Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/15/1989 - Regular~ a A N KF ALL-A;ER.CA dt ~ 9 Ir' 1 ~ ~n~~~e ~ ,~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~a ~~ as ~.9•g •q sESOU1CENIENN~'~ .A Braur~~u~8tginning ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA NOVEMBER 15, 1989 Welcome to the Roanoke County Board-of Supervisors meeting. Re lar meetings are held on the lncsnwillebeaheard ate7s00rphm ~ m. Public Hear g Tuesday at 3:00 p. on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P•M.) 1. Roll Call (3:02 p.m.) BOB JOHNSON ABSENT 2. Invocation: John Chambliss Assistant County Administrator 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. g, REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS. ECH ADDED: ITEM D-5a: REPORT ON BONSACK FIRE STATION ITEM D-5b: REPORT ON POLICE DEPARTMENT IMPLEMENTATION DS C, PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWAR 1, -Proclamation declaring the week of November 12 - lg~ 1989 as American Education Week. LG/SAM - URC WITH BLJ ABSENT DR. WILSON, FRANK THOMAS, SHELBY THOMASON, RCEA RECEIVED 2, Resolution of Appreciationaftermathlof Hurricanend for assistance during the Hugo. R-111589-1 RECEIVED BY GARDNER SMITH WHO WILL SEND TO RICHMON LG/HCN TO ADOPT URC WITH BLJ ABSENT p. NEW BUSINESS 1, Resolution of Support for the Public Policy Platform of the Virginia Coalition for the Aging and requests for state funding. URC 2. Yearly Report from the Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley. R-111589-2 SUSAN WILLIAMS AND PRENTISS WEBB LOA WERE PRESENT HCN/SAM TO ADOPT RESO WITH BLJ ABSENT PRESENTED BY RITA GLINDIFILE COUNTY ppOINTEE FROM MHSRV HCN/SAM TO RECEIVE AN URC WITH BLJ ABSENT 3. Authorization to provide employee dental plan. insurance A-111589-3 SAM/LG TO APPROVE ALT.#1 DELTA DENTAL PLAN URC WITH BLJ ABSENT 4, Resolution regarding the Roanoke County Resource Authority Landfill Financing. HCN/SAM TO ADOPT RESO URC WITH BLJ ABSENT 5A. REPORT ON BONSACK FIRE STATION ECH TO BRING BACK DEFINITE DECISION ON 12/19/89 5B, REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT PRESENTED BY ECH E. REQUEST FOR WORK SESSIONS F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 2 G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Community Corrections Resources Board 2. Health Department Board of Directors 3. Industrial Development Authority 4. Library Board 5. Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley Community Services Board. RR NOMINATED REAPPOINTMENT OF SUE IVY 6. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 7. Regional Partnership Site Advisory Committee g. Roanoke County Resource Authority 9. Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board J. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS ROBERS (1) REPORTED ON PROGRESS ON THE PROPOSED "SMART HIGHWAY2 - UPDATED BOARD ON MEETINGS WITH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; ( ) MET WITH RANDALL EDWARDS, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY ABOUT HAVING BUSINESS PEOPLE FROM NORTHERN VA. COME TO THE ROANORE VALLEY. MCGRAW HIGHLIGHTED EVENTS AT THE VACO CONFERENCE ON NOV. 12-14. ALSO ANNOUNCED THE DISASSOCIATION OF VACO FROM THE VIRGINIA REVIEW MAGAZINE. 3 GAItRETT CONGRATULATED STEVE MCGRAW ON .BEING ELECTED PRESIDENT- EL CTE OF VACo. K. CONSENT AGENDA R-111589-5 HCN REQUESTED ITEM K-6 BE REMOVED FOR HCN/SAM TO APPROVE WITHOUT ITEM K-6 URC WITH BLJ~ABSEN~ 1, Approval of Minutes - February 28, 1989, March 14, 1989, March 28, 1989, April 11, 1989, April 25, 1989. DISCUSSION . ~~ ALL MATTERS LISTEDBUONADRDRTOHBECROUTINEAANDDWI~EBE CONSIDERED BY THE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FTH~AT ITEM ILLIBEE BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Industrial Development Authority and the Planning Commission. A-111589-5.a 3. Request for accepttment ofWTransportationurt into the Virginia Depar Secondary System. R-111589-5.b 4, Request for acceptances Deoartmenteofof Stonewood Drive into the Virgins pstem. Transportation Secondary Sy R-111589-5.c 5. Authorization to appropriate capital funds for the Green Hill Park Improvements. A-111589-5.d 6. Authorization to execute a contracstem,establish an integrated automated library sy REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA SAM/LG TO DELAY TO EITHEREIRIINFORMp,TION9 TO ,LOW STAFF TO STUDY AND GATHER FURTH URC WITH BLJ ABSENT 4 I,, CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS JOYCE MORRIS, 1602 SALEM AVENUE ASKEDpR NG CORNERS.COPRESENTEDGA BACR THE VALLEY METRO ROUTE TO CAVE S PETITION FROM CITIZENS WHO USED THAT ROUTE. ~ALIrEX :.kl~T.RaA,..T,p,,;D.~.SfG:;~ ,.S~I~~:,G~..:;~PQR~ ~::;: . . . . ,. ON~. ~ 12 I19 . M. REPORTS HCN/SAM TO RECEIVE AND FILE UW WITH BLJ ABSENT 1. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 2, General Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund N. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 NONE O. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION NONE p, ADJOURNMENT HCN/SAM AT 4:35 P.M. jJW WITH BLJ ABSENT 5 aN ~. ~ 9 2 ~Zp 18 ~ SS $~sQUICENTENN~'~ A Beauti(ulBcginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C.HODGE 1(ZpUttty Of }~. DFIriDJiP November 17, 1989 Mr. Billy H. Branch 3604 Penn Forest Boulevard Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Mr. Branch: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A.MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ervisors have asked me to express on their behalf The Board of Sup our previous service to the their sincere appreciation for y Citizens so responsive to the Industrial Development Autandl willing to give of themselves and needs of their community their time are indeed all too scarce. November held on Wednesday, Dint This is to advise that at tervisors voted unanimously to reapp 15, 1989, the Board of Sup ou as a member of the Industrial Done Sept eber t26 r1993 or a our- y Your term will expire year term. ointed ted aPP State law provides that any person to any body be furnished a copy of your 1989 copy is enclosed. We ar 1989 Conflict of Interest Act. elected, re-elec , the Freedom of ouf a oPy of the e also sending y ecessary that you take an oath of off This a oath tmustlebe It is n Circuit Court of the Roanoke Coun our participation on this Committas•soon aas administered ~riOr to Y Clerk, at 398-6208, phone Mrs. Elizabeth W. Stokes, possible and arrange to have the oath administered. County, On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizen re iat°, on°k for your please accept our sincere thanks and app willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely, ..~ _ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors MHA/bj h Enclosures Clerk of Circuit Court cc: Mrs. Elie bala,SSecretary, IDA Timothy _ ,_ ._ _. P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-20 ,... ,~,.,~.-_nR .. _ ~ _,-.~._.. ._ _ __- .' 1 3 ;., ~... ~ _ S~ ~~ ~-~ _ C~ ~~_. _ -~_ _, / 'f ~ , J r .. y y ~, ~i ._ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ "~ -- --- ~, ' ~ _ (~~t ~ ~, y CL . ~~ ~Jr,_ ~~~., ~_. ~ .~~ ~~ f /~~~ ,~ 1 ~L, ~_ ,_~ ,_ of OLDER AMERICANS ~ 1 706 CAMPBELL AVENUE, S. W. P.O. BOX 14205 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24038 TELEPHONE (703) 345.0451 October 26, 1989 Lee Garrett, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 4501 Steele Road, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Mr. Garrett: The Virginia Department for the Aging has submitted a budget addendum to the Governor's staff for an appropriation of $22.6 million for community based services designed to prevent or slow institutionalization of the frail elderly in the Commonwealth. This is the top priority of the enclosed 1990-1992 Virginia Coalition for the Aging Public Policy Platform. We are asking the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to endorse the Platform by resolution and forward a copy of the resolution to our local legislators. Included for your review is a copy of the resolution passed by the League of Older Americans Board of Directors on October 23, 1989. On behalf of the LOA, I would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation for the support the Supervisors have servinguandgenhancinghtheadignitytandrindependencelof Bolder pre- persons in our community. Sincerely, GL Susan B. Williams Executive Director les/ Enclosures 2 cc: Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. County Administrator AREA AGENCY ON AGING SERVING V113GINIA'S FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT Virginia Coalition for the Aging Public Policy Platform 1990-1992 The Virginia Coalition for the Aging he ur ose of the Coalition is to enhance the lives of elderly perso-~he~Genz ~~ l~As h~ T p p Coalition shall develop and implement a plan of advoc ~ b dies at thetlo a-l,tstate, and federal sembly, to other appropriate regulatory and governmen levels and to the private and voluntary sectors. Member groups shall work collectively on matters mutually agr~~ ~~ Coy-1 C on pose--v~ ing the right to pursue independently any matter(s~ °enp t ves of member groups. The member- tions are determined by a majority vote of the -ep ' 'n does not imply agreement of each member with all positions in the public policy ship lists g platform. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES: The Vir inia Coalition for the Aging endorses the following three principeeivs we 1 f r he aged: g adopted to assist in guiding policymakers m developing and evaluat-ng 1. MAINTAINING AND ENHANCING INDEPENDENCE.... the best interest of the aging and in order to prevent future expenditur anon of exantb g pl"°- ,~ avoided, the Commonwealth of Virginia should contribute to the cont-nu d the establishing of new programs which assist the aging to maintain high levels of grams an functioning in their homes and communities. 2. PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO REMAIN AT HOME..-• entio^ should be given to providing the number of services necessary~~~upl~~ew-~l~an~~~-~~es. Att ance of good yuality of service to permit aged and infirm persons to rem 3. PROVIDING ADEQUATE CARE AWAY FROM HOME.... - -ran ements and care should be provided in the aged person's home ~~ ~is adectuat lfor L-v-ng a- g possible and should be at a level compatible with standards generally accept good care. fit) 1980-1~9~ .. r the A ing legislative ~Platforrn Coalition fo ~ GOAL: TO ASS URE THAT OLDER VIRGINIANS AND TH TO CO.ST- GIVERS, WHERE APPROPRIATE, HAV SERVICES NECESSARY EFFECTIVE, AFFORDABLE, AND QUALITY TO AVOID INAPPROPRIATE INSTIT UTIONALIZATION AND TO BE AS INDEPENDENT AS POSSIBLE. 85 years and older, will iicrease by 32°l0 RATIONALE: Statistics indicate that the size of the older age groups, m 1989 to the year 2000. While fimctional disabilities may occur at any age, the probability of needing assist~uice fto increases with advanced age. 4 National Health Interview Survey shows that approximately ~~%onal care6a tivitizsf Tl e acdtivoities The 198 who were living in the cotrununity had difficulty u1 performing selected pers were bathing, dressing, eating, transferring, walking, getting outside ~unific~u tljgwT~1 age.Where only reviewed non-institutionalized population experienc'6~n~ ~ ~~fi~~~ ~ ~WS hilmost~half (4y 10) of those 85 ye~u~s of age :ui~l oldc,r l5% of those between the ages of 65 and P experienced difficulty. while 23%ex erienceddifficultyperforniiligpersonalcareactivit~es,othese)a~ctivities~~Thisincreasectficm~ Yet P population age 65 and over actu~aloy1bc u 31% fp those,age 851a itabove ut about 6°~o for those age 65 to 6 surve showed that approxinatelyone-fourth of persons age 65 and abovep~~i ~~%sOf perpsotbiseage The same y with heavy housework. In addition, l l% experienced difficulty in ~nanagtng money meals sho ing, managing 65 and over had difficulty with at least one home in the ~aseeof personal care aaetiv~ties, the rat p of those having money, using the telephone, doing housework). As 55 2°I> It increased directly with advancing age from about 18°~0 of those aged 65 to 69 to well over half (_ _ . ) cltffrcu y of those 85 and over. cted demo raphic profile of Virginia's increased older age groups i asignoiftr ~~ tly°as essinglneed,5~u~d The probe g action to assure that a workable, cost-effectneeds wrthintt e rangetof apail bletp Pblic and private resources• providing access to services to meet those e basic bud et for Medicaid is expected to exceed $1 B illion for the 199 of $8 bmillion~ sir w a 231Ini ~cr ase Th g which include utilization and iiflation co else in an e ght yea period. Part of this tremendous increase is due to the fur the coming biennium and a 144% u~ increased participation rate now required by the Federal Government for V irginia. f~ etor for establishing and maintainiig essential c~u-e in a commu~iviylualsc~u-en home setting, where A key a appropriate, is the COST SAVINGS FOR THE COMMONWEALTH for tnc X990-199z ,Virginia Coalition for the Aging The following priorities are adopted as objectives in meeting the overall goal: PRIORITY 1 LONG TERM CARE SXSTEM: ESTABLISH, in areas where a complete system does not exist, and MAINTAIN a coordinated, adequately funded, and comprehensive Long-Term Care System. This system should provide for easily located, affordable and appropriately utilized needed services with eil~phasis on corrnnuniry based in-home services which includes Adult Day Care and Respite Care. • ADOPT a statewide uniform assessment system for determining eligibility and need for services which includes assessing for functional ability and available economic and social resources. • ASSURE that local/regional coordinated and comprehensive systems are In place and functioning throughout Virginia. • ASSURE that good quality of care is provided and that each locality has aLong- Tenn Care Ombudsman responsible for investigating and resolving Issues of care if they should occur throughout the community based system. • ASSURE appropriate utilization of services for clients through carefully pre- pared and coordinated individual care plans as needed. • PROVIDE support for Statewide funding of Respite C~u'e administered through local Area Agencies on Aging which will expand the existing successful pilot project where nine out of eleven recipients are Area Agencies on Aging. • SUPPORT budgets and initiatives developed throughout the Health and Human Resources Secretariat that are related to achieving the overall goal, but not restrict requests for funding or other initiatives adopted by the COALITION to those amounts/areas. • WORK closely with the Virginia Home Care Alliance and support initiatives for increased availability of Home Care tlu"oughout Virginia. (3> 1990-1992 Virginia Coalition for the Aging - Lonv-Term Care Documentation for additional funding to supporServicesyReport compiled by the S_ stern - is based on the Statewide Un dma t~D bmitdted by Virgini~l's Area Agencies on Aging Virginia Department for the Aging from in May 1989. _$ 6,000,000 HOMEMAKER/PERSONAL CARE -$ 3,600,000 HOME CARE/COMPANION SERVICES -$ 1,300,000 ADULT DAY CARE -$ 4,900,000 HOME-DELIVERED MEALS _$ 2,900,000 RESPITE SERVICES _$ 2,400,000 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEWIDE LONG-T AM LTCOP) _$ 1,500,000 OMBUDSMAN PROGR Total for Long-Term Care System in additional _$22,600,000 General Funds for the 1990-1992 Biennium The Coalition supports the Virginia Department for the Aging's 1990-1992 budget addendum. , individual assessments of older persons to determine level of need and Data obtained from care requirements. (4) 199+-1992 Virginia Coalition for the Aging PRIORITY 2 TRANSPORTATION: DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT, where a system does nut exist., and MAINTAIN in other areas, a comprehensive and coordinated system for the transporation disadvan- taged through which access to needed community support systems can be gained. • ASSURE that each locality/region/district has in place by 1992 plans for im- plementation of a comprehensive quid coordinated system for the transportation disadvantaged, with a 1993 implementation date. • STUDY the feasibility for establishing an insurance pool for a-~ulsportation needs of human service agencies. • ACQUIRE vehicles for transporting older people, including replacement ve- hicles, where needed, through coordination and tiu~ely use of all available re- sources. DOCUMENTATION FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO SUPPORT PRIORITY 2 -- Transaortation -- is based on the Statewide Unmet Demand for Services Report compiled by the Virginia Department for the Aging from data* submitted by Virginia's Area Agencies on Aging in May 1989 ~u~d from contact with other Agencies concerned about Human Service Transportation. STUDY FOR TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE POOL $ 30,000 PLAN AND IMPLEMENT COMPREHENSIVE AND COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS $ 440,000 OPERATING COSTS FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES $3,500,000 FUNDS TO PURCHASE VEHICLES- Support coordinated. efforts of Iluman Service Agencies in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Transportation through the Interagency Coordinating Council for the Transportation Disadvantaged (ICCTD) for timely utilization of available Federal, state and private resources including the use of Texaco Oil Overcharge Funds approved by the 1989 General Assembly. ` * Data obtained from individual assessments of older persons to determine lever of need and care requirements. (5) 1990-1992 Virginia Coalition for the Aging PRIORITY 3 - MEDICAID: EXPAND needed services for older Virginians tlu-ough additions to allowable services reimbursed under Medicaid. • OBTAIN reimbursement under Medicaid for eyeglasses, dentures and hear- ing aids. • ELIMINATE the 209b option and thereby extend automatic Medicaid eligi- bility to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients and eliminate the use of contiguous property in determining eligibility for Medicaid. i TcE OF VIRGINIA STATE I,OTI`ERY PROCEEDS: SET ASIDE at least 5% of the Virginia State Lottery proceeds for localities to use in programs serving older Virginians. • REQUEST that at least 5% of the proceeds from the Virginia State Lot- tery be available to localities for use in programs serving older Virginians. (6) 1990-199 Virginia Coalition for the Aging PRIORI Y 4 -HOUSING SUPPORT efforts to assure that affordable, safe, and accessible housing exists for older persons throughout Virginia. • WORK closely with other agencies/groups and the General Assembly to assure appropriate coordination exists though which older Virginians can ac- cess resources to meet housing needs and advocate for Legislative or adminis- trative changes as needed. • SUPPORT the Virginia Housing and Development Authority (VHDA) to provide increased funding and legislative changes, where needed, for the Home Equity Conversion Program. • SUPPORT increased funding for home repair through the Virginia Depart- ment of Social Services (VDSS) Weatherization Program and the Virginia Housing Auld Community Development (VHCD) Emergency Horne Repair Program. • SUPPORT adequate funding to assure the establishment and maintenance of HOUSING DELIVERY SYSTEMS throughout Virginia. Documentation for funding to support Priority 4 -- Housin~fN yds inia De eartmentrforon the Statewide Unmet Demand for Services Report comprled by t g P the Aging from data* submitted by Virginia's Area Agencies on Aging in May 1989 and in con- sultation with other agencies. Maintain 1989 level of WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM FUNDED THROUGH VDSS - ~ 10.3 Million EMERGENCY HOME REPAIR/SAFETY PROGRAM Support VHCD budget FUNDED THROUGH VHCD- adciencium for l9y()- t9y2 period *Data obtained from individual assessments of oiler persons to determine level of need and care requirements. (7) w l~y~-199~ Virginia Coalition for the Aging PRIORITY 5 Gi7ARDIAN~HIP: SUPPORT legislation pertaining to state GUARDIANSHIP laws ~h~t pllow ~ full protection for persons and their resources. Assure that due proces. throw h exploration of all existing alternatives. If guardianship is deee~sar apptept on g ate, assure that the least restrictive form is used which provides nec. y P while allowing the individual as much independence/control as possible. • ESTABLISH (through administrative channels) necessary training sessions to assist judicial branch with comprehensive information about alternatives to full guardianship. • ASSURE program controls that prevent abuse of individuals and their re- sources by establishing an oversight/review committee that works to assist the judicial system in carefully reviewing appropriate steps and alternatives as well as strengthening the accountability for the Commissioner of Accounts. • PROMOTE education for general public and professionals involved directly in the guardianship field. • ESTABLISH model program to implement close worklf of safeloua ding indi- tween the judicial system and advocacy system on behal g vidual welfare/assets and assisting with time constraints of judicial system. • CLARIFY and strengthen the role of the guardian ad litem to assure that the proposed ward has adequate protection through the assessment process and final determination. (8) Vir inia Coalition for the aging g Prentiss Webb, Chairman League of Older Americans, Inc. 4111 High Acres Road, NW Roanoke, Virginia 24017 703-362-0643 Barbara Fenton, Vice-Chair Arlington Commission on Aging 1524 N. Abington Street Arlington, Virginia 22207 703-524-3855 Kathy Donoghue SEVAMP Services 7 Kroger Executive Center, Suite 100 Norfolk, Virginia 23502 804-461-9481 Betty Burris Adult Care Center of Roanoke Valley, Inc. 2707 Williamson Road Roanoke, Virginia 24012 703-362-5741 Almon J,g. Wilson III, Secretary Belle Boone Beard Gerontology Center Lynchburg College Lynchburg, Virginia 24501 804-522-8456 Donald Edwards, Treasurer 5851 Quantrell Avenue #310 Alexandria, Virginia 22312 703-354-4154 st T arve 1VXembers Debbie Palmer New River Valley Agency on Aging 143 3rd. Street, NW pulaski, 'Virginia 24301 703-980-8888 Clementine Bowman Northern Neck-Middle Peninsula Area Agency on Aging, P.O. Box 610 Urbanna, VA 23175 804-758-2386 William Egeihoff Episcopal Diocese of Southern Virginia Commission on Aging PC229 MCV Station Richmond, Virginia 23298 804-786-1525 F Joani Latimer Virginia Friends & Relatives of Nursing Home Residents, Richmond Memorial Hospital 1300 Westwood Avenue Richmond, Virginia 23227 804-254-6044 James Payne Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy 6 North Sixth Street Richmond, VA 23219 804-780-2703 Ann Morris Instructive Visiting Nurses Association 908 N. Thompson St. Richmond, Virginia 23230 804-355-7100 Gordon Walker Jefferson Area Board for Aging 2300 Commonwealth Drive, Suite B-1 Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 804-978-3644 Mary Ellen Cox Catholic Diocese of Richmond 1140 Little Neck Road Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452 g04-486-2511 Betty Reams, L.egislauve Coordinator Virginia Coalition for the Aging 316 E. Clay St. Richmond, Virginia 23219 g(}4-343-3013 O~ ROANp,S.~ a ~ ti A 2 ~ ~ 2 J +~ ~ a 18 '~° 88 SFSQUICENTENN~P~ A Beautifu/8eginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C- HODGE August 21, 1989 Rev. G. Thomas Brown Southview United Methodist Church 3539 Peters Creek Road Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Dear Reverend Brown: LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W- ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT v d p~ ~ ~~ On behalf of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, I would like to thank you for giving the invocation at the Board Meetings in the past. We would again like to call on you to present the invocation on Wednesday, November 15, 1989, at 3:00 p.m. If you are unable to do this, please call me at 772-2005. I will be calling you soon to see if this time is acceptable to you, or if you would prefer another date. The Board members are aware of how busy your schedule is, and they appreciate your volunteering the time to offer God's blessing at their meetings. Sincerely, ,. 1~ ~'`, ~~~,ti/~-(<.,~ , f~~--lam; %-_-- Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ~j/~~ y ~~ ~s (~n~tn~~ of ~uttnnkr BOARD OF SUPERVISORS %~i~ P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0788 (703> 772-2004 ORDINp~CES o acres in the SECOND READING OF sale of 1 I• County' author1zing of Roanoke 1, OrdinanaWeSt section Glen~ar 4 g0 THp,T ALL _ PARAGRAPH ~ iTHE INTENT AMENDED MOTION p,MEND ORDIN~ICE ~ ACCOU1gT WITH TO A CAPITAL FUND HII,I, PARR FACILITIES , SAM/R~ TO APP sA E ~ IMPROVE GREEN ING OF FROM WILL FUND PROCEEDS T THE PROCEEDS RESAT 110 15 89 MEETING. BEING THA BACK APPROPRH LL PARK CONSULTED p,ZgD BRING GREEN ISSION BE IMPRO~MEN'rS AT VISORY COMM CREATIONW~H DIRECTION • SAM REQUESTE EY ARES IN AGREEMI'~ TO SEE IF TH 4 COMMITTEE VACANCIES IN 1989 JANUARY Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board Two year term of Hoyt C. Rath, Vinton District, will expire 1/26/89. FEBRUARY Electoral Board - Appointed by the Courts Three year term of Mrs. May Johnson will expire 2/28/89. MARCH Court Service Unit Adviso Services Advisory Board Council/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. League of Older Americans One year term of Webb Johnson, County Representative, will expire 3/31/89. JUNE Board of Zoning Appeals - Appointed by Judge_of Circuit Court Five Year term of Neil W. Owen will expire 6/30/89. Fifth Planning 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 Advisory Commission Three year terms of Vince Joyce, Cave Spring District, Alice Gillespie, Hollins District, and Thomas Robertson, Vinton District, will expire 6/30/89. G~L~T]TL~MDL'D Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board Youth Members from Cave Spring, William Byrd, Glenvar High and Northside High Schools to be appointed. Industrial Development Authority Four year terms of Billy H. Branch, Cave Spring District, and W. Darnall Vinyard, Vinton District will expire 9/26/89. Grievance Panel Two year term of Kim Owens will expire 9/27/89. A7l1~7L'M 11 T.`D Health Department Board of Directors Two year term of Susan Adcock will expires 11/26/89. DECEMBER Library Board Four year term of Richard Kirkwood, Hollins District, will expire 12/21/89. Mr. Kirkwood resigned 12/88. Mental Health Services of the Services Board noke Valley, Communit Three year term of Sue Ivey, County appointee, will expire 12/31/89. Roanoke County Planning Commission Four year term of Wayland Winstead, Catawba District, will expire 12/31/89. Roanoke County Resource Authority Initial terms of Lee Garrett, Bob L. Johnson and Henry C. Nickens will expire December 31, 1989. Regional Partnership Site Advisory Committee Three year term of Charles Saul will expire 12/21/89. J. APPOINTMENTS 1, Community Corrections Resources Board 2. Health Department Board of Directors ~' 3. Industrial Development Authority 0 RWR NOMIN ED BILLY BRANCH FOR REAPPOINTMENT. 4. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 5. Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board SAM NOMINATED GACOM~MISSIONTFOR FOURRYEAR PERIOD, BEGINNINGANORE COUNTY PLANNIN JANUARY 1, 1990. R. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS SUPERVISOR ROBERS - (1) MEETING WEER OF 11-17-89 WITH DR. GRAHAM TO PLAN A TRIP FROM NORTHERN VIRGINIA TO THE ROANORE VALLEY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES. (2) REPORTED ON THE RESPONSES SEVERAL BUSINESSES MADE TO THE RECENT RECYCLING LETTER. ENCOURAGED BY PROGRESS SOME ARE HARING IN THIS AREA. (3) MEETING ON 10-27-89 IN LEBINGTON WITH RAY PETHTEL, VDOT COMMISSIONER, FOIIR EgPERTB FROM THE US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOREAPROCEED NGSONETHIS IMPORTTANTDECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. PLANS AR PROJECT. SUPERVISOR MCGRAW - (1) VACO AND VML WILL HOLD SEVERAL MORE MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS ABOUT GRAYSON COMMISSION. REPORTED CONSIDERATIONS WILL BE GIVEN PROBABLY END OF NOVEMBER. ON VARIOUS REACTIONS TO CHANGE IN LAWS. (2) DISAGREES WITH ARTICLE IN OCTOBER ISSUE OF VIRGINIA REVIEW WHICH SCRUTINIZES STATE AND ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR NOT RESPONDING TO MAGAZINE SURVEY. VACO DID NOT REVIEW THIS ERRONEOUS ARTICLE AND IT DOES NOT REFLECT THCIATIONIWITgFTHIB MAGAZINETBYNEND OF YEARL PROBABLY SEVER THE ASSO SUPERVISOR GARRETT - (1) PRESENTED LETTER RECEIVED FROM RICK LEICHTWEIS CONCERNIMOTIONETOAIpCLUDENTHIBPAREAEOFF 41gNASNARTOP ERTENSION. LG MAD PRIORITY SINCE WORK IS UNDERWAY IN THE AREA. BLJ SECONDED FOR DISCIISSION. SUBSTITUTE MOTION RWR/HCN TO REFER TO STAFF // f / ~ 5 AYES: BLJ/RWR/SAM/HCN NAYS: LG ECH DIRECTED TO BRING BACK AT i1-15-89 MEETING. I,. 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. I'F MITHESCONSENT AGENDADAND WILLTBE CONSIDERED REMOVED FRO SEPARATELY. R-102489- BW/gp~ - URC 1, Minutes of Meetings - December 13, 1988, January 4, 1989, January 10, 1989, January 24, 1989, February 14, 1989 2, Request for Approval of Raffle Permit - William Byrd High School Cheerleader Booster Club. A-102489-~•a 3, Request for acceptance of Twin Mountain Circle into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. R-102489-~.b M, CITIZENS COMMENTS AND COMMIINICATIONS NONE r1. REPORTS HCN/SAM TO RECEIVE AND FILE IIRC 1, Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 2, General Fund Unappropriated Balance 3, Board Contingency Fund 4. Statement of Expenditures and Income Analysis - September 30, 1989 6 the citizens of our community hf ee nation;eandnized the historic link between education and a strong, our public schools have enabled t gonachievesthe dreams of families to build upon the lessons of the p tomorrow; and America's system of public educatin stratorsnandneduc tion skills and dedication of teachers, school adm su ort staff, but also on the encouragement and support of the entire pP community, I, serving as of November 12-18, 1989 I ur e all citizens to reaffirm their commitmenlato ri the preservat on g and to recognize the critical role that learning p y of liberty. , 1989 Signed this day of p D o OO ~~ ~,(~I.Illllli!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111~1J L APPEARANCE RE UEST _ Q __ - _ _ AGENDA ITEM NO. c - ~ _ - ~ - SUBJECT _ - ' airman of the Board of Su e~isors to I would like the Ch p recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter __ ment.WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, so that I may com 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. -_ • S eakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Ques- p __ tions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. c • All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized __ speaker and audience members is not allowed. __ • Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. • S eakers are re uested to leave an written statements and/or comments - p q y - -_ with the clerk. __ • INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT c THEM. ~_ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO DEPUTY CLERK __ __ ~ - NAME L~J'r.2~~ _ -_ - e - ADDRESS ~(~ U ~ ~ ~~' Y~ ~~/~ si G,~, __ _ PHONE 1 ~~ ^ ~'~ ~~ `- ~~~1r c _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ fililllllilllllllllllllill 11111 1111 ll ll 111 l l l l l lllllllilllllll llllllllllllllllllilllillllilllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllillllf~ ~'~ ~~~ .. ~' ~. y 5. ~, ~_~ J~ l~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ .j~~ ~~~ ~'- ~- _~ ~~~ ~~ ~~z~~.