of the Notes. The official statement, notice of sale or other disclosure documents shall be published in such publications and distributed in such manner and at such times as the appropriate officers or agents of the County shall determine. ~, The officers and agents of the County are authorized and directed to take such further action as may be necessary or convenient in connection with the issuance, sale and delivery of the Notes and all actions previously taken by such 3 icers and agents in connection therewith are ratified and off confirmed. g. The appropriate officers and agents of the County are authorized and directed to immediately cause a certified copy f this Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court of Roanoke 0 Count pursuant to Sections 15.1-199 and 15.1-212 of the Code o Y Virginia of 1950, as amended. g. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. 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 A COPY TESTE: Clerk Mary H. Allen, Deputy Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Don Myers, Assistant County Administra or Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Reta Bushee, DCountyrAtMorneyent & Budget Paul Mahon y, 4 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~ 8 q "" AT A REGULAR ~ELDNAT THEHROANOKE COUNTYEADMINISTRATIONNOCENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA HE MEETING DATE: February 14, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing for Citizen Comment on Authorization for the Treasurer to Issue Up to $17 Million Revenue Anticipation Notes to Cover Operational Cash Deficits and Adoption of a Resolution Approving this Borrowing COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS: ,~~, ~~ - ~~~,~~~ L,~..`~,,rJ ~~~- '` sy '/////w /~/G/r(%/~~ /t~ A ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Section 15.1-171.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950b1ac amended requi to the eissuandce of any ebonds r (notes )hold h s public hearing prior hearing is being hedurin a the cu r ent calenda rryear lsnuanramount anticipation notes g not to exceed $17 milno~ nne~essary for tthe oCountya t dborrowsthe the County. It is ~ ublic hearing will entire $17 million at this time but this p cover any temporary cash deficits that might occur during the calendar year. The need for such short-term borrowing is not dues cessVebut shortfalls or problems in the revenue estimating p rather is a timing difference for cashflow purposes in whthe tax majority of the County's revenues are received during collection period in November (Decemberro)e t d taxes gaud eJune t5 of May (May 31 deadline for personal p p Y deadline for real estate Burin ).the yea dituSence nfund balanceais peak at different times 9 not sufficiently large t° occasionallyoborrow ein anti pat onaof deficits, the County mus rovide cashflow for these the receipt of the tax revenues to p periods. At this time, it is necessary for the County to borrow $9 million for this p work n withh theaFanappiale AdvisoregWheat staff will continue 9 First Securities) and Bond Counsel (McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe) to receive bids for this short-term borrowing on Tuesday, February 28, 1989 and will recommend a final award to the Board of Supervisors at your meeting on that date. It is anticipated that we will take posy be re aid oneJune hl5 n1989about March 8, 1989, and the loan will P z ~q-i FISCAL IMPACT: The interest expenseTherCo~ntywwill$bemableotowoffset a approximately $200,000 majority of this cost by investing the unused note proceeds as our cash needs fluctuate daretgtohcoverrthe•interesthcostbfor included in the 1988 89 b g this borrowing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: After to issue up the current Resolution Respectfully submitted, ~~_-n_~ti f~C_.i '~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance ______ ------------------- VOTE ACTION No yes Abs Approved ( ) Motion by: Garrett Denied ( ) Johnson Received ( ) McGraw Referred Nickens To Robers the required public hearing authorizing the to $17 million to meet casual cash deficits calendar year, staff recommends adoption of as prepared by Bond Counsel. Approved by, Treasurer during the final y ~,=~ Elmer C. Hodg County Administrator z ~~- i ~I'I~ OF ~1BLIC E~AR~`I'HE ~~~y pF~RCANCKE VIRGINIA of iven that the Board of Supervisors of the County Notice is hereby 9 ublic hearing in accordance with Roanoke, Virginia, ("County") will hold a P as amended on the issu- Secticn 15.1-171.1 of the Ccc'e of Virginia of 1950, ~3 S17 millicn short-term notes ( "Notes" ) for the Count- of not to e..c~_ hP C~.t_:nC? ar,d ante the purpose of meeting ca=ual deficits in the rove^.ue oL .._ for the colle~'ticn of taxes and other revenue of the COred by in anticipation of conside.. ution authorizing the issuance of the Notes will be p, resol 1959 , p, copy of oard of Supervisors at its meeting on February 14, the B Administrator. such resolution is on file in the office of the County ourned, will be held be continued or add The public hearing, which may rvisors ock .m. on February 14, 1989, before the Board of SuPe at 3:00 o cl P 3738 Brambleton Avenue, at the Roanoke County Administration Center, Roanoke, Virginia. Paul M. Manot ~Cy Comity Attorney Please publish in the morning editions on: January 29, 1989 February 5, 1989 Please send bill to: Board of Supervisors P o. BoX 29aoo Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 :~ AT A REG<JLAR MEE'T'ING OF ~ OANOKE ~,Y~payINISTRATIOi`l ,,~ 8 ~~"" ~,~y ~ VIRGI~~ ~ ~',gDAY , FEBRUARY 14 , 1988 APPRWING SHOD-PERM BROSOQ~ING~OF N TO ExG~ $17,000,000 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: WHEREAS, Section 15.1-545 of the Code of Virginia of s amended ("Code"), authorizes the Board of Supervisors of 1950, a of Roanoke, Virginia ("Board") to borrow money for the the County se of meeting casual deficits in the revenue of the County purpo of Roanoke, Virginia ("County"); WHEREAS, the Board desires to approve the borrowing by ount of not to exceed $17,000,000 in anticipation of the the C Y ollection of revenues and the issuance of the County's revenue c anticipation notes therefor; ur ose of meeting WHEREAS, such borrowing is for the p P deficits in the revenues of the County for the current casual ear in anticipation of the collection of the taxes and calendar y revenues for the current calendar year; THE BOARD OF NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY VIRGINIA: SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, of a debt and 1, The Board approves the contracting nce and sale of the County's revenue anticipation notes (the issua "Notes") in an aggregate principal amount of not to excee 000 pursuant to the authorization granted in $17,000, aid by be p Section 15.1-545 of the Code. Outstanding Notes. man accordance the County and new Notes issued from time to time i ,2 89- / as the outstanding aggregate with this Resolution so long the current calendar al amount of Notes at any time during princip a regate ear not exceed $17,000,000. Further, the outstanding g9 Y i al amount of Notes issued pursuant to this Resolution princ p of exceed the limitations contained in Section 15.1-545 0 shall n Code. Within such limitation, the County Administrator is the such thorized to approve the final amount of the borrowing, au of the a royal to be evidenced by his execution and delivery PP . The issuance and sale of the Notes are hereby authorize n Notes 2, The Notes shall be issued in such form an up he terms as may be approved by subsequent resolution of such Board. 3, The revenues to be received by the County from the ear's tax levy are hereby pledged to the payment of the current y principal of and interest on the Notes when due. reasurer of the 4, The County Administrator and T are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Notes, County rent the nd the Treasurer is hereby authorized to affix or imp The a seal of the County (or a facsimile thereof) on the No es.be by manner of execution and affixation of the seal may 'mile provided that if the signature of the County facsi ~ the Notes Administrator and the Treasurer are both by facsimile, The shall not be valid until signed manually by the registrar. and agents of the County are further authorized and officers this 'rected to do all acts required by the Notes and by di 'on for the full, punctual and complete performance of al Resolute things necessary for this borrowing. X89'-~ 5. The appropriate officers and agents of the County re authorized and directed to execute a Non-Arbitrage a ected use and forth the exp Certificate and Tax Covenants setting otes and containing such investment of the proceeds of the N be necessar in order to comply with the Y covenants as may as amended provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 IRC and ("IRC"), including the provisions of Section 148 of the The County applicable regulations relating to "arbitrage bonds. rees that the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Notes ag will be invested and expended as set forth in the County s -Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants, to be delivered Non simultaneously with the issuance and delivery of the Notes and that the County shall comply with the other covenants representations contained therein. 6, The officers and agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to prepare, execute and deliver an ro riate official statement, notice of sale or such other aPP P edite the sale of to exp disclosure documents as may be necessary Notes. The official statement, notice of sale or other the osure documents shall be published in such publications and disci ro riate distributed in such manner and at such times as the aPP P officers or agents of the County shall determine. are The officers and agents of the County 7. be authorized and directed to take such further action as m e and sal necessary or convenient in connection with the issuance, reviously taken by such delivery of the Notes and all actions p 'cers and agents in connection therewith are ratified and offs confirmed . ~~ ~' g. The appropriate officers and agents of the County are authorized and directed to immediately cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court of Roanoke County pursuant to Sections 15.1-199 and 15.1-212 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. 9. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The undersigned certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true, correct and complete copy of the Resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke held on February 14, 1989. Dated: 1989 County Administrator County of Roanoke, Virginia ACTION N0. ITEM NUMBER ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 14, 1989 AC;ENDA ITEM: 1989-90 Budget Work Session COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: A budget work session has been scheduled for this meeting. Staff is working with representatives of the General Assembly to update projections and anticipated funding for schools and increases in the meals tax. Staff is finalizing the projected revenue and will have the information available at the work session. ~~ ~~, ~~~ Elmer C. Hodg County Administrator ------------------------------------------------ ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: Yes No Abs Denied ( ) Garrett Received ( ) Johnson Referred McGraw To: Nickens Robers ~- .~ / _ __ _ - j,-..~..-_ _~ t- 1•~ ~- ~~ r- ~~~: 1. 1 f i .~ • 1 .~ ~~,11'fe - ~ ~~~ .j_:~.r ~==: ~~ ..~ ~L'!41' ~t ~ ~ ...1*T~~ t ~ t' ~. ~! ! ~ i 1 :~! l•,t ':..:: ...~..:.:...::r-- :. :' ...er' ..r- .. ...e'~'~• :':::- ..~~..;; :~::: •-. •'111.1 1 s i ! i ,:+~ ~ ~r-,,,w ,,,t:.. -.....-1~.--~:--rt~L-~•.::..~.~~:-1~.~-~: -IVY= :.. ••- -1~•~•=t~1~L~r.. • -1~ ~ ~i't.114111 I 111 ~~1!'+'~~!•!TT r1..... .1~..:.'.~:I:: V'-•rerr r.. ... ..L.......1.:•Yti•r411' i.. ... .~...:.~.I.Y'tYl`*R i.. ... .:~.:•• .~. ittY.~. ~' S~~f ~~l ~1 ~ 1.111 t lltfl~ 1 •1 '1.~~ ~!. 1 i i i ~ ~~ I r ~ J~'~~ It 1 `tl,l ~ ~~~,~+1111 ~~~lt~~I}11~~~~f'~ 1 Isis l! , ;f ~ 1, s'. +s.i 1 I;s,~s~~,,l~l~sll - - ~ t~ ~ -- - ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~'illli'lil~ j ! i ;'s':ii: ~ j+ a !1'1:`x'+1 ~t f ~ # ~I ~1 s 1'i~ , li i1,s! ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ i ~ s~15~''j1~ir i ~ 1 1 ! ~1 ~ ~ ~ 1l~t i+ i 1~ 1 s r . ! ~ ~ •tl~li. ~li!'fi'Ifl~~~~~~~~E~~~ ^ 1r~l~iti t~!!,!•+!~`r! ti!!!!'1ls.1 ~ is a~ i~,l;~ ~.'~: ~ ~ ' a ~ a 1 ...._ 1 j ( i'+T`!~ Ali{~i i )))~;I .~ i 1 '.. ~j1~``1~ ~~~ i 111 i~1~J ~~i~f ~ltll !! ~' ' `' 1 ,,,:,-, .., it ., ;~~'!'~. ~ - .5ti 1l7~tjlti~~~~ . 'l is ~ti~~~~ i~~ :! ~~ ! ~ ! i,1~ ~ III ~ it ~11i~; ~ rl 111+ ~!l1~1~~1 + ~~,:. • `. 11 : r..~- -..: ~~~ ~~ .•~ ~~~~_~.r~ .'~~ 1 ~~~~ ... r.~~_ '••.777...x_.1 i r.............._.......an.._.:a-•1~.•...._.......an..~.:a-~r:....~.......an..~.•,r±r:• ..^n..~.:r~r.-. ~u~~~~ c~o~x s~ss~~~ ~r: =4; !11 "THE BUDGET STAFF" TABLE OF CO[~FI'EBTPS Page Synopsis of General Fund Revenue Projections 1 Graph of Budgeted Revenues 1989-90 2 Meals Tax Revenue Projections 3 Stmmary of Unappropriated Balance - General Fund 4 Other Potential Sources of Revenue 5 Schedule of Long-Term Debt 6 Comparative Schedule of Taxes and Fees 7 COUI~FI'Y OF ROANOKE SYNOPSIS OF GENF'RAT, FUND REVEN(JE PROJECTIONS FOR FY 1989-90 BUDGET FEBRUARY 14, 1989 CATECORY LOCAL REVQIUE SOURCES: Real Estate Tax Personal Property Tax Sales Tax Business License Tax Meals Tax Utility Consumer Tax Motor Vehicle License Tax Other Local Revenues Beginning Fund Balance SUB'POTAL CONY~IONWEALTH FEDERAL TOTAL GEI~IERAI, FUND CATEGORY BLJ~gT BUDGET PROJECTED FY 1987-88 FY 1988-89 FY 1989-90 DOLLAR INCREASE PERCENT (DECRE',ASE) CHANGE $24,046,408 $25,780,009 $28,511,770 $ 2,731,761 10.6 9,509,200 10,200;000 11,650,000 1,450,000 14.2 4,045,745 4,390,492 4,200,000 (190,492) (4.3)$ 2,250,000 2,400,000 2,100,000 (300,000) (12.5) N/A 1,500,000 1,400,000 (100,000) (6.7)~ 1,450,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 -0- 0.0$ 1,251,895 1,150,000 1,325,000 175,000 15.2$ 4,010,513 3,575,923 3,818,370 242,447 6.8~ 157,570 500,000 -0- (500,000) (100.0)$ $46,721,331 $50,896,424 $54,405,140 $ 3,508,716 6.9$ $ 6,707,194 $ 6,947,816 $ 7,083,000 $ 135,184 1.9~ 000 150 $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- 0.0$ $ , $53,578,525 557,844.240 561,488,140 $ 3.643,900 6.3~ ANALYSIS OF NET INCREASE IN GII~]ERAL FUND REVENUE FY 1987-88 TO FY 1988-89 TO FY 1988-89 FY 1989-90 Meals Tax Beginning Fund Balance Other Revenues TOTAL NE41 REVENUES $1,500,000 342,430 2,423,285 $4.265.715 8.0$ $ (100,000) (500,000) 4,243,900 53.643.900 PROBABLE (7PHER SOURCES OF FUNDS Beginning Fund Balance Meals Tax (Charter Amendment) TOTAL PROBABLE OTfiER SOURCES OF FUNDS 6.3$ $ 500,000 300,000 $$ 8 1 c~ 2R nj N ?~ O N ~ 2 C7 ~ ~U~Rw ~~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~_ N ~ ~ ~ ZW W W O> X~ `~~- MM W = U~~J ~- Z ~ w O -~~ ~~ _ ~ Z ,~ w ~ w w ~~~ Q mz o W W ~ ~ Q ~. W o W ~- ~- W z ~ ~ ~ ~ w z w W ~ w ~ o o U ~ a Q M W p w cn oc z w w a C3 J 2 COUi~fl'Y OF ROANOKE, VIl~GINIA MF'AT S TAX REVENUE PRO.7FCTI01~ FY 1989-90 BUDGET FEBRUARY 14, 1989 FY 1988-89 Actual Revenues to Date: August for July September for August Octooer for September Novem'er for Octo'oer December for November January for December Total 6 Nbnths Ending 1/31/89 Estimated Total 12 Nbnths Ending 6/30/89 FY 1989-90 Projected Revenues Without Charter Amenclnent *20 Percent Increase Due to Charter Amenclnent Adjusted Projection for FY 1989-90 Budget Budget ~~ $ 125,000 $ 111,203 125,000 127,657 125,000 119,685 125,000 116,270 125,000 111,066 125,000_ 126,624 $ 750,000 $ 712,505 51,500,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 N/A 280,000 N/A $1,680,000 N A $1.700,000 *Approval of House Bill NtBnber 1137 by the General Assembly would allow Roanoke County to amend its Charter to include the collection of Meals Tax revenue on take-out meals for an estimated increase in revenues of 20 percent per year. 3 COLT[QI'Y OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE - GENERAL FUND FEBRUARY 14, 1989 Percent of General Fund Budget FY 89 FY 90 Balance at July 1, 1988 $3,037,141 5.2~ 4.9~ August 9, 1988 Dixie Caverns Landfill Cleanup (400,000) September 13, 1988 Transfer to Board Contingency (50,000) September 26, 1988 Design Phase of Spring Hollow (175,000) Reservoir OctoY~er 25, 1988 Funding for Public Information (46,500) Officer November 9, 1988 Dixie Caverns Landfill Cleanup (260,000) November 22, 1988 Lease Additional Office Space (34,783) Balance as of February 14, 1989 $2,070,858 3.6$ 3.3$ 1 Percent Proposed Budget Increase to Fund Balancel 625,000 Projected Fund Balance at June 30, 1989 52,695.858 4.7$ 4.4$ 1The recommended level for fund balance is 8 to 10 percent of General Fund expendi- tures. In FY 1989-90, General Fund expenditures are estimated at $61,488,140. Eight percent of $61,488,140 is $4,919,051 or $2,848,193 more than the fund balance of $2,070,858 as of February 14, 1989. 