The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9/12/1989 - Regulari~UtiNUKt TIMtJ L riLhLV-(VChS AO NUMbEf< - 8281601 PUbLISHEK'S FEE - b92.34 COUNTY OF ROANOK FINANCE DEPARTMEItiT 3738 ERAMBLETON AVE S1v P 0 E~OX 29800 RUANUKt V:+ 24018 798 TATS OF VIRGINIA ITY GF ROAhUKE AFFIDAVIT OF PUEiLICATIUN I, tTHt UNDERSIGNED) AN AUTHORIZED EPFtESENTATIVc CF TriE TIMES-WORLD COR- ORATION, v~HICH CGRPURaT10N IS PUBLISHER iF THE ROANOKE TIMES ~ nl,t<LD-NtwS, A DAILY NErlSP~lPtn PUBLISHED IN RUANUKE, IIV HE STATE l;F VIRuIi~IIH, DO CERTIFY THAT hE A~tiNEXtD ,vGTICE wAS PUULISHtU IN SAID 'E' `'APERS Uiv THE FOLLCwIiJv UATtS 08/29/39 Mt;F'.iJINS 09/05/89 MURNI~NG ITNESS, THIS bTH UkY OF SEP1TEMbER1989 . t~ v /ti ~ii~.Q~ ,AtJTHiJRILED SIGNATUFcE ~~~ c-: ^~ _ ,~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARINdi.ON PROPOSED 010ND FINANCING {Y THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Nofip u haraby oiwn tlwt tl» 0loard of Supervisors of Roanoke CewM~-rMf10M. tIM "Cevl11Y") rr~ ~ i SecflM 151f.1-~1.1 N Gede e/ YirNaN, 110, amaaded ("'tedlr~'1, M 1AI! 1- ~ OOn~ (~~Ondi~,• ~. apifai Rre1Mt for school Ourpoiq. A reaOluflOn auiho- risln0 NN isswnp of fhe !Dods vrill a eMSidered by the soaro sf Sup.rrisors of Roanefn Coun1Y. VIr01nN, at I,s meeflnp M September 1!, 1901. A ppy M i11Ch Resolu- tIM is M flh in fM OHIp ai fhe County Administrafor M Roanoke Covnfy, Vlr0lnia. At repvlred• by Secflon 15.1- I 10101 of the Code, fhe esfl- mafed Irlferesf rafe on the 0bnds b 7.0% end. tM estimat- , ed amount of Interest eMrpes regWred to refln tM !!Dods Is f1,O1Li50.00. TM Oublic haarin0 whkh mey M contlnwd or adlourned . vNll a Mltl of 7:00 p.m. on Sep- hmber 1!, 19p, baton fhe 0ward of Supervlson o, RoanoketourMy, Vir0lnta. Paul M. MahoMy CounfyAflorney (10051). O~ AOANp~,~ ~ ,~ 7D 2 ~ z v a 8 u~ $$ SFSQUICENTENN~P~ A Beauti~ul8eginnin~ C~vixnt~ of ~nttn~rke ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. There will be a Public Hearinq at this afternoons meetincr. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:05 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. HCN arrived 3:06 p.m. 2. Invocation: John Chambliss Assistant County Administrator for Human Services 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS NONE C. PROCLAMATIONS., RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Appreciation to Bob Archer for his contributions to small business in the Roanoke Valley. R-91289-1 LG/SAM TO APPROVE RESO URC 2. Recognition of contributors to the All America City Celebration. R-91289-2 BLJ/SAM TO APPROVE RESO URC GEORGE BECRER AND MATT BRINK WERE PRESENT TO RECEIVE THE RESOLUTION. COUNTY STAFF INVOLVED IN THE CELEBRATION WERE ALSO RECOGNIZED. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Report on operations for the year ended June 30, 1989. A-91289-3 HCN/RR TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS - URC. LG DIRECTED STAFF TO STUDY FEASIBILITY OF A REDUCTION IN REAL ESTATES TAXES AND TO POLL CITIZENS ON WHETHER THEY WOULD PREFER TO MAINTAIN CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICES WITH CURRENT TAX, REDUCE TAX AND THEREFORE, SERVICES, OR INCREASE LEVEL OF SERVICES EVEN IF THERE WERE TAX INCREASES - BRING BACK IN 30 TO 45 DAYS. 2. Approval of Economic Development Action Plan for 1989-90. R-91289-4 BLJ/HCN TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AND APPROVE ACTION PLAN - URC. TWG TO SET UP MEETING WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY GROUP TO DISCUSS PLAN. BLJ DIRECTED STAFF TO STUDY POSSIBILITY OF COSTS INVOLVED IF COUNTY WENT FORWARD WITH ACCESS ROADS AND WATER AND SEWER. 3. Recommendations for Stormwater Management Program. A-91289-5 BLJ/SAM TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION - URC. STAFF TO BRING BACK COST FIGURES ON AN ENGINEERING STUDY WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS. STAFF TO CONTACT OTHER LOCALITIES TO DISCUSS POSSIBILITY OF REGIONAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. 4. Authorization to provide employee dental insurance. A-91289-6 SAM/BLJ TO APPROVE GOING FORWARD WITH PROPOSALS AND BRING BACK TO BOARD FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN. AYES: BLJ, RR, SAM, LG NAYS: HCN 5. Acceptance of state matching grant for implementation of a recycling project through the State Energy Conservation Program. A-91289-7 SAM/HCN URC 2 6. Authorization to increase annual leave for county employees with over 20 years service. A-91289-8 HCN/SAM URC 7. Request for expansion of the Campbell Hills Water System. A-91289-9 SAM/RR TO APPROVE ALTERNATIVE #1 WAIVE REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL STORAGE WITH CONDITION THAT STORAGE FACILITY WOULD BE INSTALLED WITH SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT - URC. ECH TO DISCUSS POSSIBILITY OF TRADING WATER AND SEWER WITH MONTGOMERY COUNTY FOR AREAS NEAR COUNTY LINE. 8. Request from Hollins Fire & Rescue for Roanoke County matching funds to purchase a heavy squad truck. A-91289-10 SAM/BLJ TO APPROVE MATCHING FUNDS - URC. TF TO CHECK OTHER LOCALITIES TO SEE IF THEY HAVE NEED FOR THIS TYPE OF EQUIPMENT WHEN NECESSARY. TF UPDATED BOARD ON BONSACR FIRE STATION - JOINT PROJECT WITH ROANORE CITY. E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS. NONE F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCE - CONSENT AGENDA SAM REQUESTED A SEPARATE VOTE 1. Ordinance to change the zoning classification of a .409 acre tract of real estate located at 5449 Franklin Road (Tax Map No. 98-02-2-9) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District from the zoning classification of B2 to the zoning classification of B3 with conditions and a special exception upon the application of Eagle Equipment Company. SAM/RR URC 2. Ordinance to change the zoning classification of a .493 acre tract of real estate located northwest of the intersection of Peters Creek Road and 3 Valleypointe Parkway in the Hollins Magisterial District from the zoning classification of A-1 to the zoning classification of M-1 with conditions and a special exception upon the application of Lingerfelt Development Corporation. B W/HCN AYES: BW,RR,HCN,LG ABSTAIN: SAM G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance requesting vacation of a portion of a slope easement, varying in width from 30 to 50 feet, Fairway Forest Estates, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. LG/SAM TO APPROVE FIRST READING 2ND - 9/26/89 URC 2. Ordinance requesting vacation of a 10 foot waterline easement, Odgen Professional Park, Cave Spring Magisterial District. RR/BW TO APPROVE FIRST READING AYES: BW,RR,HCN,LG ABSTAIN: SAM 2ND - 9/26/89 3. Ordinance requesting vacation of a 12 foot public utility easement, Castle Rock West Subdivision, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. LG/HCN TO APPROVE FIRST READING 2ND - 9/26/89 URC 4. Ordinance requesting vacation of a stormwater management easement and access easement, Montclair Estate Subdivision, Catawba Magisterial District. SAM/BW TO APPROVE FIRST READING 2ND - 9/26/89 URC 5. Ordinance amending Section 12.34 of the Roanoke County Code to prevent payment of fines assessed under this section without proof of purchase of a County license decal. 4 HCN/SAM TO APPROVE FIRST READING 2ND - 9/26/89 URC 6. Ordinance amending and readopting Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Section 12-8, of the Roanoke County Code; adopting provisions of Title 46.2 and 18.2 of the Code of Virginia. BLJ/RR TO APPROVE FIRST READING 2ND - 9/26/89 URC 7. Ordinance amending Sections 4-90, 4-97, 4-100 and 4-102 and repealing Section 4-101 of Article V, Bingo Games and Raffles of Chapter 4, Amusements LG/BLJ TO APPROVE FIRST READING 2ND - 9/26/89 URC H. PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 1. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance concerning issuance of not to exceed $1,115,000 general obligation school bonds to finance certain capital projects for school purposes. 0-91289-11 HCN/BLJ TO APPROVE AND DISPENSE WITH 2ND READING URC I. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing the sale of .47 ± acres in Southwest Industrial Park. 0-91289-12 HCN/BLJ URC 2. Ordinance authorizing sale of 5.039 ± acres in the Southwest Industrial Park. 0-91289-13 BLJ/sAM URC 3. Adoption of Ordinance amending Article III, Sewer Use Standards, of Chapter 16, of the Roanoke County Code. 5 0-91289-14 HCN/SAM URC NONE J. APPOINTMENTS 1. Community Corrections Resources Board. 2. Fifth Planning District Commission. 3. Grievance Panel. 4. Industrial Development Authority. 5. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. 6. Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board R. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS JOHNSON: EXPRESSED SYMPATHY UPON DEATH OF FORMER BOARD MEMBER MAY JOHNSON AND DIRECTED THAT THE FAMILY BE CONTACTED SHORTLY TO ATTEND A BOARD MEETING FOR AN APPROPRIATE MEMORIAL. ROBERS: CONGRATULATED THE ROANORE REGIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION ON THE AIRPORT GALA HELD SEPT 8 AND ON THE OPENING CEREMONIES OF THE NEW TERMINAL. NICRENS: DISCUSSED THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED POLICE DEPARTMENT ON THE TOWN OF VINTON. MOTION BY HCN/SECONDED BY LG THAT THE BOARD PASS PREPARED RESOLUTION AMENDED WITH THE INCLUSION UNDER #1 THAT ROANORE COUNTY WILL ASSURE THE TOWN OF VINTON THAT THERE WILL BE NO LOSS OF FUNDING IF A POLICE DEPARTMENT IS ESTABLISHED AND THAT RESOLUTION BE SENT TO VINTON OFFICIALS. URC. R-91289-15 HCN/LG TO APPROVE RESOLUTION AMENDED AS ABOVE URC MCGRAW: MET WITH GRAYSON COMMISSION. EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT COMMISSION WILL NOT PUT FORTH STRONG INCENTIVES FOR COOPERATION AND CONSOLIDATION. GARRETT: COMMENDED SAM FOR HIS WORK WITH GRAYSON COMMISSION. 6 L. CONSENT AGENDA R-91289-16 HCN/BLJ WITH ITEMS L-1 AND L-3 REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION. LETTER TO OAR GROVE PTA SHOULD EMPHASIZE THAT MAXIMUM JACKPOT SHOULD NOT EXCEED $1,000. URC 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. Authorization to begin appropriate legal proceedings to enforce agreement concerning Queen's Court Subdivision. A-91289-16.a HCN/BLJ 2. Approval of Raffle Permit - Cave Spring High School. A-91289-16.b HCN/BLJ 3. Approval of Raffle Permit - Oak Grove Elementary School. A-91289-16.C HCN/BLJ 4. Appropriation of federal grant funds to the 1989- 90 Roanoke County Schools' Budget. A-91289-16.d HCN/BLJ 5. Acceptance of 0.32 miles of Fallowater Lane, into the VDOT Secondary System. A-91289-16.e HCN/BLJ 6. Acceptance of a sanitary sewer easement being donated by Danford M. DeShields, Jr. and Fannie Hope DeShields. 7 A-91289-16.f HCN/BLJ M. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS HEARD BEFORE CONSENT AGENDA ALFRED POWELL, 3141 FRANKLIN STREET, SPORE IN OPPOSITION TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT REFERENDUM AND EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE WAS NOT PUBLISHED ON THE AUGUST 22 AGENDA. N. REPORTS BLJ/SAM TO RECEIVE AND FILE URC 1. Board Contingency Fund. 2. Capital fund Unappropriated Balance. 3. General Fund Unappropriated Balance. 4. Statement of Expenditures and Income Analysis for month of July 31, 1989. 5. Accounts Paid - August, 1989 6. Report on impact of County Police Department on the Town of Vinton. O. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia, Section 2.1-344. LG/BLJ AT 5:17 P.M. URC P. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-91289-17 LG/BLJ AT 5:45 P.M. AYES: BLJ,RR,HCN,LG ABSENT: SAM Q. ADJOURNMENT BLJ/HCN TO ADJOURN AT 5:47 P.M. - UW 8 o~ aoaN kF ~ p Z Z a 18 ~~ 88 SFSQUICENTENN~P~ A Beauti~ulBeginning C~nixn~~ of ~n~tnnke ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held 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 at this afternoons meeting. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. 2. Invocation: The Reverend Michael Palmer Green Ridge Baptist Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Appreciation to Bob Archer for his contributions to small business in the Roanoke Valley. 2. Recognition of contributors to the All America City Celebration. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Report on operations for the year ended June 30, 1989. 2. Approval of Economic Development Action Plan for 1989-90. 3. Recommendations for Stormwater Management Program. 4. Authorization to provide employee dental insurance. 5. Acceptance of state matching grant for implementation of a recycling project through the State Energy Conservation Program. 6. Authorization to increase annual leave for county employees with over 20 years service. 7. Request for expansion of the Campbell Hills Water System. 8. Request from Hollins Fire & Rescue for Roanoke County matching funds to purchase a heavy squad truck. E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS. F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCE - CONSENT AGENDA 1. Ordinance to change the zoning classification of a .409 acre tract of real estate located at 5449 Franklin Road (Tax Map No. 98-02-2-9) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District from the zoning classification of B2 to the zoning classification of B3 with conditions and a special exception upon the application of Eagle Equipment Company. 2. Ordinance to change the zoning classification of a .493 acre tract of real estate located northwest of the intersection of Peters Creek Road and Valleypointe Parkway in the Hollins Magisterial District from the zoning classification of A-1 to the zoning classification of M-1 with conditions and a special exception upon the application of Lingerfelt Development Corporation. G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance requesting vacation of a portion of a slope easement, varying in width from 30 to 50 feet, 2 Fairway Forest Estates, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. 2. Ordinance requesting vacation of a 10 foot waterline easement, Odgen Professional Park, Cave Spring Magisterial District. 3. Ordinance requesting vacation of a 12 foot public utility easement, Castle Rock West Subdivision, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. 4. Ordinance requesting vacation of a stormwater management easement and access easement, Montclair Estate Subdivision, Catawba Magisterial District. 5. Ordinance amending Section 12.34 of the Roanoke County Code to prevent payment of fines assessed under this section without proof of purchase of a County license decal. 6. Ordinance amending and readopting Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Section 12-8, of the Roanoke County Code; adopting provisions of Title 46.2 and 18.2 of the Code of Virginia. 7. Ordinance amending Sections 4-90, 4-97, 4-100 and 4-102 and repealing Section 4-101 of Article V, Bingo Games and Raffles of Chapter 4, Amusements H. PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 1. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance concerning issuance of not to exceed $1,115,000 general obligation school bonds to finance certain capital projects for school purposes. I. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing the sale of .47 + acres in Southwest Industrial Park. 2. Ordinance authorizing sale of 5.039 + acres in the Southwest Industrial Park. 3. Adoption of Ordinance amending Article III, Sewer Use Standards, of Chapter 16, of the Roanoke County Code. 3 J. APPOINTMENTS 1. Community Corrections Resources Board. 2. Fifth Planning District Commission. 3. Grievance Panel. 4. Industrial Development Authority. 5. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. 6. Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board R. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS L. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Authorization to begin appropriate legal proceedings to enforce agreement concerning Queen's Court Subdivision. 2. Approval of Raffle Permit - Cave Spring High School. 3. Approval of Raffle Permit - Oak Grove Elementary School. 4. Appropriation of federal grant funds to the 1989- 90 Roanoke County Schools' Budget. 5. Acceptance of 0.32 miles of Fallowater Lane, into the VDOT Secondary System. 6. Acceptance of a sanitary sewer easement being donated by Danford M. DeShields, Jr. and Fannie Hope DeShields. M. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 4 N. REPORTS 1. Board Contingency Fund. 2. Capital fund Unappropriated Balance. 3. General Fund Unappropriated Balance. 4. Statement of Expenditures and Income Analysis for month of July 31, 1989. 5. Accounts Paid - August, 1989 6. Report on impact of County Police Department on the Town of Vinton. O. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia, Section 2.1-344. P. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION Q. ADJOURNMENT 5 ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 RESOLUTION 91289-1 OF APPRECIATION TO BOB ARCHER FOR SUPPORT OF COMMUNITY LIFE IN THE ROANORE VALLEY WHEREAS, Bob Archer has contributed to the economic well- being of the entire Roanoke Valley, serving as the chairman of the Governor's Small Business Advisory Board, a member of the Board of Directors of Virginia Organized Industries for a Clean Environment, a member of the Board of Directors of the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitor's Bureau, and a member of the Trade Center Task Force; and WHEREAS, Bob Archer has been supportive of various events in Roanoke County, including the Sesquicentennial Celebration and the All America City Celebration; and WHEREAS, Bob Archer has been active in his own industry, serving as a member of the Boards of Directors of the Virginia Wine Distribution Association and the Virginia Beer Wholesale Association. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors does hereby extend its appreciation to BOB ARCHER for his continued support of all aspects of community life in the Roanoke Valley. On motion of Supervisor Garrett, seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisor Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: `,7iZ2Q/~~C~ ~• c/ Mary H.^Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Resolutions of Appreciation File Tim Gubala, Director, Economic Development ~-/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO BOB ARCHER FOR SUPPORT OF COMMUNITY LIFE IN THE ROANORE VALLEY WHEREAS, Bob Archer has contributed to the economic well- being of the entire Roanoke Valley, serving as the chairman of the Governor's Small Business Advisory Board, a member of the Board of Directors of Virginia Organized Industries for a Clean Environment, a member of the Board of Directors of the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitor's Bureau, and a member of the Trade Center Task Force; and WHEREAS, Bob Archer has been supportive of various events in Roanoke County, including the Sesquicentennial Celebration and the All America City Celebration; and WHEREAS, Bob Archer has been active in his own industry, serving as a member of the Boards of Directors of the Virginia Wine Distribution Association and the Virginia Beer Wholesale Association. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors does hereby extend its appreciation to BOB ARCHER for his continued support of all aspects of community life in the Roanoke Valley. ~~-~~ ~._.. "INTERIM" SUMMARY: Emerging Issues June 30, 1989 REGIONAL ROUNDTABLE MEETINGS Emerging Issues Include: NINTH DISTRICT: * Lack of skilled and unskilled labor * Illiteracy in adults and recent graduates * Lack of adequate communication between businesses and the schools * Difficulty in recruiting highly trained people to Southwest Virginia * Quality of public schools EIGHTH DISTRICT: * Poor quality and the low work ethic of the work force * Lack of skilled trades persons * Students graduating without the "basics" * Lack of affordable housing * Employee development * Congested roads * Lack of reciprocity between jurisdictions for business permits SEVENTH DISTRICT: * Lack of qualified labor, both entry level positions and highly skilled workers, technicians * Entry level workers lack "basic skills" * Employee development * Lack of technical college system SIXTH DISTRICT: * * * * * * * Lack of skilled labor Lack of affordable housing Illiteracy Disposal of solid waste Lack of monies to support local facilities Employee development infrastructure, i.e. school Lack of cooperation across jurisdictions FIFTH DISTRICT: * Lack of skilled quality workers * Lack of training for highly skilled trades persons * Need for vocational education and the community colleges to provide training which meets the needs of the area businesses * Employee development * Quality of life impacted by lack of services and attractions FIRST DISTRICT: EASTERN SHORE * Lack of skilled labor (technicians, plumbers, electricians, draftsmen, brick masons) * Poor quality of vocational education and inability of community colleges to meet the needs of businesses * Lack of adequate water and sewer * Lack of commercial buildings for expanding businesses * Need for assistance in employee development * No growth attitude of residents * Quality of life impacted by lack of cultural attractions or entertainment 1 ~~ ~o'~ly 9 ~ e h1r ~ z ~ ~. ~ e ~~ ~ ~ m i~ m.l s ~~~~~ V i _ t. ~~ ~. ._ . I c I~~ ~1 i l I l1 Q~ I \!_. _._~ ~ i _ h I - ~ i, i '~ - ~ ~ 1. ~._ r i 2 ~~~,,, ~ ~ - -' _ , ,~ _. JI 2 .~ ~ f_' _ ~ ~+ 'll 2 _ _ i i F ~ _~ I ~ ~~ ~',~ 'I I biz ,~ ~~%'~1,,_-• ;.. 1 ~/~ r S ; ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ .°,.t ~- i ,I~' ; . J W ~ i i ZQ= .. ~. ~ '°~ `, -, `, . ; :~ ~- C3Zm ,,: ~~ '~,~; oC O_ ~ ` A ~ ~,. ~ i W a '~: _ ,• ~~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ -.; \ , '~ ;`~ ~~ ~ '` . `-` , ~ ~ , _ ~`~4 , , .. ~ i ~ d,~ ~ I d~, _~ i i ~1 ~ .\I ~l ii o ~` r V U ~ .~ ~ U ~ U U ~ O N ~ N Op O iJ U O U o r ~+ ti ~ r C ~ U U ~~ V U Q i ~ U U i C U 5 Q t ~ .. U 7 C iJ ^ .L 4 O RU U L XS~ ~ ~ U UU ' O SOU C . CJ tOi G O ~Y~UU O _ p~ Jy C U~ x O N ~7~r C tl~1 5 w o~ yy t~~ C t m.°+ X 6 O ~ O N W to U VI Y ~+ t aa _ 2 O r. N H r L % L C `~ •~ 40 O `- ~ L u . }5 N 0 O Y A t w N e . r G ~• O o ~ ~ p C Y •• ••~ O ` •~ ~ u % u77 L i 11 r C 0 ~ ~ L tJ CC 7 7 :! ~ ' d 7 1 9 4 ~ t ~0 ~ c. L ~ 7 t <~ 4N Lm~20Cm mU D W V G7J= aOCN r 33 ++~ W <J O ~ N U r N O J y~_ N W M Jw « ~u = a AU ~ ~ r 10 ~ U ~ U U N ~ U U pp pp U O Q Uy U^ NW C~ C O)UMVCC L A{.i 1.~ r`1~Ui.1~~ L> ~ r r~ Y U O~ ~ r W 0 7~ d .~ L~UUSJ.~O[NN7 <~~m mSOL DC / r M = ..rVUL Scgu~oo~~ ^$~ s s~ N~ ~ O•~ 1c'0 O ~4 up~ at Y rw.~~•~y~« C y~y~~Y rya°~~mou~~~a~0i~ M J a~+ ~ r J- U .•~ r ~ O1 U r U -r L ?• Y •~ oo >~ tODU O OUJ Y :~'~"y°~aL+aro"~~c oc°~oc°~o ~L r .~ W i0 N L U L N G ~_ U c. U U O y L L L ~ Npp ~ Npp L~ L~ L L C~ 7 N C NO U LU~ ZZ3<UU ~~~ ~ ~ O~ ~~09t M Z ~ ~ r r .~ ~ O U ~.~u~v v u° cg ~~ `"~~> ~ ~cg ~"3~~~ Cc4(~c~ ptocg ~~ .Q ~ Lp `~~,j LLq LL r r r •.~. L~Oi~~m ~~iJU~ 3~S ~J~i~d~ / r / V A A O r ~ pOOa UU Y p Cdl 9C ~ ••v vdr~ r •~ U U U •~ L J- ~ oo~ ii p ~ U O ~. U ~O m C7 O QQ r O i •~ G.1 U C,i~ ~ QU Yr G~ LtJ % r uU ^ w U UYy V C CC 5 Y C rp (.~ r V ~ M Cr pF, ~ O {. ~1 •O •f~ f. O L Y •~ ~O LLL / •.~ N L rp r % L N O '~ N ~~~a~c95W~"ca-'+~~~~~'z~$~'o~3~ °~p_° c_~' o aa ~!> MS~~ J~fJ t` N REGIONAL ROOND TABLE DISCIISSION Sponsored by the Office of Small Business and Financial Services in cooperation with the Virginia Small Business Advisory Board SIXTH DISTRICT - LEXINGTON June 20, 1989 The purpose of this event was to meet with small business owners to gain their perspective and insights on the business climate in their region and to receive their ideas on factors which have specifically impacted their business. Participants were also provided an opportunity to relate what business services they have needed for their business operations over the past two years and which services they actually received over that time period. The group consisted of companies with fewer than one hundred employees who had been in operation at least three years and represented the manufacturing, wholesale, service and retail sectors. The regional representative to the Virginia Small Business Advisory Board was a participant in this event. Businesses attending represented three of the nine counties within the sixth congressional district. Twelve businesses attended the meeting and primarily represented the service sector. Businesses representing the manufacturing and wholesale business were also present. The average length of time in business of the participants attending this event was 30 years with a range of 7 to 75 years. The average business size was 49 employees with a range of l0 to 100 employees. OVERVIEW OF DYS~''USSION ON THE BIISINESS CLIMATE Participants responded that the positive attributes of the business climate in their region included the following: - the growth and diversification of businesses in the region and the increase in the population have been good for business. - the geographic proximity of the region to West Virginia and Tennessee increases businesses ability to draw upon those areas for employees. - a strong work ethic exists and employees are willing to "work a fair day for a fair days pay". - lower labor costs - non-union atmosphere - the availability of higher educational facilities in the region provides access to trained people - a moderate cost of living is an asset in attracting employees - an excellent quality of life - access to an excellent interstate system (I-81) - pro-business attitude of local and state governments - the increase in location of light manufacturing businesses as opposed to heavy manufacturing Participants were asked to indicate the factors (from a listing provided) which were the most and the least important to their specific business. The following factor emerged as most important to the group: - labor availability (particularly skilled) There were no factors which the group as a whole rated as least important. CURRENT ISSUES AND NEEDS The Shenandoah Valley area of this region has experienced considerable growth. Although it has generally been positive for area businesses, concern was expressed about the lack of cooperation across jurisdictions to develop the necessary infrastructure to support the growth. Concern was also expressed, over the duplicity of services provided by towns and cities. Both the Roanoke Valley and Rockingham County area have several towns and cities which each independently provide services rather than working together to provide the services. The group called for "vision by local government" in planning educational and safety services, i.e. fire and police, water and sewer. Growth has also placed a stress on, the availability of electric power and quality water. The low ~ase of most localities has not provided the monies necessary to improve out-dated public school facilities. Another major issue which emerged was the lack of affordable housing in the region. Many expressed that localities were not actively working to remedy this because available housing brings increased pressure on public services, particularly schools, and that localities could not afford to update and increase school facilities. Businesses called for tougher discipline of students in the schools and stated that there were problems with "gangs operating within the schools". Participants expressed concern that "employable youth was very difficult to find" and that those coming into entry level jobs were unable to read. One participant related that one girl who had graduated in the top third of her class and had come highly recommended by the guidance counselor was unable to read, write or type. Due to the low unemployment rate some businesses are "stealing employees from one another". One business who was seasonal in nature expressed difficulty in getting seasonal employees. Some x ressed the need for skilled and semi-skilled labor. e p SERVICES FOR SMALL COMPANIES The second area of discussion focused on business services which they saw as being essential to the region and those services which they have needed and received assistance in over the past two years. Providing health insurance benefits for employees was a major problem expressed by the participants. Many voiced objection to insurance rates and the industry. Participants expressed that there is a need for: - technical assistance in waste disposal and management (both solid and hazardous waste) and in recycling; - the state to develop standards for the term "organically grown" - access to the state laboratory to verify apples are free of Alar - finding a market for sawdust and lumber mill residue - better airline services and convention facilities are needed for Rockingham County; The services which they saw as most critical to their region was for localities in the region to develop uniform permitting requirements and processes across jurisdictions and that training be available to develop skilled labor in the region. Participants were asked to specify (from a listing provided) business services which they have needed over the past two years and to indicate those services which they have actually received during that time period. Over half of the participants needed and received assistance in the following: - employee and management development - financing the expansion of their business - legal assistance and - insurance There was no consensus on how they would prefer to receive the assistance. PRIMARY ISSIIES OF CONCERN The major issues of concern which emerged include: labor availability (particularly skilled labor), the need for affordable housing, monies to support local infrastructure, especially schools; disposal of solid waste , illiteracy and lack of cooperation across jurisdictions. FOLLOW-UP ACTION FOR CONSIDERATION Refer issues to Small Business Advisory Board and Interagency Small Business Alliance. Determine current state activities which address labor force issues of specific concern to participants, i.e. illiteracy, availability of skilled labor and training to develop labor force. REGIONAL ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION Sponsored by the Office of Small Business and Financial Services in cooperation with the Virginia Small Business Advisory Board FIFTH DISTRICT - South Boston April 19, 1989 The purpose of this event was to meet with small business owners to gain their perspective and insights on the business climate in their region and to receive their ideas on factors which have specifically impacted their business. Participants were also provided an opportunity to relate what business services they have needed for their business operations over the past two years and which services they actually received over that time period. The group consisted of companies with fewer than one hundred employees who had been in operation at least three years and represented the manufacturing, wholesale, service and retail sectors. The regional representative to the Virginia Small Business Advisory Board was a participant in this event. Businesses attending represented seven of the seventeen counties within the fifth congressional district. The majority of the ten businesses present were manufacturers. The average length of time in business was 31 years with a range of 3 to 52 years. The average business size was 31 employees representing a range of 10 to 85 employees. RANGE OF DISCUSSION ON THE BUSINESS CLIMATE Participants responded that the attributes of the business environment in Southside Virginia included the following: - the positive attitude of local governments toward businesses, - the assistance provided by the state in exporting, (one participant in the lumber business noted that as a result of the assistance received, that their exports had increased by 30~ in the last year). - the technical assistance provided utility companies; - the flexibility demonstrated by designing a program specifically business; - the low inflation rate and by both the state and the the community college in to meet the needs of the - the fact that Virginia is a right-to-work state and that there are few unions. CURRENT ISSUES AND NEEDS The key issue of concern to all businesses present was their inability to get and keep skilled, quality workers. One manufacturer noted that he had lost business this past year because he was not able to find suitable labor to meet production demands. He indicated that he needed eight people in the spring of 1988 and that he has gone through 25 people. He has been only able to retain two people in those 8 positions. There was consensus that it is difficult to find suitable unskilled labor and that they were experiencing competition for labor (particularly technicians) with larger companies. The impact of the competition has been to drive wages up. They also stated that it was difficult to compete with the benefit packages of larger companies and franchise operations. It was noted that many people who they would like to hire with a desire to get ahead were leaving the area for the urban areas. Some commented that they were recruiting from out of state (West Virginia) to get the help they need. Most felt that vocational education was missing the mark. They related that there appears to be a focus on consumer services verses the machine or woodworkin skills required b businesses. Many expressed he concern that there were so many mandated requirements of public schools that the move necessa to o erate the vocational education program a een drained away. Many urged tha usinesses ecome active in advising ffie sc~ols on what they needed in order to receive skilled workers for their businesses. One business suggested that an effort needs to be made to work with students while they are in junior high school so that they become aware of their options before they receive a negative image of vocational education training. Many stated that vocational education is a dumping ground and that an effort to attract the best and the brightest to vocational education needs to be made. A suggestion was made that parents needed to be educated on the advantages of vocational education training for students. One business commented that when he surveyed vocational education graduates of mechanics programs that the majority were not going to pursue it for a living. Another issue of concern was the difficulty in attracting both businesses and labor to the area because of the lack of attractions and services. Mentioned specifically was the lack of variety in shopping centers, no facilities for sporting events and that there were few high schools. When participants were asked to indicate the business climate factors which were most important and least important to their specific business (from a listing provided) the following factors emerged as most important: labor costs, productivity and availability space availability and costs energy costs and reliability education and training opportunities- Factors which they indicated were least important to their specific businesses were: zoning access to research and development exporting health care AVAILABLE SERVICES FOR SMALL COMPANIES The second area of discussion focused on their general awareness of services for small companies in their region and the specific service areas which they have needed and received assistance over the past two years. Generally, participants stated there were few services available for small companies in their region. One owner, a former employee with a major company in the area began his business to fill the need for tool and die operations. .Most businesses present also stressed the need for computer service companies in is area. with their computer operations. only receive these services out in productivity and production. a capability to assist Lnem Most indicated that they could of Richmond. This causes delays Most stated that they would like to see cooperation between Virginia and North Carolina on the naming of road routes. Their ra ing area reaches in o the Dur am, N.C. area an it is very difficult to advertise their location because of the confusion in the naming of roads (the same roads being labeled with different route numbers). They expressed strong support for Route 58. Participants mentioned the following services as being helpful to them: Longwood business assistance efforts; Industrial Training programs sponsored by VDED; South Boston office of VDED; Lake County Development Corporation Halifax/South Boston continuing education center (particularly their access to Virginia Tech's data bank on company data and their products through the Technology Transfer program) Newsletter provided by the Virginia Department of World Trade. Participants suggested that an inventory of state services to existing companies would be very helpful. Also a suggestion was made that a meeting be held with local chambers of commerce to brief them on these services by the state, since existing companies often turn to the chambers for information when they need assistance. Participants were asked to specify (from a listing provided) business services which they have needed over the past two years and those services which they have actually received in that time period. Several of the participants responded by indicating a need for assistance in the following: employee development financing expansion of business legal assistance contracting with the federal government meeting state regulations Some of the respondents indicated a need for assistance in: labor relations risk management insurance waste management energy conservation contracting with state government meeting federal regulations Participants indicated they have not yet received assistance in the following areas of concern: - contracting with the federal government risk management insurance waste management contracting with state government meeting federal regulations The majority of participants indicated that they would prefer to receive the assistance through a consultation at their site business. PRIMARY ISSIIE(S) OF CONCERN Labor availability and training (particularly vocational education and programs of the community college) was the major issue addressed by participants during the discussion on the business climate. FOLLOW-IIP ACTION FOR CONSIDERATION Refer issue to Small Business Advisory Board and Interagency Small Business Alliance for their deliberation and recommendations. ?roceed to recommend to the Alliance the development of a Commonwealth Services Directo for E es and deve p an ou reach plan for the dissemination of the information. Provide sources of assistance to participants on services currently available to address their outstanding needs, i.e. - contracting with the federal government - risk management - insurance - waste management - contracting with state government - meeting federal regulations Provide information on the need for computer service companies in that region to VDED's marketing division on the VDED regional office in South Boston. REGIONAL ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION Sponsored by the Office of Small Business and Financial Services in cooperation with the Virginia Small Business Advisory Board SEVENTH DISTRICT - Culpeper May 18, 1989 The purpose of this event was to meet with small business owners to gain their perspective and insights on the business climate in their region and to receive their ideas on factors which have specifically impacted their business. Participants were also provided an opportunity to relate what business services they have needed for their business operations over the past two years and which services they actually received over that time period. The group consisted of companies with fewer than one hundred employees who had been in operation at least three years and represented the manufacturing, wholesale, service and retail sectors. The regional representative to the Virginia Small Business Advisory Board was a participant in this event. Businesses attending this meeting represented six of the seventeen counties within the seventh congressional district. The majority of the twelve businesses attending were manufacturers. Businesses representing the wholesale, service and retail sectors were also present. The average length of time in business of participants attending this event was 22 1/2 years with a range of 7 to 66 years. The average business size was 39 employees representing a range of 8 to 175 employees. RANGE OF DISCUSSION ON THE BUSINESS CLIMATE Participants responded that the positive attributes of the business environment of the region included the following: - their proximity to eastern markets with excellent highway and rail access, - the Right-To-Work provision of the state - the positive work ethic of the work force in this region - close proximity to Washington, D.C. - competitive sales tax structure - maintenance and promotion of primary highways, - availability of quality research facilities - a positive cultural climate - abundant lifestyle opportunities, - the growth of the populations provides increased business activity - cooperativeness of community college to develop home grown labor force - pro-business attitude of local government(s) Participants were asked to indicate the business climate factors which were most important and least important to "their specific business" (from a listing provided). The following factors emerged as important to most of the group: - labor cost, productivity and availability - capital - pro-business attitude of local government Factors which they indicated were least important to their specific businesses were: - export market - access to research and development facilities - permit process CURRENT ISSUES AND NEEDS The majority of the businesses who attended this event, (regardless of their location within the region and their type of business) indicated that the factor which is most critical to improving the business environment is the labor force. There was general consensus of the group that it was difficult to find people with basic or advanced technical skills. Businesses related difficulties in finding machinists. There was also general concern expressed about the lack of basic skills; i.e. reading and writing by those in entry level positions. One business related that they had tested their entry level employees to find that 80$ of them were unable to do more than 6th grade level in math. All agreed that there is a need for quality entry workers. One stated that " Virginia is not known for putting a priority on education". Another suggested that there is a need for a technical college system in Virginia. There needs to be an alternative to a college education, i.e. the businesses indicated that they need workers trained in technological advances of equipment and machinery and "they do not need a four year degree person but highly skilled technicians". "There is a gap in Virginia's educational system". They indicated that if college graduates are trained, most often they do not want to work in the role of a technician. Most expressed the need for a much stronger tie between businesses and academia. There was considerable concern with the illiteracy rate and that schools are passing students through the system without them being able to read or write. They indicated that this factor was impacting their ability to find suitable unskilled labor. Some expressed the concern that worker safety was an issue with workers who are unable to read. A few businesses were experiencing rapid turnover and have difficulty employing "hard core" unemployed persons. Most businesses indicated that availability of workers was a problem. The growth of the Northern Virginia area has attra~~ed many within their labor pool and in order to compete to keep good workers it has forced the cost of wages to rise. This factor has had a profound effect over the past two years. Some businesses in the region are concerned that workers are too mobile. Some questioned the commitment of workers while others were encouraged with the stability they have experienced with their workers. Many expressed a concern over the growth of Northern Virginia and feel it will impact the quality of life in their areas. They anticipate congested roads and demand on services not provided by the current local infrastructure. There was concern expressed as to how communities will pay for the necessary improvements. Other concerns which emerged for some of the businesses included the following: - rising cost of health care - increase in postal rates - collection of sales tax by companies for each state in which business is conducted (federal law pending) - rising insurance costs (liability insurance) - lack of research and development of minerals by the state SERVICES FOR SMALL COMPANIES The second area of discussion focused on their impressions of services for small companies in their region and the key services they see as necessary. Participants related the following ideas: - there is a need for greater assistance by the state in interpreting and meeting waste regulations and standards - there is a need for notification of changes in tax laws and requirements - there is a need for clarification on who is and who is not exempt from the state sales and use tax - there is a need for greater research and development by the state and universities on the uses for minerals - there is a need for general assistance in waste disposal (i.e., tires) A suggestion was made that the state consider locating some of the businesses in Northern Virginia to other parts of the state. Participants were asked to specify (from a listing provided) business services which they have needed over the past two years and to indicate those services which they have actually received assistance in during that time period. A majority of the participants responded that they had experienced a need for assistance in the following areas: - employee development - personnel management - financing new ventures - legal assistance - insurance - meeting state regulations - meeting federal regulations Some of the participants indicated they have not yet received assistance in the following areas: - employee development - insurance - waste management Participants indicated that they would prefer to receive the assistance through a consultation at their place of business or by phone. PRIMARY ISSIIE(S) OF CONCERN Finding qualified labor was the primary concern to most participants. This includes both entry level positions and highly skilled workers. Most participants indicated that Virginia needs to produce more highly skilled technicians and do a better job at providing basic skills to students. FOLIAW-IIP ACTION FOR CONSIDERATION Refer issue to Small Business Advisory Board and Interagency Small Business Alliance for their deliberation. Identify current state agency and legislative activity related to labor force issues and concerns. REGIONAL ROIIND TABLE DISCUSSION Sponsored by the Office of Small Business and Financial Services in cooperation with the Virginia Small Business Advisory Board EIGHTH DISTRICT - MANASSAS June 14, 1989 The purpose of this event was to meet with small business owners to gain their perspective and insights on the business climate in their region and to receive their ideas on factors which have specifically impacted their business. Participants were also provided an opportunity to relate what business services they have needed for their business operations over the past twv years and which services they actually received over that time period. The group consisted of companies with fewer than one hundred employees who had been in operation at least three years and represented the manufacturing, wholesale, service and retail sectors. The regional representative to the Virginia Small Business Advisory Board was a participant in this event. Businesses attending this meeting represented the three counties within the eighth congressional district. The ten participants represented the manufacturing, service and wholesale sectors. The majority of the participants were in service businesses. The average length of time in business of the participants attending this event was 22 years with a range of 4 to 85 years. The average business size was 51 employees representing a range of 3 to 150 employees. RANGE OF DISCUSSION ON THE BIISINESS CLIMATE Participants responded that the positive attributes of the business environment of the region included the follow: - close proximity and access to the national government market - the strong and stable economic base of the region (the region is relatively recession proof) - the growth within the region has had a positive impact on prosperity being experienced within the region; - volume of exchange of ideas and information, "sharing tricks of the trade," amongst businesses. - the cooperation of the community college to design specific training programs geared to the needs of the employees - Prince William County has space available and at reasonable costs; availability of labor with high technology skills was noted as a positive factor in that county; - the quality of life in this region is appealing to those from the north eastern states - the pro-business attitude, lack of red tape and open door policy of local government officials in Stafford County - the availability of land within Stafford County Participants were asked to indicate the business climate factors which were most important and least important to "their specific business" (from a listing provided) The following factors emerged as very important to some of the participants: - labor productivity and availability - capital - space availability, cost and - the government market The factor which was least important to some of the participants was access to research and development facilities. CURRENT ISSUES AND NEEDS The primary issue of concern to the participants was the de, in a quality work force. Most participants expressed serious concerns rela ed~o~ lack of adequate preparation in the "basics" b ent level em to ees and the lack of encouragement by the schools to counsel students to pursue training in the rades. A s ressed that there is a lack of qua i ie s it ed trades people i.e., electricians, plumbers, carpenters, masons. One commented on the difficulty which they had in getting trained inspectors. This was especially problematic in the counties experiencing high growth. All expressed a concern about the general attitude of employees and their reluctance to want to "work for their earnings." One commented, "they don't do the job for the sake of doing the job right anymore." All expressed a concern that there is a decline in the "work ethic" of employees at all levels. Most agreed that there is a negative image of someone who works in a skilled trades position and that it is not valued today. A concern was also expressed about the reluctance of youth to work for ordinary wages and that there is an inflated expectation of expected earnings by employees. Another issue of concern related to the lack of uniformity of response and the poor attitudes of the resident engineers within the different district offices of the Virginia Department of Transportation within the region. There was consensus that the road congestion in the area negatively impacts the quality of life for everyone and the availability of labor. Most commented that many people refused to commute to their business location due to congested roads and the amount of time and the expense of commuting. Other concerns addressed by the participants included: the lack of affordable housing for workers; the lack of skills by county inspectors to ensure safety requirements are met; the decline in the standard of living ("it now is necessary for both couples to work"); that youth has no sense of vocation and lacks goals and marketable skills. SERVICES FOR SMALL COMPANIES The second area of discussion focused on their impressions of services for small companies in their region and the key services they see as necessary for existing businesses. Participants related the following ideas: - there is a need for the state to develop innovative financing programs for small emerging companies i.e., to support franchises, businesses with government contacts; there needs to be - reciprocity between counties for business permits and uniform of the requirements placed on businesses i.e., health department requirements, business licenses, county vehicles permitting process; - improvement of public education i.e., the basics, work ethic, marketable skills, quality trades persons - there needs to be strategies developed by communities to develop affordable housing and a better job done in land use planning. Participants were asked to specify (from a listing provided) business services which they have needed over the past two years and to indicate those services which they have actually received assistance in during that time period. Most participants needed assistance in: - employee development - financing expansion of their business - insurance Some of the businesses needed assistance in: - financing new ventures - management information systems - contracting with the federal government Most of the participants had received the assistance which they needed. Participants indicated that they would prefer to receive assistance through a consultation at their place of business or through a workshop. A few responded that newsletters were helpful. PRIMARY ISSUE(S) OF CONCERN Concerns related to the poor quality and the low work ethic of the current work force. Most indicated that there was a need for skilled trades persons and a need for improvement in the educational system to address basic skills. FOLIAW-UP ACTION FOR CONSIDERATION Refer issue to Small Business Advisory Board and the Interagency Small Business Alliance for their deliberation. REGIONAL ROIIND TABLE DISCUSSION Sponsored by the Office of Small Business and Financial Services in cooperation with the Virginia Small Business Advisory Board NINTH DISTRICT - Abingdon April 26, 1989 The purpose of this event was to meet with small business owners to gain their perspective and insights on the business climate in their region and to receive their ideas on factors which have specifically impacted their business. Participants were also provided an opportunity to relate what business services they have needed for their business operations over the past two years and which services they actually received over that time period. The group consisted of companies with fewer than one hundred employees who had been in operation at least three years and represented the manufacturing, wholesale, service and retail sectors. The regional representative to the Virginia Small Business Advisory Board was a participant in this event. Businesses attending represented seven of the eighteen counties within the ninth congressional district. The businesses present represented all sectors with a concentration of service companies who export their service or product out of the region. The average length of time in business was 9 years with a range of 3 to 31 years. The average business size was 26 employees representing a range of 3 to 80 employees. One business had offices in four other states. RANGE OF DISCUSSION ON BIISINESS CLIMATE Participants responded that the attributes of the business environment in Southwest Virginia included the following: - the recent location of new industries to Southwest Virginia has provided jobs in the region; - efforts made by community colleges to train workers, - work ethic of the labor force, - new growing awareness of the role of small businesses - positive attitude of government agencies and their willingness to help, - cooperative financial institutions (particularly the smaller banks and their willingness to help small companies that have established themselves). CQRRENT ISSIIES AND NEEDS The main issue of concern to all the businesses was their inability to find and keep employees. They related that because of the impact of modern techno ogy ere was increasing pressure to find highly skilled labor to run the equipment. One manufacturer indicated that he is desperate y trying to fin wo s i led workers now and it appears that the only way he can find them is to take them away from his competitors or from his customers. This factor places an extra burden on smaller companies to implement sophisticated recruiting methods and for those that have limited manpower or resources for this effort, positions remain unfilled and productivity is impaired. Participants also indicated that they were having a difficult time finding unskilled labor with functional basic skills. Many potential job applican s are unable to complete a lob application. ~ relatea LnaL Lne adult illiteracy rate in the region is more than 50$ and the high school drop out rate is 25~ and is actually higher because many students drop out before the 9th grade. Many felt that there is a need to improve reading, writing and verbal skills. One manufacturer related a pertinent incident. One of his foreman, who had been with the company for more than 25 years, required documentation and writing by relying on another worker to assist him. The manufacturer also related that at the Radford Army ignition plant they were using buckets marked with red lines to show how much powder to mix and when they changed buckets and provided written instructions only, the man in charge could not complete the job. Another concern was that businesses find it difficult to find mid-level managers. Some found that wages are being driven up by the competition. One man in business for 31 years with an hourly wage rate range of $7 to $14 was experiencing (for the first time) employees leaving his company to go to work for competitors because of higher wages. The sentiment expressed was that businesses were going to have to pay more money to get good people. One service computer company indicated that he had access to graduate students and professors from Virginia Tech which were very helpful to his business. He repairs, builds, and sells computers and pays $8 to $10 an hour. Another area of concern expressed was the difficulty in recruiting people, particularly young highly trained college graduates, to relocate to Southwest Virginia. One participant, who recruits in a five state area found that the prospects had a very negative image of Southwest Virginia. It was viewed as a glace where nothing was happening and where there was little to do. In this case the business stressed the a e response ility, exposure and experience one would gain by working in a smaller company verses a large corporation and focused on the lower cost of living. One business noted that some middle aged managers view the relaxed life style of the region as an asset. Discussion also focused on the need to support education and let educators know what industry needs and if businesses have equipment or tools they can donate to schools that it was one way to help. When participants were asked to specify (from a listing provided) those factors which were most important and least important to their specific business the following factors emerged as most important: - labor cost, productivity, availability - education and training opportunities - quality of secondary education, higher education and community colleges Factors which they rated as least important to their specific businesses included: - space availability and cost - the government market - the export market AVAILABLE SERVICES FOR SMALL COMPANIES The second area of discussion focused on their general awareness of services for small companies in their region and the specific services which they have needed and actually received over the past two years. Generally, participants felt that an awareness of small business was just beginning in the region and that the services for smaller companies was not promoted at all. They felt that there was a lack of access to business counselors. Many expressed the need to know how to better collect monies due from both private businesses and the State. One complained that the University does not follow the prompt payment law and most expressed a concern that if they complained too loudly that they would lose their customer(s). Participants mentioned some knowledge of the following services in the region: the Mount Rogers Planning District Commission, the Industrial Development Authority, the Coalfield Development Authority, and the Business Center in Abingdon. One participant responded that the IDB's offered by the Authority were too costly and time consuming and not cost effective for a small company to use to finance their business. Participants were asked to specify services which they have needed over which they have actually received in participants responded that they had areas: (from a listing provided) business the past two years and those services that time period. A majority of the experienced a need in the following - Meeting state regulations, - Meeting federal regulations, and - Contracting with State government. Participants indicated that they have not yet received assistance in the following areas of concern: - Contracting with state government. The majority of participants indicated that they would prefer to receive assistance either through a workshop or by an individual at the site of their business. PRIMARY ISSIIE(S) OF CONCERN Labor availability (both skilled and unskilled) and training was the major issue addressed by participants during the discussion on the business climate. The adult illiteracy rate and the need for a promotion piece on the attributes of Southwest Virginia as a place to live and work (targeted toward potential workers) needs to be addressed to improve the business climate. FOLLOW-IIP ACTION FOR CONSIDERATION Refer issues to Small Business Advisory Board and Interagency Small Business Alliance for their deliberation and recommendations. Research progress to date on the labor and training issue by the organization, Forward Southwest Virginia. Confer with the Division of Tourism/VDED on current brochures on Southwest Virginia lifestyle and DED on range of promotion materials for that region. Monitor progress of vocational education studies by legislative bodies. Monitor progress of illiteracy efforts and activities for working adults. Provide sources of assistance to participants on services currently available to address their outstanding needs, i.e. contracting with state government, prompt pay requirements and procedures of state agencies, and available management resources on collecting on old accounts. REGIONAL ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION Sponsored by the Office of Small Business and Financial Services in cooperation with the Virginia Small Business Advisory Board EASTERN SHORE - ONANCOCK May 24, 1989 The purpose of this event was to meet with small business owners to gain their perspective and insights on the business climate in their region and to receive their ideas on factors which have specifically impacted their business. Participants were also provided an opportunity to relate what business services they have needed for their business operations over the past two years and which services they actually received over that time period. The group consisted of companies with fewer than one hundred employees who had been in operation at least three years and represented the manufacturing, wholesale, service and retail sectors. The regional representative to the Virginia Small Business Advisory Board was a participant in this event. Businesses attending represented both counties which comprise the Eastern Shore. Six business owners attended the meeting and represented the manufacturing, wholesale, service and retail sectors. The average length of time in business of the participants attending this event was 18 years with a range of 3 to 36 years. The average business size was 11 employees representing a range of 4 to 25 employees. All of the businesses were basic employers i.e. they distribute their product out of the region. OVERVIEW OF DISCUSSION ON BIISINESS CLIMATE Participants responded that the positive attributes of the business climate of the Eastern Shore included the following: - availability of unskilled labor and cost - tax rate - zoning and land use - increase of tourism has brought in people with advanced degrees and money to spend; some of whom have moved to the shore or bought investment property - proximity to urban areas - excellent trucking services - cooperation of other business people to provide assistance i.e. would send one to a competitor if they couldn't provide the particular help requested - people treat one another in a friendly manner - image of Virginia in other parts of the nation is positive i. e. , "when out of state businesses find out we are from Virginia they assume you will treat them fairly." - Virginia Employment Commission is very cooperative in assisting them to find seasonal unskilled labor - Community Services Board is helpful in finding part-time people - lack of restrictions by Virginia government on use and disposal of water - access to research and development facilities, i.e. agricultural experimental station Participants were asked to indicate the factors (from a listing provided) which were the most and the least important to "their specific business". The following factors emerged as most important to the group: - labor availability (skilled) - capital - education and training There were no factors which the group as a whole rated as least important. CURRENT ISSUES AND NEEDS Three predominant issues of concern emerged from this meeting. The factors which the group determined which are a major deterrent to the business climate include: - the no-growth attitude of most persons in the region - the quality of life includes few cultural attractions or entertainment for youth or adults, and poor schools. Many mentioned that it was very difficult to get young educated people to stay or return to the Shore once educated due to this factor. - One person commented that "You could live here a hundred years and still not belong". Most felt there was a "social clannishness among the natives of the Shore. - the lack of skilled labor, i.e. technicians, engineer's, plumbers, electricians, draftsmen, brick masons is a major problem. The group expressed dissatisfaction with the educational and training opportunities and the quality of vocational and technical courses provided by the public schools or the community college. Some expressed a lack of cooperation by the community college to provide the training courses needed by businesses, i.e. drafting, and indicated that the community college was unwilling to make its facilities available to them for training purposes even when businesses lined up the instructors. Other issues of concern which emerged included the following: - a lack of adequate sewer and water systems - lack of space for existing businesses to expand their facilities, i.e. one person has operation at three different sites because they were unable to find a 25,000 to 35,000 square foot facility. - lack of quality day care It was generally felt that the lack of disposable income by the area's population was keeping business creation low. One knew of a shopping mall project and mini-storage business that didn't get off the ground because of the negative market study results. - Many expressed a concern that environmental issues were causing division among many people in the region and saw this factor as being of critical importance to the future development of the Eastern Shore. SERVICES FOR SMALL COMPANIES The second area of discussion focused on their impressions of services for small companies in their region and the key services they see as necessary. Participants related the following areas of need: - better cooperation from local banks. Most had experienced some difficulty in getting monies for business purposes. - assistance in employee development in both the trade area and office and computer skills. Many expressed that office help is extremely difficult to find. Generally, participants thought that help for businesses was available within the state but that most businesses did not know how to access the help. Participants generally seek assistance through their trade association and recommended that a toll-free number for businesses to call in Richmond would be helpful as a central place to seek assistance. Participants were asked to specify (from a listing provided) business services which they have needed over the past two years and to indicate those services which they have actually received during that time period. Most participants responded that they had a need for assistance in: - employee development" - insurance - contracting with the state and federal government Most particip elo mexnptres Th re was no consensus on how they would employment dev p prefer to receive the assistance. PRIMARY ISSUE(S) OF CONCERN Three issues of primary concern emerged: the quality of life, the no-growth attitude of residents and the lack of skilled labor. FOLIAW-UP ACTION FOR CONSIDERATION Refer issue to Small Business Advisory Board for their deliberation. Identify current state and local initiatives to address primary concerns expressed. ~~ C-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 RESOLUTION 91289-2 OF APPRECIATION TO TANGLEWOOD MALL AND THE PARAMOUNT GROUP WHEREAS, Tanglewood Mall has provided facilities, financial support, resources and expertise for County-wide activities, such as the Sesquicentennial Gala and the all America City Celebration; and WHEREAS, the management and staff of Tanglewood Mall, with their contributions of time, imagination and skill, have been an integral part of the success of these celebrations; and WHEREAS, the generosity and community spirit of Tanglewood, its staff and its parent group, the Paramount Corporation, is an outstanding example of corporate citizenship. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, on behalf of itself, the County Staff and the Citizens of the County, does hereby extend its appreciation and gratitude to the management and staff of Tanglewood Mall for the assistance and contributions they have given to Roanoke county; and FURTHER, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors wishes to recognize the specific contribution of Tanglewood Mall in the success of the All America City Celebration held August 25 - 27, 1989. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisor Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett .i NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: .C -~ ~~~~ Mary H. lien, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Resolutions of Appreciation File ,. ACTION N0. ITEM NUMBER c -a AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Recognition of Contributors to the All America City Celebration COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The All America City celebration held the weekend of August 25 - 27, 1989 at Tanglewood Mall was the result of the hard work and contributions of many individuals and businesses. I have asked those involved in the various activities to be present at the Board meeting for r cognition. They will include the All America City Celebration Committee, representatives from Tanglewood Mall, WSLS-TV 10, and other individuals whose contributions were responsible for the success of the festivities. A resolution will be presented to Tanglewood Mall and other individuals will be recognized for their specific responsibilities. ~~~ ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: Yes No Abs Denied ( ) Garrett Received ( ) Johnson Referred McGraw To• Nickens Robers _. ,. c-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO TANGLEWOOD MALL AND THE PARAMOUNT GROUP WHEREAS, Tanglewood Mall has provided facilities, financial support, resources and expertise for County-wide activities, such as the Sesquicentennial Gala and the all America City Celebration; and WHEREAS, the management and staff of Tanglewood Mall, with their contributions of time, imagination and skill, have been an integral part of the success of these celebrations; and WHEREAS, the generosity and community spirit of Tanglewood, its staff and its parent group, the Paramount Corporation, is an outstanding example of corporate citizenship. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, on behalf of itself, the County Staff and the Citizens of the County, does hereby extend its appreciation and gratitude to the management and staff of Tanglewood Mall for the assistance and contributions they have given to Roanoke county; and FURTHER, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors wishes to recognize the specific contribution of Tanglewood Mall in the success of the All America City Celebration held August 25 - 27, 1989. ~'a--~-~ ~-~~-~ ~~ ~~~ ,~, -~ ~ , RECOGNITION OF ROANOKE COUNTY STAFF FOR ALL AMERICA CITY ~y~ ~~ FESTIVITIES ALL AMERICA CITY COMMITTEE Anne Marie Fedder - Overall coordination Mary Allen - Invitations and ticket sales, Programs Brian Duncan - Booths, beer and wine, Golf Tournament• Kathy Davis - Childrens events for Saturday, catering, 5K Race Don Myers - Music for Saturday and Sunday Reta Busher - Financial Coordination, ticket sales OTHER COUNTY VOLUNTEERS Secretary to Committee, Catering - Carolyn Wagner Saturday children's activities, 5K Race, Golf Tournament - Eddie Ford, Billy Thorne Ticket Sales, Music - Wanda Riley Ticket Sales - Susie Owen Brenda Holton Photography at events - Bob Jernigan Procurement Assistance, ticket sales - Kay Johnston SPECIAL ASSISTANCE: Program Director: Stage Director: Bootie Chewning Dale Alderman P ACTION # A-91289-3 ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Report on Operations for the Year Ended June 30, 1989 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The County staff would like to results of operations for the year en~ Marwick, Main & Co. is in the process phase of their audit procedures which November 1989. County staff does not adjustments as a result of this audit. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: present the preliminary 3ed June 30, 1989. Peat of conducting the final should be completed in anticipate any material As a result of operations for the year ended June 30, 1989, the County generated additional funds of approximately $2,026,000. This surplus can be attributed to revenues collected in excess of the amount budgeted. The majority of these revenues were in the area of real estate taxes ($920,000 in excess of budget) and personal property taxes ($1,592,000 in excess of budget). Actual expenditures equalled the amount that was budgeted for expenditures. This reflects our efforts to stay within the allocated budgets but also is indicative of the fact that County departments are operating on an extremely tight budget margin. When added to our existing fund balance of $2,012,318 this additional amount of $2,026,000 will bring our new undesignated fund balance to $4,038,318, which is 6.93$ of the general fund. This is an excellent position for the County at this time. On February 14, 1989 the Board adopted a formal Financial Improvement Plan which included a commitment to increase the fund balance 1~ per year until it reached the level of 8~ of general fund expenditures. The additional $2,026,000 generated from 1988-89 operations puts us ahead of our goal for this year, and well along the way to our final goal. -~ In line with the County's proposed Financial Improvement Plan, this enhancement to our fund balance will reduce our need for short term borrowing. We should be able to reduce the amount of money that is needed in short term borrowing over the February through June time period and we will be able to eliminate entirely the borrowing for the October through December time period. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Boards concurrence in adding $2,026,000 from the 1988-89 operations to the existing fund balance in concurrence with our financial improvement goals. Respectfully submitted, Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance Approved Denied Received Referred To Approved by, ,~ i Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens/ ( ) Richard o rs appr ( ) s a recommen a ion Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers cc: File Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget Assistant County Administrators VOTE No Yes Abs x s _~ ~ ~~ i County of Roanoke, Virginia Results of Operations General Fund For the Year Ended June 30, 1989 Revenues Real Estate Taxes Personal Property Taxes Sales tax Meals tax All other revenue Total revenues Expenditures (including estimated rollovers) Use of Fund Balance and change in Reserves Previously .reserved as beginning balance for 1989-90 budget Budget Actual Variance $ 25,780,000 $ 26,700,000 $ 920,000 10,200,000 11,792,000 1,592,000 4,390,000 4,141,000 (249,000) 1,500,000 1,475,000 (25,000) 337,000 16 16,475,000 138,000 , 58,207,000 60,583,000 2,376,000 (60,177,000) (60,177,000) -0- 1,970,000 2,145,000 -0- 2,551,000 (525,000) $ 2,026.000 IMPACT' ON UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCE 175,000 2,551,000 Fund Balance on September 12, 1989 Report $ 2,012,318 Addition from 1988-89 Operations (per above) 2,026,000 New Fund Balance at September 12, 1989 $ 4,038,318 ~. COUI~PITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCES ~_ i Undesignated Fund Balance at June 30, 1986 51,584,637 3.16 Undesignated Fund Balance at June 30, 1987 52,063.493 3.87 Undesignated Fund Balance at June 30, 1988 53.037,141 5.32$ Undesignated Fund Balance at June 30, 1989 54,038,318 6.938 .~ . J • .~.. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 RESOLUTION 91289-4 INITIATING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF CERTAIN REAL ESTATE WHEREAS, the Economic Development Action Plan for FY 89-90 for Roanoke County recommends that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to designate approximately 650 acres of real estate as Principal Industrial; and, WHEREAS, said Plan further recommends that approximately 560 acres of real estate be rezoned to the zoning classification of M-1 Industrial; and, WHEREAS, Section 15.1-491(g) authorizes the initiation of such an amendment by resolution of the governing body. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. That public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice require that the Board adopt a resolution initiating an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and to the zoning classifications of certain real estate in order to implement the recommendations of the Economic Development Action Plan for FY 89- 90. 2. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to initiate these amendments. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt resolution and approve action plan, seconded by Supervisor Nickens, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisor Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Tim Gubala, Director, Economic Development Paul Mahoney, County Attorney John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment Terry Harrington, Director, Planning Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance _~«i Item No . ~ "` '~'' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER IN ROANOKE, VA ON TUESDAY, MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 SUBJECT: Economic Development Action Plan - FY 89-90 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMEN/TS: o~ BACKGROUND' The staff has made several presentations to the Board at work sessions regarding County economic development goals for the fiscal year 89-90. Alternatives for encouraging economic development have included site development, shell building construction and marketing. The Board has requested an action plan that sets forth specific recommendations to improve economic development opportunities in Roanoke County. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Economic Development Action Plan specifically recommends that the Board of Supervisors recognize ten sites for economic development; and take action to: 1. Amend the Comprehensive Plan to include five sites of approximately 650 acres in the Principal Industrial category. Property owners have been notified of this action and are in agreement. 2. Rezone seven sites of approximately 560 acres to Industrial District M-1. Property owners have been notified of rezoning and are in agreement. 3. Request the allocation of VDOT Secondary Road funds in the Six Year Plan to provide improved access to new industrial sites. 4. Request the inclusion of water and sewer extensions in the Capital Improvement Plan to provide County utilities to these sites. FISCAL IMPACT' The Board approved $100,000 in the FY 89-90 Budget for an economic development project. '~ RECOMMENDATION• The Board is requested to: 1. Approve the Economic Development Action Plan and initiate Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezonings with the County Planning Commission for those sites needing action. 2. Authorize planning for water, sewer, road and other improvements to serve these sites. 3. Authorize negotiations for public-private partnerships to jointly develop the top ranked industrial sites in Roanoke County. Specific recommendations for the allocation of County funds will be brought to the Board at a later date. SUBMITTED BY: ~~ti~ C~. ,~~~.~~ Timothy W. Guba a, Director Economic Development Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: ACTION APPROVED: ~. -~ c.. ~n.,~~ ~-- Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. County Administrator Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers No Yes Abs Attachment . ..J - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 RESOLUTION INITIATING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF CERTAIN REAL ESTATE WHEREAS, the Economic Development Action Plan for FY 89-90 for Roanoke County recommends that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to designate approximately 650 acres of real estate as Principal Industrial; and, WHEREAS, said Plan further recommends that approximately 560 acres of real estate be rezoned to the zoning classification of M-1 Industrial; and, WHEREAS, Section 15.1-491(8) authorizes the initiation of such an amendment by resolution of the governing body. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. That public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice require that the Board adopt a resolution initiating an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and to the zoning classifications of certain real estate in order to implement the recommendations of the Economic Development Action Plan for FY 89- 90. 2. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to initiate these amendments. ACTION # A-91289-5 ITEM NUMBER~~_ AT A ~ N A HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINI TRATIONRCENTER COUNTY, VIR MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Stormwater Management Planning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At the August 22, 1989 meeting of the Board of supervisors, Mr. Johnson requested the County Administrator to prepare a brief report addressing stormwater management and ways the County can supplement or expand the current program. His request was based on the record number of drainage related problems in the County during the past year and the difficulty in addressing the situation on a case-by-case basis. There have been several recent developments with respect to drainage and flooding in the County. The Board of Supervisors initiated an annual drainage program in 1987 which provides maintenance of drainage easements. The program inventories problem areas and establishes priorities for an annual work plan. The Corps of Engineers did several tributary studies for the Roanoke ut didwhive valuable i format~ontonnthe magnit depofbthe areas, b g solutions. Additionally, a revision to the drainage ordinances will come to the Board in October. This revision will require control of stormwater from new developments and will help provide better protection against downstream damage. Although progress has been made, other methods of addressing stormwater management throughout the County are necessary. '~ _3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In an effort to properly address the stormwater issues, the staff recommends the following: 1. Continue the current drainage Maintenance Program which has been successful in addressing some problems. 2. Propose to the Town of Vinton and the Cities of Salem and Roanoke the development of a regional stormwater management program which will be the basis for a bond issue. The drainage problems in the Roanoke Valley are not contained within any one municipality and must be addressed on a regional basis. 3. Adopt the proposed drainage ordinance that will be brought to the Board in October 1989. APPROVED: rv~^"~ n Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ----------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Motion b Bob L Johnson/ No Yes Abs Approved ( x) y' Garrett x Denied ( ) Steven A McGraw to abprove --~- Received ( ) staff recommenda ion _ Johnson ~_ Referred McGraw _~ to Nickens ~ Robers cc: File Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator ~~ ,. i/ /•/ \ l ~ . r4~~) .i .. v . zoo ~O -- Q~ ~~~~. ham:/',.. ' ! ~/ ,l t~ X%, ~ 1j~~ ..S -- _~` . / i Zoning: RE Comprehensive Plan Designation: Development Access: West Ruritan Road Water: On site Sewer: On site Availability: Owners will sell property for industrial use. Recommendation: Amend Comprehensive Plan to Principal Industrial. Rezone property to M1. Roanoke County to acquire property and develop new access. Development concept: Public-private partnership. Fiscal Impact: 1990 `~ M~~~s THE CpHAT • Ap~~ ~,~ Site name: Fralin & Waldron Size: 43 acres ~n - L r4 .. N" y~l~ ~{ OIL ./'~ 8 ;OL F \/ ~A ~ . fER~ 11 ~C~ /I ~nnn Zoning: M2 Comprehensive Plan Designatio n: Principal Industrial Access: Benois Road Water: Off site Sewer: Off site Availability: Owners are willing to allow Roanoke County to market and sell the property at a specified price per acre. Recommendation: Water to be extended to the site. Sewer to be extended to the site. Benois Road or new Terminal road guarded RR grade crossing to be constructed from VDOT Secondary Road fund. (1993-94) Development Concept: Public-private partnership Fiscal Impact: (1990) For water/sewer improvements and extension of Commonwealth Drive (1993-94) For VDOT road improvements Site name: Phoenix Concrete Size: 34 acres ~CK ~ I Q 3 Y Q I GARONER DENVER M/N/N6 ~ ('ONj-Rl/('110M YARKEf f`Q1(ARE / ! ~ i9F7••6~' O Zoning: Comprehensive Plan Designation: Access: Water: Sewer: Availability: Recommendation: RE Development transition Challenger Road (Route 460) On site On site Owner is willing to sell and/or jointly develop for mixed use. Amend Comprehensive Plan to Principal Industrial; Rezone site to M1. Development concept: Private development Fiscal Impact: None Site name: Lowe Property Size: 105 acres ~q~LIN£,.. ~ >>/~. , F/L TER PLANT Zoning: Al Comprehensive Plan Designation: Principal Industrial Access: Lila Drive, Friendship Lane Water: Off site in Plantation Road Sewer: On site, Carvins Creek Availability: Family wishes to retain farm and homeplace and make three tracts at perimeter of property available. Property is in real estate land use and subject to roll back taxes if developed. Recommendation: Roanoke County to improve area water service with new water storage tank. Lila Drive and Friendship Lane to be upgraded in VDOT Six Year Plan. Development concept: Private development Fiscal Impact: 1991 for water; 1995-96 for VDOT improvements t 1300 ~ J,~~' . ./ ~ ~p,R / ,r:ch ~ ' /~ /~' Site name: Huffman property, Size: 65 acres J~~S • / .. APR / F~ /~ P ~• Fq \' . ~ ., i . i39i OL OF/EL OS ~ Zoning: R1 , Comprehensive Plan Designation: Principal Industrial Access: Carvin Street and easement to Plantation Road Water: Off site Sewer: Off site Availability: Owners are trying to sell the property for $1.99 million ($58,858 per acre), but there is an access problem to Plantation Road. Recommendation: The property should be rezoned to Industrial District M1. Roanoke County to improve area water service with new storage tank. Development concept: Private development Fiscal Impact: 1991 for water improvements Site name: Household of Faith Size: 35 acres , Zoning: R1 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Development Access: Hollins Road Water: Off site Sewer: Off site, across road Availability: Property owners are willing to sell site for industrial use. Recommendation: Amend Comprehensive Plan to Principal Industrial. Rezone to M1. Complete Hollins Road improvements. Extend water line to improve pressure. Development concept: Private development Fiscal Impact: 1992 for water improvements; 1992-93 for VDOT improvements. Site name: Friendship Manor Size: 54 acres Zoning: .!''r ~.~ /~~ JE \: G~ /' ~` F~L TER • ~, ..,_ M1 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Development Access: Carvins Cove Dam Road Water: Off site Sewer: On site Availability: Hollins College Corporation controls the property. Site development costs for grading and site preparation have limited ready to go status of the land. Recommendation: Amend Comprehensive Plan to correspond with zoning. Botetourt County's Comprehensive Plan shows the property to be industrial that is in Botetourt County. Prepare an agreement with Botetourt County and Hollins College to allow for future development. Water storage and transmission to be developed. Carvins Cove Dam Road should be placed in the VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Plan. Development concept: Private development Fiscal Impact: 1991 for water; (1995-96 for sewer. Site name: Hollins College Size: 163 acres Zoning: M2, Al Comprehensive Plan Designation: Development Access: Layman Road Water: Off site Sewer: On site Availability: Owners wish to sell the entire property, but property is in use value assessment and subject to roll back taxes. Recommendation: Amend Comprehensive Plan to Principal Industrial. Rezone to Ml. Place Layman Road in VDOT Secondary plan for improvement. Extend water service to site. Development concept: Private development Fiscal Impact: 1994 for water improvements; 1995-96 for VDOT improvements. Site name: Dowdy property Size: 287 acres Zoning: M2, M1, MH Comprehensive Plan Designation: Principal Industrial Access: Route 11/460 Water: Off site Sewer: Off site Availability: Property is available for sale. Recommendation: Rezone remainder of site to M1 Extend sewer service to site. Fiscal Impact: 1994 for sewer improvements Site name: Salem West , Size: ~~ 5 i~~~ HOLUNS ~ SrarroN G u~ ~` ~~- - . r260 f '~ ti Y`~' ~ ~ Oy ., i ~, , ' ~o ~~~~ • ISOO .. ~'•r ~ . ~ ~ ~~~ ~1~-~.~ ^ r30p ~` ~~ BD~~ ;/_ v , ran. Zoning: ~ Comprehensive Plan Designation: Development '. 235' ` ~ ~• ; ~ `. . ~ '`. Q' . ~, + .r ',ti +!6^0 denwOy , B!O C Or+ ~~ of . zo~~ / QO ~~ .. _.. - -. - . ~ ~_~~~ . ~~ .~0~ Access: Shadwell Drive Water: Off site Sewer: Off site Availability: Owners do not wish to develop at the present time. Property is under use value assessment and subject to roll back taxes if use changes. Recommendation• Since public services are unavailable, and • property owners control future, Roanoke County should take no action at this time. Site should be reviewed within two years. Fiscal Impact: None Site name: Bradshaw Estate ~. Size: 490 acres e . •.~ ~~ s LOCH H N \ ~ ~\~~5 1 6. , . 1, ~ /./' • ~•, V~ . 1 ~~ ~, ~: ~~ .`, . .-~~ LOCK HAVEN.-'~- COc~N t!l y ~ C L C!6 / ,e,.: . ~C~ ~ ~: ~J ~ \ ~ ~ Y gip. ~ . ji' _ _ A ti~_'' ~r-~ _ _ K/NG51pN~. fOR14RS1011! t /MURL'M~ ~.. `1 ~' / /7 fF( '• A ~~ JMOIgrM6' ,1C s -l av HfSFS v~9,p` `~, • \ ~ `:. ~ ~ M.LOf ~ ~~~~ !ij~I.~9'1'.7n 9 ~ ~ .a\ Zoning: RE Comprehensive Plan Designation: Access: Water: Sewer: Availability: Recommendation: Fiscal Impact: Principal Industrial Woodhaven Road Off site Off site Several landowners are involved. A portion of the property has been sold to a church. The area is within a poor water service area. New water storage faciliites will need to be constructed. Roanoke County should take no action at the present time. Review site within two years. None Site name: Bowman, et als , Size: 122 acres A-91289-6 ACTION N t~MB F~ ~. ITEM NUMBER -.~ `- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Authorization to Provide Employee Dental Insurance Program COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ ~zNU~ ~/ t,L C ~a-c~' Old ~'~.i7`~'~ ,/t't-t'w~ ~' ~ BACKBROUND : ~ ~G'~ The County staff annually reviews employee health insurance coverage and makes recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on the level of benefits and premium amounts paid for employees in the County. The addition of an employee dental insurance program has been considered by County staff; however, funding for this program has not been possible in the past. A dental insurance program has also been recommended by County employees, and staff now requests permission to implement dental coverage effective January 1, 1990. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The addition of employee dental insurance coverage is proposed for regular full-time County employees, including employees in the Department of Social Services, and regular full-time School Board employees. We would anticipate offering diagnostic and preventative services and basic dental services, such as fillings, under this program. We are requesting a dental insurance program for County employees and school employees in an effort to standardize benefit levels between the two groups. The plan will be implemented and funded by County administration with rates based on the experience of each group. The cost of providing dental insurance for full-time regular County and Social Services employees would be approximately $61,400 annually. The cost of providing these benefits for regular full-time School Board employees would be approximately $138,600 annually, with a total cost for providing dental insurance for all County, Social Services, and School Board employees of approximately $200,000 annually. It is recommended that the County provide funding for 90 percent of the employee's premium, with the employee providing funding for family coverage. .~ - ,~/ FISCAL IMPACT: Funding will be determined after proposals are received and a report will be made to the Board of Supervisors on recommended funding for dental insurance coverage for six months of the fiscal year beginning January 1, 1990. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that employee dental insurance coverage be provided for regular full-time County employees, including employees in the Department of Social Services, and regular full-time School Board employees, and that the County Administrator and staff be authorized to obtain proposals for coverage effective January 1, 1990. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: s D. K. Cook d Elmer C. Hodge Director of Human Resources County Administrator ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved (x) Motion By: Steven A McGraw/ Garrett x Denied ( ) Bob L Johnson to approve aoina Johnson x Received ( ) forward with proposals and r'n a McGraw x Referred back to board for approval of Nickens x To lan Robers x cc: File D. K. Cook, Director, Human Resources Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance r ITEIi NUIiBER ~ _5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HEl~,~t AT 'PH1;~ ROANOICi"J COUNTY ADI~IIN:ISTRAT'ON C}~NTI~'.~ MEETING DATEa September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Solid Waste Grant CUUN'PY ADMINISTRATOR ` S _ COMMENTS : ~~~ y"'•'~~~'~`au~ ~~~~~""'°`' ~z~: BACKGROUND: Solid taaste staff ap;>liect for ~t $7.O,ODU matchi_n_a c,r~tnt Erc;r. the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy. Funds will purchase recycle bins for citzzen~; in. t^2est County who p~"P_SC_'nt.LV prov_d~~ their own containers. (Bag, Bundle, and Box Program, Outline Attachment #1) C`orrtainers tri11 also be ;;~urchasec f~>r residenti~~.1 collection of used oil. Statistics ~~ill show the affect of container 1=>rovision on C1.tlLen part.icipati.on and cJauge the u?r,our~t. of used oil •.=_tnd batteries r_ollected on a residential rout;e. (Attar~hment #2 ) SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: July :1G - Staff submitted application August l.8 - G.~..-=:.nt. ~.pproved }, y° , t._tte I Att;:::cr:me;' t ~: , August 25 - Staff revie~•~ and Administrator' s a~~c~3ptar:c~e of` cont;;~.-ac:'c conditior:s September 3 - State verification of contract agreement (At.t:achrnent #f4 j Sept;ember 1L - Request for Board approval Note: hatching funtts arr' justified w:~th '~;9/~i0 bt.tdg~=~t~=~~ operational funds, i. e. personnel, vehicle maintenance, fuel, r_.ommun.it.y educ=tti.on. ALT:h~RNATIVES Accept and appropr.~~~~te grant agreF~ment. ^~~.~ ex;>a~-:=' recyc.3.e~ h:.oq_-:xrr within existing limitations. STAFF RE COMMENllA`I']_ON Accept and approp:ri~tte grant ~~greemertt:. --~~1E3$#~ED BY: APPROVED: % ,~ Gardner W. -Smith, Director Elmer C. Hodge Department of General :3ervice:; Caunl:v A~~ni.rai.st.rat:ar f L w . 1 ACTIQN VOTE Ap.~z~oved (xj Mat:ion by._____S~.~ven_A~__MoGraw/ No Ye:> Abp: Denied ( ) Harrv ~.. Nick~~__ __.___~ Garrett ____ X _~. _ Johnson x Received { ) ------ R e f e r r e d ~_~_~__~_,_-.__ McGraw ___~ x ~_____ _~_T__.._ _____, - X to _ t~i.c~ke~;s Robers x ____ cc: File Gardner Smith, Director, General Services Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance 1~-~ ~--x-~- CURBSIDE RECYCL_ I NG I S HERE ~~--~- ROANOKE COUNTY RESIDENTS RESIDING IN SOME NEIGHBORHOODS WEST OF SALEM WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN A VOLUNTARY RECYCLING PROGRAM. W HEN . E V E R Y W E D N E S D A Y B E G I N N I N G M A R C H 1, 1 9 8 9 WHERE= ON THE CURBL_INE NEXT TO YOUR REGULAR G A R B A G E WHAT s ALUM I NUM CANS GLASS CONTAINERS < BROWN, GREEN, CLEAR ) NEWSPAPER S HOW = B A G Y O U R A L_U M I N U M C A N S H O X Y O U R G L_A S S C O N T A I N E R S BUNDLE YOUR NEWSPAPERS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - YOU MAY CHOOSE YOUR OWN REUSUABLE CONTAINERS FOR STORAGE AND COLLECTION OF THE MATERIALS. - PLACE YOUR CONTAINERS APART FROM YOUR REGULAR GARBAGE. - YOU MAY CHOOSE TO SET OUT ONLY FULL CONTAINERS. - PLEASE RINSE YOUR GLASS CONTAINERS AND REMOVE THE LIDS BEFORE SETTING THEM OUT FOR PICKUP. - THE NEWSPAPER BUNDLES SHOULD NOT BE MORE THAN 12" HIGH. - A SPECIALLY DESIGNED COUNTY TRUCK WILL COLLECT THE MATERIALS. - THE PROGRAM IS SPONSORED BY ROANOKE COUNTY AND YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD CIVIC ORGANIZATION. - FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT THE ROANOKE COUNTY SOLID WASTE DIVISION AT 387-6225. ~gYr~craM ~ r~ r ~ $ ~ETuRU ~`o .~.~: ~ ~. M E M O R A N D U M T0: Elmer C. Hodge. County Administrator FROM: W. River Bonhotel, Coordinator-Solid Waste ~"~ Department of General Services ~_--~ THRU: Gardner W. Smith, Director Department of General Services ~~~ THRU: John R. Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator Community Services and Development Fofl ~~hn DATE: July 10, 1989 RE: Recycle Grant Application Attached is a grant application from the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy for a $20,000 matching funds recycling grant. We 'proposed to buy .containers with the grant money for. the expandedf area of the curbside recycle programs As you may recall, the Cherokee Hills/Ft. Lewis areas are using the Bag, Box, and Bundle method. We feel provision of containers will improve participation due to their added convenience. In addition to containers, we are 'adding collection of used oil; and batteries.! There is no such collection for these items in the state; therefore, the county will be more likely to receive the grant due to the uniqueness of the program. The cost of personnel, maintenance, fuel, promotion, education, and vehicle modification will be enough to match the 520,000? requirement. The county has already budgeted its share for the: recycle area anyway. The first page of the application requires the signature of the Chief Administrative Officer along with a printed name and title. The application must be signed and received by the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy by July 14, 1989. Please contact me, if you have any questions. ,~1314r'S . WRB . b j ~ ~:~ ~ ~~~. ,~ ~1JL ~gga '., ' ~; ', REC~NE~ _, ` ROANOKE OpUNn v DIVISION 'y ~/ FACILITIES SERVICES ~~ /~, OENERAE -~ 'v `Lt CC LG L~c;i,`"' O. GENE DISHNER DIRECTOR ~ ~ ~ KATHY J REYNOLDS _ ~ ~ . ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ~ ~, `~~'~ POR ADMINISTRATION ~ \. ~ ~~ k ~ BENNY R. WAMPLER ~ ~"" " ~ ° ° ' ~~ ASSISTANT OIRECTOR ~ i FOR MINING Department of Alines, Minerals and Energ1l The Bookbindery Building ??Ol I1'est Broad Street Richmond, I'irginia ?3220 (80-{ i 36i -0330 August 13, 199 P1r. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator County of Roanoke 1216 Kessler Twill Road Sa1em,TJirginia 24153 Dear T?r. Hodge: DIVISIONS ENERGY GAS ANO OIL MINED LAND RECLAMATION MINERAL MINING MINERAL RESOURCES MINES ~~ I am pleased to inform you that your application for implementation of an expansion of your e..isting curbside recycling program, both in number of households served and the number of materials to be recycled, has been approved for funding up to $2~J,000, contingent on a 50% cash match. tde have developed the enclosed agreement which reflects the activities you outlined in your application. Please review the agreement and if acceptable sign and return both copies to me. A fully e::ecuted agreement will 'oe returned to you for your files. Under the terms of our grant program, funding is for ne:~T or additional cost items necessary for the implementation or expansion of ;cell-planned, ready-to-go recycling projects. ineligible cost items include rolling st.oc?t (vehicles), land, building construction or purchase, and landfill equipment or expansion. Local cash matching funds -ay not include those received from federal or state programs (such as to "Ji _inia Litter Control Program). The Department of ~]aste T~anagement ~u~t revie.~r the siting of recycling activities at any landfill site. T-ir. Steve Coe, our Local Go-:ern^e-a Program Analyst, ~oill soon phone you or your project manager' `., revie-a our Contract Technical Assistance Checklist. This will allow .... to _ ~ic'..ly establish a quality ~.or:ing relationship for the project. .~ ~-~ i•ir. Hod ~e -?- August 13,1939 ?~1e loop forward to v~orking with the County of Roanoke on this recycling project. Sincerely, 0. Gene Dishner see enclosure DEPARTMENT OF 4;~ _ t 2201 WEST BROAD STREET MINES. MINERALS AND ENERGY ^~q _;j' RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23220 O. GENE DISHNER, DIRECTOR ",, bt". „',~ l ` (804? 367-6851 - -t - ~*R- 3456 rn ~QBg "~' Division of Energy- N QSE~E~VE9 ~; N ~`~GKE~q~NrM .~ Ronald J. Des Roches, Director Ra o,~s~o ~9~ FPG1I~~ES SEp41CES ~;~ S~ GfhF.~ c~ti• ~~~~zzt~~~il`~ September 1, 1989 Mr. W, River Bonhotel Coordinator, Solid Waste Division County of Roanoke 1216 Kessler Mill Road Salem, Virginia 24153 Dear Mr. Bonhotlel: Enclosed is your copy of the Agreement For Services for your recycling project. I will be contacting you soon to review the program guidelines as outlined in the Contract Technical Assistance Checklist. We look forward to working with Roanoke County under this Agreement and congratulate you on what we feel will be a rewarding project. Sincerely, G. Stephen Coe Local Government Program Analyst sw Enclosure ~~,~';','i/1~`'~//-r` ~~ Arr Ecual Opportunity Employer A-91289-8 ACTION NUMBER # ITEM NUMBER ~ "' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Roanoke County Employee Handbook Amendment - Annual Leave COUNTY ADMINISTRA/~TOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors approved the Roanoke County Employee Handbook which was effective January 1, 1989. As approved, the Handbook may be amended to incorporate changes in County policy. The section on Annual Leave was not changed when the Handbook was amended in January, 1989, although revisions were suggested by County employees and Employee Advisory Committee members for employees with twenty years or more service. As indicated in the attached survey of area municipalities and the State of Virginia, the majority of those surveyed provide additional annual leave benefits after twenty years or more service. A recommendation from the Employee Advisory Committee is also attached. FISCAL IMPACT: No additional appropriation of funds is required for the fiscal year 1989-90. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve the attached amendment to the Roanoke County Employee Handbook which will provide twenty-one days of annual leave for employees with twenty or more years of service. SUBMITTED BY: D. K. ook Director of Human Resources APPROVED: ~~ ~~~ ~ Elmer C. Hodg County Administrator ~ -lo ACTION Harr C. Nickens/ Approved (X) Steven Ay~ c raw y Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To cc: File D. K. Cook, Director, Human Resources Assistant County Administrators VOTE No Yes Abs Garrett x Johnson x McGraw x Nickens x Robers x ~-(~ AMENDMENT TO ROANOKE COUNTY EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK CHAPTER IX, SECTION A To amend Chapter IX "Leaves of Absence", Section A, "Annual Leave". A. Annual Leave 1. Gaining Credits Annual leave is based on number of years of continuous service, and is applied biweekly to the employee's record.* Leave is applied according to the table below: Number of Years of Service Annual Biweekly Accumulation Accumulation* Less than 5 12 days 4 hours More than 5 but less than 10 15 days 5 hours More than 10 but less lg days 6 hours than 20 More than 2U 21 days 7 hours *Note: Leave credits are only applied biweekly 24 times per year. Leave credits are not applied two times per year when there is a third payday during a month. ~- ANNUAL LEAVE VACATION DAYS EARNED ANNUALLY 1 Yr. 5 Yrs. Lynchburg 12 15 Roanoke City**** 12 15 Roanoke County 12 15 Salem 10 10* Vinton 12 15 State of VA 12 15 Average 11.7 14.2 *15 days after 6-10 Yrs **20 days after 11-15 Yrs ***25 days after 16+ Yrs ****24 days after 30 Yrs 10 Yrs. 15 Yrs. 20 Yrs. 25 Yrs.. 18 21 24 24 18 18 21 21 18 18 18 18 15** 20 25*** 25 18 18 18 18 18 18 21 21 17.5 18.8 21.2 21.2 .... ~; ~ ~(~ ~~t~ M E M O R A N D U M c'-' ~ Elo~~`~ o\ ~v~`l~ ', T0: Department of H a ources ~~--~~ FROM: Lee Linkou~hairman, Employee Advisory Committee DATE: March 1, 1989 SUBJECT: Annual Leave At the February 14, 1989 Employee Advisory Committee meeting, a motion was made to recommend to the County Administration that employees with twenty (20) years continuous service be given twenty-one (10 ) anears oer vmore sofecontinuous sserlvi~cemre~eive with ten ( Y eighteen (18) annual leave days per year. I respectfully request that this recommendation be submitted to the County Administration for consideration and approval. ~~ Thank you. ACTION # A-91289-9 ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Expansion of Campbell Hills Water System COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: Roanoke County acquired the Campbell Hills Water System from Thomas Brothers, Inc. on December 29, 1978. The Contract effecting the transfer requires Roanoke County to pay 50% of the costs of any additional wells, lines, pumps, reservoirs and other related materials which would be constructed to serve 104 connections in all sections of Campbell Hills. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Thomas Brothers has made preliminary application for the development of Section II of Campbell Hills consisting of 12 lots. They will provide public sewer service by constructing the previously approved sewer collection system and pump station with treatment at the Montgomery County Sewage Treatment Plant. They have proposed to expand the existing water system to serve the 12 lots in Section II. The existing system does not have adequate capacity to supply the required fire flow to Section II unless a new reservoir is constructed. Thomas Brothers has requested that the storage reservoir not be required as a part of the 12 lot Section II development. They propose to construct the new reservoir as part of the next section. ~-~ ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: 1. Waive the requirement for additional storage under the provisions of Section 20.1-5(b) of the Water Ordinance. This alternative would provide the same water service to Section II as is provided for the existing Campbell Hills Subdivision. This alternative would also provide a feasible project by which public sewer will be extended into this area of the County. 2. Require the Section II Water System to be constructed in full compliance with the Water Standards. This alternative would require the developer to construct an additional 68,400 gallon storage reservoir adjacent to the existing 21,600 gallon reservoir. This additional storage would not provide adequate pressure for gravity fire flow to Section II but would meet the ISO requirements. The additional cost of this alternative would be $60,000 which would be shared equally between the developer and the County. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve alternative one with the condition that full storage facilities be installed as part of or prior to any subsequent development of this subdivision under the conditions of the purchase agreement. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: ,~ ~ ~ i' ,~„c<J , Cliffo C aig, P.E Elmer C. Hodge Utility Director County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Steven A. McCraw( No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Rinhar~ w_ Rob rS o approve Garrett ~ Received ( ) A ~ t-PYna t l ~Te ~ 1 Johnson ~_ Referred McGraw ~ to Nickens ~ Robers ~ cc: File Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator ACTION # A-91289-10 ITEM NUMBER ~ ~' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 SUBJECT: Funding Request -Hollins Fire and Rescue Department COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: s~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Several months ago Captain Larry Wirt of the Hollins Fire and Rescue Department approached the County with a grant request. Captain Wirt proposed that Roanoke County provide his unit with a $50,000 grant that would be used toward the purchase of a $200,000 heavy-squad truck. The organization has received funding commitments from several businesses and will raise the additional funding required thru community and other business solicitations. A heavy-squad truck is a specialized piece of equipment carrying many different types of rescue equipment. It is designed to handle mass casualty incidents, such as air, rail and bus accidents, structure collapses, and entrapments. Staff has reviewed this request and views this as a good project for the County, from both a financial and service level stand point. Staff fells that other volunteer units should be encouraged to consider using this approach for major purchases in the future. Requests will be evaluated utilizing guidelines currently being established by the Fire and Rescue Department Personnel and Equipment Committee. The decision for Roanoke County's participation should be based upon a favorable recommendation by this committee. ~ .. ~ -`d Hollins will pay one-half of the total cost upon delivery of the vehicle and will pay the balance over the following five years. Captain Larry Wirt has requested that Roanoke County provide one-half of the requested amount of $50,000 which will be $25,000 now and $5,000 per year over the following five years. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: 1. Provide funding from the capital reserve fund in the amount of $25,000 now and provide $5,000 per year over the following five years total amount not to exceed $50,000. This financial arrangement represents a one-forth cost participation by Roanoke County with payments being matched on a one-forth to three-fourths basis. 2. Do not participate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is in the process of clarifying a policy and funding formula for future requests and would recommend Alternative 1. Respectfully submitted, C.i .. T o as C. Fuqua ief of Fire & Rescue Department Approved by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved (~ Motion by: steven A. McGraw/ No Yes Abs Denied (~ Bob L. Johnson to approve Garrett _ x Received (~ mac ing un s Johnson _ x Referred McGraw _ X _ To Nickens ~ -~ - Robers cc: File Thomas C. Fuqua, Chief, Fire & Rescue Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget ACTION NO. '`} ITEM NO . / ~ °^ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Requests for Public Hearing and First Reading for Rezoning Ordinances Consent Agenda COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND' This matter is once again on the Board's agenda to clarify prior action and to clarify the revised procedure. The first reading on these ordinances is accomplished by adoption of this item in the manner of consent agenda items. The adoption of these items does not imply approval of the substantive content of the requested zoning actions, rather approval satisfies the procedural requirements of the County Charter and schedules the required public hearing and second reading of these ordinances. The second reading and public hearing on these ordinances is scheduled for September 26, 1989. The titles of the rezoning ordinances are as follows: 1. An ordinance to change the zoning classification of a .409 acre tract of real estate located at 5449 Franklin Road (Tax Map No. 98.02-2-9) in the Cave Spring Magis- terial District from the zoning classification of B2 to the zoning classification of B3 with conditions and a special exception upon the application of Eagle Equipment Company. 2. An ordinance to change the zoning classification of a .493-acre tract of real estate locate northwest of the intersection of Peters Creek Road and Valleypointe Parkway in the Hollins Magisterial District from the zoning classification of A-1 to the zoning classification of M-1 with conditions and a special exception upon the application of Lingerfelt Development Corporation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve and adopt the first reading of these rezoning ordinances for the purpose of scheduling t 'h the second reading and public hearing for September 26, 1989. Respectfully submitted, ~~ , ~~ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers Vote No Yes Abs ACTION # ITEM NUMBER G _ 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: First Reading of Ordinance requesting vacation of a portion of a slope easement, varying in width from 30 to 50 feet, as shown on Lot 9, Block 2, Section 2, Fairway Forest Estates, recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 122, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: F. F. E. Development Corporation is requesting that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors vacate a portion of a slope easement described above, and as shown on the attached map. The owners are presently developing the property and have eliminated the need for the slope easement in this area. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County is requesting that the described easement be vacated in accordance with Chapter 11, Title 15.1-482 (b), Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by the adoption of the attached Ordinance. Virginia Department of Transportation has conducted a field review and concluded that the slope easement is unnecessary and no longer needed. The County Staff concurs with the Department of Transportation and recommends the vacation of the easement. The first reading of the Ordinance is scheduled for September 12, 1989; the Public Hearing and second reading is scheduled for September 26, 1989. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: a-i The County Staff recommends that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed Ordinance to vacate the referenced slope easement. SUBMITTED BY: ~~ ~ (. Arlo Covey Development and Inspect' ns Director APPROVED: ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers f 1 i ` 'ti I ~ { "~ ' ' ...' Hta ~ HtL +~+, /Nl1~- ',KNOB ! ~~~~ ~' H: ~ Mt ~ aiaoic VICINITY MAP ~~ ~~~~~~ ~-i Q NORTH if '~IQ, sue. ~,~ ~A N C 2 E" .. ~~ ~ • - ~ ~~~w ~ c~ , Q• 85.00' ~ ~ _- ~ i q ~ 20ro.3~a ~ ~~ / GN= 1~9.Le• ~ / ~. ~ ~U E" ~ h' ti ~,' ~ e ~ x•42' 4~- ~ ~ ~ / E' 13.00' Qw •0~ • ~i~ i/ "PSR~s=5. e5.45' Zro"E. ~ b, ~ Q• ~~ i Q , ~~ ,o~~ ~ ~h~'i~ i / /}i ~Q, ~ / c, i ~V i Q ~ ~ Po2T10~1 O~ V' ~ j 'SLOP4 EAS~M~tJT 1 ( ~ Lo (~! A f3A~JAaJb ,~ \ \ ~ ~ o ., . ~ ~, ., *~ .~ --.!L a A ~ - --~'g~••~. r, ~- _r 3 i_ ~_ •_ r1 1 40- Vacation of a portion of a 25 foot waterline, ingress COMMUNITY SERVICES and egress easement and a portion of a 15 foot public AND DEVELOPMENT utility easement, recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 41, Section 1, Fairway Forest Estates, recorded in Plat Boo 10, Page 122, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. -- t AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 ORDINANCE VACATE A PORTION OF A SLOPE EASEMENT VARYING IN WIDTH FROM THIRTY (30) TO FIFTY (50) FEET AS SHOWN ON LOT 9, BLOCK 2, SECTION 2, FAIRWAY FOREST ESTATES WHEREAS, F.F.E. Development Corporation has requested the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia to vacate a slope easement varying in width from thirty (30) to fifty (50) feet as shown on Lot 9, Block 2, Section 2, Fairway Forest Estates in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District of record in Plat Book 10, page 122 in the Clerk's Office of the Roanoke County Circuit Court; and, WHEREAS, Section 15.1-482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, requires that such action be accomplished by the adoption of an ordinance by 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 first reading of this ordinance was held on September 12, 1989; and the second reading of this ordinance was held on September 26, 1989. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That a slope easement varying in width from thirty (30) to fifty (50) feet as shown on Lot 9, Block 2, Section 2, Fairway Forest Estates in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District of record in Plat Book 10, page 122 in the Clerk's Office of the Roanoke County Circuit Court be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.1-482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and, 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts ~_i 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 F.F.E. Development Corporation shall record a certified copy of this ordinance with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and shall pay all fees required to accomplish this transac- tion. ACTION # ITEM NUMBER~v~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: First Reading of Ordinance requesting vacation of a 10 foot waterline easement located on Tax Map Reference No. 77.11-O1-58 and recorded in Deed Book 890, Page 80, located in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: Odgen Professional Park, General Partnership, is requesting the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, by Ordinance, to vacate a 10 foot waterline easement which transverses from north to south, Tax Map Reference No. 77.11-01-58 and is recorded in Deed Book 890, Page 80. (refer to attached map) The owners have plans to develop this property, and are anxious to have the easement abandoned for the purpose of removing any obstacles to construction. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County is requesting that the described easement be vacated in accordance with Chapter 11, Title 15.1-482 (b), Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by the adoption of the attached Ordinance. The Departments of Engineering and Utility have commented that the 2 inch waterline, presently located within the 10 foot easement, has been abandoned and recommends vacation of the easement. The first reading of the Ordinance is scheduled for September 12, 1989; the Public Hearing and second reading is scheduled for September 26, 1989. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: G-a The County staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed Ordinance to vacate the referenced waterline easement. BMITTED BY: ~1 ~ ~~ Arnold Covey ` Development and Inspecti ns Director APPROVED: 1 .tics.-, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: __ No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers G-~ NORTH Vacate a 10 foot waterline easement located on Tax Map COMMUNITY SERVICES Reference No. 77.11-01-58 and recorded in Deed Book 890, & DEVELOPMENT page 80, located in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. 77•!I ~' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 ORDINANCE VACATING A 10-FOOT WATERLINE EASEMENT LOCATED ON REAL ESTATE IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAP NO. 77.11-01-58 AND LOCATED IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Ogden Professional Park, a general partnership, has requested the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia to vacate a 10-foot waterline easement located on real estate iden- tified as Tax Map No. 77.11-01-58 and located in the Cave Spring Magisterial District and recorded in Deed Book 890, page 80 in the Clerk's Office of the Roanoke County Circuit Court; and, WHEREAS, Section 15.1-482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, requires that such action be accomplished by the adoption of an ordinance by 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 first reading of this ordinance was held on September 12, 1989; and the second reading of this ordinance was held on September 26, 1989. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That a 10-foot waterline easement located on real estate identified as Tax Map No. 77.11-01-58 and located in the Cave Spring Magisterial District and recorded in Deed Book 890, page 80 in the Clerk's Office of the Roanoke County Circuit Court, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.1-482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and, 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts thirty ( 3 0 ) days after its f irnal passage . Al l ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. 4. That Ogden Professional Park 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. ACTION # ITEM NUMBER G - 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: First Reading of Ordinance requesting vacation of a 12 foot P.U.E. Easement located on Lot 1, Block 2, Section 1, Castle Rock West Subdivision, recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 63, located in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: Carole P. Smith, the owner of the property as described, is requesting the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to vacate a 12 foot Public Utility Easement on the eastern boundary of her property. The owner is presently in the process of selling her home, and a loan survey reveals that a portion of her house is located over the Public Utility Easement. In order for the owner to complete her sales transaction, it has been requested that the easement be vacated. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County is requesting that the described Easement be vacated in accordance with Chapter 11, Title 15.1-482 (b), Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by the adoption of the attached Ordinance. The Departments of Engineering and Utility, as well as, the Public Utility Companies, Roanoke Gas, Appalachian Power, Cox Cable - Roanoke, Inc. and C & P Telephone have commented that they have no objections in the closure and elimination of the Easement. G-.~ The first reading of the Ordinance is scheduled for September 12, 1989; the Public Hearing and second reading is scheduled for September 26, 1989. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The County staff recommends that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed Ordinance to vacate the referenced Easement. TTED BY: APPROVED: Arno Covey Elmer C. Hodge Development and Inspect'ons County Administrator Director ---------------------------------------------- ACTIO[~ VOTE Approved ( > Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers ,.,e., Ly.~' .~ 7..L` .f' NORTH m o o -~ 2 a , RORp ~ r l O~~'sa~R .o ~~R°~a y L f ~ ~N,~/A R cf/~N~~.Z~' o~r •he - .~: ~~ ~ 1 ~~ i f r b ~ . to be ~ Y.V. 2 ~ j e% 3 _~ ~ ~ ~. ~tv ~n ~ b Z' ~~. ~ ' ~ v ,~ r ~ ~ ~ x.: t ~~: N ~~~ s~s " `~ W ~ o. r ~` G / ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ Bcoc ~ ~t P rn ,~ X01 Z ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~'"` ~A °~ i ~i• r i ~E~ 9 ss~i ~ Z~6 r `~.2g 1 ~ 5 ~ ` ~ '~ v ~- . To vacate a 12 foot P.U.E. Easement located on Lot 1, COMMUNITY SERVICES Block 2, Section 1, Castle Rock West Subdivision, AND DEVELOPMENT recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 63, located in the Windsor ~ Hills Magisterial District. '" +~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF 'SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 ORDINANCE VACATING A 12-FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 2, SECTION 1, CASTLE ROCK WEST SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, Carole P. Smith has requested the Board of Superv- isors of Roanoke County, Virginia to vacate a 12-foot public utility easement located on Lot 1, Block 2, Section 1, Castle Rock West Subdivision in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District as shown in Plat Book 8, at page 63 of record in the Clerk's Office of the Roanoke County Circuit Court; and, WHEREAS, Section 15.1-482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, requires that such action be accomplished by the adoption of an ordinance by 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 first reading of this ordinance was held on September 12, 1989; and the second reading of this ordinance was held on September 26, 1989. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That a 12-foot public utility easement located on Lot 1, Block 2, Section 1, Castle Rock West Subdivision in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District of record in Plat Book 8, at page 63, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.1- 482(b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and, 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts 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 Carole P. Smith 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. 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: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: First Reading of Ordinance requesting a stormwater management easement and access easement, Plat Book 10, Page 17, Section 8, Montclair Estates located in the Catawba Magisterial District. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: vacation of recorded in Subdivision, Merrill Construction Company, the developer of Section 8, Montclair Estates, was required by Roanoke County Ordinance, to develop a stormwater detention basin. This detention basin is shown as a stormwater management easement on the record map of Section 8, Montclair Estates, and maintained under a separate Maintenance Agreement, executed with Roanoke County and the developer, Merrill Construction Company. The developer, in conjunction with Roanoke County's Drainage Improvement Program, has constructed a stormdrain system that relieves this development from any further need of the stormwater management easement, access easement and the Maintenance Agreement. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County has been requested by Merrill Construction Company to vacate the described easements, in accordance with Chapter 11, Title 15.1-482 (b), Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by the adoption of the attached Ordinance. The Departments of Engineering and Utility have commented that they have no objections to the proposed vacations on the following conditions: 1. That a fifteen foot drainage easement, thru Parcel A, as shown on Section 8, Montclair Estates be retained. ~3 "" 2. In order that we eliminate any nonconforming parcel, the remaining property of Parcel A is to be added, and combined, with the adjacent lots of Section 8, Montclair Estates. The first reading of the proposed Ordinance is scheduled for September 12, 1989; the Public Hearing and the second reading is scheduled for September 26, 1989. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The County Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed Ordinance to vacate the referenced easements and instruct the County Attorney, in the preparation of the Ordinance, to reserve a fifteen foot drainage easement as shown on the attached map. MITTED BY: APPROVED: 'I if !~~-2~ .mot-'rl~~ 4-f.' , Arnol Covey Elmer C. Hodge Development and Inspecti ns County Administrator Director ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: _ No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers -~ NORTE ii 50 s, <e 24.E ~ s yore ° o+ U 9 51 m° ~~ . ,~~ 52 \\6~6 00 j4 13 _~ 43 ~ o ~ r. ~ ~~ ;, ~ ., . a °' 42 w2s A o ti A `" u, ~, N 131.78 ~' ~v~ 1.28 w° 24 ~ ~o^ I' 19~ ~5 9 56 l \2 53ee a ~~~ a9p 34/ f • N \5 43 d` i o, \ %~ N~ 919` 1.29 ~~ o 54 v~ mA 2633 NN / ' ~\ ~ ~'L J ., °,ti O J°~ ~,c ~9 3 9 90~ 55 ~ ~ -~ ~ Fq®ss~~p~ ti h~ J+~ ~ qti '4sF a° ° ' ~ ~' O ,~ \ Ati d ~ 1a. o`ti \ \ 'l~ .. ~ Ja \ c~ a 60 \ ~ ` ' 64 ` ~,y'l~ ~?0 4 ~O \~ 43.33 ~ ~~ ~ ~~ e o~ w 6 o a ~° e~ R~ 6`' (3~ a+ H ~g~' S 8 ~ q °~~ TA~NF 'l~' \00 QTY ~ /3~ ~ 3~ a N'~\ON ~ 0 e 3~ 6 0~~~ P 5'~OKMwpPSR PARO~` I KN~NpON0E0 PgP 12 2 To vacate a stormwater management easement and access COMMUNITY SERVICES easement recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 17, Section 8, AND DEVELOPMENT Montclair Estates Subdivision, located in the Catawba Magisterial District. J L ;~fo. I' ~, .. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BO .~, ~ VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANjJKEDCOUNTY ADMINIOSTRATIONACENTEROONTY, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 ORDINANCE VACATING A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT EASEMENT AND ACCESS EASEMENT IN SECTION 8 OF THE MONTCLAIR ESTATES SUBDIVISION IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Merrill Construction Company has requested the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia to vacate stormwater management easement and access easement in section 8 of the Montclair Estates Subdivision in the Catawba Magisterial District; and, WHEREAS, Section 15.1-482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, requires that such action be accomplished by the adoption of an ordinance by 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 first reading of this ordinance was held on September 12, 1989; and the second reading of this ordinance was held on September 26, 1989. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That a stormwater management easement and access easement of record in Plat Book 10 at page 17 in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Section 8, Montclair Estates Subdivision in the Catawba Magisterial District, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.1-482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and, 2• That as conditions to the adoption of this ordinance (a) a fifteen (15) foot drainage easement through Parcel A as shown on Section 8, Montclair Estates, be retained; and (b) in order to Section 8, Montclair Est ~~~ ates, be retained; and (b) in order to eliminate any nonconforming parcel, the remaining property of Parcel A be added and combined with the adjacent lots of Section 8, Montclair Estates. 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 Merrill Construction Company 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. ACTION NO. ITEM NO . "r AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12-34 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO PREVENT PAYMENT OF FINES ASSESSED UNDER THIS SECTION WITHOUT PROOF OF PURCHASE OF A COUNTY LICENSE DECAL COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND• The existing County Code provides that failure to obtain and display a local license (decal) upon a motor vehicle shall constitute a violation of that ordinance. The fine for such a violation is $20.00. The enabling legislation (Section 46.1-65 of the Code of Virginia) provides that any local ordinance can also provide that a violation may not be discharged by payment of the fine, except upon presentation of satisfactory evidence that the required local license or decal has also been obtained. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: It appears that some violators are paying the fine, yet failing to secure the required local license or decal. The decal, in turn, is not issued unless all personal property taxes have been paid. It has been suggested that the County Code be amended to include the requirement that the violation not be discharged by payment of the fine except upon presentation of satisfactory evidence that the license (decal) has been obtained. The first reading of this proposed ordinance is scheduled for September 12, 1989. The second reading is scheduled for September 26, 1989. The effective date for this amendment is October 1, 1989. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: The adoption of this amendment will aid in the enforcement of this provision of the County Code. ~-_5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adoption of the proposed amending ordinance. Respectfully submitted, -~-~ ~. ~~ _t Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney iF i Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers Vote No Yes Abs • ~~' - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12-34 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO PREVENT PAYMENT OF FINES ASSESSED UNDER THIS SECTION WITHOUT PROOF OF PURCHASE OF A COUNTY LICENSE DECAL BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 12-34 of the Roanoke County Code entitled "Display of decal generally" be amended and reenacted to read and provide as follows: Sec. 12-34. Display of decal generally. a) A license decal issued under this article shall be attached to and displayed on the windshield of the vehicle for which issued in such manner as to be clearly visible. b) It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle, trailer, or semi-trailer required to be licensed under this article on any street, highway, road, or other traveled way in the County, unless a current license decal is displayed thereon as required by this section. The fact that the current license tax has been paid on such vehicle shall not bar prosecution for a violation of this section. A violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding twenty dollars ($20). Any violation of this section may not be discharged by payment of such fine except upon presentation of satisfactory evidence that the license herein required has been obtained. 2. The effective date of this ordinance shall be October 1, 1989. ACTION NO. ~°~!_ ) ITEM NO. L~ "° C~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Amendment and readoption of Section 12-8 of the Roanoke County Code; adopting provisions of Title 46.2 and 18.2 of the Code of Virginia COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND• SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The 1989 session of the General Assembly of Virginia amended the Code of Virginia by renumbering and recodifying the Motor Vehicle laws of Virginia into a new title numbered 46.2. Chapter 12, headed Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the Roanoke County Code, contains within Article I, a Section 12-8 entitled Adoption of state law. The purpose of Section 12-8 is to incorporate by reference those sections of Virginia law found in Title 46.2, Motor Vehicles, and Article 2 of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2, Crimes, of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, which are applicable to the regulation of traffic within Roanoke County. This new Title 46.2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, becomes effective as of October 1, 1989. The purpose of this amendment is to make clear that the Board of Supervisors has taken affirmative action after the General Assembly has recodified this title to bring these changes in the law into proper effect for Roanoke County. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: Failure to adopt this amendment risks having any traffic charge issued as a County violation which involves incorporation by reference of any Virginia code section amended by the General Assembly being dismissed as not properly subject to the County Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider this proposed amendment and reenactment. "tp Respectfully submitted, K-" r. / ~/ ' ~ ~ \ 1 _~~ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney t` Action Vote Approved ( ) Motion by Garrett No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Johnson Received ( ) Referred McGraw to Nickens Robers `~ r{ ~`~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 62789-5 SECTION 12-8 OF ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 12 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 12-8, Adoption of state law, Article I, In General, of Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, be amended and readopted to read and provide as follows: Sec. 12-8. Adoption of state law. Pursuant to the authority of Section 46.2-1313 of the Code of Virginia, all of the provisions and requirements of the laws of the state contained in Title 46.2 and in Article 2 (Section 18.2-226 et seq.) of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia, except those provisions and requirements which, by their very nature, can have no application to or within the County, are hereby adopted and incorporated in this chapter by reference and made applicable within the County. References to "highways of the state" contained in such provisions and requirements hereby adopted shall be deemed to refer to the streets, highways, and other public ways within the County. Such provision and requirements, as amended from time to time, are hereby adopted and made a part of this chapter as fully as though set forth at length herein, and it shall be unlawful for any person within the County to violate or fail, neglect or refuse to comply with any such provision or requirement; provided, that in no event shall the penalty imposed for the violation of any provision or requirement hereby adopted exceed the penalty imposed . ~`~"` for a similar offense under the state law hereby adopted. The phrase "all of the provisions and requirements of the laws of the state" as used hereb shall be construed to include all amendments to said laws made effective as of the date that this ordinance is itself effective. 2. The effective date of this ordinance shall be October 1, 1989. ACTION NO. r~- ITEM NO. ~~" "` AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 4-90, 4-97, 4-100 AND 4-102 AND REPEALING SECTION 4-101 OF ARTICLE V, BINGO GAMES AND RAFFLES OF CHAPTER 4, AMUSEMENTS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: J ~~~' mar/ BACKGROUND: The County's bingo and raffle ordinance is authorized by the enabling legislation contained in Article 1.1 of Chapter 8 of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Section 18.2-340.1, et sea. Amendments to various Code sections within Article 1.1 by the 1989 session of the General Assembly necessitate corresponding changes to the Roanoke County Code sections regulating bingo and raffles. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The major change enacted by the legislature is a requirement that any organization with annual gross receipts exceeding $200,000 from bingo games or raffles must provide an opinion from a licensed CPA attached to their annual financial report required by Section 4-96. This is in addition to the certification from the board of directors of such organization now required by Section 4-97. The intent of this amendment by Senate Bill 745 appears to be to provide the general public, as well as members of such organiza- tions, with objective assurance that proceeds from these games are used for their lawfully intended purposes and properly accounted for. This bill also expanded the authority of local governing bodies to delegate certain of its authority in this area to a local official but no changes in the Roanoke County Code are proposed at this time. Senate Bill 672 clarified that organizations may lawfully use gross receipts from bingo games or raffles to publicize the time and place of such games. It also eliminated the restriction on advertising bingo games within 100 yards of the exterior of the premises. Therefore, Section 4-101 of the County Code must be repealed. Section 4-100(a) is being amended to reflect a change in Section 18.2-340.4 which requires any sponsor- ing organization to accept only cash from players in order to participate in bingo games. Section 4-100(b) is being amended to bring it into conformity with Section 18.2-340.9D (prohibited a / practices). Finally, House Bill 1764 loosened the restrictions as to the times when "instant bingo" games can be conducted neces- sitating a change to Section 4-102. Section 4-90 is amended by the insertion of a sentence which was added to Section 18.2-340.9E by the 1987 session of the General Assembly. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: Failure to adopt these amendments risks litigation over attempted enforcement of invalid County Code sections and criti- cisms for failure to adequately protect the public. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. Respectfully submitted, ~.-- .- , `~ y~i Paul M. Mahoney ~' County Attorney ~; Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers Vote No Yes Abs ~` 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 4-90, 4-97, 4-100, AND 4-102 AND REPEALING SECTION 4-101 OF ARTICLE V, BINGO GAMES AND RAFFLES OF CHAPTER 4, AMUSEMENTS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Chapter 4, Amusements, Article V. Bingo games and raffles, of the Roanoke County Code be amended to read and provide as follows: Sec. 4-90. Participation in management, operation, or conduct generally. No person, except a bona fide member of an organization holding a permit under this article, who has s~~n~~ been a member of such organization for at least ninety (90) days prior to such participation, shall participate in the management, operation, or conduct of any bingo games or raffle ~. Except as provided herein no person shall receive any remuneration for participating in the management, operation or conduct of any such game or raffle. Persons eighteen (18) years of age and under who sell raffle tickets to raise funds for youth activities in which they participate may receive non-monetary incentive awards or prizes from the organization provided that organization is non-profit The spouse of any such bona fide member or a firefighter or rescue squad member employed by the County may participate in the organization and conduct of a bingo game or raffle, if a bona fide member is present. Sec. 4-97. Certificate to accompany financial report. The financial report required by Section 4-96 shall be accompanied by a certificate, verified under oath, by the board of directors of the organization that the proceeds of any bingo games or raffles have been used for those lawful, religious, charitable, community or educational purposes for which the organization is specifically chartered or organized and that the operation of bingo games or raffles has been in accordance with this article. Any organization having annual gross receipts from bingo games or raffles in excess of 5200,000 as shown on its annual financial report, shall attach to such report an opinion executed by a licensed certified public accountant that (i~, the statement of 2 with the provisions of thiscarticlel Sec. 4-100. Limitation on frequency of bin o g games. quently than two ( 2) ) calendarn daysloirnm any Done al endar swee a fre special permit ma be k, except that a ,~;,~, Y granted an organization which entitles ~}~ Gi=mot such organization to conduct more frequent operations, during carnivals, fairs and other similar events, at its principal meeting place or any other site selected by such organization which is located in the county and does not violate any other ordinance of the county. ames. (b) No building or other premises shall be utilized, in whole or in part, for the purpose of conducting bingo games more frequently than two (2) calendar days in any one calendar week; provided however, that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the playing of bingo pursuant to a special permit issued in accordance with subsection (a) above _____ i ~'i V cox • ~ ~ ~ , r ~+~icrrrrcir~l An m ~ ~ _ _ 4 calendar da s inA an i++one11calendar m ear fre one tbuilding oor premises owned by the county shall also be exempt from the provisions of this subsection. ,..L Sec. 4-102. Regulations for instant bingo. (a) Any organization qualified to conduct bingo games ~ ~b 3 pursuant to this article is authorized to play instant bingo as a part of such bingo games and p==~----~ ~..u only at such location and such times as are specified in the bingo permit for regular binao names as defined in section 4-86. (b) The gross receipts in the course of a reporting year for the playing of instant bingo shall not exceed thirty-three and one- third (33 1/3) percent of the gross receipts of an organization's bingo operation. (c) Any organization playing instant bingo shall maintain 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. The organization shall also maintain a written invoice or receipt from a nonmember of the organization verifying any information required by this subsection. (d) No organization shall sell an instant bingo card to any individual less than sixteen (16) years of age. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after September 27, 1989. H- i AT A REGULAR MEE'T'ING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CEN'T'ER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 AN ORDINANCE 91289-11 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $1,115,000 GENERAL, OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS, SERIES 1989, OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Ta BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY, AND SETTING FORTH THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF The Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow $1,115,000 and to issue its general obligation bonds therefor ("Bonds") to finance certain capital projects for school purposes. The County has held a public hearing on the issuance of the Bonds in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.1-171.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board of Supervisors hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and to issue and sell the Bonds in the amount of $1,115,000 for the purpose of financing certain capital projects for school purposes. The issuance and sale of the Bonds upon terms established pursuant to this Ordinance is authorized. 2. Sale of Bonds. It is determined to be in the best interest of the County and the Ccanxnonwealth of Virginia to accept the offer of the Virginia Public School Authority ("VPSA") to purchase the Bonds at par, upon the terms established pursuant to this Ordinance. The appropriate officers of the County are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a bond sale agreement with the VPSA providing for the sale of the Bonds to the VPSA ("Bond Sale Agreement"). 3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be issuable in fully registered form in dencgninations of $5,000 and whole multiples thereof; shall be dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds; shall be designated "County of Roanoke General Obligation School Bonds, Series 1989", and shall bear interest payable semi-annually on June 15 and December 15, beginning June 15, 1990, at the rates established in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Ordinance, and shall mature on December 15 in the years and amounts set forth in the Bond Sale Agreement. So long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds, the Bonds shall be in the form of a single, temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form attached as Exhibit A. On 20 days' written notice from the VPSA, the County shall deliver, at its expense, Bonds in marketable form in denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple, as requested by the VPSA, in exchange for the temporary typewritten Bond. 4. Interest Rates. The County Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to accept the maturities and the interest rate or rates on the Bonds established by VPSA, provided that such interest rate or rates shall be such that the true interest cost of -the Bonds to the County shall not exceed 9$ per annum. As required by Section 15.1-186(a) of the Virginia Code, the estimated interest rate on the Bonds is 7.0~ and the estimated interest charges required to retire the Bonds is $1,014,650. 