~ ~ ~, .. .. _ j~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~~~ 1 ~ ~~~ ~~ / ,~~~~~ ~ ,._ _ l e s..__.~d a ~,, -~ ~i~ ~a. ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ J~ B,~..~iN. ~'I~ s~ ~ ~ ~vF ~~~ 3 `~ 3s' ~~~~ ~~ ~, 7, 3 ~'~ ~ ,; .3 ~r , .,,~ ~Qh~,~,~ ~~~ -1 ~ ~- L ~~ c ~ ~~~ ~ ~'' /~~- ~~ ~~ ~~ s ~ ~,~., , .~ ~~ .~ 5 °~ ~ ` ~~ .. S 1, ' .._ `~~ ~, ,~j ~~ ~Q~~ .f ..CSI . ~ ~ti~.:nx ~ ~ . ~°~-c-~~.~~__ ~~~ ~~ . ~~"~ ~~- ~ ~~ 1 ~ ~~ ~ c~v . ~ ~r ~~ ~~- , ~D 7/~ ~~ ~ ~. ~. v l~-t- 7~ ~~.e~\~ ~~s~~~~- 7`T- ~ ~~ .7g.~., y8...~ ,~~ -~y, ~~~~ _ ,~~..~~ ~~.~~~~ ~- ~3, ~ h~ ~~ ~. ~ ~~~~~- ~~ ~ ~ .~ .~~~~~~: ~~ ~~r `~ ~~'` ~ ~ ~ f •. ~ ~~ ~. ~~ CJ \~\y~ _ ~~~ ~~ ~ 1 ~-~.~~ ~~ i _ 1 1G~ %l~ ~ , ~~~~Z ~~ r' _. r ~ _., ~.. ~, ~ T ~ -- I I ~ ~ ~~x~~ ~-~n~,.~~,~~ ~~ ,_ ~~ ~ ~.~~ { ~. -- ~ __~ ~~ ~~~~ , ~ -a ; ~. ~ frt.-~,G{~:~^. ,~'~l~cj ,\lr:,a ~~ . ~ .~~ ts~ ~-- J ,~ ,~ ,~ L ::r~_< -~ ~ _ ~_~~ ~,- ~..- c~ y '' II r ,. L~O~ a ~~~:~,.~ ~, rri G~rJsti /~}~kJ1~.pns,, ~,.r ~,rs l~'~°q:'c')* ~r1A1 )7l FY ~J/7~~/~J~~~(~+J~.'i~,r~r[~~.rl r}(i~/~,+yL 1 try': VA /lf+. fV1 C. I M.J!'1i'~o1~._ Mt1 L'iV~O l~.a.~.~ ~ wu~... ,.tom"` ~ -~_ ~ ~. t~v ~„-~. ~- Cam. ~~ . 13 ~~ ~ /'~~ r~ I3S ~ ` :~ ~ ~ ,~ . ~f~' p_ 137 ~ A ~ I iL=. ,,.E ~ 1~~C~z_ ~ ~t..(.~,~ - C~1~.~( ~.~..~.~ i3 ~ 1 ~ ~ ,, ~ '>, , ~ ~V r n , ~ ' -' . -, ~. . ,.; _ ~~y t ~J ~(o ~ `~ ~ l~~ 1~~ 'G ~S lS/ "a l s"~ ~sy `~~ ~ r~ !S ~' /5~ l~ 1 !6d ~~/ ;, ~ i? 7 .......1 ~' j Y ~--~ .~~ ..,i / f~`_.e'' _, /~~-!spa.?iE~..'~~..........`vG_.._ .. i J 1 I' f ~• > f ,~, ~~ ~. P i~ : ~.J 1 ~~ ` ~ ~~~ ~ ~7 i C~ ~ vr~.e_. ~.M. -~-~ ~~ t~ 7 ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~. tt~~~ ~~3 s ~~y ~ 7S i ~~ r7 ~ l 7 b' ~~?y ~ ~'G / ~/ /fla /83 c ~y ~~~ ~f I9° ~ y/ ~5~ r y3 ti y ~5~ r y~ r~7, ~ ~~ B~•.o~i~ ~ g~ M E M O RAN D U M TO: The oano County Board of Supervisors ~~f~ FROM: mer C. Hodge DATE: November 15, 1989. SUBJECT: Bonsack Fire Station Discussions on the concept of a joint County/City fire station for the 460 East corridoe etinitiatedein August and, assreport dlto detailed negotiations w you earlier, all the elemeneriod to demonst to ethereffectiveness the exception of a trial p of using volunteers to supplement a core of paid personnel. This is a great concept, one that will provide a high level of service for the citizeablef alternativesa Iteis~an outstanding - an less than that for compar opportunity for cooperation between the County and the City opportunity that not only saves money but one that provides a proving ground for some of the issues that would be faced in implementing a consolidated regional government. Some of the major points of the proposal which have not been emphasized by the media are: o An equal split of up-front capital costs o Sharing of operating costs based on number of calls run o Guarantee of a 5-minute average response time at the end of a one-year implementation period I have attached a summary of material which details the elements of our propos al roach intt rms oflbenefitslto both ofauss the wisdom of such an pp Who is the big winner in this approach? Everyone affected wins. As a matter of fact~henbierestowinnerngbutvit'sha good deal alternative, the city is gg for us all as the attached taoterovide i proved f reoprotect on for in the 1985 bond referendum p enou h. the citizens of the Bonsack area and they have waited long g I am asking for your support in continuing these negotiations to a successful conclusion. BONSACK FIRS AND RESCUE STATION THE PLAN o Locatated on 460E at site formerly occupied by Trail Drive-In in Roanoke County 0 24 hour coverage, 7 days a week - 7 am - 7 pm weekdays paid Fire and EMS - Nights and weekends, staffed with volunteers 0 50/50 split of up-front capital costs of $933,000 o Operating costs of $269,000 shared based on calls answered with 30$ minimum to either party. Calls for service now 78/22 in favor of City. o Staffed and managed by the County o Average response time requirement of 5 minutes or less o One year test period for volunteers - if 5 minutes response time not attained, move to fully-paid staff o Operational September 1990 F~~ Q°~ ~ ~ , ~ 77yE~ - _ ~ ,~,~~ RAINBCrt FO ~ti '•~a, 'per ~~ ~ ~, ~~ .,~irr.~ i'EM ~ciq E ~ A ~ ti'• o~\a .P~~-_-~c.~...-,~ / Q° `= RUNS - - ~`-~• •~ ~.`; ?, :~. df D ~ •. !9 ~ C r. pc ~ c ,~ _ .~, E $ v,~ . ~t s ~~E E ~. t t. ~4'E P ~p-' ~' ~`~ Cy0 / qy ^ y'? ors ~.. ~', ri ~ ~O~f( ~• 6t 675 oCq~ .l s ~ - .. _ ~P COL,7A~;~ - e• ~ ' %! -- 5 Dr ~.ti ;,~ .rE ~ 'E ~.,. ~, i. ~~. - .a a ~ W tSiAiES q RAfN60 '~ ~ ATERFALIkAKE ~>`DO?o ROSAht ` DENS 1 s"~' ~ a. ,. U LLR .~ / O t~ ~ ._. e ~ ~ Z To. pp[KMD o 658 e ' •ti".~~~ ' ° .;,, ~ .>P.~ ,i R~`T~K STEPPING STCtiEm •~ 9~ i O ~ - ' 9CN0 EL p P 4~4F ~ P c. ~ . ~s . :. 6b ~~ -- `3e p~ r' ~~ ~ ~: ~ti De T ~ ... .y ~ ~ .•v::, VALE ~~ O ~+ - '~~1 ' ~, - ~ 4 ~, PEACH EE iq~" - - 605 ~~FQ~'*b`` - \\ ~~';N t ~ ^~1 Np $ r ~ i `v E c. ~~~~ f58 AN GTE ~ <~ ~ ~ ~" ~`~'~~ ` 4 _ ~~ ~ FIT - ~~ ~ ~~ _<y ~~ cNr REE aEri. ~.~.. ~ ~ : ~'~ ~ ~~~~~"R` ` ~.,\• c'`""-, 7e~ OYNER ~ I~~ o` B - ~ ctEe ~ SPRING ~s~~. o`~~ ~_~ APPLEWO q 65a W W I c c ~~ `~ F N !` a s~~yt~ a SON J ~, n ~r~ f ~R~ ~ sZ ~ Z RIB g •/ O ~ ' ~~`{ ~~. ~MpiNE`' ~ E u ~ ,, i 7~~_ ~~ ~i4 Mo°o S ET .ao ~ dV C+36 GLADE a" ~ . ': I/ 'oT ~ 1 t _ rcWtMy~` ~ ~, 1 (Q) "~~ ' ~ a ~si u f c~ 603 f AA 60°- s~ . 1 tic \ ~~ °a c' 04 E^• Eaf `P A uM a V 611 A tic .µ ~i+ 5 ! \ / \ , v ~ .~~ c`• e`i`~ '~~ ~~,%f ~ ~+ '' ti: ' ° -raA;f~• 'Y ;':, ` 610 ~.x°~ ~j V^Si. St to ic4i oois ODS~•...- ~'-!l` `+~ M ~p v ~ W oaK YoNnA~ ~ ~ e c Eroas COURSE ~ .~~f1Y `'~ ~ N ~ ', ~ ''~ • ARI ~ r FALLING/CREEK O r r ~ ~ 3% l ~/ ,~, , s' ~ AFT ~• 1 • ~r,~~~ r.. „r,- .. ., E - ,t i "° _ _ _ Proposed Loca ;. .` -~~.-~ r . ~~~~~ .'~~` --° J int Fire Station ~ r .. E't0e ~` r- ,ate-.;• ~ _ -v I t ~ "": 'L ~• O ' En .t. `''~ ~=`~ ~' ; -' '~ ~ . ,~ ' ., . 051 v s r- _s. '' J~. ~ MNOER SAS ~ w t ~ EA Y4 ~ ~ J j1AT10N STONEBRIDGE AC ~~~ ~Y ~ v°~• E ~ Al 'C[ Or a 1 a ~ \ L~ 1 1 It i4 `~i F +//..rr I K• 1 n - r Q r ,1 ~ .u.P o-~ `I~ E r ~: .:1+r ClE s +,~ ~ h c e , Y R ,,r ~ cy ~ ~`~ Off, ~~CE ~. ~ h MT. VIEW CEY. ~ ~ ~ 6~ ~ A cE ~ s'' ' ~ r ~ oAOe, ~ RUOOrcc LTNN HAVEN ~ ~ o w~sP~a ~" ""°q';a°' NG ~~ , .~~ M ~ EME ~ A l~'R 4 S ~ ~~~ w:3~ y 'y (\ ._ L ~ .•a~~ / •~ NAIL BADGE % O- C~9 ~F4 ',• - . ~ i '~ ~ F.. _. BONSACK FIRE AND RESCUE STATION COST CURRENT PROPOSAL ** Cost Element Alt 1 Alt 2 ___ a________ B __________ COUNTY ONLY ~U~VOLUNTEER PAID- PAID-VOLUNTEER FULLYYPAIDY VOLUNTEER ----------- --------------- CAPITA~ S Building $ 375,000 $ 375,000 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 _0_ _p_ 250,000 250,000 Land Equipment 283,000 283 000 283,000 ---------- 244,800 ----------- Total Capital Cost 658,000 658 000 933,000 894,800 County Share $ 658,000 $ 658,000 $ 466,500 $ 447,000 ANNt)AL OPERATING COSTS -0- (5) 125,000 (15) 383,000 Firefighters Paramedic/Firefighters -0- (2)* 52,000 (4) 110,000 (6) 165,000 Operating Costs 34,000 34,000 --- 34,000 36,000 - ------ Total Operating ----34,000 $ $ 86,000 -----___-- $ 269,000 ----____-- $ 584,000 ----------- County share 50/50 $ 34,000 $ 86,000 $ 134,500 $ 292,000 County share 30/70 $ 34,000 $ 86,000 $ 80,700 $ 175,200 * 2 Paid paramedic/firefighters to be located in Vinton 11/14/89 ** Current proposal, Plan A, uses combination of paid and volunteer Plan B is a fallback position if acceptable response times could not be achieved in 12 months with Plan A gONSACR FIRE AND RESCUE STATION SAVINGS ESTIMATED SAVINGS USING JOINT OPERATION OVER NEXT-BEST COMPARABLE ALTERNATIVE COUNTY CITY 191,500 $ 466,500 ONE-TIME CAPITAL COST SAVINGS $ ONGOING OPERATING COSTS: 5,300 211,300 PAID/VOLUNTEER APPROACH (89,200)* 116,800 FULLY PAID APPROACH * The County's next best alternative is not truly comparable since paid coveWOUldwnot be provided r a 8-hour day, 5 days a week and ALS gONSACK FIRS AND RESCUE STATION STATUS o Most recent negotiations started in August. Last discussion on November 5, 1989. o Most major issues resolved - location - area of coverage - management rocedures - training and operating p - equipment - ownership - sharing of operating expenses. o Unresolved - Test period for use of volunteers -~ ~. A TINE FOR ACTION A TIME FOR REGIONAL SOLUTIONS Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, you have asked for an update on the progress of the Bonsack Fire Station. I have provided you with a package of material which spells out the details of our proposal to the City and the status of negotiations. Frankly Gentlemen, this is a time for action. For the County, it is a matter of safety, and a matter of committment to the citizens of the Bonsack area. Those citizens have waited patiently for improved fire protection which was promised in the 1985 bond referendum. The referendum specified that the funds were to be used for "fire safety equipment and f aci 1 ities . " The plan was to construct facilities at Back Creek and Bonsack and to make improvements at other stations. Bonsack is the only area of the plan that has not been addressed and It is time to live up to our promise. Also, this is a problem which cries for a regional solution. It is ridiculous to build two stations in the Bonsack area. Mr. McGraw and Mr. Robers have suggested that we discuss a joint approach with Botetourt County. Dr. Nickens has suggested that we do the same with the Town of Vinton and, of course, we are currently discussing a joint approach with the City of Roanoke. Those discussions have been halted by the issue of response time which the County has offered to guarantee - this offer has been virtually ignored by the City. However, we cannot let this stand in our way. I propose that we move forward in the following areas: 1) Recruiting of volunteer firefighters and paramedics 2) Selection of an architect for the design of the new station 3) Establish a committee of citizens from the Bonsack area, much like the landfill committee, to participate in planning and administering the project and in the recruiting of volunteers. 4) Finally Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence I would like to to call a meeting of the managers of Botetourt County, The Town of Vinton, The City of Roanoke and myself to discuss a regional approach to this need. The time will be scheduled immediately following the consolidation meeting on November 20th, so there should be no problem with conflicts. t would then like 30 days to pursue this course of action y~:~~ ~~ ~el will lead to an excellent solution to the needs in the .Bonsack and surrounding areas. I will report back to you on December 16th. I'm asking for your support. Thank You! f h ROANOKE COUNTY MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. MY NAME IS RITA J. GLINIECKI. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IS A JOINT AGENCY OF THE VALLEY GOVERyoUNFOR THDS OPPORTUNITY o0 AFPEAROBEFOREPYOU~TED BY YOU, I THANK 'vTY S TAX DURING THE PAST FISCAL YEAR $69,984 OF ROANOKE COUNT ' DOLLARS WERE MATCHED WITH STATE AND FEDERAL DOLLARS AND FEES TO PROVIDE 51,136,6b9 OF SERVICE TO ROANOKE COUNTY CITIZENS. THIS AMOUNTS TO $16.00 WORTH OF SERVICES FOR EACH ROANOKE COUNTY TAX DOLLAR EXPEhTDED. 2,941 ROANOKE COUNTY RESIDENTS RECEIVED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES THIS PAST YEAR. THE COMMUNITY SUPPORT SYSTEM PROVIDES A WIDE RANGE OF SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS WITH SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS, AND CONTINUES TO EXPAND ITS SERVICES IN ORDER TO BETTER MEET THEIR NEEDS. THE COMMUNITY RESOURCE AND COUNSELING CENTER PROVIDES CASE MANAGEMENT AND COUNSELING SERVICES ALONG WITH PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION AND MEDICATION MANAGEMENT. THE SERVICE IS PROVIDED IN THE INDIVIDUAL'S HOME AS NEEDED. A CASE MANAGER LOCATED IN THE SALEM/ROANOKE COUNTY COUNSELING CENTER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MEETING THE NEEDS OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL ADULTS WHO RESIDE IN THE AREA NEAR TIiAT CENTER AND FoR T'HE RESIDENTS OF CRAIG COUNTY. THE STREET TEAM CONTINUES TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO HOMELESS PERSONS WITH SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS. MOUNTAINv HOUSE, A PSYCHOSOCIAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM, DEVELOPED THREE NEW CONTRACTUAL PROGRAMS DURING THE PAST YEAR: 1) A CONTRACT WITH TINKER MOUNTAIN INDUSTRIES TO PROVIDE SUPPORTED a~DPLIONMFARTICULARCTO THOSERIOTERESTED INRIaOMFETITIVE ILLNESS, EMPLOYr;ENT . 2) A CONTRACT WITH ROANOKE COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION TO PROVIDE RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES TFv'0 EVENINGS EACH ~`EEK AND ON SATURDAYS. 3) AND THE HEART AND HEARTH PROGRAM WAS DEVELOPED IN CON.7UNCTION WITH TIIF. MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF THE P.OANOKE V:aLLEY . IT PROVIDES RESPITE SERVICES TO FAMILIES WHO HAVE SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL ADULTS LIVING AT HOME. DURING THE PAST FISCAL YEAR, A REORGANIZATION OF MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES TO CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS N'AS IMPLF.~iENTID. ITS FOCUS IS TO KEEP FAMILIES TOGETHER AND TO KEEP CHILDREN IN THEIR HOME COMMUNITIES. THERE ARE SCHOOL-BASED EFFORTS TO PREVENT THE DEVELOFMENT OF E'~!OTIONAL DISORDERS IN ALL OUR LOCALITIES. OTHER PP.EVENTION EFFORTS I\CLUDE WORKING I~ITII YOUNGER SIBLINGS OF KNOWN CLIENTS AND PARENTS OF AT-RISK CHILDREN. ITIONALLY, TREATMENT CAN BE RECEIVED THROUGH HOME-BASED ADD FOR COUNSELING, DA1' TREATMENT, OUTPATIENT COUNSELING, AND, CHILDREN ONLY, RESIDENTIAL SERVICES. CASE MANAGEMENT SERVICES ARE ASSIGNED FOR THOSE CHILDREN AND ABOLESCENTS WIiO MUST LEAVE THE COMMUNITY FOR STATE HOSPITALIZATION, INSURING A TIMELY AND SUCCESSFUL DISCHARGE BACK TO THE HOME COrir1UNITY. THE ROANOKE COUNTY/SALEM COUNSELING CENTER ON BURWELL AVENUE IN T 'AL GROUP AND FAMILY SALEM CONTINUES TO PROVIDE INDIVIDL~ COUNSELING. GEOGRAPHIC CRITERIA HAVE BEEN REVISED SO THAT PERSONS REQUESTING OUTPATIENT COUNSELING MAY VHOICOHEVERaTISCEMOST OR THE CENTER ON FIRST STREET IN ROANOKE, CONVENIENT TO THEIR NEEDS. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES CONTINUES TO PROVIDE 24-HOUR, 7-DAYS FER WEER CRISIS INTERVSERVIOCESOR CRISISAIRTERVENTIONNSERVICESROA,RE EMERGENCY OUTREACH ALSO PROVIDED IN THE ROANOKE COUNTY/SALEM JAIL. THE MENTAL RETARDATION DIVISION PROVIDES A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF QUALITY COMMUNITY SUPPORT SERVICES THAT ARE RESPONSIVE TO PERSONS WITH MENTAL RETARDATION, TO THEIR F:MILIES, AND TO THE COMMUNITY. DURING THE PAST YEAR WE PROVIDED SERVICES TOENCYb CITIZENS OF ROANOKE COUNTY. SERVICES PROVIDED INCLUDE EMERG , CASE MANAGEMENT, DAY SUPPORT, RESIDENTIAL, AND PREVENTION AND EARLY INTERVENTION. THE NUMBER OF CLIENTS FROM RUANOKE CUL'NTY RECEIVING CASE MANAGEr1ENTT FROri THE COUNSELING ANjD LIFE SKILLS CENTER INCREASED 32~ FOR FY'89. SERVICES TU ALL LOCALITIES INCREASED LAST YEAR WE TOR TFY'89DDI~rTHE OF TWO NEW PROGRAMS WITH INITIATIVE FENDING MELROSE A\TENUE GROUP HOME FOR MENTALLY RETARDED/EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED ADULTS BECAr:E OPERATIONAL IV MARCH. ALSO THE RESIDENTIAL RESPITE FACILITY, DEVELOPED TO PROVIDE OVERNIGHT RESPITE SERVICE TU FAMILIES tdHOSE SUNS OR DAUGHTERS HAVE MENTAL RETARDATION, OPEN?ED TN NOVEMBER. CASE MANAGEMENT AND DAY SUPPORT PROGRAMMING HAVE BEEN INCREASED WITH NE4~' INITIATIVE FUNDING FOR FY'90. TINKER r`:OUNTAI\~ INDUSTRIES WILL BE PROVIDING SPECIALIZED VOCATIONAL SERVICES FOR ADULTS WITH MENTAL RETARDATION AND ErFOTIONAL PROBLEMS, AND ARC- kOANOKE/CHD INDUSTRIES WILL BE PkOVIDING SERVICES FUR ADULTS WITH ME?`TAE RETARDATION AND SEVERE PHYSICAL DISABILITIES. THE DIVISION OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES PROVIDES SERVICES FOR PREVENTTON OF SUBSTANCE ABl?SE AS >~ELL AS FOR EARLY INTERVI:NTIUN, COUNSELING, DETOXIFIC.aTIUN, AND RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT. MEMBERS OF THE PREVENTION STAFF HAVE WORKED WITH THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCIi00L-CUMML'NITY TEA?": FOR DKUG-FkEE SCIIOULS AND COMMUNITIES, .4ND CONTINUE TO PROVIDE PREVENTION CONSULTATION AND PkUGRA":MING IN RUANOKE COUNTY. ' IN 1THE LAST YEAR 151 RESIDENTS OF ROANOKE COUNTY RrERE PROVIDED TREATMENT AND PREVENTION SERVICES, AN INCREASE OF OVER 20~ FROM THE PREVIOUS DEAR~E NEEDAFORCTREATMENTDAONDHPREVEBTIONCSERUBCES PROBLE~.S SPRE , IN E\TERY LOCALITY INCREASES. ON THE ATTACHED CHART Y3IDENTSSOF THEUCOUDTYADIJRDNGBFISCDOWN~EOR OUR SERVICES TO THE RE 1989. DR. FRED ROESSEL, THE AGENCY'S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AND THOMAS CHAPMAN, THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION, ARE HERE KITH ME AND ~E ttiILL BE HAPPY TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. MHSRV DIRECTLY FUNDED PROGRAMS FY-89 STATISTLCS/JURISDICTION COUNTY OF ROANOKE UNDUPLICATED UNITS OF VALUE OF CLIENT COUNT SERVICE SERVICE MENTAL HEALTH 322 1,626 HOURS $137,954 COUNSELING COMMUNITY RESOURCE AND 96 895 HOURS $73,045 COUNSELING CENTER 10 317 DAYS $14,886 CLUBHOUSE 135 159 HOURS $29,040 EMERGENCY SERVICES KIWANIS ADOLESCENT - _ DAY TREATMENT _ _ COTTAGE SCHOOL 1 239 DAYS $48,496 CHILDREN'S CENTER 2 127 HOURS $36,694 IN HOME SERVICES 2 375 648 uniiQS $40,007 PREVENTION SERVICES 2 g41 4,011 $380,122 MH SUBTOTAL , MENTAL RETARDATION COUNSELING AND 108 672 HOURS $58,650 LIFE SKILLS CENTER 2J 695 1 HOURS $24,618 FAMILY SUPPORT 27 , 596 4 DAYS $68,231 WORK ACTIVITIES 7 , 192 1 DAYS $33,665 ADULT DEVELOPMENT 7 , 465 DAYS $10,217 SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT 5 825 1 DAYS $111,582 READ Roao 4 , 298 1 DAYS $95,654 NIAGARA ROAD 2 , 657 DAYS $87,541 HAZELRIDGE ICE/MR 2 162 HOURS $12,496 APARTMENT LIVING 1 103 DAYS $91,037 MELROSE MR/ED 1 9 DAYS $2,781 RESIDENTIAL RESPITE 20 081 3 HOURS $10,585 SHORT TERM CARE Leg , 196 fIASSF4 $14 270 COLLEGE FOR LIVING 256 15,951 $621,327 MR SUBTOTAL SUESTANCE ABUSE 130 076 1 HOURS 577,114 NEw DIRECTIONS 3 , 259 DAYS $14,813 HEGIRA HOUSE RESIDENTIAL ALCOHOLISM PROGRAM 18 516 _~.AX.S 543.293 220 $135 SA SUBTOTAL 151 1,851 , 348 3 21,813 $1,136,669 TOTAL , _ - $69,984 FY-87 LOCAL SHARE _ $16 SERVICE/LOCAL DOLLAR _ _______ ____________ o~ POANpy,F All-AMERICA CITY ~ A / ~ ' Z Yt~~~e ~ ~~~ ~s ~.~ ss R~ ~i sFSQU1CENTENN~P~ ~ • 9 •" • / .4 B~auti~ulBrgirtning ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA NOVEMBER 15, 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 will be heard at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. 2. Invocation: The Reverend G. Thomas Brown Southview United Methodist Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS. C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Proclamation declaring the week of November 12 - 18, 1989 as American Education Week. 2. Resolution of Appreciation to the City of Richmond for assistance during the aftermath of Hurricane Hugo. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution of Support for the Public Policy Platform of the Virginia Coalition for the Aging and requests for state funding. 2. Yearly Report from the Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley. 3. Authorization to provide employee dental insurance plan. 4. Resolution regarding the Roanoke County Resource Authority Landfill Financing. E. REQUEST FOR WORK SESSIONS F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Community Corrections Resources Board 2. Health Department Board of Directors 3. Industrial Development Authority 4. Library Board 5. Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley Community Services Board. 6. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 7. Regional Partnership Site Advisory Committee g. Roanoke County Resource Authority 2 9. Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board J. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS K. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Approval of Minutes - February 28, 1989, March 14, 1989, March 28, 1989, April 11, 1989, April 25, 1989. 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Industrial Development Authority and the Planning Commission. 3. Request for acceptance of Williamsburg Court into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 4. Request for acceptance of 0.23 miles of Stonewood Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 5. Authorization to appropriate capital funds for the Green Hill Park Improvements. 6. Authorization to execute a contract to establish an integrated automated library system. L. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS M. REPORTS 3 1, Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 2, General Fund Unappropriated Balance 3, Board Contingency Fund N, EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 O, CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION p, ADJOURNMENT 4 ~ - 5G MEMORANDUM DATE: November 15, 1989 T0: Boa of p rvisors FROM: mer C. Hod e County Administrator. RE: Implementation of Police Department Attached for your information are charts outlining the steps which the County will take to implement a police department by July 1, 1990. We believe that this is an achievable date, giving us time to recruit a police chief, organize the new department, and request a change in the State funding guidelines. SCHEDIILE Chart I shows the proposed timing for completion of each of the steps required to form the new Department. FUNDING The Chairman of the House Finance Committee has assured the County that a change in funding is foreseeable, and the County will make an official request to the General Assembly for that change so that funding for law enforcement can remain at the present level. If the funding change is not made, the matter will be brought back to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. ADVISORY COMMITTEE The County Administrator will establish a committee of local law enforcement officials, the Fire Chief, and the Director of Human Resources, to assist in drafting a job description and advertisement for the position of Chief of Police. This Committee may also include representatives from the Sheriff's Department. This group will also serve as an advisory committee to the County Administrator during the interim period and will help in reviewing the applications, interviewing the candidates and forwarding the top five to the County Administration for his selection. EMPLOYEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE The County Administrator will also approach the Sheriff for permission to form an Employee Advisory Committee, made up of two employees from each division of the Sheriff's Department. This ~~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1989 PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEER OF NOVEMBER 12 - 18, 1989 AS AMERICAN EDUCATION WEER WHEREAS, the citizens of our community have long recognized the historic link between education and a strong, free nation; and WHEREAS, our public schools have enabled generations of American families to build upon the lessons of the past to achieve the dreams of tomorrow; and WHEREAS, America's system of public education relies not only on the skills and dedication of teachers, school administrators, and education support staff, but also on the encouragement and support of the entire community. NOW, THEREFORE, WE, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim the week of November 12 through 18, 1989, as AMERICAN EDUCATION WEER and urge all citizens to reaffirm their commitment to our public schools and to recognize the critical role that learning plays in the preservation of liberty. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WE have hereunto set our hands and caused the seal of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, to be affixed this 15th day of November, 1989. r~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1989 RESOLUTION 111589-1 OF APPRECIATION TO THE CITY OF RICHMOND FOR ASSISTANCE DURING HURRICANE HUGO WHEREAS, Roanoke County sustained major damage from Hurricane Hugo, and many streets were blocked and power lines downed by trees and branches; and WHEREAS, the equipment which was needed to assist with cleaning away the storm damage was unavailable in the Roanoke Valley; and WHEREAS, the City of Richmond, Virginia, offered to loan Roanoke County the necessary equipment; and WHEREAS, employees of the City of Richmond transported the equipment to Roanoke County, enabling county crews to remain on the job during the emergency situation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, on behalf of itself and the citizens and the employees of the County, does hereby convey its deepest appreciation and gratitude for the assistance provided by the City of Richmond and its employees during the aftermath of Hurricane Hugo. On motion of Supervisor Garrett, seconded by Supervisor Nickens, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisor Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1989 RESOLUTION 111589-2 ENDORSING SUPPORT FOR STATE FUNDING FOR ADULT LONG-TERM CARE AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES WHEREAS, the elderly population of Virginia continues to grow at a more rapid pace than the general population; and WHEREAS, a substantial proportion of the elderly are poor, frail, and disabled in need of special services; and WHEREAS, there are unmet needs to the aging in the area of long-term care. These services include day support, respite care, case management, homebound meals, Ombudsman programs, and in- home services; and WHEREAS, there is documented unmet needs for transportation services to the aging population; and WHEREAS, a network of twenty-five area agencies on aging has been established throughout the Commonwealth to administer a comprehensive, coordinated system of services to older Virginians; and WHEREAS, the services administered by these area agencies on aging are being provided to elderly persons in greatest social and economic need in an effort to prevent costly institutionalization that has a significant impact on the State's Medicaid budget. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby urges the Governor of Virginia and the Virginia General Assembly to appropriate $22.6 million for long- term care services and $3.5 million for transportation services as ACTION N0. ITEM NUMBER Z "' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 15, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution of Support for the funding requests and Public Policy Platform of the Virginia Coalition for the Aging COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'p,S,/COMMENTS: 4 UMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Virginia Department for the Aging has submitted a budget addendum to the Governor for an appropriation of $22.6 million for community based services designed to prevent or slow institutionalization of the elderly in the State of Virginia. This was the top priority of the Virginia Coalition for the Aging Public Policy Platform. The League of Older Americans has passed a resolution supporting this appropriation and has requested that the Board of Supervisors endorse the platform by resolution and forward of a copy of the resolution to the local legislators. Attached is a copy of the 1990-92 platform for your review. Representatives of the League of Older Americans have been invited to attend the meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the attached resolution be adopted and copies sent to the local legislators and the League of Older Americans. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: Yes No Abs Denied ( ) Garrett Received ( ) Johnson Referred McGraw To: Nickens Robers ~ -/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1989 RESOLUTION ENDORSING SUPPORT FOR STATE FUNDING FOR ADULT LONG-TERM CARE AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES WHEREAS, the elderly population of Virginia continues to grow at a more rapid pace than the general population; and WHEREAS, a substantial proportion of the elderly are poor, frail, and disabled in need of special services; and WHEREAS, there are unmet needs to the aging in the area of long-term care. These services include day support, respite care, case management, homebound meals, Ombudsman programs, and in- home services; and WHEREAS, there is documented unmet needs for transportation services to the aging population; and WHEREAS, a network of twenty-five area agencies on aging has been established throughout the Commonwealth to administer a comprehensive, coordinated system of services to older Virginians; and WHEREAS, the services administered by these area agencies on aging are being provided to elderly persons in greatest social and economic need in an effort to prevent costly institutionalization that has a significant impact on the State's Medicaid budget. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby urges the Governor of Virginia and the Virginia General Assembly to appropriate $22.6 million for long- term care services and $3.5 million for transportation services as ~ -1 requested by the Virginia Department of Aging for the next biennium to maintain life sustaining services to frail and disadvantaged older Virginians. "~''` "`, Virginia Coalition for the Aging Public Policy Platform 1990-1992 The Virginia Coalition ~ - for the Aging The purpose of the Coalition is to enhance the lives of elderly per~oo the Ge eral As-he Coalition shall develop and implement a plan of advocacy for presentation sembl , to other appropriate regulatory and government bodies at the local, state, and federal Y levels and to the private and voluntary sectors. Member groups shall work collectively on matters mutually agreed upon while reserv- in the ri ht to pursue independently any matter(s) of specific interest to them. Co~eimember- g g lions are determined by a majority vote of the representatives of member groups shi listing does not imply agreement of each member with all positions in the public policy P platform. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES: The Virginia Coalition for the Aging endorses the following three princiulesiw Sicf r the aged: adopted to assist in guiding policymakers in developing and evaluating 1. MAINTAINING AND ENHANCING INDEPENDENCE.... In the best interest of the aging and in order to prevent future expenditures which can be avoided, the Commonwealth of Virginia should contribute to the continuation of existing pro- rams and the establishing of new programs which assist the aging to maintain high levels of g functioning in their homes and communities. 2. PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO REMAIN AT HOME.... Attention should be given to providing the number of services nec~o remain inltheir own homes. ance of good quality of service to permit aged and iritirm persons 3. PROVIDING ADEQUATE CARE AWAY FROM HOME.... Livin arrangements and care should be provided in the aged person's home com Adel uat for g possible and should be at a level compatible with standards generally accepte q good care. (1) 1990-1992 ~~ ' ' for the A ing Legislative Platform Coalition g GOAL: TO ASSURE THAT OLDER VIRGINIANS AND THTO COST GIVERS, WHERE APPROPRIATE, HAVE ~ VICES NECESSARY EFFECTIVE, AFFORDABLE, AND QTUTIONALIZATIONAND TO BE TO AVOID INAPPROPRIATE INS AS INDEPENDENT AS POSSIBLE. 85 years and older, will uicrease by 32% RATIONALE: Statistic00 While functional disab'i itieslmay occur at any age, the probability of needing assist:u~ce from 1989 to the year 20 increases with advanced age. e 1984 National Health Interview Survey shows that approximately 23%onal coar 6actrv~ esf Tl a and vines Th who were living in the community lad dim fe Wig, walk ~'~ getting outside and toileting. The proportion of the reviewed were bathing, dressing, eat g, -uistitutionalized population experiencing difficulty with these increasecl~sig f thoset 85 yearsf ~eeand older non 1.5% of those between the ages of 65 and 69 had problems, almost halt (49 ) experienced difficulty. et while 23% experienced difficulty performing personal care activities, oiily 10% of the non-institutionalized Y * out these activities. This increased from population age 65 and over actualoyabou 3 % for those age 85 and above. about 6% for those age 65 to 69 e surve showed that approximately one-fourth of persons age 65 and aboveOv~all 27%sof pePsons age The sam Y with heavy housework. In addition, l 1% experienced difficulty in managing honey heals, sho ing, managing 65 and over had difficulty with at least one home lmtane gale of personal care act v~ties, the rat a of those having money, using the telephone, doing housework). As 55 2%n It increased directly with advancing age from about 18% of those aged 65 to 69 to well over half (_ _ . ) difficu y of those 85 and over. o'ected demographic profile of Virginia's increased older age groups is sign ifi~antlfo~S essinglneecis and The pr ~ action to assure that a workable, cost-effective and quality system is in place for app p roviding access to services to meet those needs within the range of available public and private resources. P ' The basic budget for Medicaid is expected to exceed $1 Billion for the 1990 of $g lmillion, showea 23% increase which include utilization and inflation costase m an e ghH ear penod. part of this tremendous increase is due to the for the coming biennium and a 144% utcre increased participation rate now required by the Federal Government for Virginia. factor for establishing and maintaining essential care in a cummunvlyd t~sec1lfei~-home setting, where A key appropriate, is the COST SAVINGS FOR THE COMMONWEALTH for ~ -~ 1990-1992 Virginia Coalition for the Aging The following priorities are adopted as objectives in meeting the overall goal: PRIORITY 1 LONG-TERM CARE SYSTEM: ESTABLISH, in areas where a complete system does not exist, and MAINTAIN a coordinated, adequately funded, and comprehensive Long-Term Care System. This system should provide for easily located, affordable and appropriately utilized needed services with emphasis on community based in-home services which includes Adult Day Care and Respite Care. • ADOPT a statewide uniform assessment system for determining eligibility and need for services which includes assessing for functional ability and available economic and social resources. • ASSURE that local/regional coordinated and comprehensive systems are in place and functioning throughout Virginia. • ASSURE that good quality of care is provided and that each locality has aLong- Term Care Ombudsman responsible for investigating and resolving issues of care if they should occur throughout the community based system. • ASSURE appropriate utilization of services for clients through carefully pre- pared and coordinated individual care plans as needed. • PROVIDE support for Statewide funding of Respite Care administered through local Area Agencies on Aging which will expand the existing successful pilot project where nine out of eleven recipients are Area Agencies on Aging. • SUPPORT budgets and initiatives developed ttu~oughout the Health and Human Resources Secretariat that are related to achieving the overall goal, but not restrict requests for funding or other initiatives adopted by the COALITION to those amounts/areas. • WORK closely with the Virginia Home Care Alliance and support initiatives for increased availability of Home Care throughout Virginia. (3) ~` 1990-1992 Virginia Coalition for the Aging -- Lona-Term Care Documentation for additional funding to support P~ 1OCesyReport compiled by the System - is based on the Statewide Unmet De bamnid d bs Virginia's Area Agencies on Aging Virginia Department for the Aging from data su Y in May 1989. HOMEMAKER/PERSONAL CARE _$ 6,000,000 ME CARE/COMPANION SERVICES -$ 3,600,000 HO _$ 1,300,000 ADULT DAY CARE _$ 4,900,000 HOME-DELIVERED MEALS -$ 2,900,000 RESPITE SERVICES -$ 2,400,000 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEWIDE LONG-TE M LTCOP) _$ 1,500,000 OMBUDSMAN PROGRA Total for Long-Term Care System in additional =$22,600,000 General Funds for the 1990-1992 Biennium The Coalition supports the Virginia Department for the Aging's 1990-1992 budget addendum. * d from individual assessments of older persons to determine level of need and Data obtaine care requirements. (4) 1990-1992 ,7j - / Virginia Coalition for the Aging PRIORITY 2 -TRANSPORTATION:. DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT, where a system does not exist, and MAINTAIN in other areas, a comprehensive and coordinated system for the transporation disadvan- taged through which access to needed community support systems can be gained. • ASSURE that each locality/region/district has in place by 1992 plans for im- plementation of a comprehensive and coordinated system for the transportation disadvantaged, with a 1993 implementation date. • STUDY the feasibility for establishing an insurance pool for transportation needs of human service agencies. • ACQUIRE vehicles for transporting older people, including replacement ve- hicles, where needed, through coordination and timely use of all available re- sources. DOCUMENTATION FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO SUPPORT PRIORITY 2 -- Transportation -- is based on the Statewide Unmet Demand for Services Report compiled by the Virginia Department for the Aging from data* submitted by Virginia's Area Agencies oil Aging in May 1989 and from contact with other Agencies concerned about Human Service Transportation. STUDY FOR TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE POOL $ 30,000 PLAN AND IMPLEMENT COMPREHENSIVE AND COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS $ 440,000 OPERATING COSTS FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES $3,500,000 FUNDS TO PURCHASE VEHICLES- Support coordinated efforts of Huinan Service Agencies in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Transportation through the Interagency Coordinating Council for the Transportation Disadvantaged (ICCTD) for timely utilization of available Federal, state and private resources including the use of Texaco Oil Overcharge Funds approved by the 1989 General Assembly. ' * Data obtained from individual assessments of older persons to determine level of need and care requirements. (5> ~-/ 1990-1992 Virginia Coalition for the Aging MEDICAID: EXPAND needed services for older Virginians through additions to allowable services reimbursed under Medicaid. • OBTAIN reimbursement under Medicaid for eyeglasses, dentures and hear- ing aids. • ELIMINATE the 209b option and thereby extend automatic Medicaid eligi- bility to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients and eliminate the use of contiguous property in determining eligibility for Medicaid. i Tc~ OF ~GiNIA STATE LOTTERY PROC ED SET ASIDE at least 5% of the Virginia State Lottery proceeds for localities to use in programs serving older Virginians. • REQUEST that at least 5% of the proceeds from the Virginia State Lot- tery be available to localities for use in programs serving older Virginians. (6) 1990-1992 .~ Virginia Coalition for the Aging SUPPORT efforts to assure that affordable, safe, and accessible housing exists for older persons throughout Virginia. • WORK closely with other agencies/groups and the General Assembly to assure appropriate coordination exists though which older Virginians can ac- cess resources to meet housing needs and advocate for Legislative or adminis- trative changes as needed. • SUPPORT the Virginia Housing and Development Authority (VHDA) to provide increased funding and legislative changes, where needed, for the Home Equity Conversion Program. • SUPPORT increased funding for home repair through the Virginia Depart- ment of Social Services (VDSS) Weatherization Program and the Virginia Housing and Community Development (VHCD) Emergency Home Repair Program. • SUPPORT adequate funding to assure the establishment and maintenance of HOUSING DELIVERY SYSTEMS throughout Virginia. Documentation for funding to support Priority 4 -- Housing Needs_--is based, in part, on the Statewide Unmet Demand for Services Report compiled by the Virginia Department f on- the Aging from data* submitted by Virginia's Area Agencies on Aging in May 1989 and in c sultation with other agencies. WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM FUNDED THROUGH VDSS - M pig Iv1~119 n9 level of EMERGENCY HOME REPAIR/SAFETY PROGRAM Support VHCD budget FUNDED THROUGH VHCD- addendum for 1990-1992 period *Data obtained from individual assessments of older persons to determine level of need and care requirements. (7 ) 1990-1992 ~ + ~ Virginia Coalition for the Aging SUPPORT legislation pertaining to state GUARDIANSHIP lacesshstfollowed full protection for persons and their resources. Assure that due pro through exploration of all existing alternatives. If guardianship is deemed appropri- ate, assure that the least restrictive form is used which provides necessary protection while allowing the individual as much independence/control as possible. • ESTABLISH (through administrative channels) necessary training sessions to assist judicial branch with comprehensive information about alternatives to full guardianship. • ASSURE program controls that prevent abuse of individuals and their re- sources by establishing an oversight/review convnittee that works to assist the judicial system in carefully reviewing appropriate steps and alternatives as well as strengthening the accountability for the Commissioner of Accounts. • PROMOTE education for general public and professionals involved directly in the guardianship field. • ESTABLISH model program to implement close working relationship be- tween the judicial system and advocacy system on behalf of safeguarding indi- vidual welfare/assets and assisting with time constraints of judicial system. • CLARIFY and strengthen the role of the guardian ad litem to assure that the proposed ward has adequate protection through the assessment process and final determination. (8~ ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER' .2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 15, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Yearly Report from the Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The By-laws of the Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley require a yearly report to all participating governments. Mrs. Rita Gliniecki will be present at the meeting to present a brief progress report about the services provided to the citizens of Roanoke County. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator -------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( } Motion by: Yes No Abs Denied ( ) Garrett Received ( ) Johnson Referred To: McGraw Nickens Robers November 10, 1989 Mr. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Roanoke Countti~ ~~ P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Mr. Hodge Choirmnn va"ielE.xarr,es Please find enclosed a copy of our annual v~~~ci,~,~~m<~.~ Progress Report that will be presented to the tva~,eyFC"'°"a Roanoke County Board of Supervisors by Mrs. T<°~~-S~~~t~~ Rita J. Gliniecki at their meeting on November Thelma [_. Stephens 1 ~ Sure Nr v Ge~rgeR.Daniels,Jr' jf you n ave any cluestions, please call me. F~a<~uriiw I)ir~c for Fred P. Roessel, Jr., Ph.D. S1I1Cerel y, //ti~ '. D Fred P. Roessel, J ., Ph.D. Etecutive Director cc: John Chambliss Assistant County Administrator for Human ,Services MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES OF THE ROANOKE VALLEY EXECUTIVE OFFICES, 301 Elm Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016-4026 - (703) 345-9841 Serving the Counties of Botetourt and Roanoke and the Cities of Roanoke and Salem ~~. -~ ROANOKE COUNTY MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. MY NAME IS RITA J. GLINIECKI. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IS A JOINT AGENCY OF THE VALLEY GOVERN`TENTS, AND AS A MEMBER OF THAT B0.4RD, APPOINTED BY YOU, I THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU. DURING THE PAST FISCAL YEAR $69,984 OF ROANOKE COUNTY'S TAX DOLLARS WERE MATCHED WITH STATE AND FEDERAL DOLLARS AND FEES TO PROVIDE 51,136,b59 OF SERVICE TO ROANOKE COUNTY CITIZENS. THIS AMOUNTS TO $16.00 WORTH OF SERVICES FOR EACH ROANOKE COUNTY TAX DOLLAR EXPENDED. 2,941 ROANOKE COUNTY RESIDENTS RECEIVED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES THIS PAST YEAR. THE COMMUNITY SUPPORT SYSTEM PROVIDES A WIDE RANGE OF SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS A'ITH SERIOUS MENTAL ZLLNESS, AND CONTINUES TO EXPAND ITS SERVICES IN ORDER TO BETTER MEET THEIR NEEDS. THE COMMUNITY RESOURCE AND COUNSELING CENTER PROVIDES CASE MANAGEMENT AND COUNSELING SERVICES ALONG WITH PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION AND MEDICATION MANAGEMENT. THE SERVICE IS PROVIDED IN THE INDIVIDUAL'S HOME AS NEEDED. A CASE MANAGER LOCATED IN THE SALEM/ROANOKE COUNTY COUNSELING CENTER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MEETING THE NEEDS OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL ADULTS WHO RESIDE IN THE AREA NEAR TH:4T CENTER AND FOR THE RESIDENTS OF CRAIG COUNTY. THE STREET TEAM CONTINUES TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO HOMELESS PERSONS tvITII SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS. MOUNTAIN HOUSE, A PSYCHOSOCIAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM, DEVELOPED TIIREE NEW CONTRACTUAL PROGRAMS DURING THE PAST YEAR: 1) A CONTRACT WITH TINKER MOUNTAIN INDUSTRIES TO PROVIDE SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT SERVICES TO PERSONS WITH SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS, AND IN PARTICULAR TO THOSE INTERESTED IN COMPETITIVE EMPLOYMENT. 2) A CONTRACT WITH ROANOKE COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION TO PROVIDE REC'REAT'IONAL ACTIVITIES Ttiv'0 EVENINGS EACH WEEK AND ON SATURDAYS. 3) AND THE HEART AND HEARTH PROGRAM WAS DEVELOPED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF THE ROANOKE VALLEY. IT PROVIDES RESPITE SERVICES TO FAMILIES WHO HAVE SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL ADULTS LIVING AT HOME. DURING THE PAST FISCAL YEAR, A REORGANIZATION Or MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES TO CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS R'AS IMPLE"TENTED. ITS FOCUS IS TO KEEP FAMILIES TOGETHER AND TO KEEP CHILDREN IN THEIR HOME C01`'!~"UNITIES. THERE ARE SCHOOL-BASED EFFORTS TO PREVENT THE DEVELOP~'.ENT OF E'~IOTIONAL DISORDERS IN ALL OUR LOCALITIES. OTHER PREVENTION EFFORTS INCLUDE I~'ORKING WITH YOUNGER SIDLItiGS OF KNON`ti CLIENTS AND PARENTS OF AT-RISK CHILDREN. ~- ADDITIONALLY, TREATMENT CAN BE RECEIVED THROUGH HOME-BASED COUNSELING, DA1' TREATMENT, OUTPATIENT COUNSELING, AND, FOR CHILDREN ONLY, RESIDENTIAL SERVICES. CASE MANAGEMENT SERVICES ARE ASSIGNED FOR THOSE CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS WHO MUST LEAVE THE COMMUNITY FOR STATE HOSPITALIZATION, INSURING A TIMELY AND SUCCESSFUL DISCHARGE BACK TO THE HOME COMMUNITY. THE ROANOKE COUNTY/SALEM COUNSELING CENTER ON BURWELL AVENUE IN SALEM CONTINUES TO PROVIDE INDIVIDUAL, GROUP, AND FAMILY COUNSELING. GEOGRAPHIC CRITERIA H.aVE BEEN REVISED SO THAT PERSONS REQUESTING OUTPATIENT COUNSELING P1AY CHOOSE THAT CENTER OR THE CENTER ON FIRST STREET IN ROANOKE, WHICHEVER IS MOST CON'VENIE?vrT TO THEIR NEEDS. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES CONTINUES TO PROVIDE 24-HOUR, 7-DAYS PER WEEK CRISIS INTERVENTION FOR PSYCHIATRIC EMERGENCIES THROUGH EMERGENCY OUTREACH SERVICES. CRISIS INTERVENTION SERVICES ARE ALSO PROVIDED IN THE ROANOKE COUNTY/SALEP? JAIL. THE MENTAL RETARDATION DIVISION PROVIDES A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF QUALITY COMMUNITY SUPPORT SERVICES THAT ARE RESPONSIVE TO FERSONS WITH MENTAL RETARDATION, TO THEIR FAMILIES, AND TO THE COMMUNITY. DURING THE PAST YEAR WE PROVIDED SERVICES TO 256 CITIZENS OF ROANOKE COUNTY. SERVICES PROVIDED INCLUDE EMERGENCY, CASE ?`MANAGE"TENT, DAY SUPPORT, RESIDENTIAL, AND PREVENTION AND EARLY INTERVENTION. THE NUMBER OF CLIENTS FROM ROANOKE COUNTY RECEIVING CASE MANAGEMENT FROM THE COUNSELING AND LIFE SKILLS CENTER INCREASED 32~ FOR FY'89. SERVICES TO ALL LOCALITIES INCREASED LAST YEAR WITH THE ADDITION OF TIVO NEW PROGRAMS WITH INITI.aTIVE FUNDING FOR FY'89. THE MELROSE AVENUE GROUP HOME FOR MEATTALLY RETARDED/EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED ADULTS BECAME OPERATIONAL IN MARCH. ALSO THE RESIDENTIAL RESPITE FACILITY, DEVELOPED TO PROVIDE OVERNIGHT RESFITE SERVICE TO FAMILIES w'HOSE SONS OR DAUGHTERS HAVE MENTAL RETARDATION, OPENED IN NOVEMBER. CASE MANAGEMENT AND DAY SUPPORT PROGRAMMING HAVE BEEN INCREASED WITH NEW INITIATIVE FUNDING FOR FY'90. TINKER MOUNTAIN INDUSTRIES WILL BE PROVIDING SPECIALIZED VOCATIONAL SERVICES FOR ADULTS WITH MENTAL RETARDATION AND E"`.OTIONAI. PROBLEMS, AND ARC- RUANOKE/CHD INDUSTRIES WILL BE PROVIDING SERVICES FUR ADULTS WITH MENTAL RETARDATION AND SEVERE PHYSICAL DISABILITIES. THE DIVISION OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES FROVIDES SERVICES FOR PREVENTION OF SUBSTANCE ABi?SE AS WELL :'lS FOR LARLY INTERVENTION, COUNSELING, DETOXIFICATION, AND RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT. MEMBERS OF THE PREVENTION STAFF HAVE WORKED WITH THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL-COMMUNITY "fEA`": FOR DRUG-FREE SCIiOOLS AND COMMUNITIES, AND CO?~TINUE TO PROVIDE PREVENTION CONSULTATION AND PROGRA"MI\G I ROANOKE COUNTY. ~-z IN THE LAST YEAR 151 RESIDENTS OF ROANOKE COUNTY WERE PROVIDED TREATMENT AND PREVENTION SERVICES, AN INCREASE OF OVER 20~ FROM THE PREVIOUS FAR. AS ADDICTIONS AND OTHER SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEMS SPREAD, THE NEED FOR TREATMENT AND PREVENTION SERVICES IN EVERY LOCALITY INCREASES. ON THE ATTACHED CHART YOU CAN SEE A MORE DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF OUR SERVICES TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE COU?~TTY D1JRI!v'G FISCAL YEAR 1989. DR. FRED ROESSEL, THE AGENCY'S EYECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AND THOMAS CHAPMAN, THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION, ARE HERE WITH ME AND WE WILL BE HAPPY TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. ACTION NUMBER # A-111589-3 ITEM NUMBER ~ " •~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 15, 1989 AGENDA ITEM• Authorization to Provide Employee Dental Insurance Program COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMME/NTS: ~~~ ~ ~ BACKBROUND: On September 12, 1989, the Board of Supervisors authorized County staff to obtain proposals for employee dental insurance coverage for regular full-time employees, including employees in the Department of Social Services, and employees of the School Board. At that time County staff also recommended that dental insurance coverage be implemented on January 1, 1990. As previously discussed, 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 previously requested by County employees. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The County Department of Procurement Services received three proposals for employee dental insurance coverage. A committee composed of Jerry Hardy (Schools/Finance), Diane Hyatt (Finance), and Keith Cook (Human Resources) evaluated the proposals received. The committee also used the services of an independent insurance consultant to assist with specifications and analysis of proposals in selecting the company which would be the most cost effective for the County and the employees. The committee considered proposal options offered by the Delta Dental Plan of Virginia and Dentalcare (underwritten by Shenandoah Life Insurance Company) as the best proposals received, and additional information was obtained from these two firms regarding their proposals. A summary of the proposal options received is included as Attachment A of this report. -~ Board of Supervisors Page Two November 14, 1989 ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS Alternative 1 The proposal of the Delta Dental Plan of Virginia is presented in this alternative. In considering the proposal options of the Delta Dental Plan of Virginia, Option III is considered the best option proposed. The level of coverage recommended under Option III is presented as follows: OPTION III I. Diagnostic and Preventive Services 100$ (UCR) II. Basic Services 80$ III. $25 Deductible for Basic Services (limit 3 deductibles per family) IV. Maximum benefit $1,000 per contract year V. Periodontics covered as other services ($300 annual cap) The cost of providing dental insurance coverage under this option for regular full-time County employees and Department of Social Services employees would be $55,679 annually. The cost of providing dental insurance coverage for regular full-time and part-time contract School Board employees would be $158,281 annually, with a total yearly cost to the County for providing dental insurance coverage for all County, Social Services, and eligible School Board employees of $213,960. Funding in the amount of $106,980 would be required from the unappropriated balance to fund dental insurance coverage for six months of the fiscal year beginning Jaunary 1, 1990. This cost projection is based on the County providing ninty percent of the employee's premium, with the employee providing funding for dependent or family coverage. A summary of the costs associated with the proposal option of the Delta Dental Plan of Virginia is included as Attachment B of this report. .~ - 3 Board of Supervisors Page Three November 14, 1989 ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS (Continued) Alternative 2 The proposal of Dentalcare is presented in this alternative. In considering the proposal options of Dentalcare, Option IV is considered the best option proposed. The level of coverage recommended under Option IV is presented as follows: OPTION IV I. Diagnostic and Preventive Services 100 (UCR) II. Basic Services 80~ III. $25 deductible for Basic Services IV Maximum benefit $1,000 per contract year V. Periodontics covered as other services ($300 annual cap) The cost of providing dental insurance coverage under this option for regular full-time County employees and Department of Social Services employees would be $53,605 annually. The cost of providing dental insurance coverage for regular full-time and part-time contract School Board employees would be $152,388 annually, with a total yearly cost to the County for providing dental insurance coverage for all County, Social Services, and eligible School Board employees of $205,992. Funding in the amount of $102,996 would be required from the unappropriated balance to fund dental insurance coverage for six months of the fiscal year beginning Juanary 1, 1990. This cost projection is based on the County providing ninty percent of the employee's premium, with the employee providing funding for dependent or family coverage. A summany of the costs associated with the proposal option of Dentalcare is included as Attachment C of this report. ~ 3 Board of Supervisors Page Four November 14, 1989 RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the approval of Alternative 1 and that the proposal of the Delta Dental Plan of Virginia, Option III, be accepted by the Board. It is also recommended that funding be provided to implement employee dental insurance coverage for regular full-time County employees, including employees in the Department of Social Services, and regular full-time and other eligible contract School Board employees, effective January 1, 1990. Although the proposal alternative recommended is higher in cost for the County, this proposal offers three rate structures (employee only coverage, two person coverage, and family coverage). The proposal option of Dentalcare offers only two rate structures (employee only coverage and family coverage). The proposal recommended also offers the advantage of a participating provider dentist network in which dental providers agree to accept the usual, customary and reasonable charges established by the Delta Dental Plan of Virginia. This alternative also offers an advantage in the claims forms acceptance among most dental providers. In the review process, the committee evaluated dental programs of other major employers within the Roanoke area, and the Delta Dental Plan of Virginia was identified as the major carrier of these programs. The Committee also considered the length of time that Delta Dental Plan of Virginia and Dentalcare have been providing dental insurance programs. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: ~~ D. K. Cook Elmer C. Hodge Director of Human Resources County Administrator Approved (X) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To ACTION Motion By• Steven A. MCGraw/ Lee Garre o approve e a en a an VOTE No Yes Abs Garrett x Johnson Absent McGraw x Nickens x Robers x cc: File Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources Assistant County Administrators Board of Supervisors Page Five No-~ember 14 , 1989 ATTACHMENT A Page 1 of 4 -3 ROANOKE COUNTY EMPLOYEES AND ROANORE COUNTY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES DENTAL BENEFIT DESIGN Board of Supervisors Page Six Nover.~ber 14, 1989 ATTACHMENT A Page 2 of 4 -~ DELTA DENTAL OPTION I I. Diagnostic and Preventive Services 100$ (UCR) II. Basic Services 80~ III. No Deductible IV. Maximum benefit $1,000 per contract year V. Periodontics $300 per contract year OPTION II I. Diagnostic and Preventive Services 100$ (UCR) II. Basic Services 80$ III. No Deductible IV. Maximum benefit $1,000 per contract year V. Periodontics covered as other services - No $300 annual cap OPTION III I. Diagnostic and Preventive Services 100 (UCR) II. Basic Services 80~ III. $25 Deductible for Basic Services - limit 3 deductibles per family. IV. Maximum benefit $1,000 per contract year V. Periodontics covered as other services - $300 annual cap OPTION IV I. Diagnostic and Preventive Services 100$ (UCR) II. Basic Services 80$ III. $25 Deductible for Basic Services - limit 3 deductibles per family IV. Maximum benefit $1,000 per contract year V. Periodontics covered as other services - No $300 annual cap Board of Supervisors Page Seven November 14, 1989 ATTACHMENT A Page 3 of 4 ~ -3 DENTAL CARE OPTION I No Quote OPTION II I. Diagnostic and Preventive Services 100$ (UCR) II. Basic Services 80$ III. No Deductible IV. Maximum benefit $1,000 per contract year - V. Periodontics covered as other services - No $300 annual cap - OPTION III No Quote OPTION IV I. Diagnostic and Preventive Services 100$ (UCR) II. Basic Services 80$ III. $25 deductible applies to basic services. IV. Maximum benefit $1,000 per contract year V. Periodontics covered as other services - $300 annual cap - Board of Supervisors Page Eight November 14, 1989 DUKE AND COMPANY OPTION I No Quote OPTION II I. Diagnostic and Preventive Services 100$ (UCR) II. Basic Services 80$ III. No Deductible IV. Maximum benefit $1,000 per contract year ATTACHMENT A Page 4 of 4 -~ V. Periodontics covered as other services - No $300 annual cap OPTION III No Quote OPTION IV I. Diagnostic and Preventive Services 100$ (UCR) II. Basic Services 80$ III. $25 deductible applies to diagnostic and preventive and basic services. IV. Maximum benefit $1,000 per contract year V. Periodontics covered as other services - No $300 annual cap Board of Supervisors Page Nine November 14, 1989 ATTACHMENT B '~ DENTAL DELTA DENTAL DENTAL INSURANCE BIDS COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA NOVEMBER 15,1989 MONTHLY MONTHLY MONTHLY COUNTY NET COST COVERAGE ------------------ RATE --------- SUPPLEMENT ------------ TO EMPLOYEE -------------- EMPLOYEE $8.36 $7.52 $0.84 EMPLOYEE & 1 MINOR 13.28 7.52 5.76 FAMILY 25.56 7.52 18.04 MONTHLY ANNUAL APPROPRIATION # OF COUNTY COUNTY NEEDED COST TO THE COUNTY EMPLOYEES SUPPLEMENT SUPPLEMENT (6 MONTHS) ------------------ ------------------------------------------------- COUNTY EMPLOYEES 617 $7.52 $55,678.08 $27,839.04 SCHOOL EMPLOYEES FULL TIME 1553 7.52 140,142.72 70,071.36 BUS DRIVERS,AIDS,& CAFETERIA WORKERS 201 7.52 18,138.24 9,069.12 ---------------------------- $213,959.04 $106,979.52 ---------------------------- ---------------------------- Board of Supervisors Page Ten November 14, 1989 ATTACHMENT C ~!~ DENTALB SHENANDOAL LIFE DENTAL CARE DENTAL INSURANCE BIDS COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA NOVEMBER 15,1989 MONTHLY MONTHLY MONTHLY COUNTY NET COST COVERAGE ------------------ RATE --------- SUPPLEMENT ------------ TO EMPLOYEE -------------- EMPLOYEE $8.04 $7.24 $0.80 EMPLOYEE & 1 MINOR N/A N/A N/A FAMILY 21.83 7.24 14.59 MONTHLY ANNUAL APPROPRIATION # OF COUNTY COUNTY NEEDED COST TO THE COUNTY EMPLOYEES SUPPLEMENT SUPPLEMENT (6 MONTHS) ------------------ ------------------------------------------------- COUNTY EMPLOYEES 617 SCHOOL EMPLOYEES FULL TIME 1553 BUS DRIVERS,AIDS,& CAFETERIA WORKERS 201 $7.24 $53,604.96 $26,802.48 7.24 134,924.64 67,462.32 7.24 17,462.88 8,731.44 ---------------------------- $205,992.48 $102,996.24 ---------------------------- ---------------------------- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE QpUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1989 RF,SOLUrION 111589-4 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE QOUNI'Y OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA WITH RESPECT TO ROANOKE COUNTY RESOURCE AUTHORITY LANDFILL FINANCING The Board of Supervisors ("Board") of the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") created the Roanoke County Resource Authority ("Authority") by resolution adopted June 14, 1989. The Authority was created, among other things, to provide for the development and operation of a sanitary landfill to serve the County and such other entities as the Authority may determine ("Project"). The Authority intends to finance the acquisition, construction, development and equipping of the Project by the issuance of its revenue bonds ("Bonds") and notes in anticipation thereof ("Notes"). The Board has determined that it is in the best interest of the County to assist the Authority in the acquisition, construction, development and equipping of the Project and the financing thereof . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. Acquisition of Land. The Board agrees to assist the Authority in the acquisition of land necessary for the Project. The County Administrator and such officers and agents of the County as he may designate are authorized and directed to sell to the Authority such parcels of land owned by the County at such prices and upon such terms and conditions as the County Administrator may determine to be used for the Project. It is anticipated that the Authority will finance the acquisition of such land and such other parcels of land as may be necessary by the issuance and sale of its Notes in the principal amount not to exceed $ 4 million. The Board agrees that in the event that the Bonds are not issued, the Board will purchase from the Authority the parcels of land acquired by the Authority at a purchase price equal to the principal amount of the Notes and any interest accrued thereon. The Board, while recognizing that it is not empowered to make any binding comYmitment beyond the current fiscal year, states that it is its current intention to make sufficient appropriations to pay the cost of the acquisition of such land, in the event that the Bonds are not issued by the Authority. Nothing in this Resolution or the Notes shall constitute a pledge of the full faith and credit of the County beyond the constitutionally permitted annual appropriations. 2. Further Actions. The County .Administrator and such officers and agents of the County as he may designate are each authorized and directed to prepare, execute, and deliver and and all papers, instruments, opinions, certificates and other documents and to take such action as they deem appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Resolution and any such action previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed. 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS : None ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson A COPY TESTS: Mary H. Al en, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Paul Mahoney, County Attorney John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator Roanoke County Resource Authority Files The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia certifies that the foregoing resolution was duly adpoted at a meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia duly called and held on November 15, 1989 and has not been repealed or amended and remains in full force and effect. Date: Novem'c~er 15, 1989 `~ ~ ~~~~~` Clerk, Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia 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: AGENDA ITEM: November 15, 1989 Resolution with Respect to the Roanoke County Resource Authority Landfill Financing COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: r~ ~^" / BACKGROUND: On June 14, 1989 the Roanoke County Resource Authority was created by the County Board of Supervisors to develop and operate a sanitary landfill. The Board has determined that it is in the best interest of the County to assist the Authority in the acquisition, construction, development and equipping of the project. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Roanoke County Resource Authority is in the process of acquiring land, conducting preliminary engineering studies, and soon will be in the process of preparing Part B applications for the landfill. In order to finance these expenditures, the Resource Authority would like to issue bond anticipation notes as a means of temporary financing until the sale of revenue bonds to coincide with the beginning of the actual construction of the landfill, which should be in the Fall of 1990. The Resource Authority would like to issue approximately $2 million in notes in December 1989. In order to make these bond anticipation notes marketable it is necessary for the County Board of Supervisors to provide assurance, prior to the sale of notes in Decem'er 1990, that these notes would be paid in the event that the landfill project is discontinued and the bonds are never issued. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: This Resolution will not have a fiscal impact upon the County as long as the revenue bonds are issued through the Resource Authority. In the event that the bonds a.re not issued, the County will need to pay the principal amount on any monies that have been borrowed in this preliminary stage of the project and any interest accrued on these notes. ~~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the attached resolution by which the Board agrees that in the event that the bonds are not issued, the Board will purchase from the Roanoke County Resource Authority all assets at a purchase price equal to the principal amount of the notes and any interest accrued thereon. ~~~'~ Elmer C. Hodge Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance County Administrator -------------------- ----------------------- AcTION voTE No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Motion by: Garrett Denied ( ) Johnson Received ( ) McGraw Referred Nickens To Robers RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA WITH RESPECT TO ROANOKE COUNTY RESOURCE AUTHORITY LANDFILL FINANCING The Board of Supervisors ("Board") of the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") created the Roanoke County Resource Authority ("Authority") by resolution adopted June 14, 1989. The Authority was created, among other things, to provide for the development and operation of a sanitary landfill to serve the County and such other entities as the Authority may determine ("Project"). The Authority intends to finance the acquisition, construction, development and equipping of the Project by the issuance of its revenue bonds ("Bonds") and notes in anticipation thereof ("Notes"). The Board has determined that it is in the best interest of the County to assist the Authority in the acquisition, construction, development and equipping of the Project and the financing thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUN`T'Y OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. Acquisition of Land. The Board agrees to assist the Authority in the acquisition of land necessary for the Project. The County Administrator and such officers and agents of the County as he may designate are authorized and directed to sell to the Authority such parcels of land owned by the County at such prices and upon such terms and conditions as the County Ar.~ninistrator may determine to be used for the Project. It is anticipated that the Authority will finance the acquisition of such land and such other parcels of land as may be necessary by the issuance and sale of its Notes in the principal amount not to exceed $ 4 million. The Board agrees that in the event that the Bonds are not issued, the Board will purchase from the Authority the parcels of land acquired by the Authority at a purchase price equal to the principal amount of the Notes and any interest accrued thereon. The Board, while recognizing that it is not empowered to make any binding commnitment beyond the current fiscal year, states that it is its current intention to make sufficient appropriations to pay the cost of the acquisition of such land, in the event that the Bonds are not issued by the Authority. Nothing in this Resolution or the Notes shall constitute a pledge of the full faith and credit of the County beyond the constitutionally permitted annual appropriations. 2. Further Actions. The County Administrator and such officers and agents of the County as he may designate are each authorized and directed to prepare, execute, and deliver and and all papers, instruments, opinions, certificates and other documents and to take such action as they deem appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Resolution and any such action previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed. 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia certifies that the foregoing resolution was duly adpoted at a meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia duly called and held on November 28, 1989 and has not been repealed or amended and remains in full force and effect. Date: November , 1989 Clerk, Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia ACTION NUMBER ITEM NUMBER ~! _g AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 15, 1989 SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Community Corrections Resources Board One-year term of Edmund J. Kielty, Alternate. His term expired August 13, 1988. Health Department Board of Directors Two-year term of Susan Adcock expired November 26, 1989 Industrial Development Authority Four-year term of W. Darnall Vinyard, Vinton District expired on September 26, 1989. Library Board Four-year term of Dr. Norma Jean Peters, Hollins Magisterial District, will expire December 31, 1989. Dr. Peters is filling the unexpired term of Richard Kirkwood. Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley, Community_Services Board Three-year term of Sue Ivey, County appointee will expire December 31, 1989. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Three-year term of Alice Gillespie, Hollins Magisterial District expired June 30, 1989. Regional Partnership Site Advisory Committee Three-year term of Charles Saul will expire December 21, 1989. -~' ~ ~' Roanoke County Resource Authorit Initial terms of Lee Garrett, Bob L. Johnson and Harry c Nickens will expire December 31, 1989. New terms will be four-year terms and will expire December 31, 1993. SUBMITTED BY: Mary H. Allen Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: Yes No Abs Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To: Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens 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: November 15, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Appointments to Council/Youth and COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: the Court Service Unit Advisory Family Services Advisory Board SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On December 13, 1988, the Board of Supervisors voted to continue this Board and appoint new members. Michael Lazzuri, Director of Court Services has contacted the present members of the Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board to determine whether they wished to continue serving. The following terms expired in 1988 or will expire in 19$9. 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 -~--9 1989 will expire September 1, 1989. Thereafter all terms will expire September 1, coinciding with the school year. SUBMITTED BY: J ~ ~~ Mary H. len Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator --------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: Yes No Abs Denied ( ) Garrett Received ( ) Johnson Referred McGraw To: Nickens Robers 2 ~ ' ~- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1989 RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM K - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That that certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for November 15, 1989, designated as Item K - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 6, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of Minutes - February 28, 1989, March 14, April 25, 1989 1 , , 1989, March 28, 1989, April 1 1989. 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the d the Planning Industrial Development Authority an Commission. 3 Request for acceptance of Williamsburg Court into . the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 4. Request for acceptance of 0.23 miles of Stonewood Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 5. Authorization to appropriate capital funds for the Green Hill Park Improvements. 6. Authorization to execute a contract to establish an integrated automated library system. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. 1 i ' i .T ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1989 RESOLUTION NO. 111589-5 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS. DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM K - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That that certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for November 15, 1989, designated as Item K - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 6, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of Minutes - February 28, 1989, March 14, 1989, March 28, 1989, April 11, 1989, April 25, 1989. 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Industrial Development Authority and the Planning Commission. 3. Request for acceptance of Williamsburg Court into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 4. Request for acceptance of 0.23 miles of Stonewood Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 5. Authorization to appropriate capital funds for the Green Hill Park Improvements. 6. Aa~ke~~~a~}ea-~e-eaeer~~e-a-eea~~ae~-~e-es~ab~~sk a~-ia~eg~a~ed-ae~ema~ed-~}b~a~y-system= 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by lati to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Nickens with Item 6 removed, seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and upon the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 11/21/89 CC: File Phillip Henry, Director of Engineering John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator Steve Carpenter, Director of Parks and Recreation Arnold Covey, Director of Development & Inspections -~ / February 28, 1989 5 2 6 ~~ Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 3738 Brambleton Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24018 February 28, 1989 The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday, and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of February, 1989. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Garrett called the meeting to order at 3:06 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Lee Garrett, Vice Chairman Richard Robers, Supervisors Bob L. Johnson, Steven A. McGraw, Harry C. Nickens MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator for Human Services; John R. Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator of Community Services and Development; Don M. Myers, Assistant County Administrator for 5zs February 28, 1989 Supervisor Nickens moved to adopt the prepared resolution. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None RESOLUTION 22889-1 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO ART WHITTARER FOR OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTIONS TO HIS COMMUNITY BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: WHEREAS, the service of Piedmont Airlines to the Roanoke Valley has been important to the residents and businesses of the area; and WHEREAS, Art Whittaker has worked for Piedmont Airlines since August 1948, and spent the last 22 years as Station Manager at the Roanoke Regional Airport; and WHEREAS, Art Whittaker has been responsible for the operation of Piedmont's airplanes in and out of Roanoke and has contributed greatly to the impressive efficiency and safety record of the company in the Roanoke Valley; and WHEREAS, Art Whittaker has been an active member of the Cave Spring community in which he resides and has benefited the ~' citizens of Roanoke County by his involvement. -~ February 28, 1989 5 3 Q a the Notice of Filing in the Circuit Courts of Roanoke City and Roanoke County. 1. Lee Brooks, 1918 Oxford Avenue S. W.,~ Vice Chairman of the Citizens for Governmental Excellence, a valleywide citizens group formed by, and comprised of the Roanoke Jaycees, the Cave Spring Jaycees, the Northwest Revitalization Corporation, the Roanoke Valley Board of Realtors and other concerned citizens. Mr. Brooks advised that this organization was formed to allow the citizens of Roanoke Valley to have a voice in their government by means of this petition drive. r 2. Mark S. Lawrence, 4410 Sumtnerset Drive, S. W., ~~ President of the Roanoke Jaycees. 3. Gary Bower, 1410 Lori Drive, Roanoke, representing the Cave Spring Jaycees. 4. Ed Hall, 2810 Avenham Avenue, representing the Roanoke Valley Board of Realtors. 5. Brandon Bell, 5268 Golden Eagle Lane. Supervisors Robers and McGraw thanked the members of the various organizations for taking the time to collect the necessary signatures. 2 Approval of 1989 90 Regional Airport Commission Budget. February 28, 1989 5 3 2 NOW, THEREFORE it is hereby resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the annual operating budget for fiscal year 1989-90 of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission is hereby approved. 2. That the Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this resolution to the Chairman of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission, and to Jack Spain Jr., Esquire, Hunton & Williams, Richmond, Virgin- ia. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Johnson, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None 3 Request from the Registrar for an appropriation of funds for Primary Election. A-22889-3 There was no discussion on this item. Supervisor Nickens moved to appropriate $23,855 for the State Republican Party primary election on June 13, 1989. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett February 28, 1989 5 3 4 is hereby amended by canceling the meeting scheduled for June 13, 1989; and 2. That the meeting scheduled for June 13, 1989, is hereby rescheduled to Wednesday, June 14, 1989, at 3:00 p.m. at the Roanoke County Administration Center at 3738 Brambleton Ave- nue; and 3. That the County Administrator shall cause a copy of this Resolution to be posted at the Roanoke County Courthouse, the Roanoke County Administration Center, and each County library, and to be advertised in the Roanoke Times and World News F-"~ on May 30, 1989, and June 6, 1989. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor Robers, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None 5 Authorization to initiate a sanitary sewer ro ect for the Highfields/Lakeland Road Area. A-22889-5 There was no discussion on this item. Supervisor Garrett moved to establish a special sewer service area and that staff be authorized to send notice of the project and agreements to all property owners in the area so that commitments may be made by the residents. The motion was February 28, 1989 5 `~ V of all lending institutions in the Roanoke Valley were contacted to bid. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Garrett _ RESOLUTION 22889-7 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE COUNTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA, REVENUE ANTICIPATION ~.. NOTES, SERIES 1989A IN THE AMOUNT $9,000,000 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors ("Board") of the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") adopted a resolution on February 14, 1989, authorizing the County to borrow not to exceed $17,000,000 and issue its revenue anticipation notes therefor; WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow $9,000,000 and to issue its Revenue Anticipation Notes, Series 1989A therefor ("Notes") to meet casual cash flow deficits of the County; and __., 53 8~ February 28, 1989 seal of the County on the Notes. The form of execution, imprinting of the seal and attestation may be by facsimile; provided, however, if the signatures of the County Administrator and Treasurer are both by facsimile, the Notes shall not be valid until authenticated by the manual signature of the Paying Agent. In case any officer whose signature or a facsimile of whose signature shall appear on any Note shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Notes, such signature or such facsimile shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes the same as if he or she had remained in office until such delivery. Any Note may bear the facsimile signature of or . may be signed by such persons as at the actual time of its execution are the proper officers to sign such Note although at the date of delivery of such Note such persons may not have been such officers. Upon receipt of payment therefor, the Treasurer of the County or such agent as may be designated, shall issue and deliver the Notes to the purchaser or purchasers thereof. The officers and agents of the County are further authorized and directed to do all acts required by the Notes and by this Resolution for the full, punctual and complete performance of all things necessary for this borrowing. 4. Crestar Bank, Richmond, Virginia is appointed as Paying Agents for the Notes. The principal of and interest on t ~ the Notes shall be payable in lawful money of the United States L: 544 February 28, 1989 9. The appropriate officers and agents of the County are authorized and directed to immediately cause a certified copy of this Resolution, setting forth the form and details of the Notes, to be filed with the Circuit Court of the County pursuant to Sections 15.1-199 and 15.1-212 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. 10. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Garrett IN RE: REQUEST FOR WORR SESSIONS Supervisor McGraw requested a work session on recycling on March 14, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Hodge reminded the Board that there was a joint work session scheduled with the School Board on March 14 at 4:00 p.m., and a work session with the Fire Chiefs on the same date at 6:30 p.m• Supervisor Robers moved to request that the Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee be involved in recycling projects, with new appointments being made if any member does not wish to February 28, 1989 542 1. Confirmation of Committee Appointment to the Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board 2. Agg~eva€ -e€ -Ra€€€e -Pew€~ -€e~ -the -Save -6g~}Rg 3ayeeesT 3. Adoption of Resolution of Appreciation to the Honorable Jack B. Coulter, Judge of the 23rd Judicial Circuit. 4. Authorization to grant 40' easement to Appalachian Power Company. 5. Acceptance of a 10-foot water line easement being dedicated by Dominion Bank. 6. Request for acceptance of Huntridge Road and Britany Road in the Va. Department of Transportation Secondary System. 7. Request for acceptance of Rildeer circle and Falcon Ridge Road into the Va. Department of Transportation Secondary System. 8. Acceptance of water .and sewer facilities serving Section No. 2, Huntridge 9. Acknowledgment from the Virginia Department of Tansportation that the following roads have been accepted into the Secondary System: a. 0.11 miles of Fox Ridge Road b. 0.40 miles of Peregrine Crest Circle c. 0.25 miles of Fox Ridge Road d. 0.15 miles of Silver Fox Road 10. Acceptance of sewer facilities serving White Subdivision. 11. Acceptance of a sanitary sewer easement being donated by Velma G. Edwards. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized 5 4 ~ ,. February 28, 1989 :, Father of the Year for Youth Leadership, received the Jayceee' Distinguished Service Award, and the Military Order of World Wars' Patriotic Award; and WHEREAS, Judge Coulter has distinguished himself throughout his legal career and sponsored many innovations in the courtroom designed to ease the responsibilities of jurors, attorneys, and those whose cases were being heard. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, wishes to express its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of its citizens to The Honorable Jack B. Coulter, Judge of the 23rd Judicial Circuit, for his many years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors extends its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Robers, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None RESOLUTION 22889-8.e REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF HUNTRIDGE ROAD AND BRITANEY ROAD INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM t ... BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roano e -' County, Virginia, as follows: 546 February 28, 1989 t acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Robers, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None RESOLUTION 22889-8.f REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF RILDEER CIRCLE AND FALCON RIDGE ROAD INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ROAD SYSTEM BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the proceedings herein, and upon the application of Rildeer Circle a section of road extending from Hunting Hills Drive (Route 1541) in a southerly direction to a cul de sac for a distance of 0.09 miles and Falcon Ridge Road extending from Hawkbill Circle (Rt. 1938) in a westerly direction to Hunting Hills Drive (Rt. 1541) for a distance of 0.40 miles. Pursuant to Section 33.1-72.1, Paragraph C-1 and funded pursuant to Section 33.1-75.1, Paragraph A of the Code of Virginia, of 1950 as amended. 2. That this Board does guarantee the Commonwealth of Virginia and unrestricted right-of-way of 50 feet with necessary ~. ,~ easements for drainage as recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 5 and 5~g February 28, 1989 Supervisor questioned the legality of this type of raffle permit under the state code and pointed out that the activity had already been held prior to this meeting. County Attorney Paul Mahoney suggested that the item be tabled so that he may research the legality of the raffle permit. Supervisor Nickens moved to table the issue for legal research. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Garrett and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Nickens, Garrett ~"- NAYS: Supervisors McGraw, Robers PRESENT: Supervisor Johnson Supervisor McGraw moved to approve the Raffle Permit. There was no second and the motion died. Mr. Mahoney advised he would research the legality of the raffle permit. IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Nickens moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None 55 0 February 28, 1989 introduced the other members of the Parks and Recreation Commission. Ms. Willis reported that the commission formed two committees, one to study cost efficiencies and one to study property evaluation. A public assessment survey has also been conducted. She also informed the board that a parks ordinance was being drafted. Director of Parks and Recreation Stephen Carpenter presented an overview of the department, describing the number of acres and parks maintained by the Parks division. He reported that six additional parks have been added as a result of the 1985 _: bond referendum. Vince Joyce, vice chairman of the commission, described the public assessment survey project, and reviewed the results of the survey. Mr. Joyce and Mr. Carpenter also presented a summary of the progress on the 1985 bond projects which included Green Hill Park, Starkey Park, Whispering Pines Park, Happy Hollow Garden, Vinyard Park and Waldron Park. There was a discussion on the positive and negative impacts of a fee structure. Several board members expressed concern at charging a fee to participate in recreational activities. i. Mr. Joyce outlined recommendations that the commission had prepared to improve maintenance and efficiencies and raise .:. 552 February 28, 1989 ~~ Chairman Garrett advised this was not a public hearing concerning the proposed sites. Public hearings have previously been held around the county, and at this time, there will be no opportunity for public input. Mr. Hodge reported that the search for a new landfill site for the Roanoke Valley began more than a year ago. Since that time, staff and consultants have evaluated more than 50 sites and identified six that were the most feasible. Mr. Hodge stated that following the reports by the Citizens Advisory Committee and Dr. Olver, the consultant, he will request Board i"~~° authorization to forward two sites to the state for Part A ,. ': application. After careful review of the consultant's work, visits to each site, and work sessions, he recommended proceeding with the Bradshaw and Boones Chapel sites. He reminded the Board that all six sites have potential, if the Board wishes to choose other sites. Each Part A application will cost approximately $46,000. He advised that the top two sites were recommended because they have the best socio-technical characteristics. The Bradshaw site with a matrix score of 291 was considered the best site. An access road should be constructed so that landfill vehicles will not have to use Bradshaw Road. The second choice is Boones Chapel with a matrix score of 214. ~_., The Buck Mountain site, with a matrix score~of 224, would have ' been second, but due to a projected life of only 15 years, the 55 ~ .. February 28, 1989 ,_.. , s. The committee has met every week and had two joint meetings with the Planning Commission. They will make recommendated conditions for the Special Exception Permit approved by the Board of Supervisors. If approved, the conditions will be binding on the landfill. Some of their recommendations will include a guarantee that contaminated groundwater will be replaced at no expense; if property is devalued, the residents will be reimbursed; that access roads are safe, and that there are adequate buffer zones. They feel the host community should be compensated .for having a landfill in `~' their area such as improvement projects, free use of the landfill } services, fire protection, and continued waste reduction measures. Other recommendations include minimizing of noise and operating hours, tight security, tipping fees that will encourage recycling and escrow of funds that will compensate for groundwater protection and devaluation of property. They will also recommend environmental monitoring to ensure that the landfill operation complies with the conditions attached to the Special Exception Permit. Mr. Wright reported that the committee plans to present these recommendations to the Planning Commission in mid-April. They will also begin to address the specific needs of the ~-? Bradshaw and Boones Chapel sites and ways to reduce the waste stream. February 28, 1989 5 5 6 .~- _ . outlined by Mr. Wright. The matrix rankings were based on 24$ cost, 23$ social and the remainder technical. Dr. Olver advised that they have estimated the potential costs for the Bradshaw site, but these costs could change when further study is complete. Development costs are estimated at $15.6 million. The annual operating costs are estimated at $4.6 million. $100,000 will be set aside for an environmental trust fund to cover issues such as groundwater contamination. In response to a question from Supervisor Robers, Dr. Olver advised that the estimated life at Bradshaw is 60 years, `'~ Fort Lewis is 60 years, Buck Mountain is 15 years, Boones Chapel '. is 25 years, Mount Pleasant is 30 years and Red Hill is 20 years. Supervisor Johnson asked about the possibility of a monofill area for ash from waste-to-energy. Dr. Olver replied that there is ample space at all but Red Hill and Buck Mountain. In response to another question from Supervisor Johnson concerning closing of the private debris landfills, Dr. Olver responded that these dumps also will be closed in 1992 if they do not meet the standards. Supervisor Robers moved that the Board approve the staff recommendation authorizing the submission of Part A applications for the Bradshaw Road site and Boones chapel site. r-z The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: ~. 