4 COU[~FI'Y OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA ~~ ppTENTIAI, SOURCES OF REVE[VUE FEBRUARY 14, 1989 Taxes $ 204,000 1 Percent on the Utility Consumer Tax Ratel $ 818,000 At 10 Percent $1,227,000 At 12 Percent $ 248,000 1 Cent on the Real Estate Tax Rate $ 550,000 Recordation Tax2 Fees $1,200,000 Refuse Fee ($4.00/Month) $1,000,000 to Other User Fees3 $2,000,000 Bond Funds Renovation of William Byrd Junior High School4 $ 820,000 (1986 General Obligation Bond Issue) lOriginal County ordinance imposing the Utility Consumee ~a jroen yicted ~~ent revenues to capital expenditures (or debt service paym Utility Consumer Tax rate to both residential and camnercial customers is 6 percent. 2Approval of House Bill Number 1720 would allow the State to distribute to cities and counties two-thirds of the Recordation Tax revenruoeVe ;r~uid become paid into the State Treasury. This provision, if app effective July 1, 1990, and would expire on July 1, 1995. The revenues must be dedicated for either public transportation or public education. 3~rehensive User Fee Study would cost $25,000. 4To use these funds for anything other than the renovation of William Byrd Junior High School, Roanoke County will have to revalidate the intended purpose of these bonds through the Circuit Court. These funds can only be used for capital items or for the debt retirement of this bond issue (principal and interest). 5 COUI~I'Y OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA SCHEDULE OF IANG-T~.~RM DEBT GENERAL COUNTY AND SCHOOLS FEBRUARY 14, 1989 Original 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 County Debt Loan Amount Payment Payment Payment General Obligation Bonds 1980 Public Improvement Issue $ 4,900,000 $ 490,750 $ 469,500 $ 448,250 1982 General Obligation Bonds 8,800,000 1,386,748 1,486,628 1,496,484 1986 General Obligation Bonds 6,339,000 873,369 886,730 910,503 G. 0. Bonds=vVater Reservoir 15,000,000 -0- -0- 1,438,030 Lease/Purchase Obligations 938 66 8,182 -0- -0- Remittance Processor Mag Tape Streamer , 9,640 1,896 -0- -0- Vinton Fire Apparatus 122,530 24,506 24,506 -0- -0- HP Upgrade-Model 58 HP Upgrade-To 950 Series 41,360 409,119 12,116 72,905 8,077 97,207 97,207 One-Arm Refuse Truck 286,522 67,185 67,185 67,185 1988 Lease/Purchase 1,550,000 372,185 372,185 372,185 Cashiering System 138,758 34,504 34,625 34,625 Fire Trucks 380,257 74,329 77,634 77,634 Fire Trucks-Back Creek 200,000 -0- 52,087 52,087 CAMA System 157,000 30,855 32,853 32,853 ildin B R i 000 300 -0- 78,133 78,133 g u escue ng Cave Spr , bt $3,449,528 $3,687,349 $5,105,175 County De School Debt 159 548 1986 General Obligation Bonds $ 4,900,000 $ 525,802 $ 533,847 , $ School Bonds-VPSA 4,565,400 591 778 9 475,804 411,060 588,422 753,201 580,738 738,231 State Literary Loans , , Lease/Purchase Obligations Heating Systems 506,935 135,729 106,848 84,441 Mobile Classrooms Phase I Energy Conservation 64,435 160,385 25,222 42,976 25,222 42,976 6,306 42,976 Phase II Energy Conservation 106,923 27,845 0- 27,845 286 29 27,845 286 29 Phase III Energy Conservation 106,923 000 1 000 - 80,000 , 199,232 , 199,232 School Buses (30) , , hool Debt S $1,724,438 $2,306,878 $2,257,213 c Total County and School Debt $5.173,965 $5.994.227 $7,362,388 Increase in Debt Service $ 820,261 $1,368,162 ~Y OF ROANUKE COMPARATIVE SCHEDULE OF TAXES AND FEES FEBRUARY 14, 1989 Roanoke County _ Roanoke City Item Various Various Electrical Fees Septic Tank Application $125 Per Application $10 Fee Real Estate $1.15 per $100 100 $ $1.25 per $100 $3.45 per $100 Personal Property Tax r $3.50 pe 00 @ 25~ 0-5 yrs. $3 $3.45 Machinery & Tools . 20$ 5-10 15$ Over 10 4$ 4$ Meals Tax Utility License Tax 1/2 of 1$ GR $.40 per $100 (Min. $30) 0) Electricity 1/2 of l~ GR 2.4 Percent GR (Min. $3 Telephone 1/2 of 1$ GR $.40 per $100 (i~lin. $30) Gas None None Water Utility Consumer Tax Electricity 6~ of First $15/ 10~ of Bill (No Ceiling) Residential Month 000/ t $5 i 10~ of First $20,000/ Commercial , rs 6$ of F Nbnth Nbnth Telephone 6$ of First $15/ 10$ of Bill (No Ceiling) Residential Month 6~ of First $5,000/ 10~ of First $20,000/ Commercial Month Nbnth Gas Residential 6~ of First $15/ 10~ of First $10 Month 6$ of First $5,000/ 10~ of First $20,000/ Commercial- Nbnth Month Water 10$ of Bill (No Ceiling) Residential None 10$ of First $20,000/ ~rcial None Nbnth Transient Occupancy Tax 2~ of Total Roan or 4$ Space Charge 7 COU[~PY OF ROANOKE COP,SPARATIVE SCHEDULE OF TAXES AND FEES FEBRUARY 14, 1989 Item Roanoke County Roanoke City Decal Automobile & Van $20 ~ $15 - $20 Motorcycle $15 $8 $15 - $20 Mobile Home Boat Trailers None $6.50 $6.50 Trailers (Variable) $15 - $20 $15 - $15 - $22 $66 Trucks (Variable) $20 - $80 Dog Tags $6 $7.50 Male Female $6 $10 Neutered $3 $5 $15 20-Dog Kennel $15 $20 50-Dog Kennel $20 Rezoning Single Family 115 $ + $5/Acre $25 Multiple Family $150 + $5/Acre $150 + $10/Acre Commercial $150 + $5/Acre $300 + $10/Acre Industrial $150 + $5/Acre $200 + $10/Acre Planned Unit Develo~nent $300 + $10/Acre Amendment of Zoning $50 Conditions $70 Building Fees $10 Reinspection Demolition Permit $20 $4 per $1,000 $6 Per $1,000 Moving of Buildings $4 per $1,000 No Charge Certificate of Occupancy $10 $10 Elevator Inspection $35 $35 Buildings Less than $20,000 $20,000 - $100,000 $100,000 - $200,000 $200,000 - $300,000 $300,000 - $400,000 $400,000 - $500,000 More than $500,000 More than $1,000,000 $4 per $1,000 $80 + $3.00/$1,000 $320 + $2.00/$1,000 $320 + $2.00/$1,000 $320 + $2.00/$1,000 $320 + $2.00/$1,000 $1,120 + $1.00/$1,000 $1,620 + $.50/$1,000 $6 per $1,000 $180 + $7/$1,000 $740 + $4/$1,000 $1,140 Flat Fee $1,540 Flat Fee $1,940 Flat Fee $2,340 + $1/$1,000 $4,340 + $1/$1,000 Mechanical Fees Various Various 8 COUI~FI'Y OF ROANOKE COMPARATIVE SCHIDULE OF TAXES AND FEES FEBRUARY 14, 1989 Item P1tIInbing Fees Fixture Floor Drain Water Heater Sewer Inspection Trailer Inspection Minimum on Permits Reinspection Fee Cable TV Franchise Tax Bank Franchise Tax Water Rates Sewer Rates Connection Fees Water Sewer Business License Retail Merchant Wholesale Merchant Professional Roanoke County Roanoke City $3 $1 $3 $10 $55 - $80 $10 $20 3~ Gross Revenue $.80/$100 Net Capital (80~ State Rate of $1 per $100 Net Cap.) Base Charge-Variable Volume-$1.04/1,000 Gal. Base Charge-Variable Volume-$.78/1,000 Gal. $5/Fixture (1-15 Fixtures) $15 + $2/Fixture (Over 15 Fixtures) Same as Fixture Rates $10 $25 Same as For House $5 $10 ' 4~ Gross Revenue $.80/100 Net Capital (80$ State Rate of $1 per $100 Net Cap.) Variable Based on Meter Size $.86 per 100 cu. ft. (Approx. $1.14 per 1,000 gallons) $1,536 5/8" Meter $500 4-6" Line $.20/$100 GR Minimum $30 $25 First $5,000 $50 $5,000-$10,000 GP Over $10,000 @ $.05/$100 GP $.50/$100 GR Minimum $30 Variable Variable $.20/$100 GR Minimum $30 $.20/$100 GR+$44 Base $.58/$100 GR 9 COUNri'Y OF ROANOKE COMPARATIVE SCHIDULE OF TAXES AND FEES FEBRUARY 14, 1989 Item Roanoke County Roanoke City Repair, Personal, ' and Business Service $.34/$100 GR $.36/$100 GR Minim~n $30 Building Contractor $.16,/$100 GR $.14/$100 GR Minimum $30 Alcoholic Beverages $75 Beer-Wholesale Dist. $75 Wine-Wholesale Dist $50 $50 Beer/Wine (On/Off Prem.) Mixed-Seating 50-100 $37.50 $200 + $.16/$100 GR $37.50 $200 + $.16/$100 GR Mixed-Seating 101-150 $350 + $.16/$100 GR $350 + $.16/$100 CR Mixed-Seating 151-Plus $500 + $.16/$100 GR $500 + $.16/$100 GR Mixed-Private Club $350 + $.16/$100 GR $350 + $.16/$100 GR Zoning Fees Development Plan Review $90 + $5/Acre $50 Minimum Per Acre Variance $45 $30 Special Exception $40 $30 Special Use Permit $20 $30 Landfill Fee Home Occupation $20 $40 + $5/Acre ~ ~~'5e Street Vacation $70 + $5/Acre $100 Cigarette Tax (Per Pack) None $.02 Admissions Tax None 5$ 10 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER / V ' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 14, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Landfill Siting Work Session COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The selection of a regional landfill has been underway since April 1988. A lot of work has 'peen completed; however, the process is in its early stages. The identification of the sites that will be submitted for application for a landfill permit is by far the most critical and controversial step in the process. As we approach this point in the process and a decision on February 28, it is important that the Board understand the entire process and what input the communities will have. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Board will receive an update from John Olver of Olver Incorporated on the status of the final report on the site selec- tion. The role of the Citizens Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission will be discussed along with the landfill siting process and future work schedule. SUBMIT'T'ED BY: J n R. ubbard, .E. Assista 't County Administrator Community Services and Development Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: APPROVED: u~! Elmer C. Ho g County Administrator ANION VOTE No Yes Abs Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers ~~~~ LAl!IDFILL SITS APPRWAL PROGffiS Board of Supervisors ~_ Citizen comments Selects 'Three Sites CAC Site identification and Owner Notification ite Walkover and S Preliminary Testing Final Re rt and Po Site Ranking l Notifies State De rtment County Pa Consultant of Waste Management of Intent Prepares to Site Landfill Part "A" Application Three Sites Roanoke County Planning Commission Reviews Sites for 456 Review and Special Use Permit l CAC recommendations 3 community meetings Board of Supervisors Considers CAC and Citizens Recannerr3ations of Planning '`- comments Commission for SpTecial Use Permit •, Board of Supervisors Notifies State Department of Waste Management of Board Action nt of Waste Mara ement Departure 9 Processes Part "A" Application l Part "B" Application Permii Issued Two Sites Construction - One Site l Operation - One Site Public Hearing Completed February 17, 1989 February 28, 1989 February 28, 1989 March 3, 1989 April 10-18, 1989 April 25, 1989 April 28, 1989 April-August 1989 October 1989 - February April 1991 June 1991 - October 1992 November 1992 '~ - a M E M O R A N D U M T0: Board of Supervisors FROM: John R. Hubbard -~~ DATE' February 14, 1989 RE: Landfill Siting Information For your information and reference, I have attached the following information: ° Landfill site approval process ° Citizens Advisory Committee involvement summary ° Planning Commission involvement summary ° Site maps on top six sites ° Site evaluation matrix ° Landfill siting schedule JRH:wr LANDFILL SITS APPROVAL PRpCffiS Hoard of Supervisors ~_ Citizen comments Selects Three Sites CAC Site Identification and Owner Notification Site Walkover and Preliminary Testing Final Report and Site Ranking l Count Notifies State Department Y Consultant of Waste Management of Intent Prepares to Site Landfill Part "A" Application Three Sites Roanoke County Planning Commission Reviews Sites for 456 Review and Special Use Permit Board of Supervisors Considers Reconmendations of Planning CcRmission for Special Use Permit Board of S rvisors Notifies State Department of waste Management of Board Action De nt of 1~aste Management Pro~cess~es Part "A" Application part "B" ~ lication Permii Issued Two Sites Construction - One Site l Operation - One Site CAC recommendations 3 community meetings CAC and Citizens '~- comments Public Hearing PRUTBCP)D TI14S TABi.B Completed February 17, 1989 February 28, 1989 February 28, 1989 March 3, 1989 April 10-18, 1989 April 25, 1989 April 28, 1989 April-August 1989 October 1989 - February 1 April 1991 June 1991 - October 199. November 1992 CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE PURPOSE• Identify key issues of the community and develop policies • that will address these issues and minimize the impact on neighborhoods surrounding the new landfill. (The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) will not select sites.) ISSUES BELNG ADDRESSED: ° Protection of private water supplies ° Protection of property values ° Road improvements ° Host community considerations ° Fire protection ° Landfill ownership and operation ° Operating hours ° Buffering ° Interim and post development and use of landfill ° Waste stream reduction and recycling ° Types of wastes ° Controls for dust, light, debris, odor, noise, etc. ° Tipping fees * Review of site evaluation matrix RECOMMENDATIONS: The CAC will prepare and present to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors a final report on the condi- tions that should be placed on the Special Exception Permit or separate agreements made to protect and minimize the impact on the adjoining neighborhoods. PLANNING COMMISSION 456 REV IEW• As required by the Code of Virginia, Section 15.1-456, the • location, character and extent of any public facility not shown on the adopted Master Plan must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as being substantially in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The review will focus on the projects compatibility with existing land uses and methods to mitigate any negative impacts. SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT: The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance requires a Special Excep- tion Permit to be granted by the Board of Supervisors prior to construction and operation of a landfill. Conditions may be placed on the permit as necessary to lessen or mitigate the negative impacts to the surrounding land uses. PERMIT CONDITIONS thedsitenandiinput andcrecommendations fromrthesCitizensiew of Advisory Committee and public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT: The Planning Commission will hold a community meeting in each of the three landfill areas. The final public hearing will then be held and action taken by the Commission. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Commission, after the public hearing, will make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors as to the 456 Review and the Special Exception Permit. Any permit condi- tions will be presented with the recommendations. NORTB ~~~ V _ °~_. - . ~~ ~\ \~\ O ~\ n \\~ ~v .~ ~~ _ ~ - 'v U pa~~z ~~ ~ 1591 1 ~ti~ •I' _ o i /, ~Ay _ ~. - , ' i O III '6V ~ !I ~ 1, ~ V ~ B M^~ ~i i / ~~ J '~, -~ r roM / o ~ 0 ~6~ $~~ - -+ ~ ~/ •,~ ~ `; o 'a a` [ ~ ~ 170 00 - ,1 ~ 622 ~ ~ ~_~ ___ ~- o~` ~ ~, B d - ~~ '-~ ~~ ~ .rte C~ ~ ? / ~ 1'490 `~` 'Gm a . _ _ ~ ~ ~~- \ \; 1500 p ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ a~ ,~ 8 M ~ ~ \/\'~ ® 1711 \~\ '~ ~ \ ` ~,: I / \~ F ' ~ .11 . ' ~~ j6. ~\ ~ ,` 2200 ~' ~~ ~ ~~. ~ \ ``` ~ ~b /j' _ O Il jjc/3 ~ __- ~ .~ ~ ` ,\\\ e - , ~ P ii - s - _. _ ~,_ ~ - 600 _ ~ i ~. ~0 138 ~ _~ _ _ - -- __ _. ~ ~ . o ~*-~ - _ o ~ ~ _ _ ~soo `b `. J ~~ ~_ ~ ~ , - ~ = ~ ~ - `~, - - _ - _, ,,na- ~ ~~~- " _ - ',-~^ _ ~ 4 ~ ~ _ _ - noa __ __ ~ 3053 _ _ _ ~~~ 't(I LANDFILL SITE BRADSHAW 1 rjR COMMUNITY SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT r ~'~ NORTH ~- _, ~ -„ ,~ f ear.-.c~`y C`~~'~~,~ ~ ~~ ~~ -~~ , ,i ~7 ~~ ~, , .~ ~ ~/ ~ / ~~~ a ~ ~ ,~ ~~ ~r, ~, o ~~,\ ~N~ ~~ f~ ~j \\ `v - .~ ~ - i N.. ~~ a \; > > '-~. ~~~.~~ ~\ ~ ~~ ~'l ;~~ ~ 8~ i ti ,~ I I / ~~ ~ ~ / l ~~! 4 r ~ ' ~ ~` j- ~~ `,~ ~ , 0 <~ ~~ ~~ ~ J ,~~~ COMMUNITY SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT ~_ \~~~ n ~~~~ ~-- ~ ~ ~ ~ _°~~, 1 r.~ .zsoo 1 ,~ ~. ~~ ~~ . ,1~i -~.~ '~, 1~ ~ ~ ,~, , ~~.~ ~ -- -~ c _--- _ - -~; ~ ~t~. ;~ r ^ ` `~~' J _, T `_~~ ~~ s ~ .~ ~b s~° . u `~~` _ Glenv ' ^ VE - y, ~, - - -- -- LANDFlLL SITE FORT LEWIS 6 ~' ~,~., ..a ~\.V6 /~ r K I L ~,w 4 ~ \ ,a : e an !•~ ~ ~ o, ~ ~.~- 4 ~ ~ ~~~ us as 1 i ~fi o 'p ~ ~... vi i tp -J ~o ~ •••••••• i6~~ •• •N! ••••••••••••••••••• . \ o; i ~ `~ n NORTH " VICINITY MAP D~'I'AII,FD I~ITRaC Ai~1LY5I$ .L $I'1'I~1G RAi~II~G 8Yg17!M ~gp~; l~ebsuaiy 13, 1989 PO r,. roc~ss To srr~ ~c~r F ~ ~) II~ 8 I~ocess to Bite coneideratians are impoactant in aesegairiq a safe and efficient raut~e of trana- in l g op the costa of deve ortatioti tQ the landfill with minimal iagacC oai residences d- p and businesses. Tire axass roadway is defined as that roa to the point of carrvergrerrx to t e way fran the laridfil~. ga the landfill. Point of ~~~~ is that point jn the y sYstan at which solid waste vehicles start their final. approach to the site. Theme r~eof~ ~tythe . a prima~.y or seoanda~y xr~adwaYs ~ as classified by VDO-T. 1. Distance Fran Solid Waste CR,.rrters (Alocig Ponds} ~ 20 miles 0 1 11 to 20 miles .... 2 ................. 0 to 10 miles Fran Pt~int Of Canver9'~~ ~ Landfill: 2. Distance 0 >3miles I 1 t~ 3 mi,ies 3. PraadmitY Zb Railroad: 0 > 0.5 mile ... 