5. Payment; Paying Agent and Registrar. For so long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds the following provisions shall apply: (a) all payments of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be made in immediately available funds to VPSA at or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable June 15, December 15, or redemption date, or if such date is not a business day for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day preceding such payment date; (b) all overdue payments of principal or interest shall bear interest at the applicable interest rate on the Bonds; and (c) Crestar Bank, Richmond, Virginia is designated as Bond Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds. 6. Redemption. The Bonds are subject to optional redemption upon the terms and at the redemption prices set forth in the form of Bond attached as Exhibit A. So long as the Bonds are held by VPSA, the Bonds shall not be subject to redemption prior to maturity without the prior written consent of the VPSA. 7. Execution of the Bonds. The Chairman and the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors are authorized and directed to execute appropriate negotiable Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $1,115,000 and to affix the seal of the County thereto. The manner of execution and affixation of the seal may be by facsimile, provided, however, that if the signatures of the Chairman and the Clerk are both by facsimile, the Bonds shall not be valid until signed at the foot thereof by the manual signature of the Bond Registrar. 8. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. The full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds as the same become due and payable. There shall be levied and collected annually on all locally taxable property in the County an ad valorem tax sufficient to pay such principle, premium, if any, and interest as the same respectively become due and payable unless other funds are lawfully available and appropriated for the timely payment thereof. 9. School Board Approval. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors is hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Ordinance to be presented to the School Board of the County. The Bonds hereby authorized shall not be issued by the Board of Supervisors until the School Board of the County shall have adopted an appropriate resolution consenting to the issuance of the Bonds. 2 10. Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants. The appropriate officers and agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and applicable regulations relating to "arbitrage bonds." The Board of Supervisors of the County covenants on behalf of the County that the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in such Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants and that the County shall comply with the other covenants and representations contained therein. 11. Proceeds Agreement. The appropriate officers of the County are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the deposit and investment of proceeds of the Bonds among the County, the other participants in the VPSA bond sale, the VPSA, Public Financial Management, Inc., as investment manager and Central Fidelity Bank, as depository. 12. Filing of Ordinance and Publication of Notice. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Ordinance to be filed with the Circuit Court of the County and within ten days thereafter to cause to be published once in a newspaper having general circulation in the County a notice setting forth (1) in brief and general terms the purposes for which the Bonds are to be issued and (2) the amount of such Bonds. 13. Further Actions. Each member of the Board of Supervisors and all other officers, employees and agents of the County are hereby authorized to take such action as they or any one of them may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and any such action previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed. 14. Effective Date. The Board of Supervisors, in accordance with Section 18.04 of the County's Charter dispenses with the requirement of two readings of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be an emergency measure and shall take effect iimnediately. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to approve ordinance and dispense with the second reading, seconded by Supervisor Johnson, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on September 12, 1989 and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. WITNESS MY HAND and seal of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, this 12th day of September, 1989. 3 Clerk, Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke CC: File Bond Counsel Circuit Court Judge School Board Clerk County Treasurer Don Myers, Assistant County Administration Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance 4 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~ A '' , AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing for the Issuance of $1,115,000 General Obligation School Bonds Series 1989 of the County of Roanoke, Virginia COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The approved school budget for 1989-90 included $1,115,000 in capital expenditures relating to asbestos abatement, site improvernents, and major renovations to be funded with bond proceeds from the Virginia Public School Authority. On July 25, 1989 the Board of Supervisors approved the submission of an application to the VPSA showing our intent to participate in the Fall 1989 bond sale. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At this time it is necessary to hold a public hearing on the issuance of these bonds, in accordance with the requirements of 15.1-171.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950 as amended. Due to the restrictions of the VPSA calendar for applications for this Fall issue, it is necessary to treat the attached ordinance as an emergency measure and dispense with the requirement of two readings of this ordinance as outlined in section 18.04 of the County's Charter. FISCAL IMPACT: Debt service for this issue has been included in the 1989-90 approved budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that at the conclusion of the public hearing the Board approve the attached ordinance authorizing the issuance of $1,115,000 general obligation school bonds through the Virginia Public School Authority. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance tf.s~~ ~~'}/? "~" T~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator -------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers ~/ _ ~ AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $1,115,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS, SERIES 1989, OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 'TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY, AND SETTING FORTH THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF The Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow $1,115,000 and to issue its general obligation bonds therefor ("Bonds") to finance certain capital projects for school purposes. The County has held a public hearing on the issuance of the Bonds in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.1-171.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINID BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board of Supervisors hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and to issue and sell the Bonds in the amount of $1,115,000 for the purpose of financing certain capital projects for school purposes. The issuance and sale of the Bonds upon terms established pursuant to this Ordinance is authorized. 2. Sale of Bonds. It is determined to be in the best interest of the County and the Commonwealth of Virginia to accept the offer of the Virginia Public School Authority ("VPSA") to purchase the Bonds at par, upon the terms established pursuant to this Ordinance. The appropriate officers of the County are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a bond sale agreement with the VPSA providing for the sale of the Bonds to the VPSA ("Bond Sale Agreement"). 3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be issuable in fully registered form in denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples thereof; shall be dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds; shall be designated "County of Roanoke General Obligation School Bonds, Series 1989", and shall bear interest payable semi-annually on June 15 and December 15, beginning June 15, 1990, at the rates established in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Ordinance, and shall mature on December 15 in the years and amounts set forth in the Bond Sale Agreement. So long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds, the Bonds shall be in the form of a single, temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form attached as Exhibit A. On 20 days' written notice from the VPSA, the County shall deliver, at its expense, Bonds in marketable form in denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple, as requested by the VPSA, in exchange for the temporary typewritten Bond. ~--/ _ , 4. Interest Rates. The County Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to accept the maturities and the interest rate or rates on the Bonds established by VPSA, provided that such interest rate or rates shall be such that the true interest cost of the Bonds to the County shall not exceed 9~ per annum. As required by Section 15.1-186(a) of the Virginia Code, the estimated interest rate on the Bonds is 7.0$ and the estimated interest charges required to retire the Bonds is $1,014,650. 5. Payment; Paying Agent and Registrar. For so long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds the follawing provisions shall apply: (a) all payments of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be made in immediately available funds to VPSA at or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable June 15, December 15, or redemption date, or if such date is not a business day for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day preceding such payment date; (b) all overdue payments of principal or interest shall bear interest at the applicable interest rate on the Bonds; and (c) Crestar Bank, Richmond, Virginia is designated as Bond Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds. 6. Redemption. The Bonds are subject to optional redemption upon the terms and at the redemption prices set forth in the form of Bond attached as Exhibit A. So long as the Bonds are held by VPSA, the Bonds shall not be subject to redemption prior to maturity without the prior written consent of the VPSA. 7. Execution of the Bonds. The Chairman and the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors are authorized and directed to execute appropriate negotiable Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $1,115,000 and to affix the seal of the County thereto. The manner of execution and affixation of the seal may be by facsimile, provided, however, that if the signatures of the Chairman and the Clerk are both by facsimile, the Bonds shall not be valid until signed at the foot thereof by the manual signature of the Bond Registrar. 8. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. The full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds as the same become due and payable. There shall be levied and collected annually on all locally taxable property in the County an ad valorem tax sufficient to pay such principle, premium, if any, and interest as the same respectively become due and payable unless other funds are lawfully available and appropriated for the timely payment thereof. 9. School Board Approval. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors is hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Ordinance to be presented to the School Board of the County. The Bonds hereby authorized shall not be issued by the Board of Supervisors until the School Board of the County shall have adopted an appropriate resolution consenting to the issuance of the Bonds . f/--~ 10. Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants. The appropriate officers and agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of_ the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and applicable regulations relating to "arbitrage bonds." The Board of_ Supervisors of the County covenants on behalf of the County that the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in such Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants and that the County shall comply with the other covenants and representations contained therein. 11. Proceeds Agreement. The appropriate officers of the County are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the deposit and investment of proceeds of the Bonds among the County, the other participants in the VPSA bond sale, the VPSA, Public Financial Management, Inc., as investment manager and Central Fidelity Bank, as depository. 12. Filing of Ordinance and Publication of Notice. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Ordinance to be filed with the Circuit Court of the County and within ten days thereafter to cause to be published once in a newspaper having general circulation in the County a notice setting forth (1) in brief and general terms the purposes for which the Bonds are to be issued and (2) the amount of such Bonds. 13. Further Actions. Each member of the Board of Supervisors and all other officers, employees and agents of the County are hereby authorized to take such action as they or any one of them may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and any such action previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed. 14. Effective Date. The Board of Supervisors, in accordance with Section 18.04 of the County's Charter dispenses with the requirement of two readings of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be an emergency measure and shall take effect immediately. The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on September 12, 1989 and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. WITNESS MY HAND and seal of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, this day of September, 19$9. Clerk, Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke Copies to: Bond Counsel Circuit Court Judge School Board Clerk ~-/-/ EXHIBIT A (FORM OF TEMPORARY BOND) NO. TR-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ROANOKE $1,115,000 General Obligation School Bond Series 1989 The County of Roanoke, Virginia (the "County"), for value received, hereby acknowledges itself indebted and promises to pay to the VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY the principal amount of ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS in annual installments on December 15 of the years set forth below, together with interest on the unpaid installments at the annual rates set forth below from the date of this Bond until payment of the principal sum hereof, such interest to be payable on June 15, 1990 and semi-annually thereafter on June 15 and December 15 of each year, as follows: Year of Principal Interest Mat_ urity Amount Rate 1990 $ a 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Year of Maturitv 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Principal Amount Interest Rate Both principal of and interest on this Bond are payable in lawful money of the United States of America. ~-/-/ So long as the Virginia Public School Authority is the registered owner of this Bond, all payments of principal and interest shall be made in immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable June 15, December 15 or any redemption date. If such scheduled payment date is not a business day for banks in the Commonwealth of Virginia or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then the applicable payment shall be made in immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day preceding the scheduled payment date. Payment of the installments of principal of and interest on this Bond when due and payable shall be made at in Virginia, as Bond Registrar and Paying Agent, without the presentation or surrender hereof. Upon receipt by the registered owner of this Bond of said payments of principal and interest, written acknowledgment of the receipt thereof shall be given promptly to the Bond Registrar and the County shall be fully discharged of its obligation on phis Bond to the extent of the payment so made. Upon final payment, this Bond shall be surrendered to the Bond Registrar for cancellation. The full faith and credit of the County are irrevocably pledged for the payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on this Bond. This Bond is duly authorized and issued in compliance with and pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the County's Charter and the Public Finance Act, Chapter 5, Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as -2- ~i amended, and an ordinance and a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County and the School Board of the County, respectively, to provide funds for capital projects for school purposes. This Bond may be exchanged without cost at the office of the Bond Registrar for an equal aggregate pr in definitive form having maturities and rates corresponding to the maturities of on the installments of principal of this issuable in fully registered form in the or any integral multiple thereof. This Bond is registered in the name incipal amount of bonds bearing interest at and the interest rates Bond then unpaid, denomination of $5,000 of Virginia Public School Authority as to both principal and interest on books of the County kept by the Bond Registrar, and the transfer of this Bond may be effected by the registered owner of this Bond only upon due execution of an assignment by such registered owner. Upon receipt of such assignment and the surrender of this Bond, the Bond Registrar shall exchange this Bond for definitive Bonds as hereinabove provided, such definitive Bonds to be registered as to both principal and interest on such registration books in the name of the assignee or assignees named in such assignment. The principal installments of this Bond coming due on or before December 15, 1999 or the definitive Bonds for which this Bond may be exchanged that mature on or before December 15, 1999 are not subject to redemption prior to their stated maturities. The principal installments of this Bond coming due after December -3- f-/- / 15, 1999 or the definitive Bonds that mature after December 15, 1999 are subject to prepayment or redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated maturities in whole, but not in part, on any date on or after December 15, 1999, upon payment of the redemption prices (expressed as percentages of principal installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption: December 15, 1999 to December 14, 2000, inclusive..... 103% December 15, 2000 to December 14, 2001, inclusive..... 102% December 15, 2001 to December 14, 2002, inclusive..... 101% December 15, 2002 and thereafter ...................... 100%; Provided, however, that while the Virginia Public School Authority is the registered owner of this Bond or of all the definitive Bonds outstanding, the principal installments of this Bond or the definitive Bonds, respectively, shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities at the option of the County except with the prior written consent of such registered owner. Notice of any such redemption shall be given to the registered owner by registered mail at least 30 days before the date fixed for redemption. All acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond have happened, exist and have been performed in due time, form and manner as so required, the total indebtedness of the County, including this Bond, does not exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation thereon, and provision has been made for the -4- ~-/ -- ~ levy and collection of an annual tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient to provide for the payment of the principal of and interest on this Bond as the same shall become due. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke has caused this Bond to be issued in the name of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, to be signed by its Chairman, its seal to be affixed hereto or a facsimile printed hereon and attested by the signature of its Clerk, and this Bond to be dated November , 1989. COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA (SEAL) ATTEST: By Clerk, Board of Supervisors Chairman, Board of of the County of Roanoke, Supervisors, Virginia County of Roanoke, Virginia -5- ~~~ ASSIGNMENT FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned sells, assigns and transfers unto (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE: the within Bond and irrevocably constitutes and appoints attorney to exchange said Bond for definitive bonds in lieu of which this Bond is issued and to register the transfer of such definitive bonds on the books kept for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Registered Owner (NOTICE: The signature above must correspond with the name of the Registered Owner as it appears on the front of this Bond in every particular, without alteration or change.) Signature Guaranteed: (NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a member firm of the New York Stock Exchange or a commercial bank or trust company.) -6- ~-/ - / SCHEDULE A Debt Service Schedule Payment Date Principal Amount Interest Amount Total Amount December 15, June 15, -7- ~-/ -~ / SCHEDULE "B" Principal Installments Paid in Advance of Maturity Date Principal Due Date Amount Principal Payment Balance Name of Bond Registrar, Date Authorized Official Paid and Title -$- ~I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 ORDINANCE 91289-12 ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF .47 ACRE, MORE OR LESS, IN THE SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL PARK BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject property has been declared to be surplus and is being made available for other public uses, i.e. economic development; and 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading was held on August 22, 1989; and a second reading was held on September 12, 1989, concern- ing the sale and disposition of .47 acre, more or less, in the Southwest Industrial Park; and 3. That offers having been received for said property, the offer of Timothy J. Thielecke to purchase .47 acre, more or less, for $11,750 is hereby accepted and all other offers are rejected; and 4. That all proceeds from the sale of this real estate are to be allocated to the capital reserves of the County; and 5. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Johnson, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisor Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: 7~• Mary H. llen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Tim Gubala, Director, Economic Development Paul Mahoney, County Attorney John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Item No. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER IN ROANOKE, VA ON TUESDAY, MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 SUBJECT: Purchase of .47+ acres in Southwest Industrial Park COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: d SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Mr. Timothy J. Thielecke has made an offer to purchase .47+ acres in the Southwest Industrial Park. Because of the location and the number of easements (note attached map), the property is being sold for $11,750. Mr. Thielecke plans to build a 2,500 square foot facility. FISCAL IMPACT• The County will pay estimated surveying costs of $350 associated with the sale of said property. Estimated annual tax revenue is $1,100. RECOMMENDATION: Upon the second reading held this date, the staff recommends that: 1. The Board approve the sale this land; 2. Approve the payment of the estimated associated with thi survey costs of $350 s sale; and, 3. Authorize documents the County Administator to execute all necessary upon approval by the County Attorney. SUBMITTED BY: _.---------,,,,, s h ~' ` f `~ (~-~ ra Timothy W. Gubala, Director Economic Development APPROVED: ~~ ~~1 Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. County Administator ~`~ Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: ACTION Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers No Yes Abs ,~ ', . .. '_` ~ ~, ~. ROANOKE COUNTY SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL PARK DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY FOR SALE ,~ - / AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR AND AUTHORIZ- ING THE SALE OF .47 ACRE, MORE OR LESS, IN THE SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL PARK BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject property has been declared to be surplus and is being made available for other public uses, i.e. economic development; and 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading was held on August 22, 1989; and a second reading was held on September 12, 1989, concern- ing the sale and disposition of .47 acre, more or less, in the Southwest Industrial Park; and 3. That offers having been received for said property, the offer of Timothy J. Thielecke to purchase .47 acre, more or less, for $11,750 is hereby accepted and all other offers are rejected; and 4. That all proceeds from the sale of this real estate are to be allocated to the capital reserves of the County; and 5. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. T f ~ P`"} AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 ORDINANCE 91289-13 ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF 5.039 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, IN THE SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL PARK BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject property has been declared to be surplus and is being made available for other public uses, i.e. economic development; and 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading was held on August 22, 1989; and a second reading was held on September 12, 1989, concern- ing the sale and disposition of 5.039 acres, more or less, in the Southwest Industrial Park; and 3. That offers having been received for said property, the offer of Gorman Howell and Sidney Maupin Jr. to purchase 5.039 acres, more or less, for $144,872 is hereby accepted and all other offers are rejected; and 4. That all proceeds from the sale of this real estate are to be allocated to the capital reserves of the County. The expenditure of a portion of these proceeds for road and utility improvements to Southwest Industrial Park is hereby authorized; and 5. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisor Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Tim Gubala, Director, Economic Development Paul Mahoney, County Attorney John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Item No. .~L AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER IN ROANOKE, VA ON TUESDAY, MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 SUBJECT: Purchase of 5.039± acres in Southwest Industrial Park COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION• Mr. Gorman Howell and Mr. Sidney Maupin, Jr. have made an offer to purchase a 5.039+ acre tract in the Southwest Industrial Park. (SWIP) Total sale price is $144,872. Messrs. Howell and Maupin plan to build four to six structures of 5, 000 to 25, 000 square feet each during the next 18 to 24 months. These structures will provide needed space for the small manufacturing and distribution companies that tend to locate in this section of the County. FISCAL IMPACT• $144,872 Sale price ($28,750 per acre) -125,975 Return to Higginbotham $ 18,897 Remaining from sale 4,565 Balance from SWIP budget $ 23,462 Total available - 23.462 Estimated road development costs (Lee Henderson/ 0 Lumsden) Total sale price is $144,872. Total development costs for the road extension is estimated to be $23,462. The estimated annual real estate tax is $7,935 after the total project is developed. BACKGROUND• The Southwest Industrial Park opened in 1986 after an agreement was reached between the County and the principals of the Corrugated Container Corporation to develop 16.2 acres for an industrial park. Presently, six companies with a total value of $2,287,300 and 145 employees operate from the SWIP. .,. .L - .2- All of the land in the SWIP has been sold or is under contract. Presently, plans are being reviewed for a 10,000 square foot facility that should be available for occupancy this fall. The County's agreement with the principals of the Corrugated Container Corporation expired on August 4, 1989. The two sales (to Mr. Tim Thielecke and Messrs. Howell and Maupin) being considered by the Board today will close out all acreage in the SWIP. Land in the SWIP was the only developed industrial acreage that the County could set the price on. As noted on the attached map, SWIP is adjacent to the Roanoke Ready Mix property. Also, noted on the map is the uncompleted Commonwealth Drive. It will be necessary to complete this road for the sale to Messrs. Howell and Maupin to be complete. Additionally, completion of this road to the end of the property, coupled with utility improvements, will open the Roanoke Ready Mix site for development. RECOMMENDATION: Upon the second reading held this date, the staff recommends approval of the following: 1. That the sale of the 5.039+ acre tract be approved for Gorman Howell and Sidney Maupin; and, 2. That the County Administrator authorize the staff to prepare plans and profiles to extend the road and water and sewer through the site at an estimated cost of $23,462. These funds will come from the project balance of $4,565 plus $18, 897 profit from the sale of the property to Gorman Howell. SUBMITTED BY: ~~ C~ Timothy W. Gub la, Director Economic Development ACTION Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: APPROVED: ~~~ ~, Elmer C. Hodg Jr. COlintV Admi ni ctratn,~ Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens No Yes Abs Attachment '' ~ _~ '~ J a / `r : ~° l~ " P/O X710-2-• / P f •. 35~ ~ 1., py // ,,f SS r, % , / / ~ ~ b ~~ / Mr^ fsi3 2, ~ / ~ ~ /• sk' ri - Y ~ 7 ri~ ~ 2i 4 r . / ~ /} 27 ~ 21 y~ ~" p~ 17 20 ~ i9 r1k ., r ~r y 5 ., ~ cP~ ~, ~~ ~~ a I~ O Fl N 0 f~ E ~~ ~ A ~ ~~ ~ . is .. j i• '' ,~f MIX SITE '~ •' ~{ Iz w ;, ~ ~ _ \1~ sr'~r r J'~ ~'rs f P~ +~~ µ ~ ±< p ~ y' / ` \~' ~ It 27 ; H \ ,' 21 C 17 y ~ 4 ~ 2 • ~ W ~ ~ ~ Yr. ~ \ JMh C~ j ,~ 22 ~~ ,9 ~2 J 5 ~~>: ~J ` fJ~L •.a / •I O / /~ 2~v4 Li /< =~~~ h=s ~~ - ~ r ~ ~ !~`~ ,r o -•4 ~ i~ ~ l 9 `mss; , ,~ /~ ,+ ~, fl E a 25 ~. ~ ~ r 4 ~~ ~ ' / \ / -M1` J~ I to ~ / ~, ~~~/ ~6 0 23 \` /I ~' 7 26 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .. ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ , _ _ ~ •o~ ~' w J~/~ I I~ ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR AND AUTHORIZ- ING THE SALE OF 5.039 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, IN THE SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL PARK BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject property has been declared to be surplus and is being made available for other public uses, i.e. economic development; and 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading was held on August 22, 1989; and a second reading was held on September 12, 1989, concern- ing the sale and disposition of 5.039 acres, more or less, in the Southwest Industrial Park; and 3. That offers having been received for said property, the offer of Gorman Howell and Sidney Maupin Jr. to purchase 5.039 acres, more or less, for $144,872 is hereby accepted and all other offers are rejected; and 4. That all proceeds from the sale of this real estate are to be allocated to the capital reserves of the County. The expenditure of a portion of these proceeds for road and utility improvements to Southwest Industrial Park is hereby authorized; and 5. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. j, 3 a AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOOKS COUNTYEADMINISTRATIONNOCENTER,NTY, VIRGINIA, HELD ATUESDAY,ASEPTEMBER 12, 1989 REENACTING ORDINANCE 91289=14 SEWER US ES ANDARDS" OF ORDINANCE 62486-146,." THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, BY AMENDING AND REENACTING NEW RTPROVISIONS N TOPRO MPROVE AND ENACTING INCREASE PROTECTIVE PROGRAMS WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke owns and operates the Roanoke Regional Treatment Plant; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County is a user of the Roanoke Regional Treatment Plant and is required to establish and enforce a pretreatment program as required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency; and WHEREAS, the 1972 Sewage Treatment Agreement between Roanoke City and Roanoke County requires the County to adopt such ordinances and regulations to conform to those of the City as required by EPA; and WHEREAS, Chapter 18 of the recently recodified Roanoke County Code (1985) incorporates the provisions of Chapter 16 of the 1971 Roanoke County Code; and WHEREAS, this ordinance amends Ordinance 62486-146 adopted on June 24, 1986, in order to meet the requirements of the State Water Control Board, the EPA, and the aforesaid agreement; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 22, 1989; the second reading of this ordinance was held on September 12, 1989. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1 1. That Article III. Chapter 16 of the Roanoke County Code of 1971 (Chapter 18 of the Roanoke County Code of 1985) be, and hereby is, amended and reenacted to read and provide as follows: Chapter 16. Article III. Sewer Use Standards Sec. 16-44. Definitions. For the purpose of this article, the words and phrases set out in this section shall have the following meanings: Discharge Any introduction of substances into the sanitary sewer. Industrial user - Any user of publicly owned treatment works identified in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, ~~ 1987, Office of Management and Budget, as amended and supplemented, under divisions A, B, D, E, and I, includin overnmental facilities that dischar e wastewater to the ,plant. Interference - A dischar e which alone or in con unction with a dischar e or dischar es from other sources 1 inhibits or disru is the lant its treatment rocesses or o erations or its slud a rocesses use or dis osal• or 2 causes a violation of the Plant's VPDES permit. National categorical pretreatment standard or pretreatment standard means any regulations containing pollutant discharge limits promulgated by the EPA in accordance with Sections 307(b) and (c) of the Act (33 U.S.C. ~~ 1317) and 40 C F R Subchapter N (Parts 401-4711 as amended, which applies to a specific category of industrial users. Pass throu h - A dischar e which exits the lant into water of the United States in antities which ma cause a violation of the plant's VPDES permit. Sec. 16-45. General Requirements. (a) All discharges into public sewers shall conform to requirements of this article; however, the federal categorical pretreatment standards or any standards imposed by the state water control board or its successor in authority are hereby incorporated by reference where applicable and where such standards are ~~ 2 more stringent than those set forth in this article. ~ In the event of an emergency, as determined by the approving authority, the approving authority shall be authorized to immediately halt any actual or threatened discharge A person discharging in violation of the provisions of this article, within thirty (30) days of the date of such discharge, shall sample, analyze and submit the data to the approving authority unless the approving authority elects to perform such sampling. Sec. 16-52. Discharge of substances capable of imairing, etc. facilities. ~g1 No person shall discharge into the public sewers pollutants which cause interference or pass through ,~L No person shall discharge into the public sewers pollutants with a high flow rate or concentration of conventional pollutants as to interfere with the plant Sec. 16-53. Right to require pretreatment and control of, or to reject discharges. ~c,Z, No person shall utilize dilution as a means of treatment Sec. 16-56. Measurement, sampling, etc., and report of discharges. (b) Unless otherwise provided, each measurement, test, sampling, or analysis required to be made hereunder shall be made in accordance with ~~z~ za~~~~~ed~~o~-e~S-~~~-~~neas ~_ '~G'RZ"~T~TTCA~G~T••••'CAZZT~~.S JB~R~2'~Tl~ Cn~ZSIii~~'y C1Ii~CCr'1Te'Z7F.S .