5~5 8 February 28, 1989 have promised a pickup and delivery service. They have proffered six conditions. The Planning Commission recommended approval by a three to two vote. The petitioner Rathy Fortune was present to answer questions and advised that they have maintained the road since they moved to the property. In response to a question from Supervisor McGraw, Ms. Fortune reported that the average turnover was 4 to 7 days. Donald Wolthus, attorney for George Janesko, spoke in opposition to the petition because the petitioner does not own the property to be rezoned, but only proposed to buy the additional acreage. He als expressed concern about the traffic and safety of the road and the bridge. Following discussion of the traffic and safety factors and the legalities, Supervisor Robers moved to deny the petition. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None 289-4 Petition of J. Edward Conner to rezone an approximate 1.2 acre tract from B-1 Business and R-1 Residential to B-2, Business to construct a restaurant, located on the south side of Peters Creek Road, 280 feet week of its intersection with South Drive in the Hollins Magisterial District. February 28, 1989 5fi 0 BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be transmitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission and that he be directed to reflect that change on the official zoning map of Roanoke County. "~BEGINNiNG at a point on the northerly side of East Drive ( 50' wide ) 100 ft: easterly from the east line of Lot 11 of the R.E. Dillard Farm Map; Thence leaving East Drive and with the east line of Lots 21 and~1, N. 26 degrees 02' W. 308.b9 ft. to a point on the southerly side of Virginia N 72 degrees Highway Route No. 11?; Thence with the same, . 20'E. 227.41 ft. to, a point; Thence leaving Virginia Highway Route No. 117 and with the westerly line of Lot 9. S. 26 degrees 02' E. 161.50 ft. to a point on the north- erly line of Lots 25 and 2b, N. 63 degrees 58' E. 50.00 ft. to a point; Thence with a line thru the center of Lot 26, S. 26 degrees 02' E. 150.00 Ft. to a point on the northerly side of East Drive; Thence with the same, S. 63 degrees 58' W. 225.00 ft. to the PLACE OF BEGINNING and being all of Lots 2 thru 8, all of Lots 22 thru 25 and the westerly one half of Lot 26, Section 1, Map of Dillard Court of record in the Clerks Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia in Plat Book 2 Page 169." PROFFER OF CONDITIONS (1) Property will not be used for such businesses as hotels, motels, theaters, assembly halls, new car dealerships, barber/beauty shops and flea markets. (2) The building will be a single story. (3) Restaurant will have no dance hall space. (4) No flashing signs and no portable signs. Permanent fixed signs only, limited to 80 sq. ft. February 28, 1989 562 ~. ,~ Supervisor Robers moved to approve the request with proffered conditions. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Garrett FINAL ORDER NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned parcel of land which is contained in the Roanoke County Tax Maps as Parcel 77.20-1-40 and recorded in Deed Book 1082, page 454 and legally described below, be rezoned from B-2 and 8-3 Business District to B-2 Business District BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be transmitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission and that he be directed to reflect that change on the official zoning map of Roanoke County. BEGINNING at an existing iron pin on the westerly right-of-way of U.S. Route 220 (Franklin Roadairaet uxe(Tax Map Numbera77.20 1 38~of the property of Cleasly St. C1 THENCE leaving said St. Clair and with sa B GINNING f-way S 18°15'00" E; 149.64' to a point, the Actual Point of , THENCE .continuing with said right-of-way S 18°15'00" E, 154.60' to an existing iron pin at the north right-of-way intersection of Valley -~ Street, 5~ February 28, 1989 (5) Central Fidelity Bank, Inc. will coordinate with Roanoke County to enable the County to upgrade the storm sewer along the eastern property line (beside U. S. Route 220) prior to Central Fidelity paving an entrance onto U. S. Route 220, so long as cooperation does delay paving the entrances to the planned branch opening on December 1, 1989. 289_6 Petition of Fekas Homes, Inc. to rezone a 3.75 acre tract from RE, Residential Estates to M-2, Industrial, located at the northeast corner of the intersection of 16th Street and Carlisle Avenue in the Vinton Magisterial District. (Petitioner changed to Steve Rossi) Mr. Harrington reported this petition is now being submitted on behalf of Mr. Steve Rossi. The staff advised that if this petition is approved, a land use amendment will be instituted because the land use is presently Rural Preserve. The petition plans to use this property for expansion, employee parking and storage of concrete products. Staff made several recommendations concerning access to the site, and the petitioner recommended that industrial traffic will use Brownlee Avenue. Heywood Fralin, attorney for the petitioner, was present and he advised that there will only be one additional f entrance and that the other entrance already exists. He reported i- , is Februa 28, 1989 5 6,6 rY as Parcel 70.11-1-22 and 70.11-1-21 and recorded in Deed Book 1031, page 576 and legally described below, be rezoned from RE Residential District to M-2 Manufacturing District BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be transmitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission and that he be directed to reflect that change on the official zoning map of Roanoke County. lECINNINC at an icon p_a on tAe sovtA side oL Caclisl• Avenue at .ti eaatecl7 tec^lava, salt point being on tie Roanote Clty-Roanoke toa~tY Corpocate Line and being • point c:+ the line of Lot _ 1. Riverside Teccaee ceeocded in tAe Cleck'a Otti:e of tAe Clccvit Court of :Ae City of Roanoke is Map look 1, tape 2::3s tAenee leaving said Point of •eginninq and etosainq Cacliale Avenue, tAen tollovin9 tAe easteclp side of an 11 Coct allay. M. »' ~1' t• i03.I~ tact to an old icon pia on tAe east side of 16th Stcset, and cornet to the pcopect7 presently ovaed by ttepAen C. i teth Ann Rosaii CAeaee with ~. '.I+e Rossi line and the property herein desccibsd. S. 56• 19 5«.01 tact to an old icon pin on the lino ol~the Millia^ t. 111nyacd ~, ~ N. ~SS.99 test tst..tet•tAenee vith the vin/ard Estate. f. 31 ,~• •~ to an icon pin oa tAe line :t Lot 6 of RivecsiA• lecrace: tAenee with a.. rate Life tha tear line of Riverside tes~sea Sabdivisier. ~.nd tAe Corpo f f" i bet~•een Roanoke City and f~oanoke CovntY. M. i8' '25' dS'••M, ~542•SS lest to tAe tlaee of •ECINNZNG and Deinq a parcel o[ land eontainin9 1.iS! acres and Deinq as s~ovn on bovndacY SucveY torsi ephea C• i Deth Ana Rossi by !. t. Pa:kec i Son, Engineers and tneveYoea.,}td• dated Deee^Dec 2t, 19aE, a ~~opy of vhie.'. is a::aeAed hereto and made a part hcreot. ~.• .~ T' PROFFER OF CONDITIONS 5s 8 February 28, 1989 ~~ >~ Mr. Maas was present to answer questions. Supervisor Garrett moved to approve the request. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None FINAL ORDER NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned ~' parcel of land which is contained in the Roanoke County Tax Maps a e 354 and as Parcel 77.09-4-47 and recorded in Deed Book 1156, p g legally described below, be rezoned from M-1 Conditional District to M-1 Conditional with amended conditions District BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be transmitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission and that he be directed to reflect that change on the official zoning map of Roanoke County. BEGINNING at a point at the northeast corner of the property of WADO Corporation (Deed Book 1198, Page 144); thence N. 58° 00' E. 90.00 feet to a point; thence 5. 32° 00' E. 70.00 feet to a point; thence S. 58° 00' W. 90.00 feet to a point; thence N. 32° 00' W. 70.00 feet to a point. PROFFER OF CONDITIONS 57 0 28, 1989 ABSTAIN: Supervisor McGraw FINAL ORDER NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned parcel of land which is contained in the Roanoke County Tax Maps as Parcel 37.07-1-6 and recorded in Deed Book 1289, page 1309 and legally described below, be rezoned from M-2 General Industrial District to M-1 Light Industrial District BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be ~-. transmitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission and that he be directed to reflect that change on the official zoning map of Roanoke County. BEGINNING at a point `designated as Point 1 on the hereinafter mentionedsPdetofsKenworthtRoadngsaidated on the northwesterly corner of the Point being also the southeSmithsub, Inc., a Virginia 10.78 acre parcel owned by corporation, as descrk sdOfficeeofdthedCircuit~Court~ of record in the Cler of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1289, page 1309; thence leaving Renworth Road and with the northerly line of the property of Smithsub, Inc., N• 51° 37' 39" W. 736.50 feet to a point designated as 6A, being the ACTUAL PLACE OF BEG~NoNe=~% ofeSmithsub, a new division line through the p p y oint Inc., S. 52° OQ' 19" w. 414.89 feet to a p Hated as 3A, said Point being on the line of the desig property of OvernighthTthesnortherly lined f ok 97 , page 569); thence wit N. 37° 03' 21" W. 325.00 Overnight Transportation, feet to Corner 4, said point being on the southerly line of the property of Lingerfelt Development Corporation; thence leaving the line of Overnight Transportation and with tNe 5Z;e33f 19"gErf330 feet Development Corporation, with the Lingerfelt to Point 5; thence continuing February 28, 1989 5 7 ~, That the Petitioner will review the drainage• situation for Valleypointe and implement a design for drainage facilities to either retain or detain the two (2) year storr.~ (as has been required by Roanoke County) and to consicipr retention or detention for a ten (10) year storm. 289-9 Petition of Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to rezone a 1.03 acre tract from M-1, Industrial to B-1, Business to construct a rescue squad building and for Planning Commission review of the compatibility of a proposed rescue squad facility and the Comprehensive Plan, located at the southeast corner of Brambleton and Valley Forge Avenues in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. There was no discussion on this petition. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the request with proffered conditions. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None FINAL ORDER NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned parcel of land which is contained in the Roanoke County Tax Maps as Parcel 77.13-3-3 and -4 and recorded in Deed Book 1209, page 369 and legally described below, be rezoned from M-1 District to `~- 8-1 District 5 7 4 a, February 28, 1989 (1) The entrance onto Brambleton Avenue will be a one-way emergency entrance on and will be denoted by appropriate signs and pavement markings. IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1 Ordinance amending Section 21-4 (a1 Enhanced ~~ ~: _. Tax, of_Chapter 21 of the County Code reducing the tax on purchases of local telex service to fund the E911 Emergency Telephone System. County Attorney Paul Mahoney presented the staff report explaining that the ordinance would reduce the tax to 4b cents per month effective July 1, 1989. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve first reading of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None 2. Ordinance acce tin an offer for and authorizin ~- ; i._ .3 the sale and conve ance of sur lus real estate - well lot on Route 633, Benois Road. 576 February 28, 1989 t_ . 4. Ordinance amending and reenacting Section 21-151L Lew of tax; amount of the Roanoke County Code to provide for the taxation of food that is sold for off-premises consumption. Mr. Mahoney reported that the General Assembly authorized Roanoke County to amend its meals tax ordinance to apply to food prepared on premises and sold to take out. A public hearing and second reading will be held March 14, 1989. The proposed effective date is April 1, 1989, and the Commissioner of the Revenue will attempt to contact businesses affected by this ordinance. Supervisor Garrett moved to approve first reading. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Supervisor Johnson moved to adjourn at 9:05 p.m• The motion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett t ~ NAYS: None r'<, __ /' 57 g March 14, 1989 Roanoke-County-Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 3738 Brambleton Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24018 March 14, 1989 The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday, and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of March, 1989. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Garrett called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Lee Garrett, Vice Chairman Richard Robers, Supervisors Bob L. Johnson, Steven A. McGraw, Harry C. Nickens MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator for Human Services; John R. Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator of Community Services and Development; Don M. Myers, Assistant County Administrator for Management Services; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney, Mary H. Allen, Deputy 58 0 March 14, 1989. 3. Reco nition of Fire and Rescue Personnel involved in recent plane crash in Roanoke County. County Administrator Elmer Hodge recognized the county staff and volunteers who worked at the recent plan crash. IN RE: WORR SESSION 1. Recycling County Administrator Elmer Hodge presented the report. He outlined staff recommendations on recycling goals and objectives for the future, as well as excerpts from a report from Olver and Associates. The staff recommends continuing the present recycling program; requiring that recycling be part of the new landfill contract; requesting that the Landfill Board operate a valley-wide yard waste compost program; requesting the Clean Valley Council to determine ways to involve the business sector; location of drop off centers; and privatization of buy back centers. Mr. Hodge stated that recycling should be a regional project to be successful, and efforts should be made towards a valley-wide effort. In response to a question from Supervisor Robers, Mr. Hodge advised that recycling is not yet a part of the new landfill contract, but he felt it should be. 58 2 March 14, 1989 Vinton would continue to enforce the zoning ordinance. The Town of Vinton would need to adopt the current county permit fee schedules to implement this program. - Staff recommended that Roanoke County enforce the building code in the Town of Vinton with additional staff and equipment totaling $63,611. Mr. Covey advised that added permit fees would help to defray these costs. In response to questions from the board members, Mr. Covey reported that there are currently five building inspectors and there has been no growth of personnel. Mr. Hodge advised that the increased fees would cover about $4,000 to $6,000 and Mr. Mahoney responded that any contract would include the necessary language to release Roanoke County from any liability. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the staff recommendation that Roanoke County enforce the building code in the Town of Vinton effective July 1, 1989, and that fees be increased to cover additional costs to serve the Town of Vinton. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Garrett and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None 584 March 14, 1989 1 Request for Public Hearing on April 11, 1989 to elicit citizen comment on the proposed 1989/90 budget and on the pro osed tax rates for real estate, personal property and machinery and tools. Supervisor Johnson moved to set the public hearing for April 11, 1989. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1 Ordinance amending Chapter 7, "Building Regulations" of the Roanoke County Code by amending Article II, "Building Code", Section 7-6, "Adopted". Mr. Mahoney advised that this ordinance will implement the action taken under New Business authorizing the enforcement of the Building Code in the Town of Vinton by Roanoke County. The proposed amendment would amend Section 7-16 by the addition of language that would include the Town of Vinton within the enforcement power. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve first reading of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote: 586 March 14, 1989 Glared to be surplus and is being made available for sale to the public; and 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the sale and disposition of the hereinafter-described real estate was held on February 28, 1989. A second reading on this matter was held on March 14, 1989. This real estate consists of a well lot located on Route 633, Benois Road and more particularly described as Tax Map No. 87.11-3-28; and 3. That offers having been received for the well lot located on Route 633, Benois Road, the offer of Alfred E. Wray trading as Associated Building Services of Virginia in the amount of $15,007.00 is 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 exe- cute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the sale and conveyance of said property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None 58 8 March 14, 1989 3. That the right-of-way and easement are located on property owned by Roanoke County in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District located. on the westerly side of Route 613, Merriman Road near the new Starkey Sewage Pumping Station; and 4. That the offer of Appalachian Power Company in the amount of $1.00 is hereby accepted and all other offers are rejected; and 5. That the proceeds from the sale of the right-of-way and easement are to be allocated to the capital reserves of Roanoke County; and -- 6. 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 Robers, seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None 3 Ordinance vacating approximately ninety feet of an existing sanitary sewer easement on Lot 11 and approximately one hundred feet of an existin sanita sewer easement on Lots 2 and 3 of Stonebridge Court subdivision. 590 March 14, 1989 Supervisor McGraw moved to approve the nominations for appointment. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote:. AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Robers: (1) requested that a resolution of congratulations be prepared for presentation to the Cave Spring High School Basketball team; (2) reported that The Roanoker Magazine had suggested that complimentary copies of The Roanoker be sent to businesses in Northern Virginia; and (3) requested an updated study of the percentage of signs currently located on the Route 419 corridor. Supervisor McGraw announced he had received a copy of a report from the City of Roanoke outlining the potential impact of a new trade center to the Roanoke Valley and he asked the County Administrator to send to the board members copies of the report. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA March 14, 1989 592 5. Request from the Department of State Police for authorization to place storage facilities on County-owned property. 6. .Resolution of Appreciation to Dominion Bankshares • for their outstanding economic - development contributions to the Roanoke Valley. 7. Approval of a Raffle Permit for the Athenian Society. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, with Item 7 added, seconded by Supervisor Johnson, and upon the following recorded AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None RESOLUTION 31489-8.c REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF SPRING RUN DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the proceedings herein, and upon the application of Spring Run Drive to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code. 594 March 14, 1989 WHEREAS, Section 15.1-482(b) of the 1950 Code of Virgin- ia, as amended, requires that such a request be accomplished by ordinance of the governing body; and WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.1-431 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and a public hearing and first reading of this ordinance was held on January 24, 1989, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on March 14, 1989. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That approximately ninety (90) feet of an existing sanitary sewer easement on Lot 11 and approximately one hundred (100) feet of an existing sanitary sewer easement on Lots 2 and 3 of Stonebridge Court Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 9, page 304 in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, hereby are vacated, pursuant to Section 15.1- 482(b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. 3. That petitioner shall record a certified copy of . this ordinance with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and shall pay all fees required to accomplish this transaction. 596 March 14, 1989 OF LOCAL TELEPHONE SERVICE TO FUND THE E911 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SYSTEM WHEREAS, by Ordinance 85-180 adopted on October 8, 1985, the Board of~Supervisors of Roanoke County levied a tax on~ purchases of local telephone service to fund an E911 Emergency Telephone System; and WHEREAS, this ordinance imposed a tax of 66t per month to pay for the initial capital installation and maintenance costs of the E911 system; and WHEREAS, once the initial capital and installation costs were paid this tax would be reduced to fund the recurring maintenance costs of the E911 system; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on February 28, 1989; the second reading and public hearing on this ordinance was held March 14, 1989; the appropriate legal notices having been published as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervi- sors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 21-4, Enhanced Emergency Telephone_-Tax of Chapter 21, Taxation of the Roanoke County Code is hereby amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 21-4. Enhanced emergency telephone tax. (a) There is hereby imposed and levied by the county upon every purchaser of local telephone service a tax in the 59 g March 14, 1989 Mr. Mahoney presented the ,staff report. He advised that the General Assembly, during the 1989 session adopted legislation that expanded the County's taxing powers to provide for a tax on the sale of meals and food prepared on premises and sold to take out. The legislation included an emergency clause making it effective upon passage and signature of the Governor. Mr. Mahoney explained that the Governor had signed the legislation on March 6, and the effective date of this ordinance is April 1, 1989. No one was present to speak to this ordinance. Supervisor Garrett moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None ORDINANCE 31489-7 AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 21-151, LEVY OF TAX; AMOUNT OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE TAXATION OF FOOD THAT IS SOLD FOR OFF- PREMISES CONSUMPTION WHEREAS, by Ordinance adopted on May 10, 1988, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, added a new Article VIII, Tax on Prepared Food and Beverages, to Chapter 21, Taxation, of the Roanoke County Code; and soo March 14, 1989 sold to take out, or prepared by a caterer. The rate of this tax shall be four (4) percent of the amount paid for such food. In the computation of this tax any fraction of one-half cent or more shall be treated as one cent. 2. That these amendments, additions, and reenactments shall be in full force and effect on and after April 1, 1989. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None IN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1 Transportation and Safety Commission A-31489-10 Supervisor Garrett moved to delete the advisory position formerly held by O.S. Foster and to appoint Terry Harrington, Director of Planning as an advisory member. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None 2. Public Safet Volunteer Benefits Board of Trustees sot March 14, 1989 WHEREAS, economic growth and development is an important goal of the Roanoke Valley; and WHEREAS, Dominion Bankshares has been an outstanding. corporate citizen of the entire region; and WHEREAS, Dominion Bankshares, through centralization of its operations, is bringing new employment opportunities and business to the area; and WHEREAS, said increase in employment opportunities and services will benefit the residents of Roanoke County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors expresses its deep appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to Dominion Bankshares for its efforts to contribute to the growth, development and well being of the Roanoke Valley. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Johnson moved to receive and file the o following reports. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: March 14, 1989 604 was seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None RESOLUTION 31489-9 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO CHARLES E. GREENWAY FOR FIFTEEN YEARS OF SERVICES TO ROANORE COUNTY BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: WHEREAS, Charles E. Greenway was first employed on May 28, 1973, as a Motor Equipment Operator in the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, Charles E. Greenway has also served as a Motor Equipment Operator in the Solid Waste Division; and was the Lead Operator of the Brush Collection Crews; and WHEREAS, Charles E. Greenway has been a valuable asset to Roanoke County through his dedication and loyalty shown during his many years of service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to Charles E. Greenway for fifteen years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. March 14, 1989 606 He reported estimated new revenues of $3,943,000 which will be distributed equally between the County and schools. He also advised that debt service is divided between -the County and schools..'He presented the major operating budget priorities for the upcoming fiscal year. School Board Chairman Frank Thomas announced that the school administration had met the teacher mandate without using VSRS and will give a 5 percent raise to other employees and have put a high priority on maintenance. Dr. Bayes Wilson, School Superintendent gave a brief overview of the school budget priorities. Dr. Wilson presented a projection of increases and decreases in revenues and expenditures. Dr. Wilson advised it would be difficult to take the debt service from the operating money this year and cover projected costs. Following discussion, Chairman Garrett requested Mr. Hodge and Dr. Wilson to come back to the Board on April 11 with a balanced budget with no tax increase and to present a five year capital improvement plan. Supervisor Robers requested that the school budget show percentages and dollars for each category. IN RE: RECESS March 14, 1989 60 8 Chip Decker, representing the Rescue chiefs, presented the requests of the rescue departments. He advised that their strongest need was for paid paramedic/firefighters. IN RE: WORK SESSION WITH SCHOOL BOARD At 9:01 p.m., Chairman Garrett reconvened the work session with the School Board. Discussions were held concerning the possibility of consolidation of departments such as personnel, finance, garage, and transportation between the School Board and the County. Consolidation of health care benefits were also discussed. There was also a lengthy discussion on salary increases. County administration has funded a 5$ salary increase, while the non- instructional school personnel are funded a 5$ overall salary increase plus a step of 2 to 3$. Mr. Hodge and Dr. Wilson were directed to evaluate the possibility of consolidating services and bring back to the board a balanced budget and a five-year capital improvement plan. IN RE: EXECUTIVE SESSION At 10:45 p.m., Supervisor Garrett moved to go into Executive Session pursuant to the Code of Virginia 2.1-344 (a) _. ~ 610 March 28, 1989 • - - Roanoke County"Board of Supervisors- Roanoke County Administration Center 3738 IBrambleton Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24018 March 28, 1989 The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday, and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of March, 1989. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Garrett called the meeting to order at 3:06 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: RobersanSuFjervisorst Bob L.CJohnson,RSteven A. McGraw MEMBERS ABSENT: SupervisorHarry C. Nickens STAFF PRESENT : Elmer C. Hodge , Coun A s s~s t o t atoC o u n t y M. Chambliss, Administrator for Human Services; John R. Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator of Community Services and Development; Don M. Myers, Assistant County Administrator for Management Services; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney, Mary H. Allen, Deputy March 28, 1989 61~ projects such as Valleypointe also helped. He advised that there are several areas needed to improve the economic development program. They are (1) an updated inventory of buildings~nd sites; (2) retention of existing businesses; (3) attracting new business from outside the community; and (4) encouragement of tourism and travel. Supervisor Robers expressed concern at the slight growth because it will take 80 years to reach the 75/25 goal at the present level. He felt that specific goals and programs should be developed. In response to questions, Mr. Gubala advised that in 1987, the goal of 75/25 was set for the year 2003. Supervisor Garrett suggested an educational campaign for the citizens so they understand the need for commercial rezonings. Mr. Hodge advised they will have a consultant come in to evaluate the present economic development strategy and bring it back to the board. Supervisor Johnson moved to delay action for 60 days for review and evaluation of the policy by a consultant. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Garrett NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens 614 March 28, 1989 4. Authorization to amend Cha ter 8 of the Roanoke -Count Code "Erosion and Sedimen-t CDntrol" A-32889-2 Director of Development and Inspections Arnold Covey presented the staff report. He explained that these amendments are either mandated by state law or left as an option for the local government. They also incorporate title changes due to reorganization with the County staff. Staff recommended that the County Attorney prepare the necessary ordinances and legal notice to amend the ordinance. It is anticipated that between $10,000 and $15,000 will be generated annually by fee increases. Supervisor McGraw moved to approve the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Garrett NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens 5. Re uest for a ro riation for construction of Back Creek Fire Department building. A-32889-3 March 28, 1989 61g which will be used to carry Level II hazardous materials equipment. The van is in good mechanical condition. Supervisor Johnson moved to acEept~the donation.of the van and to provide insurance coverage and repairs, and assign the unit to the Mount Pleasant FIre Department to be used to carry hazardous materials equipment. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Garrett NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens IN RE: REQUEST FOR WORK SESSION AND PUBLIC HEARING 1 Request for a Work Session on April 11, 1989 and Public Hearing on April 25, 1989 on the Funding Priorities for the Secondary Highway Six Year Construction Plan. The work session was set for April 11, and the public hearing was set for April 25, 1989. IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Johnson asked the County Administrator to investigate the legislation concerning the requirements that March 28, 1989 618 RESOLUTION N0. 32889-5 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD-OF SIIPERVISORS AGENDA - FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That that certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for March 28, 1989, designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 7, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of Raffle Permit - Mason Cove Fire Department 2. Adoption of resolution amending resolution 83-43 establishing a policy for use of Community Room. 3. Resolution of Appreciation to recognizing school food servic e employees. 4. Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving Woodbridge Section 10. 5. Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving the Forest Condominiums 6. Resolution supporting the certification of a judicial vacancy in the General District Court of the Twenty-third Judicial Circuit. 7. Request for support that the Virginia Employment Commission be named substate Grantee for the Dislocated Workers Program. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized ~ y Y ~ O March 28, 1989 2. That the following rules and regulations governing the use of the Roanoke County Administration Center Community Room are hereby adopted: Rule 1. Permitted Use (in order of priority) and Fee Schedule A. Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County - No Fee B. Roanoke County: Departments, Employees, Agencies, Committees, and Commissions - No Fee C. State and Federal Government: Officials and Agen- cies - No Fee D. Non-governmental: Civic, Cultural, Political, Religious, and Educational Groups (Application Necessary) - $50/Day Rule 2. Permitted Uses As Approved by the Board of Supervisors A. Social Gatherings (Application Necessary) - $50/Day Rule 3. Prohibited Uses A. Commercial uses B. Fund-raising uses Rule 4. No smoking or alcoholic beverages allowed Rule 5. Groups are not to charge admission or ask for donations at any meeting. Rule 6. An "Application for Use of the Roanoke County Community Room" must be completed as soon as possible prior to March 28, 1989 62 2 Rule 12. If the Non-Governmental event (1D or 2A) is held before or after normal working hours (8 a.m. until 5 p.m.) of . .~ _ the ,Adm,inis.trat~on ; ,C~nter, ~ust4dia~ serv~ces_ wll l ... e ..: arranged for and paid to Roanoke County General Ser- vices Department at the rate of $10/hour. Rule 13. The person requesting the permit for use of the Commun- ity Room assumes the responsibility for adherence to "Regulations and Rules for Use of the Community Room," and either that person or a person especially desig- nated will be present during the time requested. Rule 14. These rules are subject to change by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. The County Administrator is auth- orized by the Board to develop additional rules and regulations concerning the use, scheduling, and opera- tion of the Community Room, which are not inconsistent herewith. Special Note: Rule 15. The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors reserves the right to alter or amend any previously approved or scheduled use of the Community Room for governmental purposes. 3. That the effective date of this Resolution is April 1, 1989. March 28, 1989 6 2 AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Garrett NAYS: None ABSENT : Supervisor Nickens . . ... . _ , : , ::...> _ _ RESOLUTION 32889-S.f SUPPORTING THE CERTIFICATION OF A JUDICIAL VACANCY IN THE GENERAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE TWENTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Committee on District Courts has considered certifying a judicial vacancy in the General District Court of the Twenty-Third Judicial District, upon the election of the Honorable Diane McQ. Strickland as a Circuit Court Judge of the Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit; and WHEREAS, the Honorable Diane McQ. Strickland, one of the five General District Court judges of the Twenty-Third Judicial District, has been elected as a Circuit Court Judge of the Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit by the 1989 Session of the General Assembly; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly has heretofore seen fit to elect five General District Court judges to serve the Twenty-Third Judicial District which is composed of the City of Roanoke, the City of Salem, the Town of Vinton and Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, failure to certify the vacancy created by the election of Judge Strickland to the Circuit Court judiciary will s2s March 28, 1989 IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 1 Lee Linkous~to address budget concerns. Mr. Linkous, a Roanoke County employee, asked the Board to work on raising the level of county salaries and that all county employees' salaries be treated equally, regardless of the division they are employed by. IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor McGraw moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Garrett and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Garrett NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens 1. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Income Analysis and Statement of Expenditures as of February 28, 1989• March 28, 1989 62 a At 5:01 p.m., Chairman Garrett declared a dinner recess. EVENING SESSION (7:00 P.M.I IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of A reciation to Ida and Ernest H. Arthur. r Mr. and Mrs. Arthur were present. They were recognized for their assistance and the use of their home when a plane crashed at the Farmington Lakes area on March 3, 1989. Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the prepared resolution. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following voice vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Garrett NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens RESOLUTION 32889-6 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO IDA AND ERNEST ARTHUR FOR THEIR OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO ROANOKE COUNTY. WHEREAS, Roanoke County is indebted to its citizens who offer assistance and support during a disaster situation; and March 28, 1989 63 0 IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS ( 389-1 AND 389-2 WERE HEARD ON MARCH 14 ,.. 198:9} ...:....... .: ~ .... _ .-.., ... .. ..~ .., _ ~ ..~ - r ~ ..~. 389-3 Petition of J L Woltz and R. N. Bradley to rezone a 2.92 acre tract from R-1, Residential to R-3, Residential to construct multifamily residences, located at 3464 Chaparral Drive in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 28, 1989•) Director of Planning and Zoning Terry Harrington reported that 60 units are planned for this rezoning, and the Land Use category for this property is Development which discourages high density residential (12-24 units per acre). The proposed development is 20.55 units per acre. The petitioner has proffered three conditions. The Planning Commission voted unanimoulsy to recommend denial because of the density and the petitioners had not proffered the site plan. Robert H. Turner, Jr., spoke in opposition to the rezoning because of the density of the proposed development. He advised that the matter had not come before the board of Stonehenge and they had no position on the rezoning. Robert Bradley and Jim Woltz, the petitioners presented their plans for the development. They advised that they did not proffer the concept plan because their wanted to retain March 28, 1989 fi 3 ~- 389-4 Petition of William and Eugenia Ball requesting rezoning from R-1 Residential to B-1 Business to operate medical offices in an existing structure, and to amend the Future Land Use .Map. designatofi, from. D;eve~opment ,tca Trans ition o ata 3511 0 den Road gin . the aCave and located 9 Spring Magisterial District. Mr. Harrington presented the staff report. He advised there were two significant impact factors dealing with traffic and access. There are proffered conditions to the rezoning and the Planning Commission recommended approval of both the rezoning request and the land use amendment. Carl Rinder, attorney for the petitioner was present to answer questions. Supervisor Robers moved to approve the rezoning. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Garrett NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens Supervisor Robers moved to amend the Land Use Plan. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Garrett NAYS: None 63 4 March 28, 1989 1, The rezoned parcel will be used for the construction and operation of medical offices for the practice of~family medicine. The current building on ert will be retained an'd' an ~ addition -built in subject prop Y the same style will be added to the rear of said existing building. 2, The medical practice will be limited to no more than three (3) physicians. 3, The development of the property will be in ntial compliance with the concept plan submitted with substa the application for rezoning. q, The "small evergreen trees" shown as a part of ~~ a ~~~ Buffer" will be at least five (5) feet in height Typ at planting. 5, The "fence" shown as a part of the "TYPe ~~~ per" will be constructed of wood and will be at least six Bufl rior to the (6) feet in height, and will be in place p commencement of construction of the site. 6, The "small evergreen trees" will be placed in a staggered manner on each side of the "fence . ~, All trees and natural vegetation will be saved as possible. g, Outside lighting at the building will be idential in appearance, and the lights and poles will not res exceed ten (1J) feet in height. 9, Parking lot lighting will not exceed five (5) _ _ L .. .. L. 1- March 28, 1989 63 6 legally described below, be rezoned from R-3 Residential District to B-1 Business District ~:. BE IT~ FURTHE~t ORDERED . that- a copy ~ -o f- -this ~order~ be transmitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission and that he be directed to reflect that change on the official zoning map of Roanoke County. Beginning at a point in the east line of Starkey Road, said point being 249.20 Feet south of the intersection of the south line of Sleepy Hollow Drive and the east line of Starkey Road S. W.; thence leaving Starkey Road and with the division line between Lots 2 and 3, Section 2 of Southern Pines S 650 55' E 412.00 Feet to an old iron pipe in the west line of Lot 10; thence with common lines between Lots 3, 4, 9, and 10, S 24° OS' W 220.OO~Feet to an old iron pipe; thence with the common line between Lots 4 and S, N 65° 55' W 451.90 Feet to an old iron pin in the east line of Starkey Road; thence with the east line of Starkey Road N 35° 56' E 135.10 Feet to an angle $oint; thence N 31° 10' E 10.9 Feet to an angle point; thence N 30 ~59' E 77.60 Feet to the point of beginning, and containing 2.16 Acres and being Lots 3 and 4, Section 2, Map of SouthernPines SubClerk1snOfficeded in Plat Book 2, Page 138 of the Roanoke County PROFFER OF CONDITIONS (1) Professional offices only with one entrance on Starkey Road (2) Property shall be used for professional offices only. (3) Type C screening and buffering shall be provided. March 28, 1989 6 3 8 FINAL ORDER NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned parcel of land which is contained in the Roanoke County Tax Maps as Parcel 87.18-1-40 and recorded in Deed Book and legally described below, be rezoned from R-1 Residential District to B-1 Business District BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be transmitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission and that he be directed to reflect that change on the official zoning map of Roanoke County. BEGINNING at a point on the westerly side of Starkey Road, Virginia Secondary Rt. 904 at the Southeasterly corner of the property now or formerly known as the Baptist Parsonage; thence with the westerly side of Starkey Road South 24° 16' West 154 feet to a point in the center of a dry branch; thence leaving Starkey Road North 73° 30' West 310.6 feet to a point; thence North 21° 37' East 191.75 feet to a point; thence South 66° 33' East 316.6 feet to the point and place of beginning. PROFFER OF CONDITIONS 1. That the existing residence on the property would be used for the office use with no additions with the exception of improving the parking on the property. March 28, 1989 6 4 existing wells, failing septic system or denial of lots. Because of these concerns, the staff and Health Department have developed policies for subdivision approval for on-site sewage disposal systems and wells to insure the proper development of rural subdivision. The Planning Commission met on March 7, 1989 and recommended approval of the ordinance following revisions suggested by the Roanoke Valley Homebuilders. The only suggestions not incorporated was that the staff and Planning Commission feel that all newly created lots should contain their own sewage disposal system. Speaking to this ordinance were the following: 1 Alfred Powell, 3440 Franklin Street spoke in opposition to Articles II and II in the subdivision ordinance because of the cost to small private developers for maps, and surveying and flagging for larger lots. In response to a question from Supervisor McGraw, Mr. Covey advised that he felt that the ordinance should apply to all subdivision lots regardless of size. 2 David Helscher, representing the Roanoke Valley Homebuilders, advised they were opposed to the drain field requirements. He suggested that the ordinance be approved for six to 12 months to see what the problems might be. He reminded March 28, 1989 642 Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following .recorded- Grote: ~~ ~ .. ~ - . AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Garrett NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens ORDINANCE 32889-7 AMENDING CHAPTER 7. "BUILDING REGUI,p,TIONS " OF THE ROp,NORE COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING ARTICLE II. "BUILDING CODE,"SECTION 7-16, "ADOPTED" WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Vinton has requested that Roanoke County assume the responsibility of enforcing the Virginia Statewide Building Code within the corporate limits of said Town; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County shall collect all fees and make all appropriate inspections as required to implement code enforcement within the Town of Vinton; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 14, 1989; the second reading was held on March 28, 1989. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Chapter 7. "Building Regulations," Article II. "Building Code," Section 7-16 of the Roanoke County Code is here- by amended and reenacted as follows: March 28, 1989 6 4 4 IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS ~~ 1. The .following citizens-requested to speak concerning parks in the Glenvar area. a. Wayland Winstead, 5353 Cherokee Hills Drive was concerned about whether the Catawba area will have same number of fields available next year. b. Chuck Johnson, 1655 Mill Pond Drive, representing the Catawba Little League, spoke concerning lack of fields at Green Hill Park. c. Bill Allen, 1702 Rings Mill Drive, representing the Glenvar Youth Boosters who support football, basketball and soccer spoke of the need of additional soccer fields . Supervisor McGraw requested that plans to replace the fields in the Glenvar area be included in the budget process, and that at least a year's notice be given before Roanoke County must give up the present fields to allow time for the Green Hill Park fields to be completed and ready for use. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT April 11, 1989 ,~ - ~+ 646' _ - ~ ~ Roanoke ~odnty B©ard of~Supervsors Roanoke County Administration Center 3738 Brambleton Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24018 April 11, 1989 The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday, and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of April, 1989. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Garrett called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Lee Garrett, Vice Chairman Richard Robers, Supervisors Bob L. Johnson, Steven A. McGraw, Harry C. Nickens MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT : Elmer C. Hodge , CountA s ski s t a n t atoC o u n t y M. Chambliss, Administrator for Human Services; John R. Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator of Community Services and Development; Don M. Myers, Assistant County Administrator for Management Services; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney, Mary H. Allen, Deputy April 11, 1989 64 8 1 Resolution of appreciation to County dispatchers in observance of Public Safety Telecommunicators Week (April 10 - 16..1_. ... .. .. ....:. ~ :. .: ,. .. .- .. .,...~ `~ This item was postponed until after New Business so that the dispatcher were able to be present. Sheriff Ravanaugh and Chief Fuqua were also present to recognize the dispatchers. Supervisor Garrett moved to adopt the prepared resolution. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAyS: None RESOLUTION 41189-2 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHERS OF ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, the Public Safety Dispatchers of Roanoke County serve our citizens in a dedicated and professional manner; and WHEREAS, through their swift and accurate response to emergency calls these dispatchers save countless lives; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Public Safety telecommunicators work to improve the emergency response capabilities of our communication system through their hard work and participation in on-going training and other programs; and April 11, 1989 650" report. He advised that the Code of Virginia allows matching revenue sharing funds to improve or construct primary and secondary roads and to bring subdivision streets up to standards .. ... .. . _. for inclusion into the Secondary System (Rural Addition Policy). Roanoke County can request up to $500,000 in matching funds. Mr. Henry reported that the 1985 bond referendum included $600,000 to be used as matching funds to upgrade private roads. He presented recommendations for matching funds to upgrade streets in Hunting Hills, Chaucer's Court and Givens Avenue County Administrator Elmer Hodge advised he would like this recommendation with the understanding that it is contingent upon the participation of the homeowners in these areas. Supervisor Robers moved to request the VDOT matching funds for road and drainage improvements in the Hunting Hills subdivision, Chaucer's Court and Given Avenue, contingent upon the participation of the developers and homeowners. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES April 11, 1969 652 Alfred Powell, 344 Franklin Street spoke in opposition to the ordinance because of the expense to the small developer and the additional .bureaucracy needed to enforce the ordinance. ... .. .,. In response to a question from Supervisor Robers, Mr. Covey advised there are procedures in the ordinance to work with individual contractors without the cost of the maps and the staff will determine which contractors would need the contour maps, depending on the project. Supervisor McGraw moved to approve first reading of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None 3 Ordinance amending and re-enacting Chapter 15, "Parks and Recreation," of the Roanoke County Code to provide for the regulation of conduct in public parks ._ Director of Parks and Recreation Steve Carpenter reported that this ordinance will establish rules and regulations for public conduct in county parks. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission participated in the draft ordinance and recommended approval. Mr. Carpenter reviewed the coverage of the ordinance. April 11, 1989 6 5~~4 r Supervisor Johnson moved to approve first reading of the ordinance. The. motion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote:. AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None IN RE; SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1 Ordinance amending and re-enacting Chapter 17, "Subdivisions," of the Roanoke County Code to provide for adoption of standards and specifications for on-site sewage disposal systems and/or wells and to authorize the adoption, by resolution, of a new section of the Design and Construction Standards Manual. Arnold Covey presented the staff report. In response to a question from Supervisor Nickens, he advised that the ordinance applies to future subdivisions, not those already platted. Supervisor Johnson expressed concern that subdivisions that are platted now and may not be developed for years will be exempt from this ordinance and could cause problems in the future . April 11, 1989 656 WHEREAS, notice of the County's intention to adopt amendments to its Subdivision Ordinance was duly advertised in the Roanoke Times and World News on February 21, 1989,.and Feb- ' ruary 28, 1989; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on March 7, 1989, the Roanoke County Planning Commission recommended approval of the following amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance and the adop- tion of a new section of the Design and Construction Standards Manual entitled "Policy for subdivision approval with on-site wewage disposal systems and/or wells"; and WHEREAS, the first reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on March 28, 1989; and the second reading of this ordinance was .held on April 11, 1989. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Chapter 17, Subdivision of the Roanoke County Code be, and it hereby is, amended and reenacted by the adoption of Sections 17-6(F) and 17-10(R) to read and provide as follows: Article II. Preliminary Plats Section 17-6. Contents; approval. * * # F The subdivider shall resent to the Roanoke County/Vinton Health Department a preliminary plat of the subdivi- sion as re fired under the Desi n and Construction Standards Man- April 11, 1989 658 Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the resolution. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: ~~- `AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None RESOLUTION 41189-4 ADOPTING A NEW SECTION OF THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MANUAL ENTITLED "POLICY FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL WITH ON-SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS AND/ OR WELLS" WHEREAS, the Department of Development is in the pro- cess of preparing a manual to assist the public, and especially the development community, for clarification of rules, regula- tions, and policies applicable to land development in Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, a Design and Construction Standards Committee composed of area engineers, surveyors, members of the Roanoke Valley Homebuilders Association, and County staff was assembled to develop the content of the manual and the design standards; and WHEREAS, it was the consensus of the committee to address the areas of water, sewer, street and parking, and drain- age in the manual; and WHEREAS, at its meeting on February 14, 1989, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, by resolution, adopted a manual April 11, 1989 660 Mr. Hodge reported he had received a petition from homeowners in this area asking for a sewer extension to their .area because of sewer ~,ailureS .. _ .. ., , . Moe` Owen from the Health Department was present and reported that new regulations came into effect in 1982 that are more stringent and there are now less failures. Supervisor Johnson moved to go forward with discussion with the homeowners in the Orchards subdivision to extend the sewer line, contingent upon participation by the property owners as called for in the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett ~yS; None IN RE : APPOINTMENTS 1 League of Older Americans Advisory Board Supervisor Robers nominated Webb Johnson to another one-year term that will expire on March 31, 1990. IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Robers: (1) asked County Attorney Paul Mahoney to research the possibility of an ordinance to ban the sale of nonbiogradable containers because they do not decompose April 11, 1989 662 Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the Consent Agenda with Item 8 added,. The motion was seconded by..Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None RESOLUTION N0. 41189-5 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM R - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That that certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for April 11, 1989, designated as Item K - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 8, inclusive, as follows: 1. Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving The Falls, section 4. 2. Request acceptance of Fox Ridge Road into the VDOT - Secondary System. 3. Confirmation of committee appointment to the League of Older Americans Advisory Board. 4. Acknowledge acceptance of Cavalier Drive, Westbriar Court, and Cavalier Court (Canterbury Park, sections 3 and 4) into the VDOT Secondary System. April 11, 1989 664 section of road extending from Fox Ridge Road and Peregrine Crest Circle intersection (these roads recently submitted to VDOT) .extending in ,a , southwesterlx directign` .0.. ~8 miles to the second ~ . . ,intersection of 'Peregrine Crest .Circle 'and Fox Ridge Road pursuant to Section 33.1-72.1, Paragraph D and funded pursuant to Section 33.1-75.1, Paragraph A of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. 2. That this Board does guarantee the Commonwealth of Virginia an unrestricted right-of-way of 50 feet as recorded in Plat Book with necessary easements for drainage and other documents of record in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office. 3. That said Board certify that this road was open to public use prior to July 1, 1978, at which time it was opened to and used by motor vehicles. 4. That said roads known as Fox Ridge Road, which is shown on a certain sketch. accompanying this resolution, be, and the same are hereby established as public roads to become a part of the state secondary systems of highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS April 11, 1989 666 AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None 1. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund IN RE: RECESS Chairman Garrett declared a five minute recess at 5:05 p.m. IN RE: RECONVENEMENT Chairman Garrett reconvened the meeting at 5:15 p•m• IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1 Funding Priorities, Secondary Highway Six-Year Construction Plan Director of Engineering Phillip Henry presented the work session. Fred Altizer, Resident Engineer from the Virginia Department of Transportation, was also present. April 11, 1989 ~ ~ B 2 1989-90 Budget Mr Hodge presented the proposed budget for 1989-90 and reviewed the changes on the budget document since the last work session. He reminded the board that there will be a public hearing at the evening session and the tax rates will be adopted. Supervisor McGraw expressed concern at setting the tax rates before determining the costs of an increased tipping fee. Mr. Hodge pointed out that the new budget includes six new deputies for the Sheriff's Department, five new paramedic firefighters, and an economic development fund of $100,000, an average 5~ salary increase for county and school employees, meeting the state mandate for teachers, and funding for the reservoir and regional cooperative efforts., Supervisor McGraw advised he felt uncomfortable voting on the tax rates when he had not had time to review the budget document. Mr. Hodge advised there will be another work session on April 25, before the budget is adopted to respond to board questions on the proposed budget. Sheriff Kavanaugh was present and explained how he planned to use the additional personnel funded in the proposed budget. April 11, 1989 IN RE: RECONVENEMENT 670 At ?:10 p.m..,.Chairman ,Garrett,reconvened.,the meeting. IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, AND AWARDS 1 Resolution of Congratulations to the Cave S rin High School Girls Basketball Team. Members of the Cave Spring High School Girls basketball team were present to receive certificates as well as a resolution. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the prepared resolution. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None RESOLUTION 41189-6 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO THE CAVE SPRING HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS' BASKETBALL TEAM WHEREAS, organized athletic teams are an important part of an educational system; WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Public Schools recognize this importance and provide opportunities for the students to participate in sports; and April 11, 1989 672 Larry Desper, Coordinator for Total Action Against Poverty was present on behalf of the Virginia Water Project. He resented the check to be ,used to_provide water and sewer service .Y'to the Hollins residents as part of the Hollins Community Development Project. IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS 489-1. Public Hearing on the County's proposed 1989-90 budget. Mr. Hodge presented a brief overview of the proposed budget for fiscal year 1989-90. The following citizens spoke concerning various aspects of the budget. 1 Bruce Brenner, Cycle Systems spoke in support of expanded recycling and the automated refuse collection and expressed support for reinstituting the refuse collection fee. 2. Robin Hixon, 5609 Penguin Drive S.W., spoke in support of recycling and reinstitution of the refuse collection fee. 3. John Lyden, 4327 Denby Circle, spoke in support of the school budget and continued maintenance of the schools. 4. Burley Warf,208 Spring Grove Drive, Vinton, representing the Hardy Road School PTA spoke in support of the proposed School Board budget. April 11, 1989 674 14. Linda Hagee, 702 Shenandoah Avenue N. W., Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors, requested $37,717 in funding .for TAP,,. , . , ... 