1 .......... 0 ~ 0.5 mile 4. Condition Affecting Access Zb Site/Access Roadway 'Ib Site Only: a. F~tistinq road requires major relocationlnew ~: This ranking systen- applies only after prelimitkuy site investigations have occurred. (~I VFR ~~ D~'lAII+ffi 14~TRIX AI~1t+~~ 2 SI'FipG Rid SYSl'F~ (aontiiYwd) read cocstru,c~tion 0 F~dstjnq road ~~ nai~or z'elocatian/road F~si.stinq road z~equires minitt~l upgzad~ ~ nO b. Me~~or bridges or dra~in~age s~nticture8 requ~r~ . 0 Minor bridges or drairutge et;tvctures 1 No bridges .r drainage s~$ 2 G. ~cisting traffic c~orxtitic~ns asi site aeoess road. (Highest traffic 3snsity area along route.) stf.on (>i500 ADT) 0 High traffic whim and/or con9e Moderate traffic volumes arrdlor intermittent congestion (501 ~ 1500 AU2I 1 2 Law traffic voltarre (0 -500 AST) • d. Nvm~~ of homes, busi.ryesses and industries visually impacted by site access roadway. >40 0 25tfl39 1 IOto24 2 0 tD 9 POIlIPS • 1~ MA~C~A''~ B. P(JBLIC LTi'II,z'TI~S (~C~iT FJ~i~~~OEt ° 3) The availability of public utilities at a landfill is i- tant for the following reasons: a. A water supQly within 1 mile of the site can ~~ re"' sidential wells in pravidinq water ~ homes sZxnald a pot- ential grr~undwatex voc'-tamination problem surface at the site. NO-FE: This ranking system applies only after prelim~.nary site imrestigations boas ocrvrred • b. Weber can b8 Px' by a well and ebox'agr system at the p~,pged ldnd!l.11 site ~' by pt~bliC 1s!lber 8lread1- avail-' ab]s if it is within a mile of the site. c. A sewer system i~ the vicinity of a landfill can be a possible mode of ledchatre disposal. As an altsrna-biv~er the availability of a nearby surface stream to handle the discharge of treated la~-c~tate is an aeoeptable altP.rnatlv~e bo the sewer systen if V'WC:B appxrNes. d, ~,ree phase power is naeeec~ary !or operation of the baler systenc- and can be a costly utility tQ install if it is nt~t readily avai.lab3.e. 1. Public Wgter Supply Availability: No 0 Yes ............................ 1 2. Public Sewer Availability: pump and Gaul 0 Seger Line and ~ Station . ~ . Y Gravity Sewer 2 3. Star~tater Managgaent: Can be handled with significant aagt 0 Can be handled with iooderate cast 2 Can be readiJ.y diverged 2 4. Availability Of 3 Phase Powex At Site ~tranoe: > 5000 feet 0 2001 to 5000 £eet l 0 to 2000 feet ~• POII~3 ~ -'f i,10-1'E: ~g rgnkuiq system applies only after prelimiSia2y site investigations have oocurned. C~1 VFR ~~ 1~TRIX AAW~YSZS Ii1I~'xT~+ 81'1' RANG SY~P~+1 (gontin:~ed~ and cost ooc~,i,d~rxationa provide ~- ~~ of rat- Land acreege arcel being car~eid~ered fvr P~ and dev~elc~neast. ~ ttya 1 p q a~ ggyG g~ of }his secti~ is ~ measuz~ of the initial capit$ AY ~~ the amount of acreage i re P penditures t0 Acqu that ie potentially suitebls tar l,andfilling ackivitie=. The le/~ndc~nk~s will affect tl'ye txnplexity of the t~nber of pt~roe als will not be ob~ta- i y s eagt~i,sitian. Appra e utilized. moues will b the project; t?~arefore- assessed Pr'o'PE'-~Y 1. ~ pf Site Considerations: Zbtal Acres of Site. (Ir~clud,es buffer/LViusable/1 a. acre~e } • Oto200acres 0 I 200 to 500 acres 2 > 500 acres . b. Usable I~rtidfi]1.irq Acx+eage s 0-150 .......................... 0 1 150 to 250 acres > 250 acres - - 2 2. Cost Per AGre/Tax Assessed Value: 0 > X1000 1 X500 - X1000 2 ~ ;500 ., g• Appraised Value Of Tr~rov+arents Or- Site: 0 . > ;250, 000. - - ... 1 . ..... ...... ;50,000 - X250,000 . 2 0 - ;50,000. ~: This rank-i~9 SYs'~ flies arty after' preliminary site inv~estigatione have occurred. OLVE~3 m~C:c~trvn~ ~~ LID !+A'tRI7~ ~+ II,L $ITII~Xi D. 4. rhsc+ber Of Parael~/Landoa-r~t~= 6 - 9 Parcels 1 2 - 5 Parcels 2 1 parcel 3 5, Number Of Aaaes Qn S~.te: 1 HQmie Z 0 ~kmes ~~M pOII~T15• = ~ pF~J?~MI'I'X TO RLSmP~~C,PS AND eOSIt~SSFS {~~' FK~ ~ 101 The ntsnber of diffe=ing types of facilities aid their respe~- tive distances to the ],~dfiil site will affect eaipliarne with ~paztment of waste Management regulations as well as pptential visual inpac'ts to such facilities if they cannot ~ adequately screetyed fram landfill activities. 1. Distance 7b Any Residences g~tt ACtiv~e Fill Area: 200 to 500 feet 0 501 to 1,000 feet 1 > 1, 000 feet 2 2, t~tt~r of Residences ar Businesses Within 1,000 Feet Of P,ctive Fill Area: >60 4-61 1-32 ;: his ranking system applies only after preliminary site invpstigatiarts have oocun.~d. C~t_VER ~,~{fiOq/QEP II,1+ IT11~' ~ A SX9'I'~I 3 . Ir ~~~ la d~lZ L+~r~en nth ~ Site ~r~e~ ~ s Can See >10 Q a-lo .......................... l 0-3 2 4. Presence Of School, Hospital ~ ~J • ~' Raciroat#,oa~l Park Within 200 Feet Of Proposed Lmt~dfill Site Bo~AaYy: >1.........., .................. a 1.. l o......... .................... 2 5. presence Of Airport Rurnaay Within 10,000 Feet Of pznpo~ Site Boundary: Yes ............................ a rb ...................~~ ~oarrs~ _ ~ E. G~Rg~I~1SIVL PTrAN G'C~ATI8IL1'!'Y I~TRIX** (WEIC~T F`ACR~Odt ~ 5) The c~atibility of potential landfill sites With a regional ec~apx+ehen- siv~e development plan is important from a regional planning and ].and use 'Ilse g,~anoke CduntY Iand IIse/DonQrelW'.nsive Deve].ops+nent P].en• perspective. tibili adapted. in 1985, will be used for de+~zm? *~tions of land use cam tY Site located in Rira1 ~~~ or F3ira1 Village land 2 Site located in bevelvpment or Principal ?ndustriml I larx~ usA catra~oY.Y Site located in any other land use cat.agoryM ~~• 0 = 2 ** Mining and extraction is the mast intens~iv~ei~ ~~~ This land5use Comprehensive Develagnent Plan s this catagory. was used to establish the ranking Np-I'~;: This ranking systdm applies only after Prel~'~Y site imnestigations have oc~r'ed • n~ vFR ~~~ f'. SITE CC~IDIR"IONS (W~C~'r ~~ " S} Bite cocyciitiooa dictate the technieal feasibility of davel+op- ~q ar~d gxsating an env~.ztixmentally sound larx1fi11. Ceblogy- soils aid topvgrr:p~l eoc~ditivno coupled with surface mater anti gra~nciwater charncteriatics o! the eit~e pr~vvide ~ indication o! the engineering cxnetrainta aeecciated with ae~rel,a~xnent of x landf#,l.l. The presence of vegetative owns en ttti parameter a# the site can ~ natural scxeerlinq' of t21e lendfillf however- heavy v~egetatiar~ in the areas of landfili activjt~.es requires adCii.taanal expense to be in~cvrred for its r~emaval. 2. Soil Conditions Based Upon prelitntrtary Sine Testing: a. Soils suitability far l~.r-erlcap usage. Lhfavorable 0 Slightly favorable - 1 Favorable . 2 Highly favorable 3 b. Que~ntity of suitable soil far liner/cap usages Ynsufficient soil . .. 0 !linimal sail 1 Sufficient soil 2 Exveas soil 3 c. Soil suitability for dai]p avers ttnfavoxable 0 Slightly favarable 1 Favorable . 2 Highly favorable 3 d. Quantity of soil suitable for daily cvve~r: I,~prj~; This ranking system applies only after prel~minaiY site ~,nv~estagations have occurred• ~1f ~/GR NvCp~~pp`,Q~ED ~ W~PRIX 7~1I+YSI3 $IR'~i 6YSl'~l (Cocstir~a~ed) Insufficientsoil. 0 MfsLimal Boil 1 Sufficient sail 2 ~coees soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 e. Pat~es:tial gvantitY of rxk that may ~ enoa~tiered during vibe dev~e].opcne~t: ~axasive quantities 0 Sane s^oc3c material. 1 No rock...... Z 2. t~ology Caxiitians: a. bedrock lithologies underlyi.r~g active ].z~ndfillin9 operation: pnfavarable for lardfilla 0 Slightly favorable for iarxifills 1 Fava~ra~ble x b. Structural onndi.tion of bedrocks Steeply inclined (~45°) or oaiplexly folded . ~ Moderately inc7;~ (15 ~ 45°) or sliylztly 1 Flatly or slightly inclined or massive 2 c. Tectonic edition of bedrock: Intensely fractured and/ar faulted throughout 0 Moderately to intensely fractured 1 2 Slightly fractured NO2'E: This ranking systsn applies only after prel.izniizary site investigations have oGCUrr+ed. C~! VFR ~~o 1~'RIX 1~-idC8I8 jam, $ITII~ G 8Y8'1~l (QOL'itifll7~d) 3. C~OUndwater Gariditian~ Dietanae to Piear+est Private Water Wall: a. Oto500 0 50I to 1, 000 feet 1 2 > 1, 080 feet b, ibex of private water wells within 1,000 feet of active fill area: 1 - ~ wells 1 0 wells 2 ~,uyc~water recharge are~et C. 0 C~dWrdtP.r d3.9Cha1'g'~ area . . . . . • . . 1 d. Estimated depth of water tmble below base of active fill area: iir~awn or 0 to 10 feet 0 1 10 to 25 feet 2 >25feet 4. Surface Water Conditions In Iandfi.ll Ar~e~t: e of surfave water egression: a. ap 0 Lakes and swattps I Perennial streaans .... 2 . ....... ..... ~ibennittent sts~~ans No significant s~faoe water present 3 b. Flood pQtaential of site ar~d road access: Within 100 year flood plain 0 NOTE: 'xhfs rankjng system applies ar-ly after prelim;nrary site investigations have oocvrred. ~V ~~ ricc~F~a~~ ~~ ~Qi1TRl7C 71~ALY$ZB gG SYB'1'1~i ((~p[1tiAU9d) . I po~.eritial far x5 yee~r st~~a f IoodirxJ Law or no flood pobeaiti~l . 2 q. Nt~mbAr of eps~Qs ~~ 500 feet of ].endfill apexations: 0 .. > 3 or urila~owti • . 1 1 - 3 Spring 2 None 5. Active Fill Areas vis3bie 7,b Off-•Sitre Oon~cerr~ ({~at~er Z'l~an 1, 000 Fbet) : . 0 Ye9 1 .. ~imized by sight barrier . Yes, 2 ............................ 1Qo 6. Site r ~ 0°~r Of Lar-dfill Area: . 0 a. Slopes unfavorable . (> 336 slopes aver more than 506 of site) . 1 Slopes slightly favorable • (10-33$ slopes over more ~` 508 of site) S]ppeS favorable far landfill 2 (0-98 slopes over more than 508 of site) b. V~tgtive oovpx o£ fill/borrow areas: 0 .- > 506 w~ooc~ed . 1 10 - 506 wooded . 2 < 106 weo~ - • c. Vegetative cover of site bo~arY was: . 0 < 258 wooded 1 . • 25 ~ 506 wooded . lies only aftPx preliminaiY sine NO-IL: 4lZis xankinQ system aPP inv~astigations have ~~• ~~V~ ~11II~ l~iZ'tt1X KiALY'6I8 IAI~YZL SITII~i R~IICaIG SY8'I'!~ (Qoritlnued) > 50~ wooded Z 7. Ifiique Phviz~oc:aet:tal Fac,~ars: a. Dietanoe Zb Xnowr- P~cv3mnot*+*~+~ ly Sensitive Add Historic Area: < 1 arils 0 1 - 5 miles . . . . . . 1 ,> 5 miles . .. ... .~ pOnarB ~_~ T; ~, L1FE E~OpACT~,NC.~Y (t~I(~l' FA~C'i'OR ; 8 The Life k~iectancy of a p~opoaed landfill any seriously affect the cac~sideration of a site far d~elogaei~t. A landfill of greater Life expectancy will be mare volt effective and may elimi.n~ate the potential difficulties associated with siting another landfill in a relatively short amount of tune. < 15 years 0 15 to 20 years 2 20 to 50 years 4 > 50 years 6 I~-XTI~i POIIdIS ~ ~ t~]OrPE: This ranking system applies achy after prelimisiazy site investi.gatians have occurred. Jab N~at~ber 11736 Jatn~ry O5, 1989 r~~ ~ irn MYG~OR~ ED ~ ~ m c~ ~ CQ ~ ~ ~ ~' ° w G u O ~.-1 >•+ a a ° N S~ Tvva3 N b ~ w N ~ T O ~ O z a ~ ~ ~+-~ H ~ O i ~ ~ 1 I ~ ~ i I C o ~ ~ 1 - Y. I ~~ G I 1 c3 ; O u r-1 ~ 1 .. al E= ~ 1 3 G C~ I i ~ ~ an I I . ~ ~ O 1 ~ x al al I ~ .C p ~ ~ 1 I 1 r-1 U ~+ O 41 S i rl xa3 ~ ow a>•+i I Q i ~7 ~ I I I N 1 o0 0 1 00 ~ ~ 1 I ~ ~ ° I ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ U I U ~ I U 6 1 U I U ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ II 1 ~/'~ I I ~ 1 w ~ I ~ I I ~ I 1 ri. '! I I I - I ~ ~ I aA 3 '-1 x ~0 OD I I I ~ ~ ~ E `~ I I ' 1 I ~~~ ~~~ ~ WH I +++ 111 V I ~ i cn I I ' ' I ' w I ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 ~ G ,~ o ; 6 b •rl >•+ w sJ ~ O r ; r ^ r 1 1 U O ~ 4J ~ ~ ~ ~ C] ~ W u 1 ~ O 1 1 1 N I 1 ~ G 1 00 T \ ~ •rl •,~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H H ""~ '--I ' ~ ~ x x .b b h I. I~ I~ ~. N~ ~ ~ `~ O ~ eel „ . ~~ °A ~' ~ V 1d.. w O o ~ ~ ~ ~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ N3~~ N ~ w O F..1 H O AA V_ ~"~ ~ G Cl rl C `r1 ~ ; N YI c0 ~w 3 ~ ~ a~ ~O b U CL ~ ~ W d U ~ ~ cn ~ .9 i~ i~ ~ ~ `~ ~o ~ .~ ': ~ ~ d .'.i cd ~ w u ~ ~+ ~ a d b o o a Q 6 w U O J 00 ~ ~ ~ ,~ rl ~ a' ~1 ~ N ~ U d d U U 1 e~ ~J 00 H y U I d U i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ DO rl a~ U d U t^ ~ ~ ~ y oo ~°+ y ~ ~ • m ~~ +~ ,~ o •,~ a v m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ `~ C1 !~1 a u.. ~ ~ r ~ ~ F- J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ w ~ ~ b a `~ . , 1..~ ~ M x b o a ~"~ aA 3 ~ ~ ~L ~ as ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ a ~ V a Cl~ oo ' ^ a.i Oo `J ~ ~ "~ ~ ~ ~ a~ y o a ~ a~ u c a U o xN U • •1 O w 3 ~o ~ G y U ~ ~ r a i ~ ~ U •r-I > ~ v ~' a p ~ . .~ `~ oo a~ ~ ~~ ~ b •,~ ~ c ~• ~ ~ Ra G ~ ~ OU1 ~ O C k ~ o •,~ ~ v, a a~ ca o w a., v ~., ~ ~ v~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ,-~ c~ x -~ ~ U U rl ~ r-1 •r-1 ,D Cn a ~ S O N-a D~~~ LANDFILL MATRIX p,NALYSIS (Continued) N(1MBER OF POINTS PERCENT SITE EVALUATION FAC'T'OR POSSIBLE OF TOTAL 56 12.2 A. Access to Site 21 4.6 B. Public Utilities 14 3.1 C• Acreage/Cost 90 19.6 D, Proximity to Residences 10 2.2 E. Ccxnprehensive Plan 220 47.9 F, Site Conditions 48 10.4 G• Life Expectancy 459 100 $ NCrT'E• This ranking system applies only after preliminary site investigations • have occurred Job Number 11136 Revised: February 13, 1989 OLV ER INCCif2f'~, )NAB L /~/~ -- -~ °~ '~ - OI7'I'LINE FOR REPORT ~ ~ '~ ROANOKE COUNTY ~~ ~~ `~~:~~ Preliminary Evaluation of Potential Sites for Regional Landfill I • EXECUTIVE SIJrM'lARY II. INTRODUCTION SO°Pe of import -Determine 3 sites suitable for Part A Applications III. PROJF]~I' HISTORY A. RVFSTn~ -Started process B. Roanoke County -Finish IV. IlVITIAL RANKINGS -MATRIX ANALYSES A. Tax Map Search -Originally Sites Over 50 Acres B. Sites Originally Considered in 4 Counties C. Consider Only Roanoke County D. Original 15 Sites -Ranked, Rated E. Top Five Sites Evaluated F. Sixth Site Added at County's Request -Explain V. STATUS OF C[JRRII~7T LANDFILL AND SOLID i~STE PLI~NNING VI. D~n~! NEW SOLID WASTE MANAGEL~V'I' RE(,-~JJ,ATIONS (APPE[~TDIX) VII• GEATERAL DISCUSSION OF EVALUATIVE PROCEDURES A. Site Walkovers B. Soils 1. Discussion of Soils of Roanoke County 2. Geotechnical Methods of Investigation OLVER INCORPORATED C. Geology of Region D. Economic Factors 1. Development Costs 2. Operating Costs 3. Transportation Costs E. Develop Expanded Matrix VIII. ASSUMPTIONS UTILIZID IN TECHIVICAL/FTIGIl~RING EVALUATION OF SITES IX. SITE SPECIFIC TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS A. Site 5R - Bradshaw 1. General Discussion of Site (Acreage/Property Owners/Local/Map) 2. Results of Geotechnical Investigation 3. Engineering/Design Constraints a. Site Access b. Landfill Development c. Environmental Factors 4. Economic Factors a. Development Cost - Initial and Annually b. Operating Cost B. Site 6 - Ft. Lewis Mountain 1. General Discussion of Site (Acreage/Property Owners/Local/Map) 2. Results of Geotechnical Investigation 3. F~gineering/Design Constraints a. Site Access b. Landfill Develo~nent c. Enviror~nental Factors OLVER INCORPORATED 4. Economic Factors a, Development Cost b, Operating Cost C. Site 8 - Buck Mountain Owners/Local/Map) 1, General Discussion of Site (Acreage/Property 2, Results of Geotechnical Investigation 3. ~gineering/Design Constraints a. Site Access b, Landfill Develo~nent c, Envirornnental Factors 4. Econcanic Factors a. Development Cost b. Operating Cost D. Site 9RR - Boones Chapel 1. General Discussion of Site (Acreage/Prope~Y pwners/Local/Map) 2, Results of Geotechnical Investigation 3, g~gineering/Design Constraints a. Site Access b. Landfill Development c. Environmental Factors 4. Economic Factors a. Develo~nt Cost b, Operating Cost E. Site 35 - Mt. Pleasant 1, General Discussion of Site (Acreage/Property Owners/Local/Map) 2, Results of Geotechnical Investigation OLV ER 3, Engineering/Design Constraints a. Site Access b, Landfill Development c. Envirorm~ental Factors 4, Economic Factors a. DeveloFanent Cost b. Operating Cost F. Site 44 - Red Hill 1. General Discussion of Site (Acreage/Property Owners/Local/Map) 2, Results of technical Investigation 3, Engineering/Design Constraints a. Site Access b. Landfill Development c. Envirornnental Factors 4. Economic Factors a. Develo~~ent Cost b. Operating Cost X, F2ANKING OF SITES USING EXPANDID MP,TRIX XI , CONCLUSIONS AND gIDOTquiENDATIONS A. Identify 3 p4ost Favorable Sites 1. By ~panded Matrix Analysis 2, By Cost Effective Analysis 3, Any Technical Limitations/Problems to Eliminate a Site (i.e. Too Short of Life, etc.) OLVER B . Recommen~tions 1. Sites to Pursue with Part A Applications 2, P,dditional Testing/valuation Requir~nents 3, Time Frame Considerations as to Life F~ectency of Present Landfill. C, Schedule for In~lementation of Recommendations Job Niunber 11136 F~~ary 14 , 1989 OLVER N _ -, oS D~~~ r~ATRIX ANALYSIS LANDFILL SITING RANKING SYSTEM REVISID: February 13, 1989 A• ACCESS TO SITE (WEIGHT FAC'DOR = 4) POIN'I5 Access to site considerations are important in assessing the costs of developing a safe and efficient route of trans- portation to the landfill with minimal ilig~act on residences and businesses. The access roadway is defined as that road- way from the landfill gate to the point of convergence to the landfill. Point of convergence is that point in the roadway system at which solid waste vehicles start their final approach to the site. These access roadways can be Prunary or secondary roadways, or a canbination thereof, as classified by VDOT. 1. Distance Fran Solid Waste Centers (Along Roads) ; > 20 miles . . 