~ .. ~ ~' e~--and~re-;+ta~e-~~-~~~e~e~Pe~i~a~~te~- 4 0 C . F . R . Part 136, as amended. (e) Samples shall be taken every hour, properly refrigerated and composited in proportion to the flow for a representative twenty-four (24) hour sample. For oil and grease, pH, phenols cyanide, volatile toxic organic and other appropriate pollutants property grab sampling shall be performed Such sampling shall be repeated on as many days as necessary to insure representative quantities for the entire reporting period. Industrial plants with wide fluctuations in quantities of wastes shall provide an automatic sampler paced automatically by the flow-measuring device. 1~ All owners of facilities governed by this article shall comply with the applicable requirements of 40 C F R 403 12 as amended which is incorporated by reference herein, including, without limitation, the signatory, certification and record keeping requirements of 40 C.F.R. 403.12(c), (d), (i), and (1). All records shall be retained for a minimum of three years and this retention period shall be extended during litigation or upon request of the approving authority. Sec. 16-57. Discharge permits for industrial waste. (a) The County may, in its sole discretion, grant a non- transferable permit to discharge to industrial users who meet the criteria of this chapter, provided that the industry: (5) Complies with the requirements of federal categorical standards, where applicable, including the development of any required compliance schedules or the applicable provisions of this article. _(_el The approving authority shall have the right to accept or reject anY increases in flow or pollutants under existing or new permits. Sec. 16-64. Right of entry to enforce article. (a) The approving authority and other duly authorized employees of the county bearing proper credentials and identification shall be authorized to enter any public or private property at any reasonable time for the purpose of enforcing this article for sampling purposes, inspect monitoring equipment and to inspect and copy all documents relevant to the enforcement of this article, including, without limitation, monitoring reports. Anyone acting under this authority shall observe the establishment's rules and regulations concerning safety, internal security, and fire protection. ~dZ Appropriate information submitted to the approving authority pursuant to these regulations excluding any information utilized in determing effluent limits may be claimed as confidential by the submitter at the time of submission by stamping the words "confidential business information" on each page containing such information. If a claim is asserted, the information shall be treated in accordance with applicable law. Sec. 16-66. Notice of violations. The County shall serve persons discharging in violation of this article with written notice stating the nature of the violation and 4 requiring immediate satisfactory compliance. The approving authority shall have the authority to publish annually in the Roanoke Times and World News Newspaper or a newspaper of general circulation in the Roanoke area a list of persons which were not in compliance with the terms of this Article at least once during the twelve (12) previous months. Sec. 16-67. Penalty for violations. 7 Z --€ ~ ~ e - -e~--a~~ f e~-e~eh-ae~--e€--~e3 a~ t' ~ {- +- +' fid~ a - ' ~~ ' } "}- ; 9 E i 2 e L~rru~nuT~e~~3'E-i~Y'~ S~ A person who violates the provisions of this article shall be cluilty of a class 1 misdemeanor and upon conviction is punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000) per violation per day and confinement in pail for not more than twelve months, either or both In the event of a violation the approving authority shall also have the right to terminate the sewer and water connection. (b) In addition to proceeding under authority of sub-section (a) of this section, the county is entitled to pursue all other criminal and civil remedies to which it is entitled under authority of state statutes or other ordinances of the county against a person continuing prohibited discharges, including, without limitation, injunctive relief. Sec. 16-69. Public access to data. Effluent data complied as part of the approving authority's pretreatment program shall be available to the bublic. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after October 1, 1989. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisor Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None 5 A COPY TESTE: ~• c~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Skip Burkart, Commonwealth 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 ~...~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM' Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance amending Article III, Sewer Use Standards, of Chapter 16 of the Roanoke County Code COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMEN/TS: Cep:-rn.,-~-~~~,~ BACKGROUND' The 1972 Sewage Treatment Agreement between Roanoke City and Roanoke County requires the County to adopt such ordinances and regulations that conform to those adopted by the City of Roanoke as they pertain to Sewer Use Standards. The County of Roanoke adopted Ordinance 6-24-86-146 on June 24, 1986 in order to meet the above requirements. Recent requirements by the State Water Control Board and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency have required the City of Roanoke to amend their Sewer Use Standards. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Attached is the proposed amp Use Standards that are required the City of Roanoke Ordinance. The amendments are minor significant effect on sewer use The first reading of this 1989. andment to the Roanoke County Sewer so that our Ordinance conforms to in nature and will not have a within Roanoke County. ordinance was held on August 22, ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: There is no practical alternative to adopting this Ordinance. Adoption is required by the 1972 Sewage Treatment Agreement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends this ordinance be adopted afte1989e second reading with an effective date of October 1, SUBMITTED BY: 1 Cliffor ig, P.E. Utility Director Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to APPROVED: ~r~~ ~, I Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE Motion by: 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, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE 62486-146, "SEWER USE STANDARDS" OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, BY AMENDING AND REENACTING CERTAIN EXISTING PROVISIONS AND ENACTING NEW PROVISIONS TO IMPROVE AND INCREASE PROTECTIVE PROGRAMS WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke owns and operates the Roanoke Regional Treatment Plant; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County is a user of the Roanoke Regional Treatment Plant and is required to establish and enforce a pretreatment program as required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency; and WHEREAS, the 1972 Sewage Treatment Agreement between Roanoke City and Roanoke County requires the County to adopt such ordinances and regulations to conform to those of the City as required by EPA; and WHEREAS, Chapter 18 of the recently recodified Roanoke County Code (1985) incorporates the provisions of Chapter 16 of the 1971 Roanoke County Code; and WHEREAS, this ordinance amends Ordinance 62486-146 adopted on June 24, 1986, in order to meet the requirements of the State Water Control Board, the EPA, and the aforesaid agreement; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 22, 1989; the second reading of this ordinance was held on September 12, 1989. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of 1 S-..~ Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Article III. Chapter 16 of the Roanoke County Code of 1971 (Chapter 18 of the Roanoke County Code of 1985) be, and hereby is, amended and reenacted to read and provide as follows: Chapter 16. Article III. Sewer Use Standards Sec. 16-44. Definitions. For the purpose of this article, the words and phrases set out in this section shall have the following meanings: Discharcte Any introduction of substances into the sanitary sewer. Industrial user - Any user of publicly owned treatment works identified in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 3~'~-~ 1987, Office of Management and Budget, as amended and supplemented, under divisions A, B, D, E, and I, including governmental facilities that discharge wastewater_to the plant. Interference - A discharge which alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources (1) inhibits or disrupts the plant its treatment processes or oberations, or its sludge processes use or disposal ; or ( 2 ) causes a violation of the plant's VPDES permit. National categorical pretreatment standard or pretreatment standard means any regulations containing pollutant discharge limits promulgated by the EPA in accordance with Sections 307(b) and (c) of the Act (33 U.S.C. 3~4~ 1317) and 40 C.F.R. Subchapter N (Parts 401-471) as amended, which applies to a specific category of industrial users. Pass through A discharge which exits the plant into water of the United States in cfuantities which may cause a violation of the plant's VPDES permit. Sec. 16-45. General Requirements. (a) All discharges into public sewers shall conform to requirements of this article; however, the federal categorical pretreatment standards or any standards imposed by the state water 2 ~ -~ control board or its successor in authority are hereby incorporated by reference where applicable and where such standards are ~~ more stringent than those set forth in this article. ~gl In the event of an emeraency as determined by the approving authority the approving authority shall be authorized to immediately halt any actual or threatened discharae• A Qerson discharging in violation of the provisions of this article, within thirty (30) days of the date of such dischar a shall sam le anal ze and submit the data to the approving authority unless the approving authority elects to perform such sampling. Sec. 16-52. Discharge of substances capable of imairing, etc. facilities. ~q1 No person shall discharae into the public sewers pollutants which cause interference or pass throuch_. S~ No person shall discharae into the public sewers ollutants with a hi h flow rate or concentration of conventional pollutants as to interfere with the plant ._ Sec. 16-53. Right to require pretreatment and control of, or to reject discharges. ~ No erson shall utilize dilution as a means of treatment. Sec. 16-56. Measurement, sampling, etc., and report of discharges. (b) Unless otherwise provided, each measurement, test, sampling, or analysis required to be made hereunder shall be made in accordance withT -~-}~~G e~~~-e~-'e 77~~~~~~~~+~. • / rT ~ rT i~ TT1rI~rGZiT~37 + ~ LT l ~- L. T e ~. ~-~-re 11 , ~+~. T `n ~ •• l+G i ^ „ a }~. ~~ Ar, ~ i ~ .-~......E.~ L .viz- 4 0 C . F . R . Part 136, as amended. (e) Samples shall be taken every hour, properly refrigerated and composited in proportion to the flow for a representative twenty-four (24) hour sample. For oil and grease pH, phenols. cyanide, volatile toxic organic and other appropriate pollutants, property crab sampling shall be performed Such sampling shall be repeated on as many days as necessary to insure representative quantities for the entire reporting period. Industrial plants with wide fluctuations in quantities of wastes shall provide an automatic sampler paced automatically by the flow-measuring device. 3 . ~ '~ l~ All owners of facilities overned b this article shall com 1 with the a licable re irements of 40 C.F.R. 403.12 as amended, which is incorporated by reference herein, including, without limitation the signatory certification and record keeping requirements of 40 C F R 403 12 (c) (d) (i) and (1). All records shall be retained for a minimum of three years and this retention period shall be extended during litigation or upon request of the approving authority. Sec. 16-57. Discharge permits for industrial waste. (a) The County may, in its sole discretion, grant a non- transferable permit to discharge to industrial users who meet the criteria of this chapter, provided that the industry: (5) Complies with the requirements of federal categorical standards, where applicable, including the development of any required compliance schedules or the applicable provisions of this article. S~ The approvina authority shall have the right to accept or reiect any increases in flow or pollutants under existing or new permits. Sec. 16-64. Right of entry to enforce article. (a) The approving authority and other duly authorized employees of the county bearing proper credentials and identification shall be authorized to enter any public or private property at any reasonable time for the purpose of enforcing this article for sampling purposes inspect monitoring ern~ipment and to ins ect and co all documents relevant to the enforcement of this article includina, without limitation monitoring reports. Anyone acting under this authority shall observe the establishment's rules and regulations concerning safety, internal security, and fire protection. ~d1 Appropriate information submitted to the approvina authority pursuant to these regulations excluding any information utilized in determin effluent limits ma be claimed as confidential by the submitter at the time of submission by stamping the words "confidential business information" on each pace containin such information. If a claim is asserted the information shall be treated in accordance with applicable law. Sec. 16-66. Notice of violations. The County shall serve persons discharging in violation of this article with written notice stating the nature of the -L-- inns a r^- violation and 11i"""j `""' ~~` - 4 -~ ' reuuiring immediate satisfactory compliance. The approving authority shall have the authority to publish annually in the Roanoke Times and World News Newspaper or a news a er of eneral circulation in the Roanoke area a list of persons which were not in compliance with the terms of this Article at least once during the twelve (12) previous months. Sec. 16-67. Penalty for violations. 1.~ A erson who violates the rovisions of this article shall be uilt of a class 1 misdemeanor and u on conviction is punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000) per violation er da and confinement in ail for not more than twelve months either or both In the event of a violation, the approving authorit shall also have the ri ht to terminate the sewer and water connection. (b) In addition to proceeding under authority of sub-section (a) of this section, the county is entitled to pursue all other criminal and civil remedies to which it is entitled under authority of state statutes or other ordinances of the county against a person continuing prohibited discharges, including, without limitation, injunctive relief. Sec. 16-69. Public access to data. Effluent data complied as part of the approving authority's pretreatment program shall be available to the public. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after October 1, 1989. 5 ~! ACT ION NUI~ER .S ITEM NUI~ER ~ ~ - AT A REGULAR MEETING COUNTY ADM NISTRATION RCENTER COUNTY, yIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE MF:FTING DATE.: September 12, 1989 ~t1RJECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards ..,~ ~,uTw,T emunTOR~ S COMMENTS' VVvi~ii ,~t~AJtY OF INFORNtATION •• ~~mmun~ty Corrections R°~ources Board One-year term of Edmund J. Kielty, Alternate. His term expired August 13, 1988. F;fth Planning District Commissi~ Three-year term of John Hubbard, Citizen Representative and Executive Committee member expired June 30, 1989. Mr. Hubbard does not wish to serve another term. ~.-~ Pvance ne Two-year term of Kim Owens will expire on September 27, 1989. Tndus~r~a~ Develox~ment Authority Four-year terms of Billy H. Branch, Cave Spring District, and W. Darnall Vinyard, Vinton District will expire on September 25, 1989. n „-trG and Recreation Advisory Commission Three-year term of Alice Gillespie, Hollins Magisterial District will expire June 30, 1989. ~ ,~,~., SUBMITTED BY: 7~~~ ~ ~ Mary H. Allen Deputy Clerk ). ~./ APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator -------- VOTE ACTION Yes No Abs Approved ( ) Motion by: Garrett Denied ( ) Johnson Received ( ) McGraw Referred Nickens To: Robers .,. , 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: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Appointments to the Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board ('OUIJTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: S[TMMARY 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 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 ~ d AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 RESOLUTION 91289-15 CONCERNING THE IMPACT OF A POLICE DEPARTMENT ON THE TOWN OF VINTON i< WHEREAS, On August 22, 1989, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia adopted a resolution requesting the Circuit Court of Roanoke County to order an election on the question of establishing a police force in Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, the Board has also requested that the General Assembly take the necessary action to ensure that Roanoke County receives the same level of funding that it receives if a police department is established; and WHEREAS, the Board wishes to assure the Town of Vinton that there will be no negative impact on its law enforcement if a police department is established. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as follows: 1. a. That the General Assembly be requested to take the necessary action to ensure that the Town of Vinton receives the same level of funding as it currently receives, and b. that Roanoke County assures the Town of Vinton that it will lose no funding. 2. That any mutual aid agreements presently in force between the Town of Vinton and the County of Roanoke will continue. ~,,, . 3. That the Roanoke County Administrator be authorized to negotiate an interjurisdictional agreement with the appropriate officials in the Town of Vinton whereby the Roanoke County may extend law enforcement coverage into the Town of Vinton and the Town of Vinton may extend law enforcement coverage into the County of Roanoke. On motion of Supervisor Nickens with inclusion of amendment #1.b, seconded by Supervisor Garrett, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisor Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File The Honorable Charles R. Hill, Mayor, Town of Vinton Carolyn S. Ross, Clerk of Vinton Town Council Roanoke Area Legislators Paul Mahoney, County Attorney s F ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 RESOLOTION CONCERNING THE IMPACT OF A POLICE DEPARTMENT ON THE TOWN OF VINTON WHEREAS, On August 22, 1989, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia adopted a resolution requesting the Circuit Court of Roanoke County to order an election on the question of establishing a police force in Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, the Board has also requested that the General Assembly take the necessary action to ensure that Roanoke County receives the same level of funding that it receives if a police department is established; and WHEREAS, the Board wishes to assure the Town of Vinton that there will be no negative impact on its law enforcement if a police department is established. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as follows: 1. That the General Assembly be requested to take the necessary action to ensure that the Town of Vinton receives the same level of funding as it currently receives. 2. That any mutual aid agreements presently in force between the Town of Vinton and the County of Roanoke will continue. 3. That the Roanoke County Administrator be authorized to negotiate an interjurisdictional agreement with the appropriate officials in the Town of Vinton whereby Roanoke County may extend law enforcement coverage into the Town of Vinton and the Town of Vinton may extend law enforcement coverage into the County of Roanoke. L-- AT A REGULAR MEETIDN AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRP,TIONNOCENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HEL ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 RESOLUTION NO. 9126 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM L - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1, That certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for September 12, 1989, designated as Item L - consent Agenda, be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated as Item 1 - 6, inclusive, as follows: 1. Authorization to begin appropriate legal proceedings to enforce agreement concerning Queen's Court Subdivision. 2, Approval of Raffle Permit - Cave Spring High School. 3. Approval of Raffle Permit - Oak Grove Elementary School P.T.A. LETTER JACKPOT SHOULD NOT EXCEED $1,~OOOSIZE THAT MAXIMUM 4, Appropriation of federal grant funds to the 1989- 90 Roanoke County Schools' Budget. 5. Acceptance of 0.32 miles of Fallowater Lane, into the VDOT Secondary System. 6, Acceptance nford Ma D Shields ,a Jr. and Fannie Hope donated by Da DeShields. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items 3 the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Nickens with Items L-1 and L-2 removed for discussion, seconded by Supervisor Johnson, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisor Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities Ruth Wade, Clerk, School Board Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget Bingo & Raffle Permit file ACTION NO. A-91289-16.a ITEM NO. ~" ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Enforcement of Land Subdivider's Agreement, Queens Court Subdivision COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~I~.c t%-Y~'~`'''~-ice"' ...-c! -C`~~2~ -~-e BACKGROUND: County staff requests authorization from the Board of Supervisors to commence appropriate legal action to enforce the provisions of a land subdivider's agreement. Through this document the developer agrees to complete certain physical improvements in a proposed subdivision. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The developer of the Queens Court Subdivision has failed to complete the physical improvements in this subdivision as promised in the land subdivider's agreement. These improvements include corrections to certain utility facilities, corrections to the street construction for acceptance by VDOT and dedication of off- site easements. Staff estimates the cost of completing these improvements to be $16,000.00. Mr. Covey, Director of Development and Inspections, has attempted to contact the developer, Ivan Winston, on numerous occasions over the past two months to resolve this matter; however, his efforts have been unsuccessful. A written communication from the County Attorney's office advising him of the problem and this request to the Board has been ignored. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: No direct fiscal impact, apart from staff time and effort. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board authorize the commencement of appropriate legal proceedings to enforce the provisions of the land subdivider's agreement of Ivan Winston to complete certain physical improvements in the Queens Court Subdivision. L -- / Respectfully submitted, ..~ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney ~~- Action Vote No Yes Abs X Approved (~ Motion by Harry ~_ NickPns/ Garrett Denied ( ) Rah T._ ,TnhnGnn Johnson Received ( ) McGraw Referred Nickens to Robers cc: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections ACTION NO. A-Q1~QQ-1ti_h ITEM NUMBER ~ ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF ROANOKE DCOUNTY ADMINISTRATIONRCENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM' Request for approval of a Raffle Permit from the Cave Spring High School Distributive Education Club of America (DECA) COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Cave Spring High School Distributive Education Club of America had requested a Raffle Permit to hold a raff the Commissioner2of 1989. This application has been review roved. Revenue and he recommends that it be app The organization has paid the $25.00 fee. RECOMMENDATION' t is recommended that the application for a Raffle Permit be I approved. SUBMITTED BY: Mary H. Allen Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: ~~3t~ ~n ~ ~ Elmer C. Hodge ` County Administrator ----------~------------- VOTE ACTION No yX s Abs Approved (X) Motion by. Harry C. Nickens/Bob Garrett _~ Denied ( ) Johnson ~- Received ( ) McGraw _~ Referred ( ) Nickens .~ To ( ) Robers cc: File Bingo-& Raffle Permit File 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 subject to all County and State laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations now in force, or that may be enacted hereafter and which are hereby agreed to by the under- signed 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. seg. 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 i-S-~-FOR: (check one) RAFFLE PERMIT -~'~ Name of Organization Street Address BINGO GA~M~ES ~~-"~'~ ~ Jam//~ ~ ~-~~~•~ ~h'~"~~~ ~~~g~ Mailing Address ~ City, State, Zip Code C?~ 1' Purpose and Type of Organization -r: _. .. When was the organization founded? ~'~~~ -• 1 L -- .2 Roanoke County meeting place? ,~~~-y,P~,c~~i~~c ~~ Has organization been in existence in Roanoke County for two con- tinuous years? YES i~ NO Is the organization non-profit? YES ~ NO Indicate Federal Identification Number # /%h .t~r,~e Attach copy of IRS Tax Exemption letter. Officers of the Or~ganization/:" President: ~P</S,~- ~~Cl.~ Vice-President_~'- ~.r, , ~^~ ~.l~~F ~ rO~cl2 Address : (.~~' ~~jP,U, ~ ~~ Address : ~~.t~,tP_ /~/~~~ ~f,.~ , .. -- , Secretary:_/'`?~Cl~~Q /~^~nsl,ry~, Treasurer: ~~°- v`Z.~c~ ° Address: ~L~UP ~~.,~-,~ ~r<. Address: ~~ Member authorized to be responsible for Raffle or Bingo opera- tions: Name ~.-~~~f~ ~0 ~~r.:.~~~~,~+ Home Address ~/i.~C~ E~E^cr.~%--.7 t~.. Phone ~~'~ S~~i' Bus . Phone ~?2 • ~~`S`p A COMPLETE LIST OF THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES SHIP MUST BE FURNISHED WITH THIS APPLICATION. Specific location where Raffle or Bingo Game /.~ ~~~s RAFFLES: Date of Drawing `112~'/~~"`f Time of 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 OF CURRENT MEMBER- is to be conducted. Drawing /~•a~' ~U~<~ 2 ~. -- +2. 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. _~- .~1.~:~ L /~ ~ (' / % Z~ ~'t~ lam. ~.y G''i ~1~~~3rJ ~i-v [yU~~"ci'7~(1 ~~ C~ ~GrLtl" '~~~ ~~ '~" ~ct' ~;.4+~C/,Qj~"'E~-.: G%f °. C... ~a CfJ -v ~' _ f L~~ C ~G~ J~f j cE-tS"l~ t$:S , r 3 L~ 2 BINGO: Complete the following: Leqal owner(s) of the building where BINGO is to be conducted: Name: Address: County State Zip Is the building owned by a 501-C non-profit organization? Seating capacity for each location: Parking spaces for each location: ALL RAFFLE AND BINGO APPLICANTS MUST ANSWER QUESTIONS 1 - 19 e 1. Gross receipts from all sources related to the operation of Bingo games or Instant Bingo by calendar quarter for prior calen- dar year period. BINGO INSTANT BINGO 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Total 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 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 or anizing, managing, or con- ducting Bingo Games or Raffles? 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?~..~' 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? _~~~ 4 L -' ,..~ ~ 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? 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 layer than sixty days following the last day of such quarter?_~~/ 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? ;~~ 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?-~;~~ 9. Does your organization understand that a one percent audit fee of the gross receipts must be paid to the County of Roanoke upon submission of the annual financial report due on or before 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 fo.r such dates, as are designated in the permit application? 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? v~~/ 12. Has your organization attached a check for the annual permit fee in the amount of $25.00 payable to the County of Roanoke, Virginia? .. 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 or 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 violated the above referenced Codes may be guilty of a felony? ~/ 5 L-~ 14. Has your organization attached a complete list of its member- ship to this application form?~ 15. Has your organization attach d a copy of its bylaws to this application form? 16. Has the organizati n been declared exempt from property taxa- tion under the Virginia Constitution or statutes? If yes, state whether exemption is for real, persona property, or both and identify exempt property. 17. Stake the specific type and purpose of the gr-ganization. 18. Is this organization incorporated in Virginia?_ /t,/p If yes, name and address of Registered Agent: 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? ~,/l~ (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 Fair Market Value ~~ ~l~[.. l Cc'.CL~GC~nQ, ,% _ ~/~~ G~.,,o tea.;- ~~~~~ a 6 L _ _2,,. 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 is played, 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 be maintained in reasonable order to permit audit? 22. Does ,your organization understand that instant Bingo may only be conducted 3t 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 1/38 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 - ~- 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. e * tt tk tk * * tk * * * * * ~t tk * * tk * tk * 7k * * ~k * * 7k * tk * tk 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: My commission expires: 19 Notary Public RETURN THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION T0: COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE P.O. Box 20409 Roanoke, VA 24018-0513 8 Subscribed and sworn before me, this day of 19 .~ .~. - .2~ 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. .. ~ ,/ Da a Commissi ner of a Re nue The above application is not approved. Date Commissioner of the Revenue r 9 ACTION NO. A-91289-16.c ~~~ ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MELDIAT HE ROANOKE DCOUNTY ADM NISTRp,TIONROCENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA H MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM' Request for approval of a Raffle Permit from the Oak Grove Elementary School P.T.A. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Oak Grove Elementary School P.T.A. has requestidcat onfhas Permit to hold a raffle on October 28, 1989. This app been reviewed by the Commissioner of Revenue and he recommends that it be approved. The organization has paid the $25.00 fee. RECOMMENDATION' It is recommended that the application for a Raffle Permit be approved. SUBMITTED BY: ~~ ~~' ~' Mary H. Allen Clerk to the Board APPRO ED BY: ,~c.~ ~>. Elmer C. Hodg County Administrator --------------- --------- ACTION VOTE pp (x A roved ) Motion b J Harry C. Nickens_ t rett G No Yes Abs x Denied ( ) o ohnson that letter Bob L. PTA should emphasize ar Johnson x Received ( ) OAK Grove that maximum jackpot should not McGraw x Referred ( ) exceed $1,000 Nickens x To ( ) Robers x cc: File Bingo/Raffle Permit File L-~ 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 subject to all County and State laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations now in force, or that may be enacted hereafter and which are hereby agreed to by the under- signed 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. seg. of the criminal statutes of the Virginia Code, and by Section 4-g6 et, sue, 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 " 1 /? Street Address .' ~/ ,., f ,, ~,, Mailing Address ~ ~;;`~ i ~" ~ City, State, Zip Code rl~ i - ,~- %' ~ ~ ~~ < Purpose and Type of Organization - ;/ , When was the organization founded? 1 L ~ _~ Roanoke County meeting place? -` 1 ~; ~~ ~ ~ ~~ _- :. ~ ~ '~ Has organization been in existence in Roanoke County for two con- tinuous years? YES NO Is the organization non-profit? YES NO Indicate Federal Identification Number # ~ ` Attach copy of IRS Tax Exemption letter. Officers of the Organization: President: ~', ,. ~':~ Vice-President / ~ ~_ Address . ~ ~ ? ~ Address ,~ , - Secretary: !?} ' Treasurer: ~ "`' ~ " %° Address. ~ /• ? ~ ~ Address ~ ~~" ~ '~ ` ~ ~~ ' .~,~.. i~ Member authorized to be resq_onsible for Raffle or Bingo opera- tions: Name ~ ~~ ! ~~ Home Address .~ ~ _ i , '+ l~E, ~'- ` ~ - Ot - ~ '~" Phone ',' ~ - : Bus . Phone A COMPLETE LIST OF THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF CURRENT MEMBER- SHIP MUST BE FURNISHED WITH THIS APPLICATION. Specific location where Raffle or Bingo Game is to be conducted. RAFFLES : Date of Drawing ;';,~ ~ Time of Drawing ~_~_ , ~ ; BINGO: Days of Week & Hours of Activity: Sunday From To Monday From To Tuesday From To Wednesday From To Thursday From To Friday From To Saturday From To /i 2 ~- State specifically how the broceeds from the Bingo/Raffle will be used. List in detail the planned or intended use of the proceeds. Use estimates amounts if necessary. _ r 1 '~ _ ~ ~ - ~ 1 r ! ! ~ ~ 3 i BINGO: Complete the following: Legal owner(s) of the building where BINGO is to be conducted: Name: Address: County State Zip Is the building owned by a 501-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 Instant Bingo by calendar quarter for prior calen- dar year period. BINGO INSTANT BINGO lst Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Total lst Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 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? -.,. J 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? 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? ,,. 4 L -- 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? ~`--' -T 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? ~;%; 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? yrt 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? ~, 9. Does your organization understand that a one percent audit fee of the gross receipts must be paid to the County of Roanoke upon submission of the annual financial report due on or before the first of November? 1~; '. T 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? ',~'~ 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? (r 12. Has your organization attached a check for the annual permit fee in the amount of $25.00 payable to the County of Roanoke, Virginia?--~-;--~- _. __T..7.r. 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 or 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 "'~ 14. Has your organization attached a_complete list of its member- ship to this application form? r°; ,, 15. Has your organization attached a copy of its bylaws to this application form? ~<., , . 16. Has the organization been declared exempt from property taxa- tion under the Virginia Constitution or statutes? If yes, state whether exemption is for real, personal property, or both and identify exempt property. 17. State the specific type and purpose of the organization. .. r~ 1;~~, ~r~ < ~ ~ I~ 18. Is this organization incorporated in Virginia? If yes, name and address of Registered Agent: 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 Fair Market Value ~ ~~ l ~, ~? ~ 1 r~ !/ ~ ~ ~ ? ~, ~~ , ~~~~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,, Otis ~ 1(.Y ~ ~' ~~ ~, ~P` ,~ ,G L- 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. Date Commissioner of e Revenu The above application is not approved. Date Commissioner of the Revenue 9 ."~..' , 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 is played, 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 'be 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 L- 3 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: ~ _ /- , Title Home Address ~ ~'-~ Name Subscribed and sworn before me, this .• day of ~ 19' My commission expires: 19 Notary Public RETURN THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION T0: COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE P.0. Box 20409 Roanoke, VA 24018-0513 8 >. ACTION # A-912 89-16 .3 ITEM NUMBER ~ - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Appropriation of Additional Grant Revenues to the Roanoke County School System COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Roanoke County School System is requesting that additional appropriations be made to their federal grant monies based upon information they have received since 1989-90 fiscal year began. These additional grant monies are as follows: 1. $1,790 for computer equipment and accessories to be used with multi-handicapped students. 2. $8,000 as one time start up allocation for the Parent Resource Center. These funds will be used to employ part-time personnel, purchase equipment and materials, and provide in service workshops for the center which is designed to help parents and educators of handicapped students work together for a more cooperative effort. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the above grants be appropriated to the School Federal Programs Fund budget. Attached is the copy of the Resolution adopted by the school board on August 24, 1989. .Respectfully submitted, Approved by, Diane D. Hyatt Elmer C. Hodge Director of Finance County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved kx) Motion by: Harry C. Nic'kPnG~ No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Bob L. Johnson Garrett x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred McGraw x To Nickens x Robers x cc: File Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Dr. Bayes Wilson, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools Ruth Wade, Clerk, School Board FROM THE MINU'PES OF 'I'EiE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY, MEETING IN REGULAR SESSION UN AUGUST 24, 1.989 AT 7 P.M. IN THE BOARD ROOM OF TEES SCHOOL ADMINTSTRATION BUILDING, SALEM, VIRGINIA. RESOLUTION REQUESTING APPROPRIATIONS TO THE 1989-90 ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS' BUDGET WEiEREAS, federal grant funding has been received for the special education program for the Roanoke County School System for 1989-90; BE IT RESOLVED that the County School Board of Roanoke County, on motion of Charlsie S. Pafford and duly seconded, requests appropriations by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County for the following funds: 1. $1,790.00 for computer equipment and accessories to be used with the multihandicapped students. Budget codes: Revenue - 25-5-00000-600004 Expenditure - 25-6-1319X-008203 2. $8,000.00 as a one-time start-up allocation for the Parent Resource Center. The funds will be used to employ part-time personnel, equipment and materials, inservice and workshops for the center which is designed to help parents and educators of Handicapped students work together for more cooperative efforts. Budget codes: Revenue - 25-5-00000-600003 Expenditure - 25-6-1312H-1A5807 Approved by the following recorded vote: AYES: Paul G. Black, Charlsie S. Pafford, Barbara B. Chewning, Frank E. Thomas NAYS: None ABSENT: Maurice L. Mitchell ACTION NO. A-91289-16.e ITEM NUMBER ~"" ~`'~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of Fallowater Lane into the Secondary System by the Virginia Department of Transportation COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County has received acknowledgement that the following road has been accepted into the Secondary System by the Virginia Department of Transportation effective August 28, 1989. 0.32 miles of Fallowater Lane (Route 795) SUBMITTED BY: Mary H. Allen Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: ~~~ /'~~r Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator --------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (~ Motion by: Harry C. Nickens/ No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Bob L. Johnson Garrett x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred ( ) McGraw x Nickens x To ( ) Robers x cc: File Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering i ACTION NO. A-91289-16.f ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of a sanitary sewer easement being donated by Danford M. DeShields Jr. and Fannie Hope DeShields COUNTY ADMINISTRAT/,OR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND' Danford M. DeShields Jr. and Fannie Hope DeShields have agreed to donate an easement varying in width from approximately seven (7) to eight and one-half (8 1/2) feet in width for a sanitary sewer line across Lot 2, Block 1, Section 2, Applewood, The Orchards. The actual construction of this sanitary sewer line has already been completed. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 102787-4 adopted October 27, 1987, the Board authorized the County Administrator to accept donations of non-controversial real estate matters. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider this acceptance by resolution under the Consent Agenda. Respectfully submitted, J eph ~.`Obenshain S nior Assistant County Attorney L -- ~ Action Approved (X) Motion by Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to cc: File En ineering Phillip Henry, Director, g Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Vote No Yes Abs Garrett x Johnson McGraw Y Nickens Y Robers Y ~~'Ii~Y'~1ili~llf~~11`~I'~~i~iiririfiYiif~~lri1"l~~l~"1'ilit~il`I~~1'11~11i~1i~l~i~iiltii~l~lt1`~iil~lt~i~~"~il~lll~l(~1liliilit IIIIIIIITI~II~filllllllllljj .:P _ APPEARANCE RE VEST _ Q = _ _ - - _ ~ _ -_ AGENDA ITEM NO. __ _ _ _ SUBJECT ~'IT"~Z~~S ~ Co~~.~~7`~ _ - _ _ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter _- so that I may comment.WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW. _ - __ __ • Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. • Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Ques- Lions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. • All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized c speaker and audience members is not allowed. • Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. __ _ • Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. _ _ • INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED c GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. _ -_ ~ E PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO DEPUTY CLERK o PL.~AS _ NAME ~Lf~~-~ t~0 W ~~ c _ c ADDRESS ~ ~ ~ D ~1~ ~~I~G ~ ~tJ ! ~ _ .~ _ -_ _ PHONE ~ ~ ~' 3 ~D ~ _ _ -_ mlillllllllllllilllllllll11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111~ i ~~~ August 25. 1989 It wasn't even on the agendat TYie Roanoke County Supervisors met in afternoon and evening public sessions for their regularly scheduled August 22 meeting, with a pubJ_ished agenda. Nothing on that agenda, items A through S, inclusive, had anything to do with a county police department. No Roanoke County citizen could have anticipated the supervisors' consideration of that important and sensitive subject at that public meeting. So what happened? Our intrepid county fathers brought up the issue and faced it squarely in executive session, from which the public is excluded. Thus, without providing any nota.ce of any kind to the public, and without providing any opportunity for public participation in the deliberative process, the supervisors acted to schedule the police department issue for referendum in November. IV ow some of the good voters in Roanoke County might well ask, "What in the dickens is going on here? We just voted on that very same thing not quite three years ago. We turned it down. Are the supervisors hard of hearing, or just obstinate?" The answer might be,"Whenever the prescient political Opportunity presents itself - striket" The five supervisors all are Democrats. There is nothing wrong with that, of course. But, aha, the present sheriff of Roanoke County is a Republican, and a rather brash one at that. Being neither servile nor subservient to the supervisors, he has tweaked their noses and pulled their beards a few times. In fact, he has called them onto their own carpet once or twice, and has come away with no less than a draw. The incumbent sheriff was elected by countywide vote because he is one of the county's constitutional officers. Our forebears created constitutional officers for their own and our protection against tyrranical government. They feared, and with good reason, the unwarranted concentration of political power. They knew that the public safety, the public purse, and the public records should not be exposed to crass political chicanery. The supervisors seek to make our sh riff but a mere jailer and process server, removing from his o~fice the responsibility for the public safety. Thay would circumvent the intent of our government's framers and the expressed will of the Roanoke County electorate but three years ago. One might wonder, if this political ploy is successful, which one of the remaining county constitutional officers will be next on the supervisors hit list? The supervisors seek to create a new police department under their own control. At present the police function is under the direct control of the voters. If the sheriff does not perform to their satisfaction they may vote him out in four years or less, in countywide balloting. There are five supervisors. Each is elected in his own magisterial district. If the public is dissatisfied with a new police department, they would have to vote out of office at least three of the supervisors, and perhaps more, to effect a change. Probably more -1-~~r f'n„v. i.n., v+r. •..n„~ rl l-. ., r., .. .,~ v. .. l] a-.. .~.. .. ..... ~.1 ...-. L. .y. L, .... J-. L___. ,_~ ti- _ (2) Also we are told that we can accept the oral and indirect assurance of a state politician That ltoanolce County will not lose annual state payments of hundreds of thousands of dollars if it changes its police structure. Who would take such an assurance to the bank? The supervisors wish to usurp the public safety function from 'the county sheriff. There is no evidence that better public safety service would result from a supervisors-controlled police department than presently is offered by the sheriff. The fact that it would be farther removed from the people is powerful reason to believe that worse service might wel1~ result. There is some hypocrisy involved here, also. Not more than six months ago the supervisors acquired control over the Roanoke County Board of Zoning Appeals by persuading the state legislature to allow the supervisors to appoint BZA members, rather than continue the practise of the circuit court judges' making those appointments. The principal reason given by the supervisors for that power grab was that the supervisors are elected officials, the circuit court judges are not, so therefore the supervisors' appointments of BZA members would be more closely connected to the wishes of the electorate. Now the supervisors are, in effect, reversing direction, saying that the supervision of public safety should be removed farther from the people and that the supervisors and their appointed agent should be interposed between the voters and the chief of public safety. Perhaps this is just a good example of doing whatever is expedient and suits the purpose at hand. Sheriff Kavanaugh and his family have done things in the recent past which have resulted in publicity unfavorable to him. Probably some of those actions, such as the selection process for a captain in Y~is department, justify poor and protracted press coverage. The cows have been overdone, however, and a wife's independent actions really are not attributable to her husband and his work. The moguls of the communications industry have seized their cudgels to beat against Sheriff Kavanaugh, the man. Now the supervisors wish to tape political advantage to aggrandize the major duties of his office. A sheriff, the man, can be voted out of office in a relatively short time. If his office is stolen from the electorate, however, it may never be recovered. Could it be that the media masters are displaying something of sour grapes? Didn't they endorse Sheriff Kavanaugh's opponent in the past election? There are allegations that numerous complaints have been made by citizens about poor public safety response. That should be substantiated by the supervisors. Anybody could arrange for numerous complaints - even a person without a political power base. Imagine what could be done with a party apparatus at workt Nost important is whether or not those complaints are both bona fide and justified. Aside from the assertions of the supervisors it appears that there is general citizen approval of the county's public safety services. It may well be that there is slightly better county public safety coverage today thanhavermoresofficers,ywhileaghe populationuhasbe. We pay more money an ~- / COUNTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA RESERVE FOR BOARD C7ONrINGENC'Y Beginning Balance at July 1, 1989 Additional Amount from 1989-90 Budget June 14, 1989 Contribution to Va. Amateur Sports July 11, 1989 Purchase of drainage easement July 11, 1989 Option on 200 acres real estate July 25, 1989 Donation to Julian Wise Foundation August 8, 1989 County supplement for new position in Sheriff's department August 22, 1989 Part time volunteer coordinator Balance as of September 12, 1989 Su)~nitted by ~~ Diane D. Hyatt ~ Director of Finance $11,395 50,000 (25,000) (5,000) (3,750) (5,000) (869) (5,800) 15 976 CWN'PY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA U1~,pPROPRIATED BALANCE - CAPITAL FUND Beginning Balance at July 1, 1989 $56,194 Balance as of September 12, 1989 Su~nitted by Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance 56 194 ~-~ COUNTY OF RO,ANOKE, VIRGINIA UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE - GENEE2AL ~~ Balance at July 1, 1989 (Unaudited) $2,012,318 Balance as of September 12, 1989 Submitted by Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance $2.012.318 ,V COUNTY OF ROANOgE INCOME ANALYSIS --- `---`--`-' -GENERAL OPERATINu FUN 1988-89 -- 1989=90 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL --.-.--__-__ .__ --- = -- _-_- .__x_3.1_ _-,..___ 6=3G=89 fi-~T 89 BUDGET (12 HONTHS} (1 MONTH} X BUDGET (1 MONTH) ' --"-~-- - ~ - - --- ----- TAXES=REArfiSTATB_---~- _~-25~fi80-;009" --27;092;$2G~ -140438 28;~I1;176 7 5 139;678 TAXES-PERSONAL PROPERTY 10,200,000 11,661,171 211,428 2 11,668,447 251,098 OTHER PROPERTY TAXES 1,257,293 1,323,377 8,181 1 1,435,000 4,119 .._-._. - -- SALES TAX -- _ --4,390;492 - ---3;841,459- ,- _333,343 -- J-----~_~ ~;200~006- ;1fi4 299 -_ BUSINESS LICENSE 2,400,000 2,182,135 22,542 1 2,100,000 55,654 AUTO DBCALS 1,150,000 1,283,174 20,842 2 1,325,000 18,163 ----- OTHER-LOCAL-TAXBST -~;-QI5;2~0- --3;700,27- 247;046 -6--- 4;I86;D0~ ~-392;318 DOG TAGS 18,000 14,963 604 3 15,500 574 ZONING FEBS 15, 000 25,426 2,553 _I7 - _ 10,500 ~~ 1,060 __ ~ ~ BUILDING FEES - _ 345,000 321;549 _ 21,304 ~ _______ 6 408;fill 31,162 OTHER PERMIT, FEES ~ LICENSES 11,281 31,525 2,244 20 7,25U 5,770 FINBS AND FORFEITURES 162,000 209,125 5,703 4 165,000 18,829 $ALBS h USB QF BQ'UIPMBNT 6. SUPPLIES 0 15"1-~-- --~50 - 0 ~ -^L ~` ~ ~ CHARGBS FOR SERVICES 150,510 162,774 12,135 8 151,400 23,230 RECOVERED COST-LOCAL 504,029 558, 006 37,314 --- 7 ------ -- 554_,500 . -- 49,528 ____ .__._.___- _ _ ABC PROFITS ~---Y- _ _ _ -- 230,095 _ _ -~-_185,794 ----~ N 200,000 a COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY EXPENSES 260,503 225,982 19,686 8 251,670 20,009 SHERIFF'S EXPENSES 3,770,000 3,255,067 286,096 9 3,820,000 319,652 - ~ ~ COMMISSIDNEB OF THB R6VBNUE'S EXPENSES 179,485 147,593 ' 11,730 - -- 7 -18Q,~OD 17, 617 TREASURER'S EXPENSES _ 171,853 168,125 0 0 180,000 0 WELFARE GRANT 1,961,441 1,593,546 317,932 16 2,060,000 356,506 LIBRARY GRANT 175,000 174,860 43,715 25 175,000 43,783 OTHER STATE REVENUE 286,8D3 239,336 5,361 2 205,000 23,789 NON-REVENUE RECEIPT ,03 5 5 6,520 0 0 0 25 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS . _ ___ _ _ 0 0 ---- 0 ------------ ---------- 0 ------------ D ------------ - ------------ 57,439,000 -------- 58,411,315 1,750,345 3 61,804,648 2,071,738 BEGINNING BALANCE USED TO BALANCE COSTS OF OPERATIONS 4,091,702 0 0 0 525,000 0 TEMPORARY LOANS & LEP,SE PURCHASE PROCEEDS 765,G66 559,133 0 D 0 ------.__ ------------ ._.~-_62,295,_708. ------------ $ 58,97D,448_$_ ------------ _ 1,750,345_-_--- ---------- ---_ ---3_$__ ------------ -62,329,648 ------------ - $_---2,D71,738-$-- SPECIAL CONSIDERATION ADDED TD BASIC COMPUTATION ACTION NUMBER A /~ ITEM NUMBER / y AT A REGULAR NIEE'TING OF 'PHE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid - August 1989 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S C:0~: SUNA'IARY OF INFORMATION: Payments to Vendors: Payroll: 8/4/89 $382,585.42 8/18/89 398,019.38 $2,809,211.13 804,319.79 $3.613.530.92 A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. SUBMITTED BY: rev 2~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance Approved ( ) Motion by: Denied Received ( ) ________ Referred ( > To APPROVED BY: ~1~'~.- 1 Elmer C. Hodge County Achiiinistrator ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Garrett Johnson McGraw ._ Nickens Robers ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 12, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Report on impact of County Police Department on the Town of Vinton COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND' On August 22, 1989, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution requesting the Circuit Court to order an election on the question of establishing a police department in Roanoke County. At that time, the board was advised that efforts through the General Assembly would be expended to ensure that Roanoke County would receive the same funding levels if a police department were established that they presently receive under the Sheriff's Department. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Officials from the Town of Vinton have asked that they also receive the same funding as they do currently. Under the present formula, Vinton could lose $11,000 if the county forms a police department. In order to assure the Town of Vinton that they will not lose funding, any requests to the General Assembly will include a no- loss provision ensuring that the Town of Vinton will also receive the same level of funding that they presently receive. I have had discussions with officials from the Town of Vinton and have assured them that should the referendum pass, they will lose no funds as a result of establishment of a police department. Further, all mutual aid agreements in place now will continue regardless of the law enforcement agency responsible. We have also begun discussions concerning expanded law enforcement agreements between the two localities which involve structuring patrol areas so that the Town of Vinton Police Department could serve parts of the County while the County could service parts of Vinton. No action is required at this time. /~/ - ~j SUBMITTED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Motion by: ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers September 12, 1989 County staff requests the Board to adopt a motion to enter into executive session within the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act as follows: the ~a) to discuss a specific legal matter requiring the County Attorney and provision of legal advice by briefings by staff members concerning Consolidation in accordance with Sections 2.1-344 A 7 and 15.1-945.7 D of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. fib) to discuss the disposition of publicly-held real estate for economic development purposes in accordance with Section 2.1-344.A.3. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF TE R ANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT TH ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 RESOLUTION 912 ~ WITHITHENCODEE OFT VIRGINIpING WAS HELD IN CONFORMI WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, on this date pursuant Virginia has convened an executive meeting to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1, Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the lies, and executive meeting which this certification resolution app 2, Only such public business matters as were identified were heard, discussed in the motion convening the executive meeting or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Garrett, seconded by Supervisor Johnson, and carried by the following recorded vote: Supervisor Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett AYES: NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor McGraw A Cppy TESTE: 7~ ~. Q~~~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk ervisors County Board of Sup Roanoke cc: File Executive Session File AN ,1. F ~. .p z a 8 n.A~ 88 $FSQUICENTENN~~'~ A Bcautiful Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE September 14, 1989 Mrs. Debra Landgraft 2129 Bridle Lane, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Mrs. Landgraft: At their regular meeting on Tuesday, September Roanoke County Board of Supervisors unanimously request of Will be GconductedeonaOctober 28,T 1989 a The raffle LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRIC' RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRACT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 12, 1989, the approved the raffle permit. The Board asked me to emphasize to you the regulation listed on lication; specifically, that no jackpot of any page 8 of the app nor shall the nature whatsoever sha pl exceed One Thousand Dollaone calendar day total amount of jack of prizes awarded in any exceed One Thousand Dollars. The fee has been paid and your receipt is enclosed. consider this letter to be your permit, and I suggest it You may be displayed on the premi at raffle t nd bingo permi s be issuedeon The State Co eapr basiss and such permits issued will expire on a calendar-y ermit, however, is only valid on the date December 31, 1989. This p specified in your application. be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to If I may contact me at 772-2005. Sincerely, .9/ . ~(-l-e~c~ Mary H. Allen, Board of Supervisor Roanoke County bjh Enclosures cc: Commissioner of the Revenue Commonwealth Attorney County Treasurer C~nunfg of +~attnnke BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703> 772-2004 AN ,~. F Z~ 18 ~ 88 8F80UICEN7ENN~P~ A Btanti~itlBcginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE September 14, 1989 Mr. John Oberlin 4730 Woodley Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Mr. Oberlin: LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 808 L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT At their regular meeting on Tuesday, September 12, 1989, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the request of the Cave Spring High School, Distributive Education Club of America, for a Raffle permit. The raffle will be conducted on September 29, 1989. 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 and such permits issued will expire on December 31, 1989. This permit, however, is only valid on the date specified in your application. If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 772-2005. Sincerely, ~• Mary H. Allen, Roanoke County bjh Enclosures cc: Commissioner of the Revenue Commonwealth Attorney County Treasurer C~aunfg of +~nttna~e BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Clerk Board of Supervisor P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 98 (703> 772-2004 JOAN F ~'F L ~ A Z ~ a 2 OFFICE OF DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS 526 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE SALEM, VIRGINIA 24153 August 24, 1989 Mary, Enclosed is an have placed on Dr. Jerry Hard sending a copy appropriations resolution which we would likervisors. the September 12 meeting of the Board of Sup y or Dr. Eddie Kolb will attend the meeting. I am to Diane Hyatt. Thanks, Ruth Enclosure . ~ ~ ~_ 0. GENE DISHNER ~,.,~~ ~~~~ ~^ ems. DIRECTOR ~~~ KATHY J. REYNOLDS '1t' '.~ ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IWr~ ~~ q '~ a F FOR ADMINISTRATION ~'~" BENNY R. WAMPLER `~ri.~.n,eT`~ ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR MINING ~~~~~~~~~~Z~~"1 ~f ~~~~1~~~ Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy The Bookbindery Building 2201 West Broad Street Richmond. I~irginia 33220 (804)361-0330 • August 28, 1989 The Honorable J. Granger Macfarlane P. 0. Boa 201 Roanoke, Virginia 24002. Dear Senator Macfarlane: DIVISIONS ENERGY GAS AND OIL MINED LAND RECLAMATION MINERAL MINING MINERALRESOURCES MINES ~ ~ I am pleased to inform you that the County of Roanoke recently received a state matching grant for the implementation of a recycling project through the State Energy Conservation Program (SECP), administered by the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME) . Roanoke County will receive $20,000 to implement an expansion of its current residential curbside recycling program from 1,000 to 1,900 households and to add used oil and batteries to the collection program. Grant funds will be used to purchase the recycling containe=~ ide $37pO3iin publicity for the recycling program. Roanoke County will p matching funds and will operate the program. Pro ram, a T~, is gran*_ is parr of nMr~' s anr_ual Local Government Energy g competitive grant program open to all cities, counties and towns in Virginia. This year, DMME is providing $313,611 in matching funds for the implementation of nineteen (19) recycling and $225,250 in matching funds for conducting eighteen (18err$1y054n000einlloca~fundsies. The DMME funds will be matched with dust ov The solid waste recycling study and implementation grants should help localities meet the recycling mandates of HB 1743 (Section 10.1-1411 of the Code ofCode of Vir~inia) enacted during the 1989 General Assembly. Any study or implementation project funded under ehr~msitr°ssnmedwbylthe Department of W ste locality in accordance with any P licable federal and state solid Management and in accordance with all ap p waste laws and regulations. The funds for the Local Government Energy Program comes from the Exxon Oil Overcharge Settlement monies made available to the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy with Governor Baliles' approval. As federal financial X _2_ August 28, 1989 Senator Macfarlane hased out in the coming years, the Local Government support for the SECP is p rovide grants through appropriations from Energy Program can continue to p other localities across the Overcharge funds. We look forward to assistingrants. the state in reducing energy costs through future g I have enclosed a brochure which describes the pleases ontactsme if you by the D epartment of Mines, Minerals and Enro ~'ams and activities. would like additional information about our p g Sincerely, 0. Gene Dishner sw Enclosure O~ ROAN0,1-F ~ ,N A Z ~? ~ 2 J a E50 8$ V SESQUICEN7ENN~P A Beauti~ulBeginning PAUL M. MAHONEY COUNTY ATTORNEY ~IILiri~LJ i1~ ~D~iriD~t~ OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY 24 August 1989 Mr. Ivan Winston 5347 Luwana Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 Re: Queen's Court Dear Mr. Winston: JOSEPH B. OBENSHAIN SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY SARAH A. RICE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY Arnold Covey, the Director of Development Inspections far Roanoke County, has referred this matter to the County Attorney's office. Despite numerous attempts to resolve the problem of your failure to complete the physical improvements in the Queen's Court Subdivision as required by your land subdivider's agreement, you have failed to respond in a satisfactory manner. In addition, you have failed to provide the County with a letter of credit or other form of appropriate surety to secure the performance of your legal obligations. I would expect your prompt attention to this matter. Failure to respond in a satisfactory and timely manner to resolve this problem will leave the County with no alternative but to commence appropriate legal proceedings to enforce the provisions of the land subdivider's agreement. If you fail to satisfy your contractual obligations in this matter, I shall request the Board of Supervisors to authorize the commencement of appropriate legal proceedings to enforce the provisions of this agreement at the September 12, 1989, meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. 'ncerely, ~~ Y r 1 Paul M. MahonE County Attorn( PMM/sg cc: Mr. Arnold Covey P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE COUNTY. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2007 I~l - iA~t.l~~, ~- ~_ ~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED BOND FINANCING BVIRGINIA NTY OF ROANOKE, Notice is hereby given that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, (the "County") will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 15.1-171.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended ("Code"), on the issuance of not to exceed $1,115,000 general obligation school bonds (the "Bonds") of the County to finance certain capital projects for school purposes. A resolution authorizing the issuance of the Bonds will be considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, at its meeting on September 12, 1989. A copy of such Resolution is on f ile in the Office of the County Administrator in Roanoke County, Virginia. As required by Section 15.1-186(a) of the Code, the estimated interest rate on the Bonds is 7.0% and the estimated amount of interest charges required to retire the Bonds is $1,014650.00. The public hearing which may be continued or adjourned will be held at 3.00 p.m. on September 12, 1989, before the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virgi Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Please publish on the following dates: Morhi~ August 29, 1989 September 5, 1989 Please send bill to: Ms. Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance County of Roanoke P. 0. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 ,, ,,. .,, ._ ~C~A~ ~~~ `I Jh _ 5v ~! RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER DEPARTMDENAD BROAD STRORTATION RICHMOND, 23219 August 28, 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 addition to the Secondary effective August 28, 1989• OSCAR K. MARRY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER res~emti f RoanokeuCounty is8hereby approvedg SYs TANGLEWOOD EXECUTIVE PARK Route ?95 (Fallowater Lane) - From 0.15 mile Northeast Route 419 to Route 904. Sincerely, -b~y~~~~~'~~ scar K Y Deputy Commissioner TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 0.32 Mi. t SOLID WASTE RECYCLING/RESOURCE RECOVERY INTRODUCTION Disposal of waste is a major problem all over America. In many locations in Virginia, landfill space is at a premium. Methods of prolonging landfill life include: o Source reduction o Reuse o Recycling o Resource recovery (energyproduction) Recent General Assembly aaron (HB 1743) requires local governments to develop plans to recycle 10%-of -the waste stream by~ 1991, :15% - -by -1993, _and 25%- --~ = -- _ =~- =-=~== =-' by 1995. _ - _- =====~_ PROGRAM SERVICES The Division of Energy will provide up to $20,000 matching grants for either the A) Planning or B) Im~Iementation of landfill disposal alternatives. A) Planning grants may be used to examine the operation and feasibility of recycling, waste-to-energy, source reduction or reuse, or landfill gas projects. Such plans must be coordinated with Yuginia Department of Waste Management permits and with regional solid w-ute planning activities. The studies should involve multiple jurisdictions, when possible, and should help localities meet the recycling mandates of HB 1743. B) Implementation grants ~ be provided for well planned, ready-to-Qo recycling, source reduction or reuse prog*~mc. (If no plan has been developed, you should apply for a planning grant.) . Eligible projects (eligiole cols are listed in a later section) include: o Curbside collection o Drop-off or buyback centers -•-A o Commercial or industrial rercing or minimisation o Composting o Reuse projects o Demolition or bully item recycling o Pavement recycling ~ - ven to curbside collection programs, especially if Funding priority will be gi tires, used oil or batteries are also picked up at curbside. LOCA.I,~COSTS AND STAFF gFQ~EMENTS The Division of Energy will provide direct grants of up to X20,000 with a 50°ro local cash match required for the cost of either a planning study or project implementation. For ul~ S~dies, outside consultants must be used- 'fie ~~s. The cannot be used for existing staff positions, overhead, rent or mduect local government will provide adequate staff to develop the planning project, rocure the services in accordance .with- the Vugim.a Public Procurement -Act and - - - - - - manage the resulting "contract. -The locality- is ~ responsible-for-reviewing-the - - completed report and certifying acceptance from the contractor. Participating localities must assist the study contractor by providing local data needed for the study. --~ -- For implementation yroiects, eligible costs include: o Recycling containers o Equipment (except rolling sock) o Labor and staff expenses o Secondary materials market development o Payments to private recycling operators Items not eligible include rolling stock, land, building construction or purchase, and landfill equipment or eepansion. For either type of project, the Division of Energy will provide funding on a reimbursement basis. Tae lo~iity ~ pay for the project and receive reimbursement (50% of full cost, uII to ~20,4Q0 m~~) from the Division of Energy. COORDINATION ~iTITH THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT ~ ~ ~ . The Virginia Division of Energy has worked with the Department of Waste Management (DWI in developing this program. DWM will participate in the evaluation of applications to ensure proper coordination with its ongoing funding and regulatory activities. Any solid waste planning or implementation project funded under this program will be carved out by the locality in accordance with any permit issued by DWM and in accordance with all applicable federal and state solid waste laws and regulations. APPLICATION EyALUATIOI~I STANDARDS Applications for the solid waste program will be evaluated on the basis of the following criteria. About ten projects will be selected. _ A. Plannin Studie _- Wei h riteria 40% o Extent of solid waste disposal problem (remainin.g landfill life/replacement cost). 20% o Involvement by multiple jurisdictions (number and total population to be served). 40% o Staff commitment to project and likelihood of implementing recommendations. B. Implementation Proiects Wei h riteria 30% o Project description/problem addressed. . Landfill life/replacement costs. 20% o Estimated cost effectiveness of ,- ~ collection (cost per ton recycled and -cost per capita served). - 20% o Amount and variety of materials anticipated to be recycled. 10% 20% APPLICATIONS o Establishment of curbside recycling with tires, used oil or battery pickup. o Staff commitment to project. Applications must be postmarked no later than July 15, 1989. FOR MORE INFORMATION =--If you would like further information, call Richard Olin at 804-367-1310. COhfhiONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. ~ . • ` DEPAR.'I'1~LENT OF MIMES, MII~IERAI.S AND ENERGY • -. - ~ DIVISION OF ENERGY - SOLID WASTE J~CYCLING/RESOURCE RECOVERY - Application Applicant Information Jurisdiction: COUNTY OF ROANOKE • Contact Pcrson: W• RIVER BONHOTEL - ' Tidc~Positioa: COORDINATOR, SOLID WASTE DIVISION pd~~• 1216 KESSLER MILL RD. SALEM, VA 24153 Tclcphonc: 703 ~R7-6225 $i~.aCure: '- -- ~ - Offices of Jurisdicrion~ule Pieria Print the Name Above' ~ -- C• HODGE, COUNTY :ADMINISTRATOR IE this is amulti-jurisdictional application, Fut other gartiepatins3 jurisdictions. Respoasa to eater question should address the conditions is cacti jurisdiction. Jurisdiction 'I~pe of Prajezi (cheric one): Pianaiag Study Funding Reoiuat 1988 Popniatirm Contact Pczsoa - -~ ' Imuir Phone ~ Total Cost of Projezt: ~ S 57 , 033 "' Locality Share: ~ S 37 , 033 (~~ of SO%, cash) VDOE Share• S 20, 000 (~~~ of 50%, np to 3'ZA,000 terser) or Im lementation Onl Iease provide brief responses to the following items: _ Descnbe the project to be implemented and cite study that prompted the plan. The project to be implemented is an expansion of an existing 1900 home source separation recycle program (1000 homes with rouram ofo1900dhomesawiths~ 900 homes using Box, Bag, and Bundle method) to a p g lass, and aluminum, plus additional collection o~ containers for newspaper, g used batteries and motor oil (a 1 gallon jug will be provided to all homes . The Olver Inc. report showed that in the five cities surveyed, residents were 337 more likely to recycle if containers were provided. Curbside collection with containers provides the highest level of participation, which will divert more materials from the landfill and increase revenues: escribe the resent solid waste coIlection and disposal system. Describe existing~recy0~~ D P efforts and how they will be incorporated into this project. t~ to be?eAre there pri ate the landfill? What do you expect the repla dial waste handled? How is yard waste landfill operations? How is comme-*~a~/m handled? What is done with tires, oil and batteries? The County of Roanoke provides weekly curbside collection of residential waste to approximately 24,000 homes and weekly collection of commercial waste to about 259 businesses. The County utilizes eight (8) to nine (9) trucks daily for collection. Two of the vehicles are automated, requiring only one operator, while the remainder of the vehicles are 3 man rear or side loaders. Collected refuse is transported to whichegsotakenatofSalem~s incineratorxcept for a small amount (less than lOZ) Larger commercial establishments contract with private haulard wastes)eareste collected going into the landfill. Bulk and brush items (y collected once a month for manual routes and twice a month for automated routes and disposed in the landfill. Most of the tires, used motor oil and batteries are taken to the landfill for disposal. There are a few area establishments that will accept these materials, but they are not generally well known to the public. There are no private landfill operations within our jurisdiction and the Regional Landfill is expected to reach capacity within the next three (3) years. The replacement cost per ton at the new landfill is estimated to be $35 (Olver Inc., study), At the present time, Roanoke County is conducting two (2) recycling ramgisma~'ointeeffortawithtthe CleanaValleyZCounciliatOnepthousand The. first prog J (1000) residents were asked to separate newspapers, mixed glass, and aluminum from their normal household waste and place them to the curb in special containers provided by the County. Under the new project we plan to expand this program to include the collection of used motor oil and batteries. The second program, known as the Box, Bag, and Bundle Program, incorporated the same materials as the first, but no containers were provided. The central focus of the new project will be the provision of containers to the residents and the subsequent effect on par- ticipation. The materials collected in these areas will also be expanded to in- clude used motor oil and batteries. 