0 11 to 20 miles 1 0 to 10 miles 2 2. Distance From point Of Convergence To Landfill: > 3 miles . . 0 1 to 3 miles 1 0 to 1 mile 2 3 • prOX~-tY 'I'o Railroad: > 0.5 mile . . 0 0 - 0.5 mile 1 NOTE: This ranking system applies only after preliminary site investigations have occurred. OLVER INCORPORATED DETAII~ Mp,TRIX ANALYSIS I,ArIDFILL SITING BANKING SYSTFi~i (Continued) n Affecting Access To Site/Access Roadway To Site diti o 4. Con Only: Existing road requires major relocation/new 0 a. road construction Existing road requi-res minor relocation/road. 1 construction • Existing road requires minimal upgrading. nO• 2 relocation b, Major bridges or drainage structures required - 0 1 . Minor bridges or drainage structures . 2 No bridges or drainage structures c. Existing traffic conditions on site access road. nsity area along route.) d e (Highest traffic high traffic volume and/or congestion (>1500 ADT) - 0 congestion and/or intermittent Moderate traffic volutres 1 . • (501 1500 ADT) . Low traffic volture (0 - 500 ADT) 2 Number of homes, businesses and industries visually d . impacted by site access roadway. . 0 > 40 . 1 25 to 39 . 2 10 to 24 . 3 0 to 9 ~ ~~,5 14 _ ~~: This ranking system applies only after prelimi.nazY site investigations have occurred. OLVER DETAILED MATRIX ANALYSIS I,ADIDFILL SITING RANKING SYSTII~I (Continued) B . PUBLIC UTILITIES (WEIC~iT FACTOR = 3 ) The availability of public utilities at a landfill is impor- tant for the following reasons: a. A water supply within 1 mile of the site can replace re- sidential wells in providing water to homes should a pot- ential groundwater contamination problem surface at the site. b. Water can be provided by a well and storage system at the proposed landfill site or by public water already avail- able if it is within a mile of the site. c. A sewer system in the vicinity of a landfill can be a possible mode of leachate disposal. As an alternative, the availability of a nearby surface stream to handle the discharge of treated leachate is an acceptable alternative to the sewer system if VWCB approves. d. Three phase power is necessary for operation of the baler system and can be a costly utility to install if it is not readily available. 1. Public Water Supply Availability: No 0 Yes 1 2. Public Sewer Availability: . 0 p~[~ and Haul . Station 1 Sewer Line and Pump . . 2 Gravity Sewer . 3. Stormwater Management: ficant cost 0 Can be handled with signi . . 1 Can be handled with moderate cost . . 2 Can be readily diverted . NC71~• This ranking system applies only after preliminary site • investigations have occurred. ~i vER INCORPORATEL' DETAIT,F'n MATRIX ANALYSIS LANDFILL SITING RANKING SYSTEM (Continued) 4. Availability Of 3 Phase Power At Site Entrance: > 5000 feet 0 2001 to 5000 feet 1 0 to 2000 feet 2 MAXIl~'IDM POIN'I5 = 7 C. ACRFAC~/COST (WEIGHT FACTOR = 1) Land acreage and cost considerations provide a means of rat- ing the parcels being considered for purchase and develoXanent. The score of this section is a measure of the initial capital ex- penditures to acquire the property versus the amount of acreage that is potentially suitable for landfilling activities. The number of parcels/landowners will affect the ccenplexity of the acquisition. Appraisals will not be obtained at this point in the project; therefore, assessed property values will be utilized. 1. Acreage Of Site Considerations: a. Total Acres Of Site. (Includes buffer/unusable/actual acreage.) 0 to 200 acres 0 200 to 500 acres 1 > 500 acres 2 b. Usable Landfilling Acreage: 0 - 150. 0 150 to 250 acres 1 > 250 acres 2 2. Cost Per Acre/Tax Assessed Value: > $1000. 0 $500 - $1000 1 < $500 2 NOTE: This ranking system applies only after preliminary site investigations have occurred. OLVER DETAILID Mp,2~ p,Np,LYSIS L,p,I~IDFILL SITING Rp,NKING SYSTEM (Continued) 3. Appraised Value Of Improvements On Site: • 0 > $250,000. . 1 $50, 000 - $250, 000 . 2 0 - $50,000. . 4. Ntunber Of Parcels/Landowners: 0 . > 10 Parcels . 1 . 6 - 9 Parcels 2 2 - 5 Parcels 3 . 1 Parcel • 5, Ntunber Of Homes On Site: 0 > 3 Hayes 1 . 2 - 3 Hanes . 2 1 Hone • 3 0 Homes NlAXIMCTM POINTS = 14 TY TO RESIDENCES AND BUSINESSES (WEIC~iT FACTOR = 10) D, PROXINII The rnmiber of differing types of facilities and their respec- ct canpliance with ff e tive distances to the landfill site will a ement regulations as well as potential na M g a partznent of Waste ~'- cannot be adequately ch facilities if they visual impacts to su screened fran landfill activities. 1. Distance To AnV Residences From Active Fill Area: . 0 200 to 500 feet • 1 . 501 to 1, 000 feet ' . 2 > 1, 000 feet • NOTE: This ranking system applies only after prelimi-nary site investigations have occurred• OLVER DETAILED ~X p~ALYSIS I,AI~IDFILL SITING BANKING SYSTII~I (Continued) 2, Ntmiber Of Residences Or Businesses Within 1,000 Feet Of Active Fill Area: > 6 0 . 1 4 - 6 . . 2 1 - 3 . 3. Number Of Residences Or Businesses Within 2,000 Feet Which Can See The Active Landfill Area Even With Site Screening: . 0 > 10 . 1 4 - 10 . 2 0 - 3 • 4. Presence Of School, Hospital, Nursing Hone. Or Recreational Park Within 200 Feet Of Proposed Landfill Site Boundary: > 1 0 1 1 0 2 5. Presence Of Airport Runway Within 10,000 Feet Of Proposed Site Boundary: Yes 0 1 No Ng1XIM[JM POINTS = 9 E. CCY"iPRF~~TSIVE PLAN COMPATIBILITY MATRIX** (WEIGHT FACTOR = 5) tential landfill sites with a regional cc~rehen- The c~~patibility of po Tonal fanning and land use sive development plan is import'-ant frcan a reg P NOTE: This ranking system applies only after preliminazY site investigations have occurred. OLVER D~J,Ep Mp,~tIX ANALYSIS I,AI~IDFIId~ SITING BANKING SYS7-~I (Continued) Land Use/Ccanprehensive Development Plan, perspective, The Roanoke County tibility. adopted in 1985, will be used for determinations of land use cce~ipa Site located in R,xral preserve•or Rural Village land• - 2 use catagory Site located in Development or Principal Industrial 1 land use catagory . . 0 Site located in any other land use catago ~~ ~~~ _ ** Mining and extraction is the most intensive use~l~st~ This land use Cca~rehensive Development Plan s Compatibility was used to establish the rankings for this catagory. F. SITE CONDITIONS (WEIC~iT FACTOR = 5) Site conditions dictate the technical feasibility of develop- ing and operating an envirornnentally so ed ~~fl~face wa~~and soils and topographical conditions c~P rovide an indication of groundwater characteristics of the site p nt of a the engineering constraints associated with developme meter of landfill. The presence of vegetative cover on the per' the site can provide natural screening of t~ landfill; however, heavy vegetation in the areas of landfill activities requires additional expense to be incurred for its removal. 1. Soil Conditions Based Upon Preliminary Site Testing: a. Soils suitability for liner/cap usage. . ~ Unfavorable . 1 Slightly favorable . 2 Favorable . . 3 Highly favorable . N(7PE: This ranking system applies only after preliminary site investigations have occurred. OLV ER DE'I'AZLED Iyp,TB~ p,Np,I,YSIS r,A1~IDFILL SITING BANKING SYSTIIK (Continued) b. Quantity of suitable soil for liner/cap usage: . ~ Insufficient soil . 1 Minimal soil . 2 Sufficient soil . 3 Excess soil - c. Soil suitability for daily cover': , 0 Unfavorable - . 1 Slightly favorable ' . 2 Favorable . . 3 Highly favorable d. Quantity of soil suitable for daily cover: . ~ Insufficient soil ' , 1 Minimal soil . _ 2 Sufficient soil . 3 Excess soil e. Potential quantity of rock that may be encountered during site devel~nt= . ~ ~cessive quantities • . 1 Score rock material -, . ~ No rock . Npr~; This ranking system applies only after preliminary site investigations have occurred. OLV ER DErAILID Mp,~g ANALYSIS I,ArIDFILL SITING BANKING SYSTEM (Continued) 2. Geology Conditions: a, Bedrock lithologies underlying active landfilling operation: . 0 Unfavorable for landfills ' . 1 Slightly favorable for landfills . 2 Favorable . b. Structural condition of bedrock: lexly folded 0 Steeply inclined (>45°) or ccsnp Nbderately•inclined (15 ~ 45°).or slightly. 1 folded . 2 Flatly or slightly inclined or massive c. Tectonic condition of bedrock: hout 0 Intensely fractured and/or faulted throng • • 1 Moderately to intensely fractured ' . 2 Slightly fractured ~ • 3. Groundwater Condition: a. Distance to Nearest Private Water Well: . 0 0 to 500 . 1 501 to 1,000 feet ' . 2 > 1, 000 feet . b, Number of private water wells within 1,000 feet of active fill area: . 0 > 4 wells . . 1 . . 1 - 4 wells . . 2 0 wells . Stem applies only after preliminary site ~; 'This ranking sy investigations have occurred' OLVER DETAILED MP~'RIX ANALYSIS I,p,1~IDFIIZ SITING BANKING SYSTEM (Continued) . 0 c. Groundwater recharge area ' 1 . Groundwater discharge area . ted depth of water table below base of active fill i ma d. Est area: 0 . Unlmown or 0 to 10 feet 1 . 10 to 25 feet • 2 > 25 feet 4. Surface Water Conditions In Landfill Area: a• Type of surface water expression: . 0 Lakes and swamps . . 1 Perennial streams . 2 . Intermittent streams . 3 resent No significant surface water p b. Flood potential of site and road access: 0 • Within 100 year flood plain . 1 flooding potential for 25 year storm ' 2 . Low or no flood potential . Number of springs within 500 feet of landfill c• operations: . 0 > 3 or unknown • 1 . 1 - 3 spring . 2 . None ~~: This ranking system applies only after preliminary site investigations have occurred. OLVER D~~~p Typ,~IX p,NALYSIS I,ANDFII,L SITING BANKING SYSTEM (Continued) 5. Active Fill Areas Visible To Off-Site Concerns (Greater Than 1,000 Feet): Yes 0 1 Yes, minimized by sight barrier ' 2 No 6. Site Topography And Cover Of Landfill Area: 0 . a. Slopes unfavorable (> 33~ slopes over more than 50$ of site) 1 . Slopes slightly favorable than 50~ of site) (10-33$ slopes over mere 2 . Slopes favorable for landfill than 50~ of site) (0-9~ slopes over more b. Vegetative cover of fill/borrow areas: . 0 > 50$ wooded . 1 10 - 50$ wooded - 2 . < 10 $ wooded Vegetative cover of site boundary areas: c . . 0 < 25$ wooded . 1 25 - 50$ wooded . 2 > 50$ wooded . NOTE: This ranking system applies only after prelimi.nazY site investigations have occurred. OLV ER D~ATT~ MATRIX ANALYSIS I,AI~IDFILL SITING RANKING SYSTII~'I (Continued) ~• Unique g1vironmental Factors: a. Distance To Known Environmentally Sensitive And Historic Areas: . . 0 < 1 mile . . 1 1 - 5 miles . • 2 > 5 miles • ~~~' POINTS = 44 G. LIFE EXPECTANCY (WEIC~iT FACTOR = 8) of a proposed landfill may seriously The Life Expectancy t• A landfill affect the consideration of~lli~ ~redcostoef festive and may of greater life expectancy eliminate the Potential difficulties associated with siting another landfill in a relatively short amount of tiure- . 0 < 15 years . 2 15 to 20 years • • 4 20 to 50 years . 6 > 50 years N~,XIM[JM POINTS = 6 NpirE: This ranking system applies only after preliminary site investigations have occurred. Job Ntamber 11136 January 05, 1989 OLV ER 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: February 14, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Olver Report Phase I, Recycling Evaluation COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Regional Landfill Board's consultant on recycling, Olver Incorporated, will make a presentation on their study on the Phase I Recycling Evaluation. This report was distributed to the Board in October. The consultant will discuss options available and their associated costs. Staff will be available to comment on the report and answer any questions of_ the Board of Super- visors that may concern the option(s) that the County should pursue. a~ ~ ~ John R. ub ar , P. E mer C. o g Assistant County Administrator County Administrator Community Services and Development Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers Motion by: ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs N "~ TABLE 1.5 GENERAL WASTE CLASSIFICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ~STES RECEIVED AT BOARD'S REGIONAL LANDFILL IN 1986 AND 1987 WASTE CLASSIFICATION Construction/Debris Cca~mercial/Industrial Residential Curtmulative Total ~ 1 ~ 1986 TOTAL WEIGHT $ OF TOTAL 45,800 tons/year 25$ 67,000 36$ 70,600 390 183,400 100$ 1987 TOTAL WEIGHT $ OF TOTAL 46,500 tons/year 25$ 66,600 36~ 72,900 39$ 186,000 100$ Note: 1. C~unrnilative totals do not include hazardous waste c~nent disposed of under RCRA requirements by local industries. Job No. 11041 October 11, 1988 ~. .r-r~~ Uo oC n ~, Post-collection separation d, Licensing of recycling centers 3, Implementation approach for the Board considering: a, Flow Control/Rate structure revisions b, Residential recycling/Buy-back Centers ~, Commercial/Industrial Solid Waste and Construction debris recycling d, Yard Waste Composting e, Promotion of Office Paper, Tire and Used Oil Recycling The issues concerning recycling in the Service Area are complex as noted above dunted jurisdictional, private sector and existing recycling approaches. The alternatives which are prese in this chapter are considered recommendations only. Since many alternatives are possible in recycling applying .portions of the suggestions contained in this chapter and/or considering combinations of these alternatives to arrive at a final recycling program may be in order. Therde~s no right or wrong way to devise and implement a comprehensive recycling program as evidence y No two service areas the varied success of different methods of recycling throughout the country. are alike, therefore, the Roanoke Valley Service Area must be evaluated as an individual and specific area for development of a comprehensive recycling program, utilizing current knowledge gained on recycling along with additional technical information developed for the expansion of the existing programs. B. ASSUMPTIONS UTILIZED TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVES _ In evaluating and recommending a recycling program, there are many areas and issues for which assumptions must be developed in order to arrive at cost projections, estimated recycled _ volumes, and recommendations on implementation. Unknown issues such as levels of participation, complete characterization of the existing solid waste stream, secondary market price fluctuations are roximate ~- just a few examples of unknowns for which assumptions must be made to determine app costs, tons of materials to be recycled and the overall impact of the recycling program on solid waste ` disposal. Below is a detailed listing of assumptions that have been utilized in the development of recycling alternatives for residential collection and recycling and for industrial/commercial solid waste and construction debris recycling for the Service Area. These assumptions have been based 105 ' ns within the Service Area and information obtained from national cond~t~o upon a review of existing considered. Changes in these surveys of other recycling programs similar to the alternatives being ro ram, the be made which in turn will impact the estimated cost of the recycling ed.g assumptions can f the solid waste recycled and the possible combination of alternatives se e volume o alternatives. (Not Estimated residential solid waste stream reduction assumption by 1. total waste stream.) a• buy-back centers - 10 percent b• drop-off centers - 7 percent c• curbside separation collection - 14 percent d• commingled collection - 19 percent 2• Economic Assumptions ears. ital cost debt service is calculated at an 8 percent interest rate over 10 y a. Cap ercent interest rate b• Replacement costs are calculated as a sinking fund at a 5 p over 10 years. d fringe benefits for employees are calculated from the budgets oft e 3• Wage rates an . and adjusted for the qualification requirements of the staff for eac individual jurisdictions alternative. er ton with the - Revenues from recycled materials have been calculated at $31 p $15 per ton cost 4• er ton le exception of the buy-back centers which are calculated on cost of $3costs from the Service Area. for recycled material paid. These are based upon current estimated for landfilling and $60 per ton 5• Disposal avoidance costs are calculated at $35 per ton l • it These cost per ton figures are based upon the current estimated for awaste-to-energy facil y q tipping fees for these two alternative disposal options. subtracting the revenue generated 6• Net costs of recycling alternatives are determined bs rvice and operational cost of the from recycling and the disposal avoidance cost from the debt ernative. This net cost of recycling value has been calculated for both a new ~- proposed recycling alt resented for an initial 10 year cling are p ~~' landfill and awaste-to-energy facility. The net costs of recy • The difference between the two net cost numbers is the I '° period and for a second 10-year period rvice after the first 10 years. After the first 10 years sufficient monies element of capital cost debt se I d 106 f en enerated in the replacement funds to replace recycling equipment, finance, repairs, will have be g etc. 7 Costs for recycling alternatives are summarized for each jurisdiction on a coil diction c cled materials.basis. It is assumed in jurisdictional residential recycling that each ~u of re y is responsible for their own recycling program funding and development. olid waste tonnage is based on the assumption that each residence producoeW g, S 1 ton of solid waste per year and this is considered a conservative figure on the 1 approximately side. The Board is presumed to be the lead agency in the flow control of solid waste an any 9. recycling effort. 10. It is presumed that the City of Salem joins the Board. 11 residential units within a jurisdiction are assumed to receive collection containers 11. A from the jurisdiction for curbside separation and curbside commingled collectio lection alternative I 12. Post collection separation costs are presented in all commingled col evaluations. outside ~ 13. Buy-back centers are presumed to have their recycled material collected bn ers is as hasers of material. Rationale for the proposed number of Buy-back or Drop-off ce ' puc 1 follows: Population Basis ,. # nr~p-off Centers # Buy b~Ck Centers 3 101,900 J Roanoke City 10 3 66,500 Roanoke County 10 1 23,700 City of Salem 3 „~, 1 7,900 ~ 2 J Town of Vinton C. JURISDICTIONAL RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING commingled separation,buy- .f, Alternatives for residential recycling including source separation, 'urisdiction within the Service Area. Estimated rt• back and drop-off centers, are presented for each ~ back centers and/or data i J costs of recycling are based upon estimated siting costs of drop-off or uy- -a he existing jurisdiction relative to existing collection equipment and services. It is ~ provided by t urisdiction is resumed in each of the jurisdictional alternatives presented in this section, that the ~ p 107 ,r, _J avoidance cost associated with that waste-to-energy facility would change, which in turn would change the net annual cost for recycling for each of the alternatives. 3, Roanoke County Roanoke County currently has a pilot recycling program for approximately 1000 homes which has been previously discussed. There are estimated to be 23,000 residences within the county that generate approximately 63 tons/day of solid waste on a 7-day basis. The potential for residentia recycling in the County is good. It has been assumed in this prelim~na;ry evaluation that all residents. rce methods evaluated, however, this will require further refinement since in very rural recycle by sou sections of the County, source separation may not be possible. The exact reduction in the number of residences corresponding to this condition is not known. The recycling alternatives which foll he will be adjusted when further discussions have occurred and decisions have been made by t County. ._ 3.1 Buy-Back Centers - Table 4.12 indicates the economic analysis of three buy-back centers to be located within h Roanoke County. It is presumed that Roanoke County owns and operates these facilities and that they would divert an estimated 10 percent of the residential solid waste stream. Capital costs for e facilities, operational costs, and net annual costs for recycling are presented. The location of then these buy-back centers has not been determined but it is presumed that the centers will be located the County to serve the maximum number of County residences and will in a manner throughout be adjacent to the major residential service areas of the County. (See potential sites Figure 4.1) An additional 9 operators are estimated to man these facilities. 3,2 Drop-off Centers Utilizing the assumptions stated for an analysis of potential drop-off centers for Roan led County resulted in an estimated 10 drop-off centers being evaluated. Table 4.13 presents a detai analysis of costs and net cost of recycling relative to drop-off centers. An estimated 7 percent of the residential solid waste stream is projected to be diverted by this recycling method. Drop-off centers would be unmanned, using the "igloo" type containers and would require a new collection ~~ vehicle and operator. 123 ~. TABLE: 4.12 ROANOKE COUNTY CENTERS/RESIDENTIAL WASTES BUY-BACK UNIT COST NUMBER TOTAL COST I. CAPITAL COSTS 3 $ 90,000 $30,000 band and Deve lo~nent 1 , (Paving, Lighting, Etc.) 40,000 @ $20/ft) ft 3 120,000 . Building (2,000 sq. 2 . 3 . Equl~anent 7 , 000 6 42,000 000 30 a) Balers 2,000 15 , 000 48 b) Bins c) Fork-Lift 16,000 3 3 , 30,000 d) Misc. Equipanent 10,000 (Scales, Drtmts, Desks,Etc. ) 4. Start-Up Costs 46,000 (Publicity and Education) $ 406,000 C1IPITAL COSTS ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COSTS (8~ over 10 years) $ 60, 500 II. OPERATIONAL COSTS 3 $ 60,000 1. bead Operator $20,000 6 108,000 2, Operator 18,000 3, Fquiptnent Costs & Utilities 9,000 (Maintenance, Fuel, F;tc•)t (5~ Over 10 Years) 13,600 4. Replacement Fund Equipmen 5, Publicity & Education (2 Mailings/yr. 46,000 and Changes) $ 236,600 ADN[JAL OPERATIONAL COSTS $ 297,100 TOTAL, ANNUAL COSTS III. AMOUNT RECYCLED/REVF~E 1. Tons Recovered 2,300T 1 Year = 1 Ton/Res./Year x 23,000 res. 2,300 T/Ysxe($3 e$ 5~•= $ 36,800 2. Revenue/Year IV. DISPOSAL AVOIDANCE COSTS = $ 500 80 1. New Landfill $35/T x 2,300 $60/T x 2,300 T/Y T/Y = $ , 138,000 2. Waste to Energy Facility V. 1. NET ANNUAL COSTS DURING INITIAL TIN YEARS Landfill N $ 179,800 1. 2, ew Facilit Waste to Energy Y $ 122,300 2 , NET ANNUAL COSTS AFTER TFN YEA 1, RS New Landfill $ $ 119, 300 61,800 2, Waste to Energy Facility Job No. 11041 October 11, 1988 ~,, OLVER TABLE 4.13 ROANOKE COUN`T'Y DROP-0FF C~ITERS/RESIDENTIAL WASTES UNIT COST NUMBER TOTAL COST I. CAPITAL COSTS $10,000 10 $ 100,000 1. Land and Develo~nent (Paving, Fencing, Etc.) 30 120,000 2. Containers (Igloo ) 4,000 65,000 1 65,000 3. Collection Truck 4. Start-Up Costs 46_,000 (Publicity, Education, etc.) $ 331,000 CAPITAL COSTS $ 49,300 ANNUALIZID CAPITAL COSTS (8~ over 10 years) II. OPERATIONAI~ COSTS 000 $20 1 $ 20,000 1. Driver , g 400 1 9,400 2. Vehicular Costs , (Maintenance, Fuel, Etc.) ( 10,900 3, Replacement Fund Containers 5% Over 10 Years) ( 5,900 4. Replacement Fund Trucks 5. Publicity & Education (2 Mailings/yr. and 46,000 Changes) $ 92,200 ~)AL OPERATIONAL COSTS $ 141,500 TGTAL ANNUAL COSTS III. AMOUNT RECYCLED/REVENUE 1, Tons Recovered 1 Year = 1 Ton/Res./Year x 23,000 res. x 0.07 W 10eT/Y x $31/T•- $ 1,610T 49,900 1 6 2. Revenue/Year IV. DISPOSAL AVOIDANCE COSTS $35/T x 1,610 T/Y = $ 56,400 1. New Landfill $60/T x 1,610 T/Y = $ 96,600 2, Waste to Energy Facility V. 1. NET ANN[JAL COSTS DURING INITIAL NTH ill $ 35,700 2, Waste to Energy Facility $ (4,500) 2 , NET ANNUAL COSTS AF'II,R `~ ~R-'New Landfill $ (14 ,10 0 ) 2, Waste to Energy Facility $ (54,300) Note: ( ) indicate positive cash flaw/money made per ton requested. Job No. 11041 October 11, 1988 ni vFR 1LJ v a- . INCORPORATED 3.3 CurUside Separation Collection Roanoke County has already instituted a pilot curbside separation collection as previously noted. Table 4.14 indicates the projected cost for expansion of the existing curbside separation collection system to include the remaining 22,000 residential units. It is projected that three additional collection vehicles and associated drivers and collectors would be required. This table indicates total capital and operational costs associated with this expanded effort, along with the net costs for this form of recycling. As previously noted, it may not be possible or desirable for all 23,000 residences to recycle using this method particularly in the rural areas of the County, thus adjustments in the cost for County recycling with source separation may require adjustments after further discussions. 3.4 Commingled Collection and Post Separation Roanoke County is in the process of automating its residential collection vehicles, utilizing the "one-arm bandit" system. The County currently has two collection trucks of this type and collection via this method which requires only one operator per vehicle has been highly successful and cost effective. Table 4.15 presents the capital costs associated with updating the entire collection system within the County to a commingled automated collection system. It is presumed that the existing pilot curbside separation collection system is converted to a commingled system. The net cost of recycling under this method of collection with post collection separation are indicated in the table. 3.5 Summary Table 4.16 summarizes the costs of recycling for the four options considered for residential solid waste along with the estimated amount of waste to be diverted by each option. q, Roanoke City - The City of Roanoke with an estimated 37,900 residences currently does not have residential recycling of its citizens except for the drop-off center provided by CVC and Cycle Systems. It is estimated that 104 tons/day on a 7-day basis of residential solid waste is available for potential recycling. The City currently provides alley and backyard collection but it has been presumed in the analysis of alternatives which follows that curbside recycling would occur for source separation methods. It's realized that the current requirements and ordinances for collection would have to be 126 TABLE 4.14 ROANOKE COUNTY CURBSIDE SEPARATION COLLECTION/RESIDF~]TIAL WASTES UNIT COST NUMBER 'T'OTAL COST I. CAPITAL COSTS Household Collection Bins 1 17 Set of 3 $ / 22,000 3 $ 374,000 195,000 • 2. Collection Vehicles (15 cu. yd•) 000 65 3. Start-Up Costs 46,000 (Publicity, Education, etc.) $ 615,000 CAPITAL COSTS ANNUALIZID CAPITAL COSTS (8$ over 10 years) $ 91,600 II. OPERATIONAL COSTS Driver 1 $20,000 4 4 $ 80,000 72,000 . 2. Collector 18,000 9,400 4 37,600 3. Vehicular Costs (Maintenance, Fuel, Etc.) (5~ Over 10 Years) 35,500 4. Replacement Fund Bins (5$ Over 10 Years) 23,600 5. Replacement Fund Trucks 6• Publicity & Education (2 Mailings/yr. 46,000 Ctiarriculum Changes $ 294,700 ANNUAL OPERATIONAL COSTS $ 386,300 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS III. AMOUNT RFX'YCLID/REVE~ItJE 1, Tons Recovered ar = 1 Ton/Res./Year 1 Y Stream Red.= x 23,000 x e 4 • $ 3,220T 800 99 2. e Revenue/Year 3 = $31/T x 220 T/Y , IV. DISPOSAL AVOIDANCE COSTS $35/T x 3,220 T/Y = $ 112,700 1. New Landfill $60/T x 3,220 T/Y = $ 193,200 2, Waste to Energy Facility V. 1. NET ANNUAL COSTS DURING INITIAL ~ ill $ 173,800 2, Waste to Energy Facility $ 93,300 2, NET ANNUAL COSTS AFTER TEN iEARS~w Landfill $ 82,200 $ 1,700 2• Waste to Energy Facility Job No. 11041 October 11, 1988 ~~ vER 1 L'f INCORPOR Ai tl TABLE 4.15 RQANOKE COLTI~TI'Y pQIyIr7Q,ED AUTOMATID COLLECTION AND POST-SEPARATION/RESIDENTIAL WASTES UNIT COST I. CAPITAL COSTS $ 62 1. Bins (90 Gal.) 98,000 2, Collection Vehiclesration (1) 3. Post-Collection Sepa 4. Start-Up Costs (publicity, Education, etc.) CAPITAL COSTS ears) ANNiJALIZID CAPITAL COSTS (8~ over 10 y II. OPERATIONAL COSTS 1, Driver 2, Vehicular Costs (Maintenance, Fuel, Etc.) 3, Replacement Fund Bins 4, Replacement Fund Trucks 5, Post-Collection Separation (1) 6, Publicity & Education (2 Mailings/yr. Ctiirriculum Changes) ANNiJAL OPERATIONAL COSTS TOTAL, ANNUAL COSTS $20,000 9,400 (5~ Over 10 Years) (5~ Over 10 Years). 3 3 TOTAL COST $1,426,000 294,000 329,130 46,000 ---- $2,095,100 $ 312,200 $ 60,000 28,200 129,300 26,700 148,400 46,000 $ 438,600 $ 750,800 III. ANIOi JN'I' RECYCLED/REVENUE ' 1, Tons Recovered /Year = 1 Ton/Res x 23,000 res. x 0.19 Waste Stream R~•= $ 4,370T 135,500 . 1 Year 4,370 T/Y x $31/T = 2, Revenue/Year DISPOSAL AVOIDANCE COSTS IV . $35/T x 4,370 T/Y = $ 262, 1, New Landfill $60/T x 4,370 T/Y = $ 200 2, Waste to Energy Facility V. 1. NET ANNUAL COSTS DURING IN ITIAL TEN ~~ Landfill N $ 462,300 ew 1, Facilit 2, Waste to Energy Y $ 353,100 2, NET ANNiJAL COSTS AFTER TEN YEARS $ 150,000 1, New Landfill Facilit $ 40,900 2, Waste to Energy Y 1. Post-collection separation costs are based~n~~dual~j'urisdiational units in the goanoke Valley and are pro-rated for each Job No. 11041 October 11, 1988 128 NUMBER 23,000 3 OLVER TABLE 4.16 RQIINOKE COUN'T'Y SUDM4ARY OF RDCYCLING COSTS FOR RESIDENTIAL 4~,STE.S ($/Ton Recycled) Recycling Method Drop-Off Centers guy-Back Centers ~irbside Separation Collection C~ingled Collection Estimated Res. Solid Waste Stream Reduction ~ 7 10 14 19 New Landfill 0-10 Over 10 Years Years ____-- 22 (9) i 78 52 58 ~ 26 Waste to Energy Facility 0-10 Over 10 Years Years (3) (34) ~ 53 27 33 ~ (1) 34 I 81 I 9 106 Note: ( ) indicate positive cash flora/money made ~r ton recycled. Job No. 11041 October 11, 1988 129 OLV ER CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOI`IMENDATIONS p,. CONCLUSIONS As a result of this Phase I evaluation of recycling alternatives for the Roanoke Valley Service Area, the following conclusions can be reached. 1. Recycling can and should be an important part of the Board's overall solid waste management plan. 2, Residential solid waste represents approximately 36.5 percent of the total waste stream received at the Regional Landfill and is controlled by jurisdictions in the Service Area. Special methods of recycling must be considered for this waste stream. 3. Approximately 63.5 percent of the total waste stream received at the Regional Landfill is from commercial/industrial and construction sources and is collected by private haulers or individuals. The potential of recycling this waste stream is significant. 4, The current methods being utilized for recycling and implemented by CVC and Cycle Systems results in approximately 7 percent of the total waste stream being recycled in the Service Area, which is one of the best current rates in the State of Virginia. 5, The City of Salem has had limited success with post-collection separation at their waste-to-energy facility. 6. Insufficient data exists to characterize the composition of the residential, commercial/industrial, and construction waste streams. Further study in this area will be required. 7. The potential for aluminum, glass, paper, cardboard and plastic recycling appears to be significant with acceptable markets located in or adjacent to the Service Area. g. Yard waste, which on a national average, comprises approximately 18 percent of residential waste are handled by various methods by the jurisdictions. However, it appears that a significant amount of the yard waste ends up at the Regional Landfill. 9, Many gaps exist in the current handling of such materials as tires, office paper, certain commercial waste, used oil, etc., within the Service Area. 159 1 10. Due to the short time frame for completing this evaluation, it has been termed Phase I. Subsequent studies in certain areas, as defined in the recommendation section which follows, will need to be expanded and developed prior to final agreement on the implementation of a comprehensive recycling system. 1 I . Current legislation encourages recycling. Legislation being proposed at both the federal and state levels will encourage or require increased recycling within. the Service Area. B. RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of this preliminary Phase I evaluation, the following recommendations are made. 1. The Board should take a leadership role in the development of recycling in the Service Area. 2. The Board should encourage the City of Salem to participate in recycling and to become a member of the Board so that they can participate in all functions which the Board is contemplating, including other disposal options. 3. The Board should revise its disposal rate structure for residential, commercial/- industrial, and construction waste to encourage recycling. 4. The Board should promote recycling of used oil, tires, and office paper. 5. The Board should evaluate potential siting requirements for a maximum of six buy- back centers to be located in the Service Area. The Board would own and operate these facilities. 6. The Board should implement a study to determine whether recycling of yard waste is possible at a central facility to be owned and operated by the Board. This study must address not only the volume and type of yard waste but the potential for a compost market. 7. The Board should establish a position of "Recycling Coordinator" to assist in the development and implementation of a recycling program. 8. The Board should implement a comprehensive educational and promotional program to encourage recycling concurrently with the development of the recycling program. 