3, Give estimates (and source of estimate) of the quantity of materials to be collected in the . first 12 months of the program- Annual Tonnage Source of Estimate Material Paper '~ '_ llo Tons ~ ~ - (Rke County Source Separation Program; Newspapers 30 Tons (Rke County Source Separation Program) Glass ~1un11nllm 2 Tons (Rke County Source Separation Program). Metals Used Oil 8820 Quarts '~~~ (E.P.A. estimates, Versar Inc. Report) Tires Batteries 25-75 Batteries i Estimate by collectors from daily pickup Other (specify) (specify) Total Source of Estimate 4. Have markets been secured for each material specified in question 3? If so, indicate each vendors name and location- If no market has yet been secured, discuss the plan to secure such markets. Material Vendor Cycle Systems Inc. 2580 Broadway St. Roanoke, VA Newspaper Cycle Systems.Inc. 2580 Broadway St. Roanoke, VA Mixed Glass Cycle Systems Inc. 2580 Broadway St. Roanoke, VA Aluminum Cycle Systems Inc. 2580 Broadway St. Roanoke, VA Batteries Oil - Oakgrove Texaco 2001 Electric Ave. Roanoke, VA A Motor Used Middleton Gardens Exxon 1419 W. Main St. Salem, V 5. List the names of the staff members to be involved in the study an ensebe nnvolved ~me available to work on the study. How wul elected officials and citiz W. River Bonhotel - 107, Nancy Bailey - 25', Charles Paitsel - 107, Mike Goff - 407, and Richard Francisco - 40Z Roanoke County is in the process of citing a new landfill, as a result there is a great 'deal of public and political interest in recycling. The Board of Supervisors, as well.as~many citizen groups, are very committed to recycling. Requests by two civic organizations were responsible for the expansion of the Source Separation program. Staff plans to use civic organizations and the influence and leadership of the elected officials for promotion and education of the program. Staff feels that well organized civic groups will be most effective in promoting due to their "grass roots" origins. PROMOTION/EDUCATION PLAN Pre-Implementation TYPE UNITY PRINT COST PRESORT/POSTAGE 1000 $ 30.00 Intro Letters (W. of Salem) 2500 283.00 $334.00 Intro Brochures (W. of Salem) 1000 30.00 Letters - Adding Oil/Batteries (Castle Rock) Delivery with Containers TYPE 450.00 Litterbags (County Logo) * 1000 340.00 Bumper Stickers (County Logo) 1500 523.00 Brochure (Repeating Earlier Info) Recycled Paper Follow-Up (Delivery thru Civic League) TYPE 1500 209.00 Doorknocker (W. of Salem) Follow-Up (Mailings) TYPE 275.00 270.00 Postcards (W. of Salem & Castle Rock) 3000 4000 203.00 LABELS 2000 114.00 ENVELOPES $2,457.00 $604.00 TOTALS * If Litter Bags are custom designed they must be ordered in quantity of 3000. Standard design says something to the effect 'it's your County help keep it clean'. (Can order standard in any quantity) 6, Indicate the project budget for one year's operation. Capital Containers Equipment Other Total Capital Operational ~ 20.000 _ ~~' '' Modi~ication`'fo~' Collection $ 400 (specify bf~ used batte'ries' &:' mot)or~ oil_ ~ 400 (specify Identification for truck. ~ 600 (specify Milk Jugs for Motor Oil) $ (specify ) $ 2 Personnel (including fringes) Labor ~- Office, Rent, etc. Operating Agreements Market Development Othez Total Operating $ 11 676 00 _ ~ 15,819.00 ~ se ) S (P c~fY S (specify ) $ 5;077.00 (specify Vehicle Operatio~. ~ 3 061 00 (specify Promotion/Educat~on Source of Budget Figures - Source Se aration Program (' 87-' 88) Applications must be postmarked no later than July 15,1989. V"u-~nia Division of Energy Department of ~~ Minerals and Energy - Z'~01 West Broad Street - Ricamond, Vuginia 23220 Agreement'.`ED-09-036-903 Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals & Energy AGREEMEPI'T FOR SERVICES Scope of Services The County of Roanoke shall implement an expansion of their existing curbside recycling program to 900 additional homes, and the addition of used oil and battery collection to the entire 1,900 homes service area. The County of Roanoke shall: 1. Purchase and distribute residential recycling containers to 900 homes; 2. Purchase and distribute 1,900 mills jugs to add used oil collecticn to their collection service area; 3. Accept for recycling aluminum, glass, newspaper, used oil and used batteries; 4. i~iodify current collection vehicle for used oil/battery collection; 5. Implement public information program (mailers, media reports, etc.); 6. Provide collection services; and 7. I~arlcet collected material to available vendors. THE VIRGITIIA DEPARTMi'1T OF MI'.'IES, MINERALS AT1D ET3ERGY (DT-1NIE) SHALL PROVIDE MATCHIT?G FUPdDS FOR ITE'S AS SPECIFIED ITd THE APPP.OVED BUDGET HEREIPd IIICLUDED AS ATTACHMETIT ".~". Local cash matching funds 3ust not include those received from federal or state pro ;rams (such as the Virginia Litter Control Program). Matching funds must not be used tc emplo.% persons currently directing such supported programs. The Department of "taste '_•tanagement must revie~a and approve the siting of any recycling activities at a landfill. DT~ITIE reserves the ~r iv ilege of rev ie~oing drafts of all promotional material before use by 'ocaiit;'. Financial Agreements D~Ii~ shay reimburse the County of Roanoke up to $20,600.00, bur. r.o :core than 50 of the eligible costs as specified ir. the budget (Attach:nenr. npn) Payment shall be made to the County of Roanoke by D'°I'-YE upon receipt o i a paid invoice for the eligible costs. Payments ~re allooedreceirt~ofnt.he as monthly. Payments shall be made by DP~'I`'I>;' within 0 day P invoice. Time Frame Services ~>>ill begin upon contract execution, and shall be completed by June 30, 1990. Reporting and Monitoring The County of Roanoke shal'_ provide DTMT'IE with monthly reports for the duration of the project.. The County of Roanoke stall provide DT,i.~' :pith three (3) copies of the final report ;which shall include: 1. All activities of the projects; 2. Amount and type of materials recovered; 3. Plans for the continuation of the project. The County of P.oanoke shall provide DiL~~I a copy of its audit report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1990. During this contract period, DIl'~~' shall monitor on site the procurement gad financial records for this project. Subcontract Any subcontract entered into under this agreement shall fo1lo~.a the procedures for contracting as specified in the ~Iirgin~a Public Procurement Act. Compliance with Federal and State Rules and Regulations All activities r-.:nded b,r this agreement shall be performed by r_he County of Roanoite in co^pliance :pith all applicable state and federal solid waste disposal laws and regulations. „nenditures made and ser-rites o°rformed pursuant t.o this agree.~eat ' TJ Denart~ent of rner;~y I'inanc~al G 11 be made in accorcance :r_t" t=ie .,~. ~ D ,_ ~ d the li p ~ oG (10 C? ~ ^~^ 506) and 0'4B CI'.CLL (~~ 102, , ,.n Assistance u ~ -•- . _. ~ ^e~,eYal ^e~--1s and Conditions attached h~ra~n as Commons•lealth of `,i-.~-~-a s ~ - - . Attachment "B", and t~e Stevens amendment attached herein as Attachment "C" Debarment/Suspension The contractor hereby represents principals is presently debarred, declared ineligible or voluntarily transaction by any Federal department lr~er C. Hod e, Co. . d-ai nistrator County of P.oanolce, ~Tir~inia Z~ f9~" Date ROVED AS ~0 FORM J and certifies, that n`ither it r.or its suspended, proposed for debar:~ent, e.>cluded from participation in this or agency. p, Ce a ;,:,~~uer, Director Department of .Sines, '_'~inerals and ^ner~y $-3~- S~ late Project Budget I. Recycling Curbside $ 20,000 Containers (900) 2. Used Oil Recycling Jugs (1,900) $ 600 3. Collection Vehicle Alodifications $ X00 4. Personnel $ 11,676 5. Labor $ 15,819 6. Vehicle 0 ~ F~ $ 5,C77 7. Promotion $ 3,061 TOTAL ELIGIBLE BUDGET $ 57,033 ATTACHMENT B GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS-SERVICES: 1, VENDOR'S MANUAL: This solicitation is subject to the provisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia Vendor's Manual and any revisions thereto, which are hereby incorporated into this contract in their entirety except as amended or superseded herein. The appeals procedures set forth in Chapter 10 of the Vendor's Manual are not APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTUAL SERVICES. Z, MANDATORY USE OF STATE FORM AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS: Failure to submit a bid/proposal on the official state form provided for that purpose shall be a cause for rejection of the bid/proposal. Return of the complete document is required. Modification of or additions to any portion of the solicitation may be cause for rej ection of the bid/proposal; however, the Commonwealth reserves the right to decide, on a case by case basis, in its sole discretion, whether or not to reject such a bid/proposal as nonresponsive. 3, PRECEDENCE OF TERMS: Except for Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, and 14 of the General Terms and Conditions, which shall apply in all instances, in the event there is a conflict between the General Terms and Conditions and any Special Terms and Conditions used in a particular procurement, the Special Terms and Conditions shall apply. 4, CLARIFICATION OF TERMS: If any prospective bidder/offeror has questions about the specifications or other solicitation documents, the prospective bidder/offeror should contact the buyer whose name appears on the face of the solicitation, no later than five days before the opening date. Any revisions to the solicitation will be made only by addendum issued by the buyer. 5, TESTING/INSPECTION: The Commonwealth reserves the right to conduct any test/inspection it may deem advisable to assure supplies and services conform to the specif ications. 6, PAYMENT TERMS: Any payment terms requiring payment in less than 30 days will be regarded as requiring payment 30 days after invoice or delivery, whichever occurs last. How ever, this shall not affect offers of discounts for payment in less than 30 days. 7, INVOICES: Invoices for services ordered, delivered and accepted shall be submitted by the contractor direct to the payment address shown on the purchase order/contract. All invoices shall shave the state contract number and/or purchase order number. g, DEFAULT: In case of failure to deliver goods or services in accordance with the contract terms and conditions, the The contractor, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, will state that such contractor is an equal opportunity employer. Notices, advertisements and solicitations placed in accordance with federal law, rule or regulation shall be deemed sufficient for the purpose of meeting the requirements of this Section. B. The contractor will include the provisions of A. ab ove in every subcontract or purchase order of over $10,000, so that the provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. 13. DEBARMENT STATUS: By submitting their bids/proposals, all Bidders/offerors certify that they are not currently debarred from submitting bids/proposals on contracts by any agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia, nor are they an agent of any person or entity that is currently debarred from submitting bids/proposals on contracts by any agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 14. APPLICABLE LAW AND COURTS: Any contract resulting from this solicitation shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the Cc~monwealth of Virginia and any litigation with respect thereto shall be brought in the courts of the Commonwealth. The contractor shall comply with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. 15. QUALIFICATIONS OF BIDDERS/OFFERORS: The Commonwealth may make such reasonable investigations as deemed proper and necessary to determine the ability of the bidder/offeror to perform the work/furnish the item(s) and the bidder/offeror shall furnish to the Commonwealth all such information and data for this purpose as may be requested. The Commo~aealth reserves the right to inspect bidder's/offeror's physical plant prior to award to satisfy questions regarding the bidder's/offeror's capabilities. The Commonwealth further reserves the right to reject any bid/ proposal if the evidence submitted by, or inrvestigations of, such bidder/offeror fails to satisfy the Commonwealth that such bidder/offeror is properly qualified to carry out the obligations of the contract and to complete the work/furnish the item(s) contemplated therein. 16. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986: By signing this bid or proposal, the bidder/offeror certifies that it does not and will not during the performance of this contract violate the prow isions of the Federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which prohibits employment of illegal aliens. y - MAC~A~AZ.IE ~ :. ~`' ~ G~~G~R CANCIES IN 1989 Y.~•Bpx NSA 24pOZ ROANOKE,v~ 44.5531 ~~°3~ 3 MEM6ER °`tv\A y, ZLS ESENPTpIi pL ~1SRF1O'C Youth and Family vice Unit Advisory Council/ cervices Advlsory Board Two year term of Hoyt C. Rath, Vinton District, will expire 1/26/89. FEBRUARY Electoral Board - A ointed b the Courts Three year 2/28/89. MARCH /Youth and Famil! Two year terms of James L. Trout, Cave Spring District, Red R. Powell, Cave Spring District, and James K. Sanders, Windsor Hills District, will expire 3/22/89• term of Mrs. May Johnson will expire Court Service Unit Advisory Counci Services Advisory Board Lea ue of Older Americans One year term of Webb Johnson, County Representative, will expire 3/31/89. JUNE Board of Zonin A eals - A ointed b Jud e of Circuit Court Five Year term of Neil W. Owen will expire 6/30/89. Fifth Plannin District Commission Three year terms of Richard W. Robers, Fred Anderson and John Hubbard, Citizen Representative and Executive Committee will expire 6/30/89. Parks & Recreation Advisor Commission S ring District, Three year terms of Vince Joyce., Cave p Alice Gillespie, Hollins DisWilltexpiaeT6/30/89. Robertson, Vinton District, SEPTEMBER Court Service Unit oardsor Council/Youth and Famil Services Advisory B Youth Members from Cave Spring, William Byrd, Glenvar High and Northside High Schools to be appointed. Industrial Development Authority ear terms of Billy H. Branch, Cave Spring Four y ard, Vinton District will District, and W. Darnall Viny expire 9/26/89. Grievance Panel Two year term of Kim Owens will expire 9/27/89• NOVEMBER Health De artment Board of Directors Two year term of Susan Adcock will expires 11/26/89. DECEMBER Library Board Four year term of RichaMd•KKirkwood resignedDl2/88ct, will expire 12/21/89 Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valle , Communit Services Board Three year term of Sue Ivey, County appointee, will expire 12/31/89. Roanoke Count Plannin Commission Four year term of 89yland Winstead, Catawba District, will expire 12/31/ . Roanoke County Resource Authority Initial terms of Lee Garrett, Bob L.1989nson and Henry C. Nickens will expire December 31, Re Tonal Partnershi Site Advisor Committee Three year term of Charles Saul will expire 12/21/89• O~ ROANO,Y~G a p ~ ~ c~ z o z a `a 18 150 ~1 88 SFSQUICENTENN`P~ A Beautiful Beginning Cnount~ of ~ottnok~e FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT T C. FUQUA CHEF M E M O R A N D U M TO• Elmer Hodge, County Administrator FROM: Chief ~ Fuqua DATE: July 21,~ 1989 SUBJECT: Bonsack Fire and Rescue Operation Attached is a matrix comparing theli~st v Thebmatrixrlooks tat nthe the Bonsack Fire and Rescue face y following concepts: 1, Career/Volunteer Roanoke County only costing $199,000 annually. 2, Career/Volunteer Roanoke Counti00n500 Roanoke City jointly costing $ annually per locality. 3. Fully career Roanokg C265t162nannuallye City jointly costin $ per locality. The most viable option is concept #2. Director of Safety and I also met with Mr. Chip S this'afternoon. I asked for his Administration for Roathis concept. He agreed and asked that I support in exploring contact Chief Quarles to meet on this matter. ps Attachment 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, NW. ROANOKE. VA 24019 (703) 561-8070 be ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ a a rn o a ~ r -,, ~, ~ r` p y y T ~ ~ y ~ ~ ti o ~ ~ ~ ~ o, '1 ~ ~ ~ ~1 G I~ 0 0 a a N'~ s .'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti ~ o ~ ~0 ~ 1 ~~ \ 0 0 o O ~ O h o 0 0 0 10 0 0 Q ~; :; 0 N ~t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~, 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ z 3 Z ~ m ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~' 3 ~ ~ Z i Z ~ O \ ~ o ~ ~'~ ~ (,~i~ ~ o N~ i ~ ° ~ ~ ~. o Q o ~0 0~ o~ t o ~ C ~ ° 0 0 o a o 0 0 o a ~ o~ ~° b .~ r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~•~ N ~ o 0 0 o p o ~ o O T C e o 0 0 ~ o o y ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~° 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ O O O 0 0 0 ° p O O m' ~~I ~ 0 0 Z 6~ 0 0 ~I ~ ICI ~ \l~ 04 ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ o f o Io l 0 0 o I o ~ ° °' `~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ w u` ~ ~ o ~ o ~ \~ ~, 0 0 ~ (A ~ o o ~ o W O 0 ~ 0 w O 0 0 ~~ c'7o ~ N -~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0 o p a p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 p p O O 0 N~ w~ ~~ N ~ o ~ 0 0 ~ 0 o y p Q o ~ RTT!'`uANAN LANDFILL, INC. P.O. Box 179 Tazewell, Virginia 24651 (703) 988-7921 FAX (703) 988-7924 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Description of Project and Services I B. Preliminary Project Schedule 3 C. List of Consultants Serving Buchanan Landfill, Inc. 4 D. Vicinity Map 5 6 E. Location Map P.O. Box 179 Tazewell, Virginia 24651 BUCHANAN LANDFILL, INC. FAX (703) 988-7924 (703) 988-7921 A REGIONAL CONCEPT IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Description of Project and Services Regulatory Change In December 1988 the Commonwealth of Virginia passed solid waste management regulations that will impact every locality throughout the state by 1992. While these regulations emphasize greater protection of the environment and natural resources, the cost of compliance will present a serious financial burden to many localities. Full Service Solution Buchanan Landfill Incorporated (BLI), a privately owned corporation, plans to design, construct, and operate a 2,000 acre regional landfill site, in northeast Buchanan County, Virginia. The Regional Landfill is viewed as a solution to solid waste disposal problems for many localities throughout southwestern Virginia who have landfills near capacity or will be required to meet the new solid waste regulations with their existing facilities. BLI also plans to incorporate energy recovery and recycling through design and construction of a methane gas recovery system and transfer/recycling stations. Landfill design will incorporate multiple liners, groundwater monitoring, and leachate collection systems -- all requirements under the new regulations. The project is planned and designed to accept only waste from participating Virginia localities. Participation BLI has the resources in place to individually assist prospective localities with an assessment of future solid waste disposal needs. We recognize the importance of keeping your budgetary requirements in focus. That is why we will develop a plan that provides you the assurance of sound solid waste management while complying with Virginia's new solid waste regulations and recycling mandates. 1 BUCHANAN LANDFILL, INC. Transfer Stations P.O. Box 179 Tazewell, Virginia 24651 (703) 988-7921 FAX (703) 988-?924 BLI plans to incorporate transfer stations and transportation costs for solid waste going t in Buchanan County. Participating localities m design, construct, or operate a facility. Any options are available. Recycling as away to decrease collection o the Regional Landfill located ay choose to have BLI site and combination or all of these Because Virginia localities are now required guidelines, BLI can assist by providing recycling which will be located at transfer stations, may be depending on the size of the transfer station. Energy Recovery to meet mandated recycling centers. These facilities, manual or fully automated, A state-of-the-art methane gas recovery system will be installed on site as landfilling progresses. The gas collected will be cleaned for marketing andJor used to generate electricity on site. Solid Waste Disposal Buchanan Regional Landfill will be designed and constructed to ensure an environmentally safe and sound facility exists for disposal of non-hazardous commercial and municipal solid waste. Site design will include multiple liners, leak detection, leachate collection and groundwater monitoring. The project will enhance the environment by upgrading both the esthetic appearance and usefulness of the land. Recyclable materials will be removed from the waste stream prior to landfilling. 2 BUCHANAN LA1vDFILL, INC. P.O. Box 179 Tazewell, Virginia 24651 (703) 988-7921 FAX (703) 988-7924 BUCHANAN LANDFILL INCORPORATED PRELIMINARY PROJECT SCHEDULE Task Date Submit Letter of Intent to DWM 6/01/89 Complete Feasibility Report 9/01/89 Submit Part A Permit Application 10/02/89 Receive Comments to Part A Application 10/18/89 Respond to Comments for Part A Application 11/01/89 DWM Approval of Part A Application 12/01/89 Proceed with Aerial Mapping of Site 12/04/89 Complete Site Mapping 1/01/90 Proceed with Part B Permit Application 1/01/90 Submit Part B Permit Application 7/01/90 Submit Additional Requirements for Part B 8/01/90 Receive Technical Review Comments from DWM 9/01/90 Resubmit Part B in Response to DWM Technical Review 10/01/90 Receive DWM Recommendation for Draft Permit 11/01/90 Public Hearing Advertisement & Comment Period 11/01/90 to 12/01/90 Receive Permit to Construct 1/01/91 Advertise for Bids 1/01/91 Begin Construction 2/01/91 Begin Landfill Operations 6/01/91 3 BUCHANAN LANDFILL, INC. P.O. Bo:c i 79 Tazewell, Virginia 24651 (703) 988-7921 FAX (703) 988-7924 LIST OF CONSULTANTS SERVING BUCHANAN LANDFILL, INC. THOMPSON & LITTON, INC. Responsibilities: Feasibility study OLVER, INC. Responsibilities: Part A Application Surveying SCHNABEL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Responsibilities: Geotechnical Study Hydrogeological Study CAMP, DRESSER, & McKEE, INC. Responsibilities: Recyclable Materials Recovery Energy Recovery 4 a, r- 3a~5uHC ~~. ~ ' 1 ~~~ . ~ 1 Fn.. / ~~<^ 8~pi° ~~ ~- l a^S 71 ~T }: i ~ 7~~~ ~, 1 //~~ ~ I ~~ ~ 697 ~~ ~~ .~ e. N ~.IS ~ ~1 ~ r' i ~1 1 FI F {/i / "~. 16941 ro ~1, KNu ~`~ W~'~ ~ ~ ~. i 3 i I ~ e~ ' 643 \\ i uo s 643 ~~ / 643 1~ (G•~ ~o~ / v ter; .~0 4 ~\ 1 ~ `~ i %~u+ Pawww Fps C' a ~~ i ~ ao ~ / M ~Q.J / 676 ' ~ 1643\ f ~ '~ 1 Hu.ler ~ ~~ 647, 6.~ g~ 645 z~ ~ .b J y~R-~~_--f~-ti~\yy ~~~ / 8 N//fir .~ ~~z% G~~4 ~s~ ~, LL ~~ ' 643 849 i z.ao ~~ ~ ~ i~ of 644 .~~~P+ '1 i-Lrd ? ( s~ zip - ~v¢ 646 650 ~ ~ .~ \ ~ 9 6,"enbrier er 1 Fo ~N~ ~ ' M.nrs ~ Be1~~ll°+'' n Hp'~1a~ Br ~r~ `-l Q' Fort 67011 r 0 '~ ~- ~~ F~ ~~,n•, F ~~ ,~ ,\ ~~ E/ ~ ~ °° ¢' J'r/ - c as ^. /~ ~, Fg (1 651 J \LL z o0 \ r 706 "a,ll a' PROPOSED ~ a Y 643.. ~ LANDFILL , ~ it 652 0 `_ ~ /~ SITE o 9lackeY ~ v 5 t Fo ~~ C~. ~~ ~ X55 ~ ,"`- - "-~-i- - - ~ - y .o~ ' ~ ~? r ~~~~ C~,yNoFlh Gr~n~dy iDisl ~~----- ---,e e~ `~ ~I i `Y ~~ 0 677 M ~ ~ 701 643. Yr/~4' ~ ,~ \ ~\ ~~ ;" m 642 J 3 'd ~ w° ~ o ~ '~~ e ` F v/i ak ~/ ~1 ,~I~~ ~ r ~ ~~ 0/ Y4. i ~8/ ~ ~ 0/ e ~ / B 1 '9xvr ~ y,w~ 3/ ; 4656 ,i m(n ~~T1674_/ ~ '~.B `Ja: P ~o Y, / ~ 0~ ~ ,,~! j s \ v ~_~ l\ M I 716 s„~r e~` ~ e / 83 ~ ~~ ~ , i o c., i~ ~ ~ ml ~~ ~~~ Fr° r P~ 'V ~~~ ~e~ m ~~8 t / v 685 /Fo` t ~~ ~.L_ 717 4 c / ,~, ~ ado / w o ~T t :' o\ :. 's 1 LJ 728 ~ / '/" ~~ `° F°' F ~ qtr ~. .. `. ,n _ ._j e't °q ~~ ~ ~ J a~ X11 1 I '. .-i 686 ~ / q I ~ i/ i ~ ~.".'.~...~.~:~.~.j ~. ..- .~hrt~~ 0, ~ +p r~~5 m\~~ e \ 678 ~ 1`~ ~, /,f ~ 1 F.:~?}' .~ ~ _CiRUNDV." 1 C~ of /~,~ `1 a1 ,i ak° \'!, ~~,/i ~5~'~ 5~~ ei F e ~' ;.:I\\~ 1------- 2/ \ Y 3J ran..wn zjo /e `~ 7 6/~ OiO~- and - > -~ ~~ I i1~~'' o ~~ ~ '615 Three 1 ~ ,y 1~ P r~ ~ . ~ ~ I ~~~ ' e, ~ E__~_ 460 ...~--I 1 hrn s~ m_ %pD 0 636 i ~ 4 ,.io / San °P - ~~ / ~.~~~ TOOkbnd .~5~~_~_~_J q a`~ 638 a°~~ ``.v ~(y 638 ,~ !i ~po/ '~ ~ ~1Y rr ap g~i 775 0/ 1f ,,i 4~ ./t\r _ ~-~'`~// 2~° ~.n °a%!' n l/i~ - 1 a VICINITY MAP m J PREPARED FOR > THOMPSON &~ LITTON,INC. BUCHANAN LANDFILL INC. o ENGINEERS ^ARCHITECTS~PLANNERS ~ Z WISE, VIRGINIA Y PROJECT NO DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY CAL DATE SHEET 4307 E• S` ~ • 1"= 2 MILES AUG. 1989 5 of 6 AF 34530AB w ~' 6` ~_ i ~ ~N~ - l ~~ ~ r m ~_ \ ~ ~ I ~ ,, i i -- _ - ~ ~ ~ / ,~ _ ,. _, ~~~ m~ % i i L ~ i ti ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 1 ~"~ _ ~~ D ~\~ _ \I\~~/ 11 \\\ ~ ~` \ ~ .~ ~ _ _ ~ ,- to ~ \\~ / ~ ~~ ~ _ i _ 1 ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~~~ .- ~ ~, .ice ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ xi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~ z __~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~_ _/ ~~ i ~ _ i ~~i i A ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ - ~/ ~ ;' ~~ .emu ~~ ~ ~ ~ ¢ ~ ~, _ ~ ~. - ~ ~ _ ~ I ' -.~' ;`~;~~ ~~ ~; ~`~ ~ \APPRQ~C~.~ Pf~PERTY BOUNQARY;~\\ ~ ;'' ~ ~ -, \ _ `~ \ ~ ~~ \ .o _ ~~ ~_. ~ ` _ / ~ ~ a~ ~.,.. u v D ~- ~ ~~~ ~. ~ ~ °~ ~~ i 1 ~ ,- ,-_ ,_ ~ ~~r_ -- x - ~~~"~~ ~ / c / / /~ ~ /~1. o ~ - - __ 1 j.~. ,- !~; ~ ~ <n ~ ~ ~ i ~' ~ r~ ~\ ~~ ~~_. ~ ~' ;_` ~ ~~ n ~~ i -., , ~ ng .. ~' ~ ~~ ~, CrO~,~ , ~ ~ % ~ __% _, _~ _ ~ _ ~~ ~ ~ ' ~ - , _ off. ~¢~„~ , ~ ~ ~ ' ~` -% i ~ ~;. `~ ~ ~ ~,. ~, ~~, - -- ~ ~~ ~- T ' ~ ~ . ~ _ A ~ %~ ~ -?j ~ ~ i ~ ~. _ _ , ~ ~' _ ~ y ~ I~i~ ~~_, ~ l~ - ,~/ ~~ ,., I~ ~ti' ~ ~ _ ~ ,__ m LOCATION MAP W J J X THOMPSON ~ LITTON, INC. PREPARED FOR o ENGINEERS~ARCHITECTS~PLANNERS BUCHANAN LANDFILL, INC. Y WISE, VIRGINIA PROJECT NO DESIGNED dY DRAWN BY SCALE DATE SHEET 8 4307 E. S, B. 1"-2000' AUG. 1989 ~ ~F BUCHANAN LANDFILL, INC. P.O. Box 179 Tazewell, Virginia 24651 (703) 988-7921 FAX (703) 988-7924 Mr. John Hubbard Assistant County County of Roanoke Engineering Dept. P.0. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Hubbard: August 7, 1989 RE: Buchanan Regional Landfill Buchanan Landfill, Inc. (BLI) wishes to express our sincere appreciation for the opportunity to familiarize Roanoke County with our complete waste management system. Owned locally, and in a cooperative effort with Buchanan County, our company has developed what we believe to be a regional solution to Southwest Virginia's solid waste disposal dilemma by offering a turn-key option to comply with the new EPA subtitle and State of Virginia regulations. Simply stated, by signing a contract with BLI, compliance as it relates to recycling and disposal wi 11 be met i n accordance with State guidelines without the burden of siting, designing, financing, constructing, and operating those facilities. Furthermore, the liability of owning and operating such a facility would cease for Roanoke County because BLI provides all the necessary bonds and insurance as required by the State. BLI is incorporating into the Buchanan Regional Landfill state of the art technology including a methane recovery system insuring environmental safety. In many instances, our system actually exceeds State requirements for permitting. This is made economically feasible by our regional concept. High volumes allow an environmentally safe disposal operation at affordable rates. Our neighbor helping neighbor approach will provide security to our localities well into the 21st century. We hope that Roanoke County and the City of Roanoke will join in Administrator 24018-0798 Mr. John Hubbard Assistant County Administrator RE: Buchanan Regional Landfill August 7, 1989 Page 2 our private/public partnership with Buchanan County in an effort toward this long term solution. Best regards, BUCHANAN LANDFILL, INC. James C. Thompson President JCT/tn ROANOKE COUNTY RESOURCE AUTHORITY SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 AGENDA A. OPENING CEREMONIES 1. Roll Call B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. July 25, 1989 C, APPOINTMENT OF LEGAL COUNSEL 1. Paul M. Mahoney p. PRESENTATION BY BUCHANAN LANDFILL, INC. E. LANDFILL UPDATE F. EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO CODE OF VIRGI7IAto consult with to consider acquisition of real property; ( ) legal counsel pertaining to specific legal matter requiring provision of legal advice by counsel - User Agreement G. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION H. REVIEW OF DRAFT USER AGREEMENT I. ACCEPTANCE OF OPTIONS 1. Zamorski Option 2. Webb Option 3, Boitnott Option J , ADJOURNMENT ~~ ROANOKE COUNTY RESOURCE AUTHORITY MINUTES OF ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING JULY 25, 1989 ~.....1-.orc prPCPT1t : ~1r 1lLJGt.~ --- Lee Garrett Bob L. Johnson Steven A. McGraw Harry C. Nickens Richard W. Robers Roanoke County Staff Present: Elmer C. Hodge Paul M. Mahoney Mary H. Allen Diane Hyatt Anne Marie Fedder John Hubbard Brenda Holton OPENING CEREMONIES Mr. Johnson nominated Elmer Hodge to serve The motion was seconded by Mr. McGraw and voice vote. The roll call was taken present. as Temporary Chairman carried by a unanimous and all members were ELECTIONS Mr. Hodge opened the floor for nominations. Mr. Garrett nominated Harry C. Nickens to serve as Chairman and Bob L. Johnson to serve as Vic s Ca e relectedll The motion nwasl seconded or until their successo by Mr. Johnson. Tnimous voice vote er nominations and the motion was carried by a una RLzT ES OF ORDER Mr . Johnson moved that Robeon' be uadopted o aserthe e pa d amen tary to the proposed resolut Mr. Garrett procedures for meetings. The motion was seconded by and carried up a unanimous voice vote. APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS Dr. Nickens opened the floor for appointment of officers of the Roanoke County Resource Authority. Mr. Garrett moved that Mary ointed Secretary, Diane Hyatt be appointed Treasurer Allen be aPP ointed Chief Executive Officer as and Elmer Hodge be roposed resolution. The motion was recommended in the p P seconded by Mr. McGraw and carried by a unanimous voice vote. ESTABLISHMENT OF FINANCIAL POLICIES recommended that the First Virginia Bank or any bank Mr. Mahoney Roanoke County be designated as the used in the future by Diane Hyatt presented depository for all funds of the Authority. recommending two the procedures that would be followed, _ si natures for any financial transaction•fficer Wathe eTreasurer 9 that the two include the Chief Executive of the Resource Authority r n eitherh ther Chairman or oVicee Chairman Mr. Garrett asked whethe should also be a co-signer. followshoney advised that this policy is the same as Roanoke County Mr. Garrett moved that the ds s ands thata the kAubthori ty nused the the depository for all fu signature procedures as reMrmmMc~rawlandhcarriedsby aeunanimous The motion was seconded by voice vote. ESTABLISHMENT OF MEETING DATES The proposed resolution had s~mov d tthath the Tresolution abe ken month at 7 p.m. Dr. Nic be s g meeti h d a Tu b e d e carried and revised, and that t rvisor Johnson Supe econd Y p,m, The motion was s by a unanimous voice vote. re adopted by Resolution RA89-1 following the The above actions we votes on each individual item. OMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT POLICIES Dr. Nickens advised that he felt to it was not a dethatYthe t h compensate members of uld beothee h Roanoke County, as same o s reimbursement policy travel and expenses The other members only. covering necessary concurred. REVIEW OF DRAFT iJSER AGREEMENT of the draft user Mr. Mahoney reported that he had sent a copy agreement to the County' skedntdhat uthis item be cont nuedhto the received responses. He a next meeting. __ 2 Mr. Mahoney advised that on July 11, 1989 the Board of Supervisors authorized an option for the purchase of land owned by Mary E. Moore and located adjacent to the proposed Smith Gap landfill site. Hercee Authort y and recommendedlapprovall ofba assigned to the Resou resolution assigning this option to the Authority. Mr. Johnson moved that the proposed resolution t~BResou ce adopted transferring the option to the Roanoke County Authority. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garrett and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Garrett, Mr. Johnson, Dr. Nickens, Mr. Robers NAYS: Mr. McGraw OTHER BUSINESS Dr. Nickens suggested that Mr. Mahoney counsel to the Resource Authority. Mr. would prepare the necessary document approved at the next meeting. Mr. Mahoney advised that he AUgust and recommended that 12th at 7 p.m. At that agreement to the members. meeting will be September 12, be officially named legal Mahoney responded that he for his appointment to be did not see a need for a meeting in the next meeting be set for September time he would bring the draft user The members agreed and the next 1989 at 7 p.m. ADJOURNMENT At 8:30 p.m., Mr. McGraw moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded xbymeetingohw 11 be dSeptember b 2,a 1989n at u7 voice vote. The ne p.m. Respectfully submitted: Mary H. Allen, Secretary Roanoke County Resource Authority 3 G-/ " ~ ROANOKE COUNTY RESOURCE AUTHORITY Meeting Date: September 12, 1989 R E P O R T Appointment of Legal Counsel On July 25, 1989, the Authority met and appointed certain officers to assist the Authority in the performance of its duties and responsibilities. At that time the Authority discussed the appointment of legal counsel. The Chairman directed that a report be prepared for this meeting of the Authority appointing Paul M. Mahoney, Esquire, as Legal Counsel for the Roanoke County Resource Authority. It is recommended that Paul M. Mahoney, Esquire, be appointed Legal Counsel for the Roanoke County Resource Authority. ROANOKE COUNTY RESOURCE AUTHORITY Meeting Date: September 12, 1989 REPORT Proposed Regional Landfill for Southwest Virginia Buchanan Landfill, Inc. has developed a project that will provide landfill waste disposal service to Southwest Virginia localities. Representatives will discuss with the Resource Authority the proposed plan and how it may provide an option for the Roanoke Valley's waste disposal efforts. Attached is preliminary data provided by Buchanan Landfill, Inc. for your information. ROANOKE COUN'T'Y RESOURCE AUTHORITY Meeting Date: September 12, 1989 REPORT Landfill Update Part A Avvlications On August 8, 1989, Part A applications were made to the Virginia Department of Waste Management fo sthuie Po f Phe s tes andi at d both are Chapel and Smith Gap sites. The to g suitable sites for landfills. The Boones Chape°i tithe ate°uBoth s tes were groundwater, as expected, but will not rule uestion found to have adequate cover for daily operations which was a q previously. The Department of Waste M d age onsidered complet ofor review. that the applications were received a No date could be obtained for final comments by the Department of Waste Management. Seismic Testine Seismic testing has been completed on both sites and resulted in no abnormalities on either location. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY RESOURCE AUTHORITY HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 RESOLUTION CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE~OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Resource Authority has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Roanoke County Resource Authority that such executive meeting were conducted in conformity with Virginia Law. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Resource Authority hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, X ,~~ discussed or considered by the Roanoke County Resource Authority.