9. Due to the limited availability of data relative to the composition of various waste streams, the Board should commence to accomplish the following: a. A detailed commercial/industrial waste composition survey. 160 b. Establish monitoring procedures at the Regional Landfill to quantify construction debris received at the site. c. Expand the preliminary secondary market survey presented in this evaluation. d. Establish a revised record keeping procedure at the Regional Landfill relative to types of material received. 10. The Board should meet with jurisdictions and encourage them to implement recycling. It is suggested that an agreement be reached between the Board and participating jurisdictions prior to initiation of the recycling effort by the Board. Revisions to the existing contract between the Board and the participating jurisdictions may be required to implement the proposals contained in this evaluation. 11. The Board should establish a working relationship with CVC to promote recycling within the Service Area. 12. Control of commercial/industrial and construction debris solid waste is required and needs to be implemented by a waste control ordinance and revisions to the Board's disposal rate structure. 13. The Board should adopt a schedule and time line for implementation of various phases of the recycling program. 14. Commercial/Industrial solid waste and construction debris recycling should be the responsibility of the private sector with economic incentives provided by the Board. 161 ACTION # A-21489-14 ITEM NUMBER AT A RIRGINIAMHELD ATOTHEHROANOKE COUNTYEADMINISTRATIONNOCENTER COUNTY, V MEETING DATE: February 14, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session - Rural Addition Program COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:JI .(~ ~ ~~ S/l~ BACKGROUND SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Under Section 33.1-72.1 C-1 of the Code of Virginia, Counties are allowed to use a small portion of their secondary highway construction funds for "Rural Addition". The Rural Addition Program is intended for upgrading certain qualifying roads open to the public prior to July 1, 1978, for future acceptance by the Virginia Department of Transportation. In June, 1987, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors added the following streets to the Rural Addition Priority List: 1. Connecting Road 2. Penwood Drive 3. Sagewood Circle 4. Chester Drive 5. Byers Road 6. Bushdale Road from Route 1890 and 1905 Washington Road was retained on the Priority List from the previous year. During the past 1-1/2 years, staff has received requests from residents on Marigold Circle, Autumn Drive, Bluebird Lane, Cabin Creek Drive, Lawyer Drive, Creekside Drive, Futurama Drive and Camney Lane. Attachment A provides a summary of each of these roads and includes potential problems and estimated cost. As of July 1, 1988, the Rural Addition Account (available State funds) is approximately $238,000. Each July 1, approximately $84,000 is added to the Rural Addition Account. n-~ Therefore, based on the estimated costthropgh]FiscalnYear current Rural Addition Priority List, funding ro ects. In 1992-g3 would be required roximatee$84,OOOeper year funding, the addition, based on the app eight (8) new projects would require eight (8) addition years to provide funding. The above cost figures and projection of completion of projects could be significantly changed by two (2) items: p,. Washington Road at a1eeCDBGaCommunityoDevelopmentsP~oject be coordinated with a possib a lanning Grant At the present time, the County is considering p it ma be and if the Commefore actualpconstruction wouldebegin. Y several years b Under new policies developed by VDOT, funding for Rural B. roximately $84,000 per year to Addition can be increased from app $106,000 per year. Since thilanatanrincreasedtinfRuaalgAddition Secondary Road Construction P ' when the funding priorities Funding could be considered in 1989, the Board for Secondary Road Construction are next considered by of Supervisors. The 1988-89 Rural Addi~iBn Priority List as recommended by Staff is shown on Attachmen Staff would recommend that the method of prioritizing additions to the Rural Addition List be established as follows: 1. Once the priority of a project is established it cannot be lowered. 2. Projects will generally be worked in order of but delays in acquiring right of way, etc., or priority, ro ects, would justify working on proximity of several p j lower priority project. 3• If a road project can not be completed it will be officially removed from priority list. 4. New projects will be added to the bottom of uncompleted priority list. 5, The lowest cost per familYlisting oflneweprojects. criteria to establish priority This method would recognize contribution made by the the property owners. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS Funds for the construction of Rural Additions to Secondary Road Standards are included in the Six Year Secondary 2 ~/~~_ 4~ Road Construction Plan. Local funds required during the Rural Addition process include costs for survey and development of Right of way or drainage easement costs, and funding plans, for survey cost and for Speculative Interest. Funding early road development of plans is normally included in the y budget and request for right of way and drainage easement costs and/or speculative interest would be bought to the Board of Supervisors as specific needs arises. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that after completion of the Work Session the Board of Supervisors approve the 1988-89 Rural List as shown in Attachment B, or as revised Addition Priority during the Work Session. APPROVED BY: SUBMITTED BY: ~~ Phillip T. enry, P.E. Director of Engineering (, t~~' r Elmer C. Hod e County Administrator ----------------- --- VOTE ___ ACTION No Yes Abs Approved (x) Motion by: Harr y C. Nickens/Steven ve rural additionJ x Denied ( ) A. McGraw to a ro ohnson x Received ( ) riorit list McGraw x - Referred Nickens x - To Robers x - cc: File Phillip Henry, Director, En ineering g Administrator John Hubbard, Assistant County 3 cJ1 a w a H z Z W O ~ ~ ~ N U H Q 0 F H a a a x o ° o 0 o 0 ° Q o 0 o a o 0 0 0 W o ° ~ o o ° o 0 o ~ `n o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~n yr ~ O o ° ,~ ~n v} yr ~ i--i U ~ ~, v} tn. H ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +~ G ~ C ~ v ~ U ~ O ~ C ~ O N N n ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~~ W W Ord w ~ ~a o o •~ ~ N ~ to O C7 a' ~ ~ t5' U ~ ~ ?+ ~ ~ ~ C C O ~ ~ x a ~ .'., ~ ~ a' 3 o v ~ .,~ ~ ~ .~ ~ •.•. ~' +~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ y H~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ° c ~ ~a ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ '' a~ •.~ a~ x .~ ~ ~ ~ o a °~ ~ a~ a `z ~ ~, A v, s ~ i cn c7 ~ ~ ~ ~, ~, ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ,~ ~ ~O ~O 3 3 3 2 WO 3 ~ co g ~ O ~ ~ Ca~ O ~ w N w-+ ' ~ N ~ ~ a ~ ?+ ~w o ~U o ~ .~ ~ °+ c w ~ o ON 0 ~~ ~ H ~ ~ ~~' ~ w z c~ +~ •.~ •.~ .~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ m ~ m ~ o aw ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rnrrrna~ ~ o ~ °' °'~ .°' a~i o o ~ ~ ~' ~' ~ v~ tr~ a~ Na • xx a aa ~ ° ~,a xcn aa~n~ a ~Q H W M ~ r ~ H R' ~ ~ M ~w ~~ w W ~ ~ ° ~ - - o o ° ° o o H Q ~ a O ~ p p ~ a ~ U 1-a U b O 3 N ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~' ~ ~ 3 Q1 ~ ~ A ~ ~ U ~ ~ o ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O a a~ ~ cd ~ N ~ O ~ a ~ ~ U /' t N-9 0 ° o ° ° 0 ° 0 ° o 0 ° ° ° o o ° ~ ° o ° ° ° o o ~ O ° ° ~ ~ ~ ~ N- ~--1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~ N N ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ cd W W ~ W ~ O ~ ~ ~ Qa ~ ~ Q ~ `~ ,~ ~~ c ~ b ~ '~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ m x N ~ . w ~ a~i ~ ~+ a ~' °~ ~' o a~ o ai ~ a~ ~ Q Ri O ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 O ~ J-) ~tS a ~ ~ H ~ ~ ~ H ~ H H a o ~ a ~, ~, ~ ~ ~ o•tr'~ ?' ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ a H w ~ +~~ '~ 0 3 ~ as ~ 3 ~ W ~ ~.~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ w~U ~ ~~ ~ w zs ~ N ~ b +~ F w z d w~ U O ~ ~~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ a z ~w9~ m ~~~~~ ~ b ~ rnb" c~~--iN ' d NR i ~ H H rn~ ~~~ , " rn ..~~-~ ~~a tr N a o ooa r.,,~, v i H U ~ , • ~a ~H~' a~:~ ~ a a ~ ~ Q H 0 ~ O U H ~ ~ ~ r--I ~ ~ ~ (Y1 ~ M r•~ a Q a _ o _ o ° 0 0 o ° ° °° ~ "' ~ ~ Q-i ° ~(~ ~ ~ l ) ~ •'-~ 'J ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ' ', sa p U ~ •~+ s•a '~ ~ ~ ~ A p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ PQ ~ U ~ ~ a ( L: n~ ATTACHMENT B 1. 2. 1988 89 Rural Addition Priority List Connecting Road from Routes 1890 and 1905: This road is part of the Hollins Community Development Project and is presently under construction. Penwood Drive: This road is located off Route 613 in southwest County and serves seven (7) families. 3. Sag_ e~ d Circle: This road is located off Cove area of Roanoke County, families. Route 311 in the Masons and serves five (5) 4, Washington Road: This road is located °amiliesranRoanokeaCountythas 220 South) and serves (3) f rant to do a HUD recently received a planning g evaluation of this area, which is known as Pinkard Court and any road reconstruction should be coordinated with the community development project. 5, Chester Drive: This road is locatedfamilWesliaSome addatio~ale 11) and serves three (3) right of way for a turn around will be required. 6 , g_~,ers Road This road is locatedaoafSeraesosixn(6Rjofamil~ese 601) in northwest County and drainage easements have Problems with right of way been resolved and the project will be submitted to VDOT this month. ~, Bushdale Road: Seven (7) families are served 'oy this road in southeast Roanoke County. The Board may need to consider condemnation to obtain some required right of way. 6 yy (r1 ~.r.6 ATTACHMENT B lggg gg Rural Addition Priority List Continued g, Camne Lane: Located in east Roanoke County off Chestnut Mountain Drive and serving four (4) families and Town of Vinton water tank. Property owners want to participate in cost. 9, Fut_ u_ r_,_ Drive: Road and Located in south Roanoke County off Bandy serves eleven (11) families. 10. Mares a Circle: Located in south Roanoke County off South Indian Grave Road (Rt. 845) and serving seven (7) families. 11. Cabin Creek Drive: Located in southwest Roanoke County off Grandin Road Extension (Route 686) and serving six (6) families. 12. Law er Drive: Located in north Roanoke County off Wildwood Road (Rt. 619) and serving eight (8) families 13. Autumn Drive: Located in east Roanoke County off Carson Road (Rt. 758) and serving three (3) families. 14. Bluebird Lane: Located in nortXtensionaofkRouten914oandBserving Road and being the e nine (9) families. 7 j~/ ~ ~~ ATTACHMENT B 1988 89 Rural Addition Priorit List Continued 15. Creekside Drive: Located in west Roanoke County off West Riverside Drive, (Route 639) and being the extension of Route 774 and serving three (3) families. NOTE Availability of funding and right of way may change priority. 8 rte' o ~r -i o \~ /` ~e~ , f ~ < l , i \ o ra \ ~~ ,.en f. ~s2 C ~ KMI J NORTH ~"~ ~1T(`T NTTY MAP ~ ~' ~~ I ---- VICINITY MAP ~ _~ ~ NORTH ~ _.... _ _ ..... -- . ~s,.. ~ . ~ i 0 1 I.o. ~ R szo ~ , 1 G / ::• 119 ~~ rK e ~ i_ A~...~ 1 \ '' ~~; ~t,(~ 698• . y _ o ~ 699 ~ 655 ; z /N :~. 0 9n i ~ `~ ~• ` ~j11 ~16~ o ova 1 ~ 7 Caro.Da h ~ ~ BeMe~~ ~, ~ ~ BES Ma,r ~. Jt\ •~'~~ ~~ ~ ~ 622 91~ ~ "~'~~ /6~ ~'~ ^ey p!' ~ ~~ ~~ VICINITY MAP ~ 300AC - - -. __ 5 2 2 4IAC \ 113Ac 3 \ 3OOAc f ~ 6 ~ i 2 04Ac 93 ~ ~ II37 Ac 8 \ 2.104c (D1 2 63Ac tC 1 9 \ 1.64 Ac 92 5 82 Ac \ it \ 130Ac .: r' 12 9 I 1522 Ac j II \ 13041 I 13 ~ SAc J,~~ NORTH i Mi ~. "' I g ~ ,,, •' 8 40Ac e ~ 120 Ac z$ ` 12 2 00 Ac I ~ ''~ 99 c 31 '~pl 32 „off CnM ~ 18 .. • S_ I °~ ~ s / \ J I ~ i `IMSN OOC q 37 33 j 38 39 IOOAC I \ l02 4c 102AC 2 944c 3p \ 41 OOAc 7.63Ac Rt.. ~ , . - - - - _--- ------ DEPARTMENT OF FY 88-89 RURAL ADDITION PUBLIC FACILITIES Sagewood Circle 11 - roe ~,~' "'T- _ _ ~_ ~ ~ _. _ CHESTNUT ~~ a~`.. .o} ~ ~ ~ RIDGE rsoo• pt 3 luor „' }, ?' ~i ~ N ~ IRY .IfI NUARY N 1976 ~ `~~[ o Q.~ QlT R} ~.AA 7r. pJ ~~~ 6RIffIN 4 ~f~NE~T~Q~1 7 L[ '~ W O~p P ~ '. 220 ORNE-IN ~~ $ ' :: ~ o ~ THEATRE ^ 130 o ~ I i i 0 o i .lope ~ ~ ae T ~-.~ GLEARBROOK 'RO STATION ~'C ~~ F I - J cY ~` ~N . ' aaOO.,. ' \ \ .`" -- \ \ '~,,' VNTIN,, ~ S _ ~ f ^^ s• VICINITY MAP ~~ NORTH ~~~ 'O 16 ~ ee ;, ~ ~ - / o ~ i _ 'A'~ , IT ~ e . Pie. 18 ~ •n ,p1` ,~. a~ ~ a° s 5 12 / ~.a r '. ~ • N r>t~ b~ • ri ` ~ 113 ' / w ,,oZ~ ~ ° t7~ o ~o~~° ;42 , 'f' '.s 37 ~ °t. 22 " ~ ti 43 , s ~~ s 4 . 35 • e • • .a 34 24 • 6..~ , • qg a r: ~ ~ 1 49 ~ Ar 2 9 ~' ia' ii s S z ~. ~~ X50 /i ~~ ~ ~ ~ $, .3 `~ ~?~ ! N ; 'e~j s ~ ~~T ~ ~O 29~~' e ' 0 6 // ~/' a 55 `x'• ~ '~ 30 O " ~ ~s .° Q\`~o~d i1' 9 o~HO~a~ C~Iy _ 2 O Q ~ .° ~ 99 ~°°o• 4.50At (DI 212Ac ~ ~ e 60 . ' ' 2.38 Ae ICI °r e o s e 61 ~ ~ O~ .e \ ~2 t ~o ?~ ee \ 64 ''o \ . . o N ~~ G s \ ~ bye \..' + i ' E p \1//~, \ O 'PO ~ 6 /~ ~ ~ 7O 9 e65 '~ \\ .° 13 14 Csmshfr s ~ s ' d' 1.03Ae a, 10 ~ 12 • f+, . ~T~~ ' IS ~~ a N,~"Pp""n 1~s ~~ I I ' ~~' ~~ ~ •aT~ Q II ~S ~ , 37Ae ~ IB a Q 0 ' rjT • _ ~ fly' ~ Ouail Valley Condominwna Q _ ~T~ • See Map 87.08 Insert"A" . i ~ . ~ 1"• 40' A DEPARTMENT OF _ PUBLIC FACILITIES FY 88-89 RURAL ADDITION Washington Road 12 ... ~ ,. , ~, ,'% • ~ ,, ~ ~ ~, zs; .~ 3 ~6., a \ say a; O ~~` i ,~ 8 ~~. ~ ~~,~ ,\~ \\ 9 ~~ r ~ .~ ~ ~n ~ h~ ~ I 8 ~: w ~ I IAc / /; ~•,~ i ~1. % ~ ~\. 16 ~ IS ~ • __ / \\ r6 ., ~~` 4 ~ 5 .~ °~; ~ r~~ ~ \ \ ~ ~ / _i. O 9 - / \ 4 a 000 ~ ~~ ~~ ~xw` a ~~~ / ~ ~. _\ ~ . ,~- ~; \ 4 ~ °~ \ 3 ~ ~ ~~ ~~ 2 ~ ~~ .z ~ \ I \-. v 1~ i 6 io \ r \ ~ sc- t ~ ,~ ~~ ~ ~ 1 1 M ~ u, t~ 6 tv' :,~~.~ Q }`+ 27 7 ~ °f ~, - ~. - f ~' ~ ~ ~~ ~ . e ~~ ~ roc ~ ~ ~~ ~~\ C~ fi ~. Q _. n j ~ \ ,e~ ~ i_ 3 ~ 6 ~ V ~ era ~ ~ \ 8 23 ~ /- J/ \ / ~ ~ i s ,ei~ ~ ~ 21 ~ ~ ~~ 13 ` 7 ~ ~ c ~V ~ ~,, ~r 3 ~ ~ ,, 1\ ~~ 14 /~{\ 4 e ~~ te- I7 ~. . ~ 6 t~~`~~, ~, ~, ~` ~ ie O \ . y l9 ~, 15 1 / y ~ 4~. ~~i . ~ '° v ~~ ~ -~_~-` ^ ,o ~ ~ DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC FACILITIES FY 88-89 RURAL ADDITION Chester Drive 13 . ~ ~w ~ ~ yRV u~a r M e ~~~ ~ ~,efreaoou +~ w ~oeraoo ~ ~,~ ~~ ~6~,r 1 .. ~' i ~r ~, ~ ~ P~ J, ~_' ii ~auwaa . _ ~ VICINITY MAfi ~..,.~~ _._ __T____ ~ _ i I, I" ~~ _ ~~ NORTH PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN YELLOW DESCRIPTION: 1) Byera Road from a point on Quail Place (Route 1888) to proposed "T"-turnaround. LENGTH: (1) 0.16 Miles RIGHT OF WAY: tl) 50 Feet ROADWAY WIDTH: (1) 20-30 Feet SURFACE WIDTH: (1) 18-25 Feet SERVICES (1) 6 Homes IMPROVEMENT NECESSARYs RESIDENT ENGINEERS RECOMMENDATION: r 1 i COMMUNITY SERVICES Fy gg_gg RURAL ADDITION & DEVELOPMENT Byers Road i Bushdale Road 1"!-'j NORTH ( ~~~~ PUBLICMFACIOLITIES FY 88-89 RURAL ADDITION 1 I ' I ' •.IJ ~ NIGH + iun nc. ` SPR a \ ~ ctw e ~ ~ .,50. OGE ~ . tE`NPR CMESiN CHESTNUT w. ~ ~~._..._ ~-~.~ '"~" P1 MOUNTAIN ' , ~ ~ 855 FNRM°~ ~ ~ ~ UNOENW00 pr ~ M ~ $ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~~ ~ " ~ ~ dR ~ ICINITY MAP r r~ 4p ~ ~1, "~~ ~ 0 ~< o V , - ~ l_ ..~ -- ~~, NORTH ~$ ~~ B~ • of moo,, ~G\ l ~~ 2.1 '~ ~ ~' i'' ~ '~ 9 IO II a .p ` , s 7 ~ ;~ 1.45 Ac 12 . t 8 33~ 6~0 ~~ 2.12 Ac. „ 6 ,~ ,lo 5 s3'~ Mountain viz 6 .o SI 5~~~~ ~~ ,~ 13 s C~'~ 69 I SI Ac. ~ 70 - I a9 Ac 72 57S 71 Town o! vinla- 7 9 ,~I j s V ~ ~ 14 ~ ~ „0 141~Ac d' t 68 78 360 Ac I S -77 ~ biAC I OAc(D) R. LIO Ac(C) •f3// g 9/6 18 o00 16 ~.1444c D) 6 X184 AC IC ) 163 II M _ ~._ 1 Town o! Vink» 2 " ,, - ~ 19 i , ~. '~~ 66 2O e a~ a 6 ~' 65 .'21 79 ~ a ~,.'ti' S i5 a0 Ac (01 4 i 4 iS .>c ! C ~ \O~h ~ ~b~ o t . 63 orb - .\0023 . . ~ 52 \ ~ ~~0~4 3 COMMUNITY SERVICES FY 88-89 RURAL ADDITION AND DEVELOPMENT Camney Lane ~ 16 ~ ~cH~ \PP~ - ~ ` S -_ . ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ o . ~ \ h y LESL[ .r007 .r~a~ d b I . N p ~ •'370 _. Za fi. `!p 1 \ ~ ~ ~ ~, SUN j/A[[E` . ~ ~ Su';'h/ - CLUR O~ ~ ~, ~ - T --- - VICINITY MAP - '~~ - ~ .i /~ `~. J nY_ ..' ~ r NORTH ~.vtrunv[~a~a uva~-av+.+u AND DEVELOPMENT Futurama Drive 17 ~ o n ~' j ~. I ~ S F-860 66B r i 66/6 c I / ns I oe 67E l ~._ ~e i a B•S I ~~ ~ 657 ~,.~=-----VICINITY MAP - ~~ 1 i ~ 3 ~~ NORTH 1 ~O 6716 ~ ° Ste ~~ ~"P old/ ~e ~ pp ~ '~' 673/ ` 5.23Ac g45 31 ~~ R~• So s ~+' i 2:8 ~ 2 1 24 6745 uJh Ind . ' 673.3 8 55 Ac ~ 37 36 35 34 33 •'°_ i' . 2.35Ac ; - ~ 3 67?6 rJ . 61pp 2 OOAt 3 06 At CI 0 tzs I 61~' 77 Lnac 6721 I w ~ n: ~ 29 "~ 23 48 :,,~~ 3q 6 ~ 6 6 / cnrycn ar ,~~~~ 300Ac 2.60 AC 1 6 7AC ~ • • 12.53Ac ~3~-' 7 ~°~670B~n~n o~ "'' 2 ' 6779 ~.~~~ I •' _ 67T0 120 ACID) 37 .,~., ~ 1.03A 76,42675 1.06Ac(C) 670 6702 Ae 21 40 .,, .~., 67 43 ~ 6.75 Ac ~ Y ~~4g 30 12 40 42 93Ac ~~7 Ac ~ . 4 6760 6506 ., ~ I.()Q 20 ~8 SO.TOAc < ~ 1 60Ac ,qc 6I B7 IDI •~. 416AC1D1 - ~-~\ ssAc 46 s se Ac{cl ~ ~ ~ I l(C) 1500Ac1D1 ____ ~~_i , _ ~ ~ / .15,,, ~ +~ ~~-~~ 18 ~oc I J\ 3000Ac~ /~ 16 27.20Ac 333~A„ !J BOOAc ^` `~J ~// 17 219ActD1 /~/ 2.34 Ac ~ 2 B7AC{CI 21 ~~ 476 AC 9t) ~ ~ 6635 ~--- p =", 400 AC ~ 7,e~~ 'r J ., ~ICiaer_ FY 88-89 RURAL ADDITION COMMUNITY SERVICES Marigold Circle AND DEVELOPri!'ENT 18 ~ J a~ ~\`/. 1F~ ~ ~,( ,'J ~ ( ^,K~(~ w:ry~EAKE MESTEIflO~' fie, ~YM~ `y-af``' \1` UC ,- T~_..-...~~RRR ~~DE~IORO J ~T TA1Yi 14hMY~~~ ~ ~ik.~1/1 ... ~ HI MIL ,p\O~ ~~\ MFifLD~ti ~i GUQW06T~ Sr hfQS~ ~ ~ Q'.~ g',I al CENarO ~z~` ~ ~ A11~1E1E'I~CT of ~ ~ _ ~ yy[[ \ \~ ~ ~ ~ a[ SM~ ~ l ..~ WYNMERC ~ ~ ~~ .~t . '\_.- ~~ GRAN01`~RD. E~A/ '~~T . , ,.>~y /~S~~woaE~. ~c ".. ~r ~~~ ~ opUE ll~ BRIDLE_ ~.14a ~~c +~f ~` ~ 9t" ~ N`r~ v _ p yylPd ue~ ~ cJ_'~P,+P4. EER~D1 CE E 4 'RKU.Si ) 'r V ~i _ ~_ P'IBE~"YC9E'R_T"'!GIFI - c.T~P' ~ ~~,` ' GZ ,~- ; Iu .,r L ~ ~ ..\T BOwEa ND_~, may(! ~r.. i Pf~ BRpp ~ 4f( ~. ~r w ~.F~PW ~_ VICINITY MAP a~ea~~!\ ~~~~.°~g ~' ~p~EEl ' ~~ ~p ,wCR~`fPaF ~'AIIEDNrM l ~ _ ~` NORTS ~, ~" $ ~ s . zl o~ ,;, MS]f.000 / 3371 6 20 RC.BS 10 61 4c (D) 3307 °i ~ 9 46 AC1C1 ,c` ~ u fe 3391 7 • `-~ 66.04 ° 339s )9 ~~~ / 102Ac O ep J9l 3719 3717 / )8 e ~ ?716 12 ~ ~~ sy~r f ~A, : 13SAc I 3711 ~., Y '"': - F _ 16 ~~ ' 17 A~ '~' ~'. ~ e° Eb ~ I _ 1 ~ep 10 ~ 373t o.-~ 8 I nfJ~t~~ J' )3 • 3677 ~ . 2~24c v µn ~~ ,~ ~~ a~ ~'~ ° 9 ~' / ~ ,~ s~ a ~' 36~/ / ~ 3669 i / h,s, °. ~ / J 13.( d ~ FY-88-89 RURAL ADDITION COMMUNITY SERVICES Cabin Creek Drive AND DEVELOPMENT 19 ;; ~~. /y ~ /' •' ~, .~ ~- 1• % , ~ ~ ~~ ~ /• -- 11 e~ . -~, y~~~~~~a ~, •i '~~ VICINI?'Y ~<` . - ~ ~~~ ~~ ~\ 9 ~.\g '\ =.~ ~° :~~0 \ ~ aEiOEI .. , ~\~ .S~~e ~V~ ML n Ea 1 6 `/I !lt ~~ j~ / '~ . NORTH FY-88-89 COMMUNITY SERVICES LAWYER DRIVE AND DEVELOP11~fENT 2 0 ~.V~ .., _- - J. - _ _ ~-~` __ --.--. _._ .. ... - - ~~ ~ 1 ~-- ~~ ~ ~ , ' - ~, ~.~~.~. ~ ' Q' YIM/N6 ~ CON51/VC~pM 7 Q Y4bf(T ~ 1 ~ ~ + , O ~. .. ,'_ /A.V;, '= 4Y" / r' i y.'6 - '7.NA'Ea%CT/tJh• ~V VICINITY MAP ~~ .~.~~ ~~' ~~ NORTH FY-88-89 RURAL ADDITION COMMUNITY SERVICES AUTUMN DRIVE AND DEVELOPMENT 21 ;,,/ ._, ~ r. ..:_ ~~ ~ ~ \ ~.:, Y MASLM~ \/ COVE f/ El.£M.SO,OCY ,~' I 73 '~.~1 I _ ` \ 'i ~~ VICINlTYMAP ~~` ~ ~~_ NORTH -- -- v ~ . ~ 16 ~A 101 ~ :6.22 k ~ c Q37AC(C) Qap • .2 29 1 994Ae . 6~a~~~ 32.1 . 4 5.30Ae 26 ~_ ! ~ ~ '~ Ac "' S.0 a . ~ ~ 1 ~2 s S« Map IS.a 1.s K _ 1~' ~~ 21 ?2 Ilik. ~: ~ .~~u ~.i2 j 20 2s zs ' 12.SAr, w: ssk O ~n • N.03 k 1 litf ~ / • K = ./ 6.MAc t70 k M 3 6.6Ac ~ t2.3Ac ~ ~ 1!1! Ac. 4.1 6.31 Ae "~ 4 13 12 6.56 k w / ~63k ~ Ok 1 < S ~~k f I I 7 t.66 Ac S ~ r/0 !~ ~~ 1~ I b r.M111~M117~ r 477At /llw~wr ~~ A IQ.I . M 477At " . ~ 0.16 Ae ~. ~•1 Mk ~ QI6Ae ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ i ~1 ~ FY 88-89 RURAL ADDITION COMMUNITY SERVICES BLUEBIRD LANE (EXTENSION OF RT .914 ) AND DEVELOPIKENT 2 2 ~ ~ /` f / ~^ i ~ /.\^ ~ ~, / -~ /,, *e.~ ~ /, ° 39 ~ ~tEEN ~aLL ~~ y4t~ / h ~`\ \ ~~ ~. :RR LL ~\ VICINITY MAP fNIEY' ~ AMRN.157 'h r ~ /`. N ~ i A ~ ~_ i/J~O/'o. G - 4~ r. ,.p NORTH FY 88-89 RURAL ADDITION COMMUNITY SERVICES Creekside Drive (Extension of Rt. 774) AND DEVELOPMENT 2 3 t d ~~ :~~ , NOTICE OF BORROWING REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA $17,000,000 On February 14, 1989, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (the "Board") adopted a resolution authorizing the County to borrow not to exceed $17,000,000 for the purpose of The meeting casual deficits in the revenue of the County. Resolution was adopted pursuant to authority granted by the Code of Virginia, as amended. i~ ~ ~.,? Paul M. Mahoney Roanoke County Attorney Please publish once in the morning edition on Wednesday, February 22, 1989• Please send bill to: Board of Supervisors P. 0. BOX 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 HO NUMdtR - 1ZbO1G54 ' PUBLISHER'S FEE - ~171.7Z ROANOKE COUNTY cGARD OF SUPERVISORS 3738 BRAMdLcT~~~ Sw P 0 BOXL9Fs00 ROANUKE VH ~yUis ThTt OF VIK~IvIA ITY uF rCUA(VuK AFFIDAVIT uF PiJLICATIi7N I, (THE UNDLKSI„N~u) AN AUTHORIZED tEPRESENTaT1VE ~;F Tr+F TIMES-WORLD COR- ~ORATION, ::HIGH CO~tPukATIiN IS PUBLISHER ~F THE ROANuKE TIMES ~ WORLD-NEWS, A DAILY NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED IN RGtiNOKE, IN THE STATE OF V1ii~1NIA, DO CERTIFY THAT THE ANNEXED NOTICE WAS PUiyLISHED IN SAID NEWSPAPERS UN 7HE FOLLUwING UATtS 01/29/89 SUNDAY 02/05/89 SUNDAY WITNESS, THIS bTH OAY OF FEiiRl1~RY 1989 RUTH RIZED SIGIVhTIiRE .1 i ~ ~,~~ ~ ~ ~• ~• ~s~ .~1 ~> ~~os NOT CE OR 3` '',. ~'PlJeLiC NEARINp t;r.; sroON PROpOSED~ ,E~, ROWING EY ttai>>" COUfiTYaOF% Notiq )s h.rby plvenRMR.tl~ ~ sw-8 -of sudorvlsors Hof i~4~ of Ranola: V)~bt ~~~~~'~ ounty'•) will bw~a +'t~rinb In aoeorAanal wNA r,3adion ls.t- 1:1 y~f tM of ~/l~inla Of1H iri + ed, bn tM tuwnq ~y 171nlalonabarbl~; __ nawtea`[~Wotes") for tM Couo- iy ~a''fM purpow of, rree~~ppn0 ,,'aswGdefldb In flle ~iwflw ,. At untytand~i ~n ' °tlo~ eolNetion,yf,;t~ ~~aaa;iftMr, nvenui; ol,~ fM, County. A rewlutlod ~~IfAo171Z ` tnp'tM isswnq of 1fN NoMs wills: a. considered , py M Board of supervlwrl`~~b "maotln0 on Febrwry't+l, ltplw ' A Copy of weh rawlutlon is on file In tM offlp of tM tt9qunfy Admini:trato~. ~ ~~Ai 9tt TM public Marlnp, wA(di InaY W continued or adloYrned, wl II bt Mid et x:00 o'dodt ii.m: ~; . on Pebrwry 11, if~9, ; befenl tM Ooard of Supervltors of fM Roanoke Cou~y Admink- 'fration Gnt~r,, 3r '#7it srembleton ,,Allagkfl., Roanoke, Yirplnle.~ '- County Attorney; x,,: f r, -~, O~ ROANp~.~ a F ti~ p Z ,? 2 v a 18 E5~ 88 `rFSQUICENTENN~P~' ,, A Beauti~ulBeginning C~n~tn~~ of ~vttnvkr BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE February 16 , 1989 Mr. Winston Feinox 724 Stuart Avenue Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Dear Mr. Feinox: LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VIN TON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT At their regular meeting on Tuesday, February 14, 1989, the County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the request of the Botetourt Jaycee's, Inc. for a raffle permit for March 18th. The fee has been paid and your receipt is enclosed. You may consider this letter to be your permit, and I suggest it be displayed on the premises where the Raffle is to be conducted. The State Code provides that raffle and .bingo permits be issued on a calendar-year basis; therefore, the permit will expire December 31, 1989. This permit, however, is only valid for the dates specified on your application. If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 772-2004. Very truly your,'s , ~°d Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Enclosures CC: Commissioner of the Revenue Commonwealth Attorney County Treasurer PO. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 of aoAruo,~~ ~ A L ~ A Z ~ 2 J a E5~ 8$ ` SFSQUICENTENN~P~ ~ A Beauti~ul Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (~vixn~~ n~ ~v~tnn~~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS February 16, 1989 The Honorable William L. Whitlock Chairman Floyd County Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 218 Floyd, Virginia '24091 Dear Mr. Whitlock: LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 21489-12.c endorsing that a study be conducted to determine the feasibility of a traditional music center located on the Rocky Knob site. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, February 14, 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> 7-72-2004 O~ POANp~~ ~ • ~ A Ir' Z ~ ~~ ~~~~~~.~e v a Z C~~~~~ E5~ $8 SFS(?UICENTENN~P~ ~ A Beauti~u/Beginning BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN ~ WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ELMER C. HODGE BOB L. JOHNSON February 16 , 19 8 9 HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT The Honorable James R. Olin Virginia House of Representatives 1207 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D. C~. 20515 Dear Mr. Olin: Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 21489-12.c endorsing that a study be conducted to determine the feasibility of a traditional music center located on the Rocky Knob site. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, February 14, 1989. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mary H. Alen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Attachment P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004 O~ POANp,~-F ~ ,~ P Z ~ z a reps s1~5~ FSGUICENTENN~P~ A Beauti~ul Beginning C~vixnt~ n~ ~o~tnvk~e BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR February 16 , 1989 ELMER C. HODGE The Honorable Frederick C. Boucher Virginia House of Representatives 428 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D. C. 20515 Dear Mr. Boucher: LEE GARRETT, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 21489-12.c endorsing that a study be conducted to determine the feasibility of a traditional music center located on the Rocky Knob site. This resolution was -- adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, February 14, 1989. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mary H. Allyn, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Attachment P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004 O~ FtOANp,Y~ ti •~ p Z z v a 150 R/x~ 1 $ MEANS ~/~J V SFS~UICEN7ENN~P ~ A Bcauti~ul6egi~rnin~ C~nunt~ of ~Rvttnulz~e BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C HODGE LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS NIL~iL>fi-'?IAI. D6TRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 808 L. JOHNSON HOLLINS M4G ISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A.MCGRAW February 16, 1989 CATAWDA MAGISTERIAL UISTRIC~ HARRY C. NICKEN~ VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Rev. John Boddie Our Lady of Nazareth Catholic Church 2505 Electric Road, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Reverend Boddie: On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, I wo eldiatkonoftoreyour opportunity to let you know of our app attending the meeting on Tuesday, February 15, 1989, to offer the invocation. We feel it is most important to ask God's blessing on these meetings so that all is done according to His will and for the good of all citizens. Thank you again for sharing your time with us. Very truly yours, Yi Lee Garrett, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh PO E30X 29800 - ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 o~ POANp,Y~ a I~ ~ ~ • y Z ~ 2 °v a ~8 E5~ $$ SFS~UICENTENN~P~ A Btauti~ul Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C.HODGE Dr. Norma Jean Peters Roanoke County Schools 526 College Avenue Salem, Virginia 24153 Dear Dr. Peters: February 16, 1989 LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT This is to advise that at their meeting held on Tuesday, February 14, 1989, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint you as a member of the Library Board to complete the unexpired four-year term of Richard Kirkwood. Your term will expire December 31, 1989. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed to any body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act; your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflicts of Interest Act. It is necessary that you take an oath of office before the Clerk of the Roanoke County Circuit Court. This oath must be administered prior to your participation on this committee. May I suggest that you phone Mrs. Elizabeth W. Stokes, Clerk, at 387-6208, and arrange to have the oath administered. ;,~ On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Very truly yours, ~aua- .~/ Qu~-~- Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Enclosures cc: Mrs. Elizabeth Stokes George Garretson, Library Director C~u~tnt~ of ~RnttrtAkr BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-07 9 8 (703> 772-2004 OF ROANpf.~ ti •~ ~ ~ Z Z v a 18 E5~ 8$ SFSQUICENTENN~P ~ A Beauti~ul8eginnin~ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (~nixn~~ of ~n~tnnke February 16, 1989 Ms. Sherry Robison 3829 Vauxhall Road, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Ms. Robison: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VIN TON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT The Board of Supervisors have asked me to express on their behalf their sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board. Citizens 'so responsive to the needs of their community and willing to give of themselves and their time are indeed all too scarce. This is to advise that at their meeting held on Tuesday, February 14, 1989, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint you as a meServicestAdvisory BoardcfornattwoVyearyte~mncYouroterm and Family will expire on March 22, 1990. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed to any body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act; your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflicts of Interest Act. It is necessary that you take an oath of office before the Clerk of the Roanoke County Circuit Court. This oath must be administered prior to your participatipn on this committee. May I suggest that you phone Mrs. Elizabeth W. Stokes, Clerk, at 387-6208, and arrange to have the oath administered. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Very truly yours, Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Enclosures cc: Mrs. Elizabeth Stokes Micha~3- :.~,az;2uri , Director of Court Services P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 98 (703) 772-2004 0~ AOANp,~~ ~ ~, L ~ ~ F Z p 2 v 'a 18 E50~ 88 SFSQV~CENTENN~P~' ~ A Beauri~ulBeginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (~nixnt~ of ~nttnuk~e Mr. James K. Sanders 5418 Warwood Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Ms. Sanders: February 16, 1989 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE GARRETT, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VIN TON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT The Board of Supervisors have asked me to express on their behalf their sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board. Citizens so responsive to the needs of their community and willing to give of themselves and their time are indeed all too scarce. This is to advise that at their meeting held on Tuesday, February 14, 1989, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint you as a member. of the Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board for a two-year term. Your term will expire on March 22, 1991. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed tc any body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act; your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflicts of Interest Act. It is necessary that you take an oath of office before the Clerk of the Roanoke County Circuit Court. This oath must be administered prior to your participation on this committee. May I suggest that you phone Mrs. Elizabeth W. Stokes, Clerk, at 387-6208, and arrange to have the oath administered. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. bjh_ Enclosures Very truly yours, ~. C~~~ Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: Mrs. Elizabeth Stokes Michael Lazzuri, Director of Court Services P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 JENNINGS T. BIRD CARR L. KINDER, JR. DONALD W. HUFFMAN ROBERT W,GOODLAT'TE LEA L.LAUTENSCHLAGER NATE L. ADAMS. III February 19, 1987 BIR©, KINDER & HUFFMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 200 126 CHURCH AVENUE, 5. W. ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011 Paul Mahoney, Esquire County Attorney, Roanoke County Administration Building P• 0. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Re: Fabricated i~ietals Industries, Inc., et al. v. Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Dear Paul: c p0 ^ t..,`~EF~F,PHONE , i . Fr'^ 1i~'~~~~7Q3 q~7~-'~1v55~~° _ P. O. BOX 2795, ROANOKE, Vq-240b~ _2795 In accordance with our recent telephone conversation, I am enclosing a proposed "Dismissed Agreed" Order as to Steel Services, Inc. D4y recollection of our agreement on the Steel Services, Inc., dismissal is as follows: 1) All charges imposed upon Steel Services, Inc., through February, 1986, will be forgiven; from MarchSt1986Setoldate,Iand~alllfutuy all charges incurred re charges, 3) No meter will be required for Steel Services, its billing to be determined as it has been in the based on the average for other businesses of itsasize~that is, 4) Upon entry of the Order of Dismissal, all liens for charges through February, 1986, will be removed, and u on of all accrued charges, any other liens will be removed, Payment If I have misstated any part of our understandin me know. Otherwise - if you will endorse the Orderpandsreturn it to me, I will see to its entry. I appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, BIRD, KINDER & HUFFMAN arr L. Kinder, Jr. CLKjr:ca Enclosure VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROANOKE COUNTY (; ~~ ! `'~ ~,~;~,r~ (, ~~ (: ~ ~ ,,~ i ~,,~ ~{ ~~ • :~ ~ ~ (' ~' FABRICATED METALS INDUSTRIES, INC., ~ ET AL., ~ Plaintiffs ~ v f ~ ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SERVICE ~ AUTHORITY, ~ Defendant ~ ORDER This day came Steel Services, Inc., one of the plaintiffs herein, by counsel, and the defendant, by counsel, and advised the Court that all matters in controversy between the defendant and Steel Services, Inc., had been compromised and settled, and moved the Court to dismiss the claim asserted by Steel Services, Inc. It is, therefore, ADJUDGED, ORDERED and DECREED that this matter be, and it hereby is, "Dismissed Agreed" as to the claim asserted by Steel Services, Inc. As to the other parties herein, this matter is continued BIRD, FINDER 6t I'IUFFMAN •TTORNEYS AT ~A"y IOANOK E. VIRGINIA generally. Enter this day of ~~ 1~i7. ?.~~ Judge We ask for phis A CGPY TE$TE:-EL(Zl~BETH b"r. STGI(ES, CLERK Carr L. Kinder, Jr. CIRC IT COURT, RGAPr'GI(E CGU~VTY, VA. Counsel for Steel Services, Inc. _-~ BY ~ ~ C'am' ;~ •`~r~_~, '''t' `Ji . „~ , /,\\ ;,~,y`~.~„ ~~ , DEPUTY CLERK Paul Mahoney, Esquire '~~ Counsel for Defendant ~1 A REQUEST TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR REJECTION OF THE PROPOSED RED HILL SITE QQ AS A REGIONAL LANDFILL FEBRUARY 14, 1989 CLEARBROOK CIVIC LEAGUE REPRESENTING THE FOLLOWING AREAS CLEARBROOK HUNTING HILLS RED HILL SUNGREST HEIGHTS STARKEY Table of Contents P a_~_ ....... ~ Landfill pasitian Paps=r ................. Site 4~4 lacatian map .................. Letters of appasitian ................. List of property owners ................ Clearbraak Civic League Landfill Position Paper Clearbrook. Hunting We, the citizens and residents of and surrounding areas in Raanake County Red Hill, Regional Solid Waste Management Hills, urge the Raanake Valley Board of Supervisors to reject Board and the Raanake County reasons: the Red Hill Landfill Site 44 far the following 1 , Res,id,en,t,ia,1....We,1„~.....Prabl,ems, has na utility The Red Hill section of Raanake Caunty raximately 33 services avai l abl a es.~ec,i,a,1,1.~1 water . App residents in the immediate landfill area obtaininclude from wells and springs. This figure does not in area of the landfill other residents in the autly g landfill that may be affected by con,tami,na,t,i,an, of materials. -~nia Department of Highways 198? 2 . Raa,d....5~.:~.et,~ta Virg . According .q. 19,9Q5 vehicles traffic caurtthi~h~~~t~anaafe~Routee2~Q South daily. This that travel Very treacherous and numerous area of landfill is There are na turning accidents occur in this area. lanes far traffic. much less one fgtry l~~nstruct~ancles~ Major highway construction and bridge costly project, is needed. landfill traffic from Uintan, Garden The additional City would overload traffic an City> and Raanake secondary roads. Waste Management has new 3 , Cr,i_t.i c,al,,,_51 ode Virginia Department of landfill an regulations that prevent the location of enhas a slope a site where 50~es~. Thee Red H~llasitegwill fail this exceeding 30 deg test because aver 5Q~ of the land has mare than a 3 degree slope. These 4 , Gr_ave_„Sites, Forty Two grave sitess~rnatnbeedisturbedaarf remaved~• family sites mu grave sites as early as the 1800's are an the su es. ....... will be taking valuable property that 5 . ~c,an,ami,c.....~,m[?act oss i bl y Roanoke Caunty rawth far resident7al and p one day will provide g commercial growth in the future. This is evident y growth as seen from Route 419 to Route 220 South. -1-- -2-- Supervisor Dick Rabers has expressed Our Cave Spring ublicly and openly about this Site ~~ his pppasitian p as being added as unfair and that the rules have een changed. There are many other abjectiann RedtHill~ Weehave~ leisted our location of a landfill site a critical objections and hveerevQeweafethe~factspwei1l dearly confident that an abject unacceptable far a demonstrate that Site 44 is completely landfill operation. Clearbraok Civic League Re ianal Solid Waste Management Board cc: Raanake GauntY Board of Supervisors Raanake County Dick Rabers Elmer hiodge 01ver, ~nc• Roanoke Times & World News Channel 7 Channel 1 n __ ~ ... i I~ y ~ ~ ~t-~ ~ /'~• ~b ~ i ~ i 3~ . S Env""' ~ oww• 'e :aa• ` r. ...w " ~'1 N~~~ ~ouNnw i ~ ~\ ~ j ~„ SITE !~ ~_r~ .,~ ;E,f n TO ROANOKE ~, ~. ~ ~~ i`/„~ r+ \ 1~~ ~ /i /x/1/2-3J1`6``-~~/, ~ . ~1 J /, ~~~~ ~ V ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ I ~~ ~ ~\ ~ ~O `\' \ O~~ \ z • , . ~ ~:~~~y, , i ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~, --~~~ ~ FROM U.S.G.S . -~•••--~~«~~~ MAP TAKEN NDARY GARDEN CITY pUAD. NOTE' PROPERTY 6011 gHpWN IS APPROX. FOR DETAILED MAP CONTACT ROANOKE : 44NT JAN s ~ cgvsuuTA~• SITE KING 3 vs©. ~~:r~~~ Inc ~.~ ~.. ~. February 10, 1989 Roanoke County Board of 5upervisars 3738 Bramv1Ae2401Bvenue 5•W. Raanake, Reference: ~~DDNILL SICLEARBRpOK AR~'~ Gentleman: We st rang~l Y recammend that the Boa ana le L.andf i 115 sbi te~ area from considnratan fnr a Reg rading business for We have been---in the excavaeaos we~have operated several 20 years. During this 20 Y ~ have lived next door small stump and brush landfills. and hunted on these properties which are the new ro rased landfill sites far my entire az years of life. p p that Yau aver th'a property boundary After studying it i5 my orainian that it is impassible propose to use, reasons: to use any of thjs land far the fallowing First 295 acres are above the 33~ slaps. Second Four C4) acres include two cemeteries Third..... The setback °requir~inrgssleavesdeightyg(80) . ..water. wells and sp acres far use. This remaining eighty C80) acres has two Fourth thru the middle of ~2) bald Streams running it, thus rendering it useless. 5469 FRANKLIN RORD/ RORNOKE,VR 24014 (703)774-9463 ^ ,KING ~~ ~ a ~ ~~ ~~ n The Sail r~r, thi5 prap~=rty CpnS'15t ma5tly Fifth and rack. There would nOand of Sand, shale. this Site daily be any clay to cover dawn thru the Shale would let water Seep the earth. results I'm 5u~seyafar~l~ After you obtain your testingmpo~sible to also find this site is landfill. I am r nai ncerel~Yf. Randy K~nge y President 5469 FRANKLIN ROAD/ ROANOKE,VA 24014 (703)74'9463 Roanoke Gounty, cite #44 Approximate Acreage = 575 acres p,r,p pe r,t,~(,,, Owr1e r Harrison Harrison Harrison Harrison Brooks Ridgeway Flowers Hartman, G• Weeks brand Gruey Hartman, M• Jenkins Hartman, G• Ac r ea,g, ............... 36.21 76.09 1 .2q 28.Oq 8.99 35.85 16.36 36.36 32.Oq 5a.5q x.3.9°r 30.80 186.15 7t1.gq 575.6' -6- "In the last year-and•a•half, we attacke the city on the grounds that it wasn't follow- ing the state's [self-proclaimed solid waste priorities: first,. waste re Ho man, Execu- ond, recycling;' says Ray ~ tive Director of Washingt~oann~ ytiHo~~an Recycling. But more impo ollution, and others also cite oblems assreasons to and ash disposal p + reject incineration. Incinerators produce a ~'i sulfur dioxide, greenhouse gases, including nitrogen oxides, hydrogen fluoride and car- bonmonoxide, responsible for global warm- ing and acid r metals such asischr mium, contain heavy . and lead, known cadmium, arsenic, mercury n from birth to cause human maladies rangi g defects to nervous system disorders. Some of these metals can be "~ru end up in the emission gases, but then they dioxin have W ash. Traces of cancer-causing ~ been found m both gaseous emissions and ~ ash samples from incinerators across the 3 country One form of dioxin, 2,3,7,8 TCDD, ~ is the most toxic molecule ever created. Its chronic toxicity has been compared to plu- tonium; no safe level of exposure has ever been found. Public opposition to incineration's health hazards was crucial for Seattle, but an even more compelling reason for choosing recycl- + ing, from the point of view of city oflecono~ was simple economics. Borro`~'ln the city mists from Seattle's Electric Utility, Solid Waste Utility (SWU) developed an exhaustive analysis of garbage disposal options. It found that recycling was defi- D O I R O N nitely cheaper in terms of environmental costs (pollution from gaseous emissions and d ' n traditional economic terms, Recyclables from Seattle's ~ halms afters" picked up at curbside from and dumped here at the Rabanco sorting facility. A disk screen separates large from small items, sending them down smaller conveyor belts. Workers handling items pick out glass (by color) and aluminum cans and then send them thro 6hyuhand~ priate yellow chutes to waiting workers below. ,v i~ ~ac~~~ ash). An 1 recycling could prove to be the best buy SEATTLE, WASHINGTON+hI h techlburning simple reason: recycling is the pushed into building g - machines. It had been down that road before. for a very In 1976, when other state utilblicsPower cheapersashmordel waS n of a he is d' erted buying into the Washington Pu Supply System (WPPSS) plan to build five every ton recycled, a to Seattle said, "no from costly landfills and even costlier nuclear power plants, eed to put thanks:' The city commissioned an eco- incinera ors. term power planning Mayor Charles Royer has agr nomic model for long- "Citizensshould begiven and found that it would be cheape~tas nigh years 1Says Royer,a garbagenbu h wa to can in energy conservation. Seattle The WPPSS (also known to detractors as a chance first to s ow o „ in what be recycled o Ctlie incentnve to recycle t the "WHOOPS )project failed, ending would d Y has become the biggest bond default in U.S• fullest extent possible. In order to recover history. the rush to very large financial investments, incinera- Today Seattle is avoiding burn garbage. Seattle's city councilband- certainv olumeeof garbagetto theancinera- on the incinerator ~~ ut or pay" contracts that tempted to jump In this wagon, a move that can cost hundreds of tor, so-calle p and recycling millions of dollars in building costs alone. work as a disincentive nor recycling. 't endorsed way, incineration technofll logYame materials. Even as recently as one year ago, re. technology compete fo "waste-to-energy" incineration as the p There are also unknown costs related to ferred method of waste handling. But now 's most suc- incinerator ash disposal, bag generates . Seattle is home to the country to 20-30 percent of its origi- cessful urban recycling progmm• The rea- wise to avoid. Burning g ash amounting ercent of its original sons for the abrupt about-face are several, nal weight, or 10 p not the least of which is the persistent and volume. Whsle Seattle has contracted with vocal opposition of environmental and neigh- borhood activists to a proposed incinerator. landfill sites to take its unrecycled gar age, making such arrangements for ash can prove to be more problematic. A regulatory loop- hole exempts incinerator ash from hazard- ous waste regulations, even though it often fails the Environmental Protection Agen- cy's own toxicity and leachability tests. Recent events demonstrate that the toxicity of ash makes it an undesirable commodity. Prohibitively high domestic ash disposal costs has compelled the city of Philadelphia to hire a fleet of ships to get rid of its toxic ash. The infamous Khian Sea has searched for dumping grounds in the Caribbean, Cen tral America, Africa, and Sri Lanka. IN SEATTLE'S NORTH END, brightly-colored crates dot the streets on collection day: yel- low for cans and glass, green for paper, and dark green for newsprint. In the South End, one big green 90-gallon wheeled can com- bines all three items. Both of these curbside recycling programs were begun last Febru- ary, as part of an ambitious plan calling for rates of recycling higher than anywhere else in the world, with over 60 percent recovery as the goal. In four short months, the curbside program surpassed all others of its kind and currently involves 55 percent of the eligible households in Seattle, far exceeding even the most optimistic predictions for the first year. The city is now recycling 2,500 tons of bot- tles, cans and newspapers through its curb- sideprogrameach month. Add this to Seattle's already-successful private recycling efforts, and the city recycles 28% of its waste stream. To promote recycling, Seattle has under- taken apackage of programs and incentives, such as restructured garbage rates. Residents normally pay $18.55 a month for the city to dispose of two garbage cans worth of refuse, but if they separate out recyclables and only fill one can, it costs just $13.55. This so-called "variable can" rate reflects the space saved when recyclables are removed from the gar- bage. Since Seattle saves money when it avoids landfilling the extra amount, it passes some of the savings on to its customers. Super recyclers will soon be offered the option of an even cheaper mini-can. The city will also begin picking up yard waste (making up 21% of residential refuse) to process into compost and paying $30 per ton to private recyclers who make pick-ups from apartment build- ings with five or more units. Seattle s city council chose to try different methods of recycling by splitting the city into two zones. Rabanco, a local separation plant, took on Seattle's South End, collecting mixed recyclables. Recycle America, run by waste handling giant, Waste Management, Inc. (WMI), handles the North End, with trucks picking up separated recyclables. While this program is more expensive than the South End's method of combining paper, glass and cans in one container, it doesn't require as much sorting later. Proud of his program, WMI manager Don Kneass says, "The cost comes either at the point of collection or at the point of processing, and source separa- tion produces higher quality products:' The products are glass, aluminum and paper-called "urban ore' by some-and they are becoming increasingly valuable. Says the Institute for Local Self-Reliance's David Moms, "A city the size of San Francisco dis- poses of more aluminum than is produced by a small bauxite mine, more copper than a medium copper mine and more paper than a good-sized timber stand:' In the United States alone, $700 million was paid out to recyclers who collected 39 billion aluminum cans in 1988,, a 50 percent increase over the year before. Now, alumi- num is becoming so valuable that thieves are ,'.smantling highway guard rails and street lamps, and tearing the aluminum siding off of houses to collect the 50 to 60 cents each pound is worth. Cardboard cartons are the port of New York's number one export, reaching more than 800,000 tons a year. The scrap goes overseas to mills in Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Italy, Spain, Mexico and other coun- tries to bereconstituted into new paper. The business supports some 2,000 waste paper dealers and another 100,000 scavengers. For many environmentalists, it's ironic to hear waste giants like WMI talk about tap- ping recycling markets. After all, WMI has made millions dumping and burning toxic wastes (and incurred fines and the wrath of environmentalists for illegal disposal prac- tices). But as landfill costs continue to rise, people with both environmental and profit motives can be on the same side of the recycl- ing issue. Recycling would be made even easier if the industries supporting it were given some financial incentives. For instance, haulers of virgin materials, not recycled mate- rials, receive federal transportation subsidies. Says Kneass, "Ultimately this country is going to have to wake up and consider a national materials recovery policy which says, `buy recyclables: " Mining this "urban ore," rather than extracting more of the earth's raw materials, is essential to preserving the environment. Producing a ton of paper from recycled fiber saves some 3,700 pounds of trees and 24,000 gallons of water. Melting down a ton of aluminum cans saves 8,800 pounds of baux- ite and 1,000 pounds of petroleum coke. "Our cities are a reliable source of natural resources;' says Greenpeace Recycling Proj- ect Coordinator Bryan Bence. "To ignore min- erals and other materials in our cities' waste stream is a crime against the earth:' And there are other, less tangible benefits from recycling. "Talk to people in the curbside program, says Ray Hoffman, and they 11 say, `Hey, I feel great: It's self education. Once people do it they become attuned to other things they can do:' Recycling compels people to think about ecology-to see the connection between individual acts and the environment. ^ Ken Stump and Kathy Doiron both work with Greenpeace Northwest's canvass program. odnrxu+av~Eeaunav i~» Recycle America handles curbside pick-up in Seattle's North End. Seattle recycles 28~ of tts waste stream, but with new programs to handle yard waste and plastics, Seattle is fast approaching its goal of 60~ recycling by 1994.