15. Gail Burrus, 1109 Franklin Road S. W., spoke in support of funding for Bethany Hall, a substance abuse home for women. 17. Deborah Holdren, 5027 Jonathan Lane, representing the Herman Horn School PTA, presented a resolution supporting capital improvement for their school and in support of the School Board budget. 18. Matthew Banks, 126 Craig Avenue, Vinton, requested that the League of Older Americans be a line item in the budget. Chairman Garrett advised that the proposed budget doubles the funding of the League of Older American. 19. Bob Keniston, President of Roanoke County Education Association, spoke in support of the School Board budget. 20 Julie Lonqstreet, 7549 Rhododendron Trail, spoke in support of expanded recycling and the reinstitution of the refuse fee for the funding. 21. Karen Campbe11,7644 Terrapin Trail, S. W., spoke in support of curbside recycling and presented a petition in support of expanded recycling and reinstitution of the refuse fee. sus April 11, 1989 2. William T. Carter, 4435 Cordell Drive, spoke against a real estate tax rate increase and higher assessments. 3. Ruth Mosely,_, 3425_ Greencliff Road, spoke in opposition to the high tax rate. Supervisor Johnson moved to set the tax rate at $1.15 per $100 assessed valuation. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Garrett and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None RESC~.ITPIDri 41189-7 SETTING ~ TAX RATE CN RFAL ESTPiTE SIT[IAZE IN % OOIH~PY FOR ~ CAIaIDAR YEAR 1989 BE IT RESCaLVID by the Board of S~pPxvisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the levy for the twelve-~ronth period beginning JarulaYY 1. 1989, and ending DecsnbPx 31, 1989, be, and he-rebY is, set for a tax rate of $1.15 per one hundred dollars of assessed valuation on all classes of taxable real estate and mobile hrsr~es as classified by Sections 58.1-3200, 58.2-3201, and 58.1-3506 B. of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as ame.~xied, situate in Roanoke County. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by S~pP~reor Garrett, and carried by the following rec-'oz~3ed wte: isors Johnson, Rpbers, McCaw, Nickens, Garrett AYES: S~pP,rv' April 11, 1989 678 1989, and ending Dece;nber 31, 1989, be, and heY'ebY is, set for a tax rate of $3.50 per one hauydred collars of assessed valuation on all taxable, tangible . _ P~o~ ,Pr,°ty excluding, all those classes of hausP.hpld 4°Oas and P~O effects as are defined in Sections 58.1-3504 and 58.1-3505 of the Code of but including the property ~arately classified by V~gi ni a, aS a~nesxled, Sections 58.1-3500, 58.1-3501, 58.1-3502, 58.1-3503, and 58.1-3506 in the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amneixled, located in this County on JarniaYY 1, 1989, ani including the Property separately classified by tangible personal prope~y Sections 58.1-3500, 58.1-3501, 58.1-3502, 58.1-3503, and 58.1-3506 in the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, of public service corporations based uP°n the assessed value thereof fixed by the State Corporation Canmission and duly certified. is, established as a separate class 2. That there be, and ttnre hereby of personal property in Roanoke County those itsr~ of personal property set forth in Sections 58.1-3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as ' arxi c3enerally designated as machinery arxi tools. 3. That the levy for the twelve-month Period be9~nnrn9 Ja~~ 1, 1989, and Decanter 31, 1989, be and hereby is, set for a tax rate of ,~3 --0-U p~ one hau~dred dollars of assessed valuation on all taxable, tangible ~~~ Ply ~ ~~~ established as a selx~rate classification for tax purposes and as more fully definr~'1 by Sections 58.1-3507 of the 1950 Code of and generally designated as machit~-rY a~i tools. Vlrglnla, aS ameI]G~d, On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: April 11, 1989 ORDII~E 41189-9 AUI~IZIl~ ~ ISS[JAI~E~~ ~F,p~ TI~I~ $174,432.13 C~ftAL Ogi,IC~1TION SCI~~ , ~ ~ Tp(~I[~QGY;~ .~' ,~. Q~II'Y. Of' R(Y°. _~ ~$EI`1'1T~1G .. .. - 9C~a Zp> ~ • ~~ ^ pE~;;C • S(~E~(S,` AUi4~TY' ZII~ PAR'I'I- F'ORTfi ~ F~2 AMID DETAIIS THERDCk' AMID AITIi~tI CIPATION IN ~ STATE 1~N-ARBIZ~ PROC~2~M• X80 The Board of County Supervisors (the "Board") of the County of Roanobe, Virginia (the "Cauzty") has determined that it is neces ~ and expedient to borrow not to enc.-eed $174,432.13 a~i~~ o~ i~~~~ ~ tion school bonds for the financing of the pure t for school pines through the Governor's Educational Techmlogy Initiative t and Financing Pmgraan. The County held a public hearing on April 11, 1989 on the issuan-'e of the Bonds (as def isyed below) in acc.~ordance with the Y+equirements of Sections 15.1-171.1 and 15.1-504, Code of Virginia 1950, as atrerrled. I~UW, ~, BE IT ORDA.Il`]ED BY THE BOARD OF OO[A~TI'Y SUPERVISORS C!E' THE COLIi~l'Y OF ROANCQ~, VIRGINIA: 1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of proceeds. The Board of qty h,PSeby determiner that it is advisable to contract a debt and issue and sell bonds in the aamunt of not to exceed $174,432.13 (the "Bonds" for the of financing the purchase of equ.ignent for sclx~ol ~ t}~gh th,e r' s Ed~icational TechmlogY Initiative t and Financing PYOgramn. The issuance and sale of the Bands in the fornn and upon the texas established pursuant to this ordinan-'e is hereby authorized. 2. Sale of the Bonds. It is to be in the best interest of the County to sell the Bonds to the Virginia Public School Authority ("VPSA") at par, upon the terms established pursuant to this ordinance. ~e appropriate officers of the County are hereby authorized and directed to sell the Bonds to VPSA. 3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be issuable in fully registered fora; shall be dated the date of issuarY.'e and delivery of the Bonds; shall be designated "County of Roaix~loe General Obligation School Bonds, Educational Technoloc~ Series shall bear interest payable semi-anrn~allY on June 15 and December 15 (each „an "Interest Paynrnt Date") , beginning D~nbPx 15, 1989, at the rates established in accordance with P~a~~ 4 of this or- dinance; and the p~rirycipal a~runt of the Bonds shall be payable in sear-anrn3al instalments on the dates (each a "Principal Pacymer-t Date") and in the am~rxuits established in accordance with parac~aph 4 of this ordinaryc'e. The Bo~r~ds shall be issued as a single, typewritten bond substantially in the form attached h~.reto as Exhibit A. April 11, 1989 682 the investment an3 reinvestment of the proceeds of the Bonds and not requite to be rebated to the United States pursuant to the provisions of the Internal Revesnie Code of 1986, as amerrled ("Investment In-'cme") , shall be credited to a sinking furxi for the Bonds . The Board hereby further dir_~ts that, as . ',directed . a des ' ted. ~tati~e , _c?f VP.SA., . ~ .each: ~nteapest-.~. P.~ ... , by .: }9~ ~, lied, '-such IrYVest~mt Date, the ' ~~easiire'r shall ~ apply, ` or cau.§e to ~ be ~ apP Incarie to the paylrent of interest due on the Bands (b) ~e Board further appropriates and directs that immedinteaY after the application of the Investment Inca[ie as provided in subparacg'aph ( ) above, the Treasurer shall apply, or cause to be applied, so much, if arty, of the funds apprropriated by the General Assembly from the Literary Ferri or otherwise for such purpose to, or for the benefit of, the CauitY to the payment of principal and interest due on the Borxjs on the next Principal Payment Date and Interest Payment Date. (c) The full faith and credit of the County are hP-.z.~i i.r~~lY pledged for the payment of principal of and interest on the Bonds as the same becane due and payable. Tt~.re shall be levied and collected anmrally an all locally taxable property in the County an ad valoran tax sufficient to pay such principal and interest as the same respectively bec.~ane due an3 Payable unless othex funds, including, without limitation, tdruse furxis referred to in subparacgaphs (a) and (b) above, are lawfully available and apprapariated for the timely payment thereof. 8. School Board Ap~raval. The Clerk of the Board i.s hP-z~ebY authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this ord-finance to be pr'e' rented to the School Board of the C~'xlnty. The Bonds hereby authorized shall not be issued by the Board until the School Board of the County shall have adoptsd an appropriate resolution consenting to the ~~~ of the Bonds• 9. Non-arbitra e Certificate and Tax Covenants. The appropriate officers and agents of the County are hereby authorized an3 directed to e~necute aNon-Arbitrage Certificate arri Tax Gavenants setting forth the expected use and investment of the Proceeds of the Barris an3 containing such covenants as may be nec,-essary in order to show ccnQliance with the provisions of the Internal Rene-znie C'~ie of 1986, as arneixjed (the "C~") , and applicable regulations relating to the exclusion Eton c~OSS inca~ of interest on the Bonds or an the VPSA Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that the proceeds from the issuarx.'e 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 ca~ly with the other covenants and repre- sentations contained therein. F~rthernnre, the ~~ cwpnants on behalf of the County that the County shall carQly with the provisions of the Code so that interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds will ~;n excludable Eton gross i.ncane for Federal inca-~e tax Purposes April 11, 1989 684 general obligation school bonds to finance the purchase of equipment for school purposes. _ Mr,. Mahoney presented the_staff.report and requested, . that the ,board dispense with the second reading. following the public hearing. No one was present to speak to the ordinance. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve first reading, dispense with the second reading and adopt the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None ORDIl~ 41189-10 p,VII~RIZING THE I~ ~~~ $440, 000 QBIIIGATICN E~3IPMENr ~ ~q SERIES 1989, 0~' THE ~~ ~' ' VIIZGIlJIA, TO BE SCQD TO THE VIRGINIA SIC S(~l~ AUTH~~2ITY AMID SETTING F(~'I'H THE FC~'I AND L1EPA?~ S ~F . The Board of Canty ~peivisors (the "B°'a~" ) of the Cauity of iioanolae, Virginia (thee "County" ) has deteanined that it is necessaYY an3 ent to borrow not to emceed $440,000 and to issue its gen~xal obligation equipment financing bonds for the financing of the purcha-se of equi-~nt for school puYpoves. The County held a public hearing on April 11, 1989 on the issuance of the Bands (as defined below) in accordant-'e with the requira~-nts of Sections 15.1-171.1 and 15.1-504, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended• NQid, ~, ~ IT QRDAII~D BY THE BOARD QF Cry VISD% OF THE OCJ[afl'Y ~' ~ r VIIiCIl~IA: 1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of proceeds. The ~~ of County S~peYVisors hereby d~-e~res that it is advisable to contract a debt and issue arxi sell bonds in the aam~uit of nct to exc-wed $440.000 (the "Barx.~s" ) for the purpose of financing. the purchase of certain ~croccRputer, Printer April 11, 1989 6 8 6 . Execution of the Bonds . The Chairman or Vice authorized and d Chairnarl acid directed to are the Clerk or arty Deputy Clerk of the Boar ds in an aggregate pr~riciPal aQirnlnt B of $440, 000 on execute and deliver the and to affix the seal of the County hereto- ... - ;. ~ ..: ~, .~ 7`: ' . - -'~Fi~II ~ Faifh -~sii~ `t:i~it -: - Tlie ~- I ` ~farth~~ nd f a County are ~,r,~y irrevocably pledged for the payment of principal o able. There shall be a and d p y ue interest on the Bonds as the saris becane vied and collected annually on all locally taxable property in the County an l e ad valoran tax sufficient to pay such principal aryl interest as the same respectively becaiie due and payable. 8. School Board Approval. The Clerk of the Board is hereby certified cagy of this ondinarice to be authorized and directed to cause a presented to the School Board of the County. The Bonds hereb y authorized shall t shall not be issued by the Board until the School Board of the y Coun of the ' have ackypted an appropriate resolution consenting to the iss d e uanc- s . Ban 9. Non-arbitra e Certificate and Tax Covenants. T~ appropriate officers and agents of the County are hereby authorized ~~~ ~ ~ a Non A~itrage Certificate and Tax Covenants setting forth the expected use and investme-nt of the proceeds of the Bonds arxi containing such covenants as may be nec.-essary in order to show caiipliance with the provisions of the Internal Revp-mie Code of 1986, as amerir.~ed (the "Cow") and applicable regulations relating to the exclusion from cRnss irxx~iie of interest on the Bonds or on the VPSA Bonds. The Board covenant on behalf of the County that the proceeds from the issuarY~e acid sale ~Cer~ifi~ca~te andlTax invested and experxied as set forth in such Non-Arbitrage Covenants and that the County shall comply with the other covenants and repre- sentations contained therein. F'urthennore, the Board covenants on behalf of the County that the County shall coiiiply with the provisions of the Code so that interest cam the Bands and on the VPSA Bonds will reiai.n excludable from gross irioame for Fedexal irycotae tax purposes 10. Use of Bond Proceeds • The Board ~-r'~Y apprepriates and directs that, similtaneausly with the sale of the Bonds to VPSA, the ~as-urer shall apply, or cause to be applied, (a) the dif terenceV~ ~ ~ ~ ~t aiirrunt of the Bonds and the cost of the Fquipt~en Essen the sale of of issuing the Bonds and (b) the r of the proceeds the Bonds, representing the cost of the Equipment, to VPSA for the purchase of the Equipment. 11. Filin of Ordinance and Publication of Notice. The aPPr'o-' priate 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 (10) days thereafter. to cause to be published once in a newspaper having general circulation in the County a entice setting April 11, 1989 6 8 6 2. Reith Frazier, 1910 Queensmill Dr. was concerned about the continued availability of fields in Glenvar before .. ..green h},1~, fields are .xe~dy., .fob' use. Hre. ~ec~ues~gd-that: ;$.100~,9Q0 - ,.. . y be allocated in the budget for upgrading of fields. Supervisor McGraw advised that without adequate fencing, the Green Hill ball fields will not be sanctioned. Supervisor Johnson directed the County Administrator to meet with the residents of the Glenvar community to find a solution and report back to the Board members in 30 days. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Supervisor Johnson moved to adjourn at 9:15 p•m• The motion was seconded by Supervisor Garrett and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None Lee Garrett, Chairman ..~~~ ~ / 6~9 April 25, 1989 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 3738 Brambleton Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24018 April 25, 1989 The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday, and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of April, 1989. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Garrett called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Lee Garrett, Vice Chairman Richard Robers, Supervisors Bob L. Johnson, Steven A. McGraw, Harry C. Nickens MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator for Human Services; John R. Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator of Community Services and Development; Don M. Myers, Assistant County Administrator for Management Services; Paul M. Mahoney, the Revenue; David W. Hogan, Fire and Rescue Department; Cynthia L. _ _ .,___,., ,...,.,o.,t nPnartment; April 25, 1989 693 Departmental Employees of the Year and finalists in the Employee of the Year Program for 1988. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett ~yS: None 2 Resolution of Congratulations to Employee of the Year for 1988. Mr. Cook explained that of the 12 departmental employees of the year, one employee was selected by a group from the Employee Advisory Committee to be named the 1988 Employee of the Year. Florence Sellards, Parks and Recreation Department was the employee chosen as Employee of the Year. Supervisor Nickens moved to adopt the resolution recognizing Florence Sellards Employee of the Year. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None RESOLUTION 42589-2 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO FLORENCE S. SELLARDS UPON HER SELECTION AS ROANOKE COUNTY EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke April 25, 1989 695 On motion of Supervisor Garrett, seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None 3 Proclamation declaring April 23_- 29. 1989, as Professional Secretaries Week. Wanda Riley, Community Services and Development; Sue Gubala, County Attorney's Office and Susie Owen, Economic Development; who have been designated Certified Professional Secretaries were present on behalf of the Roanoke County secretaries to receive the proclamation. Supervisor Garrett moved to approve the Proclamation. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None 4 Resolution of Appreciation to Blue Ridge Soil & Water Conservation District, declaring April 30_- May 7,1989, as Soil_& Water Stewardship Week. Winton Shelor from the Blue Ridge Soil and Water Conservation District was present to accept the resolution. April 25, 1989 A-42589-4 691 Mr. Frank Sparks, Supervisor of Special Education, was present to answer questions. There was no discussion of the issue. Supervisor Johnson moved to increase the federal revenues for the school by $33,592. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None 2. Subsid from Roanoke Count for Valle Metro A-42589-5 Assistant County Administrator John Chambliss reported that he had met with Stephen Mancuso, General Manager for Valley Metro, to analyze the request for the increased subsidy for the Valley Metro routes serving Roanoke County. There are presently 10 trips per day to Cave Spring Corners , 21 trips per day f rom Monday through Friday and 11 trips on Saturday to Tanglewood Mall, and 3 trips to Edinburgh Square. The County subsidizes all costs over the revenues generated. Mr. Chambliss advised that Valley Metro is proposing that each of these routes receive 20 April 25, 1989 699 following adoption of the budget, there will be a first and second reading of the appropriation resolution when citizens will have an opportunity for input. Supervisor Nickens requested that the $1.2 million for VSPA loans should be reduced by $130,000 from the school budget because it will not be necessary to fund architects fees. Supervisor Johnson asked if there were sufficient resources in the school budget to handle the needs. Superintendent of Schools Bayes Wilson explained that the $130,000 was for William Byrd and Northside High Schools. He presented the background on the overcrowded conditions at these schools. School Board Chairman Frank Thomas was present and advised that he would like to keep these funds in the capital improvement budget. Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the budget. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Robers. Supervisor Nickens offered a substitute motion to adopt the budget after reducing by $130,000 the VPSA Loan Fund, specifically for the architects fees for Northside and William Byrd High Schools addition. AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None April 25, 1989 7p 1 discussion on the problems associated with the cruising in the Williamson Road area. IN RE: REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 Request for Public Hearing on June 14, 1989, at 3 OOp m to elicit citizen comment on creating a service authority. Supervisor Nickens moved to set the public hearing for June 14, 1989. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1 Ordinance authorizing the donation of Parcel 1, PartTract 3, C L Bush Estate, containing .98 acre to the Town of Vinton. Mr. Mahoney presented the staff report. No one was present to speak to the ordinance. April 25, 1989 7 Q 3 Mr. Mahoney presented the staff report. He advised that Mr. Willey, a County employee, asked the Commonwealth's Attorney to review the matter and he felt there was no conflict of interest. Supervisor Johnson requested that the Commonwealth's Attorney's opinion be available with the second reading, the lease and the minutes for the second reading. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve first reading. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1 Ordinance amending Article II, "Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code," of Chapter 9, "Fire Prevention and Protection," of the Roanoke County Code by the addition of Section F-318 1, "Cooking Devices on Balconies." Mr. Mahoney presented the staff report and advised that staff recommends a change that would include the use of grills, barbeques, etc. under balconies as well as on balconies. Supervisor Johnson moved to continue the second reading to May 9, 1989 since the change is substantial. The motion was April 25, 1989 ORDINANCE 42589-7 AMENDING CHAPTER 8. "EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL" OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING ARTICLE I. "IN GENERAL," SECTION 8-2. "DEFINITIONS," SECTION 8-7. "PENALTY FOR VIOLATION CHAPTER," SECTION 8-18. "FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH APPROVED PLANS," AND ARTICLE II. "CONTROL PLAN FOR LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY, SECTION 8-32, "FILING FEES," BY REPEALING ARTICLE I. "IN GENERAL," SECTION 8-3, "EXEMPTIONS FROM CHAPTER"; AND BY ADOPTING A NEW SECTION 8-18(C) UNDER ARTICLE I. "IN GENERAL," SECTION 8-18. "FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH APPROVED PLANS" ENTITLED "STOP-WORK ORDER" 705 WHEREAS, effective July 1, 1988, Title 21, Chapter 1, Article 6 of the 1950 Code of Virginia as amended entitled "Vir- ginia Erosion and Sediment Control law" was recodified as Title 10.1, Chapter 5, Article 4; and WHEREAS, amendments to Title 10.1, Chapter 5, Article 4 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, "Erosion and Sediment Control Law" were enacted during the 1988 legislative session of the Virginia General Assembly; and WHEREAS, these amendments to the state erosion and sedi- ment control law provide greater enforcement capabilities to lo- calities in order to more efficiently and effectively enforce local erosion soil and sediment control laws; and WHEREAS, at its meeting on March 28, 1989, the Board of Supervisors authorized amending Chapter 8, "Erosion and Sediment April 25, 1989 and sediment control plan for approval or requesting the issuance of a permit, when required, authorizing land-disturbing activi- ~o~ ties to commence. "Clearing" means any activity which removes the vege- tative ground cover, including but not limited to, root mat remov- al and topsoil removal. "Conservation lan "erosion and sediment control plan," or "plan," means a document containing material for the conservation of soil and water resources of a unit or group of units of land It may include appropriate maps, an appropriate soil and water plan inventory and management information when needed interpretations, and a record of decisions contributing to conversation treatment The plan shall contain all maior conser- vation decisions to assure that the entire unit or units of land will be so treated to achieve the conservation objectives. "Director" means the director of development inspec- tions. "District" or "soil and water conversation district" means a political subdivision of this Commonwealth organized in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1 (S 21-1 et seq.) of Title 21. "Erosion and sediment control plan or plan" means a document containing material for the conservation of soil and water resources of a unit or a group of units of land, as re- quired by this chapter. "Erosion im act area" means an area of land not asso- ciated with current land disturbing activity but subject to per_ sistent soil erosion resulting in the delivery of sediment onto nei hborin ro erties or into state waters. This definition shall not a 1 to an lot or arcel of land of one acre or less used for residential ur oses or to shorelines where the erosion results from wave action or other coastal processes. April 25, 1989 70 9 al, horticultural, or forest crops, or livestock feedlot opera- tions; including engineering operations as follows: construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check dams, desilting basins, dikes, onds, ditches, strip cropping, lister furrowing, contour cultivating, contour furrowing, land drainage and land irri a- tion; 8. Repair or rebuilding of the tracks, right-of- wa brid es communication facilities and other related struc- tures and facilities of a railroad company; 9 Agricultural engineering operations including but not limited to the construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check dams, desilting basins, dikes, ponds not required to comply with the provisions of the Dam Safety Act, Chapter 8.1 (S 62.1- 115 l et seq ), ditches, strip cropping, lister furrowing, con- tour cultivating, contour furrowing, land drainage and land irri- gation; 10 Preparation for single-family residences sepa_ rately built, unless in conjunction with multiple construction in subdivision development; 11 Disturbed land areas of less than 10,000 square feet in size; however, the governing body of the county may re- duce this exception to a smaller area of disturbed land or quali- the conditions under which this exception shall apply 12 Installation of fence and sign posts or tele- phone and electric poles and other kinds of posts or poles; 13 Shore erosion control protects on tidal waters when the projects are approved by local wetlands boards, the Marine Resources Commission or the United States Armv Corps of Engineers; 14 Emergency work to protect life, limb or proper- ty, and emergency repairs; however, if the land-disturbing activi- ' April 25, 1989 ] ~ 1 development inspections responsible for determining the ade uac of a conservation plan submitted for land-disturbing activities on a unit or units of lands and for approving plans. "Sediment" means all loose material, including boul- ders, cobbles, pebbles, sand, silt, clay and soil, which may be borne by water, wind, gravity or by any artificial means. "Site plan" means a survey plot of a parcel of land, with contours accurately shown and on which the location of pro- posed structures and of all appurtenant connecting facilities are shown. =Se€€ -~etaeva€=' -means -eke -~emeva€ -se3~ -ash -e~ke~ st~~€nee-s-a~e~}a€~-bx~-eA€y-as-€e€€ews+ -------------€T--Rex~ev}ag-e€-sxek-n-a~e~€a€sT-}se€ed€Ag-se~~-fie-a a~ax€mux--deg~k-a€-a€gk~eeA-{~8}-}Aehest-e~ -------------~T--Having-ems-wed€s~~€he~€ag-seek-ma~e~€a€-€e~-ese eae€ss}ve€y-ea-eke-€aad-€gem-wk€ek-eke-ma~e~€a€-}s-~emevedt-ems -------------3T--B~ceava~€ag-sxek-ma~e~€a€-€a-eeRaee~€ea-w€~k-eke eeast~ue~}ea-e~ -a€~e~a~}eR -e€ -a -ke€€d}Rg -€e~-wkiek -a -bu}€d}ag gem}~-kas-e~-}s-~e-ke-eb~a€Aedt-e~- -------------4T--6~ad}Ag-}a-aeee~daAee-w}~k-aa-agg~eved-grad}ag g€aa-e€ -a -sebd}v€s€ea-€e~ -wk€ek-a -€€Aa€ -g€a~ -kas -bees-~eee~~e~ a~-eaq-eke-€aAd-~eee~ds-a€-eke-eexaty*-ems _____________5T--Remeva€-a€-se€€~-grave€T-ems-sand-€e~-px~geses-e€ sa€e-ems-mesa€eT "State erosion and sediment control program" or "state rogram" means the program administered by the Board pursuant to this article, including regulations designed to minimize erosion and sedimentation. "State waters" means all waters on the surface and under the ground wholly or partially within or bordering the Com- monwealth or within its iurisdiction. April 25, 1989 713 (3) Eeas~~xe~€eR~-}RS~a€€a~€eA~-ee -Ana}a~eaaRee-e€ e€ee~~}e-aAd-~e}egY~eRe-e~}€}~y-}}ResT (4) ~xs~a€€a~}eeT -x~a}a~eRaxee -e~ -Mega€~ -e€ -aAy t~R~e~g~et~R~ -gxb€ie -a~}€€~y -€€Res~ -w~e~ -sxe~ ae~€v3~y -eeex~s -ea -aR-ex3s~€ag -hated-see€aee~ ~ead~ -s~~ee~ -e~ -s€dewa€~~-g~ev~ded-sxeH-€aAd ~€s~t~~b}Rg-ae~€v}~y-}s-eea€}aed-~e-~}~e-area-e€ the -~ead~-s~~ee~ -e~ -s}dewa€~-w~€ek -€s -ka~d- sx~€aeedT (5) Sege€e -~aR~ -€€ees-e~ -d~a€aage-€€e~ds~-ea€ess €ae€sded-€a-aa-eve~a€€-g€aA-€e~-€aRd-d€s~x~~€ag ae~€v}~y-~e€a~€ag-~e-eeas~~ee~€ea-a€-~~e-be}}~- €ag-~e-fie-sewed-by-~~e-sego}e-~aa~-sys~ea~T (6) Sx~€aee-e~-deeg-x+€A€agT (7) Sag€e~a~}ea-e~ -~~}€€€a~ -€e~ -e}€ -aRd -gasp-}a- e}ed€Rg-~#~e-we€€-s€~eT-reads-asd-a€€-s}fie-d€s- gesa€-a~easT (8) ~€€€€age-g1aA~}Ag-e~-#~a~ves~iRg-a€-age}ex€~s~- a€~-#~e~~€et~€~t~~a€-s~-€e~es~-e~egs~ (9) Eeas~~ee~€ea~ -omega€~ -~el~x€€d€ag -e€ -~~e ~eae#s~-~}~k~s-a€-wayT-b~€dges~-eex~ea€ea~€ea €ae€€€~€es -aid -e~ke~ -~e}abed -s~~xe~a~es -aad €ae€€}~€es-a€-a-~a€}read-ee~gasyT (10) P~ega~a~}ea -€e~ -s€Ag€e-€am€€y -yes€deaees -seg- a~a~e€y-bx}€~r~R€ess-€e-eea3eae~€ea-w}~~-~g€~}- g€e-eeas~~~e~€ea-€a-seed}~}s}eA-deve€eg~ea~~ (11) B}s~e~bed-€aRd-areas-€s~-eemme~e€a€-e~-aeaeeat- ~e~e€a€-saes-e€-€ess-~~aa-lea-~#~et~saad-{}8T888~ sgea~e-€ee~-€a-s€$eT (12) €as~a€€a~€ea-a€-€eaee-aRd-s€~a-ges~s-ems-fie€e- gl~eae -aad -e€ee~~€e -ge€es -aad -e~#~e~ -k€ads -e€ ges~s-e~-ge€esT- April 25, 1989 , 1 5 dollars or thirty (30) days imprisonment, or by both such fine and imprisonment. ~#~e -~tges~~}eR -e€ -sxeh -geaa~~y -sha€~ -ae~ ~e€}eve-any -ge~seA-€gem-has-a}v3€-duties-aR~-~esgeRS€h}13~}es xAde~ -~h3s -eHagte~T In addition to any criminal penalties under this section, any person who violates any provision of this chapter may be liable to the county in a civil action for damages. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this sec- tion, any person violating or failing, neglecting or refusing to obey any iniunction, mandamus or other remedy obtained pursuant to_this section shall be subiect, in the discretion of the court, to a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand ($2,000) dollars for each violation. Sec. 8-8. Injunctive relief for violation of chapter. The st~ge~€A~ea~ea~ director of development in- spections may apply to the circuit court of the county for injunc- tive relief to enjoin a violation or a threatened violation of this chapter, without the necessity of showing that there does not exist an adequate remedy at law. Sec. 8-9. Effect of chapter on liability and proceedings for damage. Neither the approval of an erosion and sediunent con- trol plan under the provisions of this chapter, nor compliance with the conditions of such plan, shall be deemed to relieve any person from responsibility of damage to other persons or property in cases where negligence is shown, nor shall such approval im- pose any liability on the county for damage to other persons or property; provided, however, that compliance with the provisions of this chapter shall be prima facie evidence in any legal or equitable proceeding for damages caused by erosion, siltation, or April 25, 1989 7 gated duration of exposure, and may in- clude plastic, fiber mats, netting, gravel or crushed stone, mulch, grasses and ether vegetation. If used, temporary protective cover shall be provided within thirty (30) days, or such other time as may be pre- scribed by the sxge~~a~eadeA~ direc- tor, from completion of the soil distur- bance. (2) Temporary diversion ditches, earth berms or other similar facilities to divert run- off away from slopes or other areas stripped or limited of vegetative cover and to divert runoff to vegetated or other protective areas prior to entering adja- cent property. (3) Construction of temporary desilting basins or devices. The location of such measures shall be as indicated by the location of areas of probable erosion. Volumes of basins for silt storage shall be in propor- tion to the erodible area drained and to the period of expected use. (d) Periodic maintenance of control measures shall be the responsibility of the developer and additional measures shall be provided, if indicated by field conditions during con- struction. When these temporary measures have fulfilled their purpose, the area shall be modified to its intended permanent appearance. (e) For permanent construction, desiltation devices or basins will not be considered as acceptable alternatives to 719 April 25, 1989 Bounds of the property on which the work is to be performed, with adjacent property owners indicated. (3) Location of any buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be per- formed, and the location of any building or structure on land of adjacent property owners which are within fifteen (15) feet of the property. (4) Accurate contours, at a minimum of five- foot intervals, showing the topography of the existing ground, with all established floodplains indicated. All streams, ponds, lakes and wetland areas shall be shown. The nature and extent of existing vegetation shall be shown. (5) Elevations, dimensions, location, extent and slopes of all proposed grading, shown by contours at a minimum of five-foot intervals drawn to a scale. (6) Location of all drainage devices, walls, cribbing, dams or other .protective devices to be constructed in connection with or as part of the proposed work. (7) Any additional plans, drawings, or calcula- tions required by the sx~e~~a~endea~ director: and it shall comply with the following requirements: (a) Details for the proper construction of control measures which will be constructed shall be indicated on the plans. April 25, 1989 7 2 of this chapter are applicable, and which propose the clearing of trees, the removal of any vegetative land cover or the grading of earth, the plan required by this section shall be incorporated in and be a part of any subdivision or site plan for such develop- went. (d) The sxge~€a~eRdeR~ director of development inspections shall be responsible for the review of, and making recommendations as to, site plans submitted under this section. (e) The sxge~€a~eadea~ director of development inspections shall approve or disapprove a site plan submitted under this section within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed forty-five (45) days, consistent with the size of the pro- posed project. Sec. 8-14. Permit for land-disturbing activities generally. (a) No person shall engage in any land-disturbing activity within the county until he has acquired a land-disturb- ing permit from the suge~}g~ea~ea~ director of develo ment inspections. (b) The ~ega~~mea~ -e€ -deve€epmea~ division of development and inspections will receive applications for permits under this section, coordinate their review with the dega~~+ea~ e€ -gxb~}e -€ae€~€~€es division of engineering and issue such permits. (c) Aland-disturbing permit shall specify the com- pletion date for the land-disturbing activities, consistent with the date indicated on the approved plan. If such activities are not completed by the stated date, the permit shall expire. Exten- sions may be requested. A special permit for the removal of soil, gravel or sand for the purposes of sale or resale may be issued which does not require a completion date. For this type April 25, 1989 , ~ 3 (c) The requirements of this section are in addi- tion to all other provisions of law relating to the issuance. of such permits and are not intended to otherwise affect the require- ments for such permits. Sec. 8-17. Inspection of land-disturbing activities. The suge~}A~eadeR~ director of development in- spections shall periodically inspect land-disturbing activities to ensure compliance with the approved plan and to determine whether the measures required in the plan are effective in con- trolling erosion and sediment resulting from the land-disturbing activity. The right of entry to conduct such inspections shall be expressly reserved in the permit issued pursuant to this chap- ter and the landowner shall notify the sxge~}a~ewdea~ direc- tor of development inspections, upon completion of the work cov- ered under the permit, that such work is ready for final inspec- tion. Sec. 8-18. Failure to comply with approved plans. (a) Failure to comply with the provisions of a con- trol plan or site plan approved under this chapter, as evidenced by failure to properly construct, at the proper time, all control measures required by such plans, shall be sufficient grounds for revocation of all permits issued for the work covered by such plans. (b) Upon failure to comply with the requirements of an approved control plan or site plan the sxge~}a~eadea~ di- rector of development inspections shall give notice of such fail- ure to comply, in writing, by registered mail, addressed to the person to whom the permit for the work was issued, at his last known address, and stating that such person shall have ~eR-f~8} April 25, 1989 7 ~ -5 and shall remain in effect for seven (7) days from the date of service pending application by the director of development inspec- tions or alleged violator for appropriate relief to the circuit. court of the jurisdiction where the violation was alleged to have occurred Upon completion of the corrective action, the order shall be immediately lifted Nothing in this section shall pre- vent the director of development inspections from taking any other action specified in section 8-7. Sec. 8-19. Elimination of existing hazardous sediment conditions. (a) Whenever the suge~~a~eAdea~ director of development inspections determines that any existing sediment condition has become a hazard to life or limb, endangers property or adversely affects the safety, use or stability of a public or private way or drainage channel, the owner of the property from which the sediment condition emanates, or other person or agent in control of such property, upon receipt of notice in writing from the sxge~}a~ea~en~ director of development inspections, shall, within the period specified therein, abate the condition so as to eliminate the hazard and be in conformance with the re- quirements of this chapter. (b) If the person notified pursuant to subsection (a) above fails to eliminate the sediment condition within the specified time, the snge~}n~eadea~ director shall cause the necessary work to be done to eliminate the condition. The cost to the county of such work shall constitute a lien on the land upon which such work is done and shall be recovered from the owner or other person in possession, charge or control of such property. The s~ge~}a~eadea~ director of development inspec- tions shall give the applicant f ive (5) days written notice of April 25, 1989 7 Z 7 property, public or private, or in public waterways, natural or manmade, as a result of development. (2) To ensure that downstream storm drainage facilities are not unduly diverted or reduced in capacity by siltation or over- taxed by increased storm runoff. (3) To ensure that the capacity of any down- stream water impoundment is not reduced by siltation. (4) To ensure that permanent facilities and features of the proposed development are not harmfully affected by erosion and sedi- mentation. (5) To ensure the appropriate restriction or remedial treatment for land-disturbing activity on unstable ground. (c) The expected date of completion of the land- disturbing activities shall be indicated on the plan. Sec. 8-34. Responsibility of owner as to plan for land-disturbing activity by contractor. When land-disturbing activity will be required of a contractor performing construction work pursuant to a construc- tion contract, the preparation, submission and approval of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be the responsibility of the owner. Sec. 8-34.1. Review by superintendent of public facilities. The sege~~a~eadea~ director of engineering shall review plans submitted under this article and make recommenda- April 25, 1989 7 ~ 9 (1) Inspection has revealed the inadequacy of the plan to accomplish the erosion and sediment control objectives of the-plan, and appropriate modifications to correct the deficiencies of the plan are agreed to by the st:ge~3A~ea- dea~ director of development inspections and the person responsible for carrying out the plan; or (2) Where the person responsible for carrying out the approved plan finds that, because of changed circumstances or for other reasons, the approved plan cannot be effectively carried out and proposed amendments to the plan, consistent with the requirements of this chapter, are agreed to by the suge~~a~eadea~ director of development inspections and the person responsi- ble for carrying out the plan. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after April 26, 1989. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None 3. Ordinance amending and re-enacting Chapter 15, "Parks and Recreation," of the Roanoke County Code to provide for the regulation of conduct in public parks. April 25, 1989 X31 and recreation facilities including those located on Roanoke County School Board property by the regulation of traffic and behavior and the establishment of hours of operation of such facilities to be enforced by appropriate fines and penalties. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Chapter 15, Parks and Recreation of the Code of Roanoke County be, and hereby is, amended and reenacted by the addition of the following provisions regulating conduct in public parks to read and provide as follows: Sec. 15-1. Title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Ordinance Regulating Conduct in Public Parks of Roanoke County. Sec. 15-2. Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, the following terms, phrases, words, and their derivation shall have the meaning given herein. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future, words used in the singular number include the plural number. The word "shall" is always mandatory and not merely directory. County is the County of Roanoke. April 25, 1989 , 3 Parking means the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading. Closed Hours means the hours from 11:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. the following day. Department when used hereinafter is defined as the Department of Parks and Recreation for the County of Roanoke. Sheriff's deputies means all properly-trained and deputized law enforcement officers of the Roanoke County Sheriff's Department and any law enforcement officer legally empowered to issue warrants of arrest or summons within the County of Roanoke. Park attendants means all full-time employees of the department of parks and recreation and any part-time or temporary employees of the department specifically authorized by the director to enforce the requirements of this chapter. Sec. 15-3. Division of parks and recreation established; Position of director thereof created. A department of parks and recreation is hereby established and the position of director of such department is hereby created. Sec. 15-4. Conduct of county recreation programs. April 25, 1989 735 D. Erection of structures. Construct or erect any building structure or utility service of whatever kind, whether permanent or temporary in character in any park except by special written permit issued hereunder. 2. Trees, shrubbery, lawns. A. Iniury and removal. Damage, cut, carve, transplant or remove any tree or plant or injure the bark, or pick the flowers or seeds of any tree or plant; nor attach any rope, wire, or other contrivance to any tree or plant; or dig in or otherwise disturb grass areas, or in any other way injure or impair the natural beauty or usefulness of any area. . B. Climbing trees, etc. Climb any tree or walk, stand, sit or attach any rope or cable or other contrivance upon monuments, vases, fountains, railings, fences or upon any other property not designated or customarily used for such purposes. 3. Wild animals, birds, etc. A. Hunting. Hunt, molest, frighten, kill, trap, chase, tease, shoot, or throw missiles at any animal, reptile or bird; nor shall any person remove or have in his possession the young of any wild animal, or the .eggs or nest, or young of any reptile or bird. B. Feeding. Give or offer, or attempt to give to any animal or bird any tobacco, alcohol or other known noxious - substance. April 25, 1989 1 traffic laws in regard to equipment and operation of vehicles together with such regulations as are contained in this and other ordinances. 2. Enforcement of traffic regulations. Fail to obey all Sheriff's deputies and park attendants who are hereby authorized and instructed to direct traffic whenever and wherever needed in the parks and on the highways, streets or roads immediately adjacent thereto in accordance with the provisions of these regulations and such supplementary regulations as may be issued subsequently by the Director. 3. Obey traffic signs. Fail to observe all traffic signs indicating speed, direction, caution, stopping or parking and all others posted for property control and to safeguard life and property. 4. Speed of vehicles. Ride or drive a vehicle at a rate of speed exceeding 15 miles per hour, except upon such park roads as the County may designate, by posted signs, for other speed limits. 5. Operation confined to roads. Drive any vehicle on any area except the paved park roads or parking areas, or such other areas as may on occasion be specifically designated as temporary parking areas by the Director. 6. Snowmobiles, etc. Operate in any park or recreation area ' April 25, 1989 1 3 9 B. Designated racks. Leave a bicycle in a place other than a bicycle rack when such is provided and there is a space available. Sec. 15-8. Prohibited uses of parks. No person in a park shall: 1. Distribution or display. Post, paint, affix, distribute, handout, deliver, place, cast, or leave about any bill, billboard, placard, ticket, handbill, circular, or advertisement; display any flag, banner, transparency, target, sign, placard or any other matter for advertising purposes; operate any musical f instrument for advertising purposes or for the purpose of attracting attention to any exhibit, show, performance, or other display unless expressly authorized through permit by the Director pursuant to Section 15-11. 2. Contributions. Solicit contributions for any purpose. 3. Bathing and swimming. A. Designated areas. Swim, bathe, wade in any waters or waterways in any park, except in such waters and in such places as are provided therefore, and in compliance with such regulations as are herein set forth or may be hereinafter adopted. Nor shall any person frequent any waters or places customarily designated for the purpose of swimming or bathing, or congregate thereat when such activity is prohibited by the Director upon a April 25, 1989 ~ ~ ~ , g, pperation of boats. Navigate, operate, direct or handle any boat in violation of federal, state or local laws pertaining to the operation of boats. C. Prohibition during closing hours. Launch, dock or operated any boat of any kind on any waters during the closed hour, nor shall any person be on or remain on or in any boat during said closed hours of the park. 5. Fishing. A. Commercial fishing. Commercial fishing, buying or selling of fish caught in any park waters is forbidden. B. Designated areas. Fish in any park waters, whether by the use of hook-and-line, net trap, spear, gig, or other device, except in such waters thereof as are or may be designated by the Director for that use and under such regulations and restrictions as have been or may be prescribed by said Department. 6. Hunting and firearms. Hunt, trap or pursue wildlife at any time. Trapping may be authorized, by permit, when it is deemed by the Director that said activity is in the best interest of public health, safety and/or welfare. No person shall within a park use, carry or possess firearms of any description, or air rifles, spring guns, bow and arrows, slings or any other forms of weapons potentially dangerous to wildlife and to human safety or any instrument that can be loaded with and fire blank cartridges, April 25, 1989 143 area and facilities for an unreasonable time if the facilities are crowded. E. Reservations. Reservations for shelters only may be obtained by paying a fee, as determined by the Department of Parks and Recreation for exclusive use during said time period. Permits will be issued upon payment of fee and must be in the possession of users to be valid. 8. Camping. Set up tents, shacks, or any other temporary shelter for the purpose of camping without a permit from the Director, nor shall any person leave during closed hours any equipment, structure or vehicle to be used or that could be used for such purposes, such as house trailer, camp trailer, camp wagon or the like. 9. Games. Take part in or organize any recreational activity or the playing of any games except in areas set apart therefor. 10. Horseback riding. Ride, drive, or lead a horse except on park drives or trails, as designated by the Director. Where permitted, horses shall be thoroughly broken and properly restrained, and ridden with due care, and shall not be allowed to graze or go unattended, nor be hitched to any rock, tree and shrub. No hoofed animals will be allowed on turf areas. 11. Missiles and fireworks. Carry, shoot, fire, explode or throw any fireworks, firecrackers, rockets, torpedoes or missiles of any kind in any park without a permit from the Director. April 25, 1989 145 Sec. 15-10. Behavior. No person in any park shall: 1. Intoxication. Enter upon or be in or remain in a park or recreation facility while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or any controlled substance as defined by the Drug Control Act of the Code of Virginia. 2. Taking a drink or tendering same. Take a drink of any alcoholic beverage or tender a drink thereof to any other person, whether accepted or not, except as permitted by Section 4-78C. of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. 3. Domestic animals. Be responsible for the entry of a dog or other domestic animal into a park or recreation area unless carried, led by a chain, strap or rope, or kept in a wagon, automobile or other vehicle by chain, rope, or strap. Dogs, cats or other domestic animals shall not be permitted to enter any lake, pond, fountain, swimming pool, stream or food and beverage concession area within any park or recreation area. Seeing-eye dogs shall be excluded from the provisions of this regulation. 4. Fires. Build or attempt to build a fire except in such areas and under such regulations as may be designated by the Director. No person shall drop or throw or otherwise scatter lighted matches, burning cigarettes or cigars, tobacco paper or other inflammable material within any park area or on any highway, road or street abutting or contiguous thereto. April 25, 1989 7~6 5. Closed areas. Enter an area posted as "Closed to the Public" or "No Trespassing," nor shall any person use or abet the use of any area in violation of posted notices. 6. Going onto ice. Go onto ice on any of the waters except such areas designated as skating areas and posted as such. 7. Disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace. Recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following: A. Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior; B. Making unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person; C. Insulting, taunting, or challenging another under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to provoke a violent response; D. Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road or right-of-way, or to, from, within or upon public property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act which serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender. E. Creating a condition which is physically offensive to persons or which presents a risk of physical harm to persons or April 25, 1989 74 8 hereunder shall file an application with the Director. The application shall state: the name and address of the applicant; the name and address of the person, persons, corporation or association sponsoring the activity, if any; the day and hours for which the permit is desired; an estimate of the anticipated attendance; any other information which the Director shall find reasonably necessary to a fair determination as to whether a permit should be issued hereunder. B. Standards of Issuance. The Director may issue a permit hereunder when he finds: that the proposed activity or use of the park will not unreasonably interfere or detract from the general public enjoyment of the park; that the proposed activity and use will not unreasonably interfere with or detract from the promotion of public health, welfare, safety or recreation; that the proposed activity or use is not reasonably anticipated to incite violence, crime or disorderly conduct; that the proposed activity will not entail unusual, extra-ordinary or burdensome expense or allocation of manpower resources by the Sheriff's Department or other operation by the County; that the facilities desired have not been reserved for other use at the day and hour required in the application. C. Appeal. Within seven (7) days after receipt of an application, the Director shall either issue a permit or apprise April 25, 1989 75 0 constitute a Class 4 misdemeanor; provided that nothing herein contained shall limit the authority of the court to order restitution for the benefit of the county as a result of any damage or abuse to property subject to this article. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after April 26, 1989. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor McGraw and upon the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None 4 Ordinance authorizing acquisition of real estate for a pump station, water storage tank, and water line easements for the Old Hollins Road Water Line Project. Mr. Mahoney asked for a continuance so that staff can receive agreements from the citizens. Supervisor Johnson requested that the property owners be informed by letter of the continuance. Supervisor Garrett moved to continue this ordinance to May 9, 1989. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett April 25, 1989 75Z hosting the Virginia Treasurers Association in mid June. He directed the County Administrator to work with County Treasurer Alfred Anderson to assist him in hosting the event. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the Consent Agenda. with the addition of Item 4. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None RESOLUTION N0. 42589-9 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM K - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That that certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for April 25, 1989, designated as Item R - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 3 4, inclusive, as follows: 1. Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving The Village, Phase I. April 25, 1989 3. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 4. Board Contingency Fund 5. Income Analysis and Statement of Expenditures as of March 31, 1988 IN RE: RECESS 754 Supervisor McGraw moved to recess at 4:50 p.m., there being no executive session. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by a unanimous voice vote. EVENING SESSION (7:00 P.M.1 IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Con ratulations to Glenvar Rockettes Basketball Team for winning the State Championship, 12 and Under Division. Members of the Glenvar Rockettes girls basketball team were present to receive the resolution. April 25, 1989 Bobbi Jo Wright Rim Wood Heather Pille Michele Raulback Christi Barci Nicole Stone Jennifer Simmons Rristy Robison Jenny Spencer 75 6 On motion of Supervisor McGraw, seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAyS: None 2. Resolution of Congratulations to Glenvar Lady Blues Basketball Team for winning the State Championship 14 and Under Division. Members of the Glenvar Lady Blues were present to receive the resolution. Supervisor McGraw moved to adopt the prepared resolution. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None RESOLUTION 42589-11 CONGRATULATING THE GLENVAR LADY BLUES STATE CHAMPIONSHIP BASKETBALL TEAM 14 & UNDER DIVISION April 25, 1989 7 5 e IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARINGS 489-1 through 489-6 WERE HEARD ON 4-11-89. 489-7 Special Exception Request of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to publicly own and operate a regional landfill on what is known as the "Boones Chapel Site", located on 445.81 ac adsacent tto southern portion of Roanoke County, J the Franklin County line, 2 miles east of Route 220 via Route 677 in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. Mr. Hodge advised that much of the information on both this and the next public hearing were similar, but they would be heard as two separate items. Following ~.ii~ 1,J4L11v ..-.------~ staff recommends that the request be continued for 60 days. Mr. Hodge reported he will establish a committee made up of staff, and representatives from the Planning Committee and Landfill Advisory Committee to study the recommendations and input heard at the public hearings. Assistant John Hubbard reviewed the steps taken prior to the public hearing. He reported that the Planning Commission and Advisory Committee had been studying the two chosen proposed sites, community meetings at been held in both communities and _ the Planning Commission held public hearings on April 18. 75 9 April 25, 1989 The following citizens spoke concerning the Special Exception Permit request: 1. Deborah Zamorski, 9007 Willow Branch Road, Boones Mill, spoke in opposition to naming only two sites instead of three; the changes to matrix system which she felt moved the Boones Chapel higher in the ranking; and the cost of the two chosen sites. 2. Jim Woltz, 5249 Clearbrook Lane expressed concern for increasing roadside dumps and requested stronger measures against roadside dumping. Mr. Hubbard addressed Mr. Woltz's concern and advised that transfer stations might help to decrease roadside dumping. 3. William Rutherford, Rt. 1, Box 454, Fincastle, Virginia, representing Rural Virginia, spoke in support of recycling and requested an assessment on the possibility of composting some of the material. Mr. Hodge asked Dr. Olver to check into this. Supervisor Johnson stated that in some areas composting has not been successful because there was not a demand for it. Chairman Garrett asked the chairman of Planning Commission and Chairman of the Advisory Committee to appoint members from their bodies to serve on the committee Mr. Hodge has requested. April 25, 1989 76 1 3. H. Rodney Smith, 5007 Bradshaw Road, spoke in opposition because of the costs of a landfill site at Smith Gap. 4. Kenneth M. Tu11y, 8853 Bradshaw Road, spoke in opposition because of the expense of an access road and other costs associated with the site. 5. James Hensley, 8385 Bradshaw Road requested that the operating hours of the proposed landfill site be changed to 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. for less disruption to the community. He also requested a contract with the citizens in the area concerning groundwater contamination and property values. Supervisor McGraw referred the contract question to the County Attorney for review. 6. Arthur Mellen, 4346 Bradshaw Road expressed concern about the potential for groundwater contamination.. Dr. Olver advised they will be testing for borings, etc. and pump tests shortly. Supervisor McGraw requested that seismic tests be performed for caverns during the 60 days study. 7. Roy Locher, 6050 Poage Valley Road, suggested the use of a mobile shredder for construction debris to keep it out of the landfill. Chairman Garrett directed the Public Information Officer to inform the public about total curbside pickup service that is available to the citizens. In response to a question April 25, 1989 763 2. Evelyn English, 3398 Kelly Lane Ext. advised she was opposed to the rezoning request and presented a letter from Robert Turner who was unable to attend the meeting but was still opposed to the rezoning. There was a discussion on the minimum size of the units and the density reduction using unusable acres, and the fact that the site plan does not proffer the size of the units. The supervisors advised they preferred a more detailed site plan. In response to a question from Supervisor Garrett, Mr. Hartley reported that the chairman of the Planning Commission was agreeable with the site plan. In response to a question from Supervisor McGraw as to why the unit size was not proffered, the petitioner responded that they wanted to do a market survey to determine the size. Supervisor Robers moved to refer the petition back to the Planning Commission with the changes for a new recommendation. There was no second to the motion. Mr. Woltz advised that the project could not be continued if they had to wait for 30 days. Supervisor Robers moved to approve the petition with proffered conditions. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None April 25, 1989 ~s5 center of the 30 foot roadwa~he hfollowing two center of the 30' roadway, courses; north 77 degs., 45' west, 128.7 feet and north 69 degs. 24' west, 203.6 feet to the place of BEGINNING; and CONTAINING 3.93 acres, and beiY loril llCO1946g to a plat made f or W . F . Monda , Ap by C. B. Malcom and BEING the same property conveyed unto the parties of the first part by W. F. Monday and Daisy Monday, his wife by deed dated February 12, 1947, and recorded in the Clerks Office of the Circuit Court. PROFFER OF CONDITIONS (1) The site shall contain no more than 48 housing units. (2) No structure shall be constructed within 150 feet of the north property corner. (3) No structure shall be constructed within 200 feet of the existing Stonehenge townhouses. (4) Construction shall conform to the building, parking, entrance buffer strip locations and restrictions shown on the Proffered Site Plan. (5) Area lighting poles shall be no more than 12 feet in height and be directed inward. (6) All refuse dumpsters shall be screened. (7) Signs shall be no larger than 100 square feet per sign. 489-10 Petition of Holiday Retirement Associates to rezone a 0.52 acre tract from R-3, Residential, to - B-2, Business, and obtain a Special Exception a { April 25, 1989 X67 BE4INNiN4 at an iron pin on the easterly right-of-way of Virginia Secondary Route 706 on the line of Tom Pena et al.; thence with the right-of-way line of Virginia Secondary Route 706, N 9° 03' S0" w 57.81 feet to a point; thence, leaving said right-of-way line and with two new lines through the property of Holiday Retirement Associates Limited Partnership, S 68° 56' 11" E 479.98 feet to a point; thence S 35° 3' 12" w 51.55 feet to a point on the Penn line; thence with the Penn line N 68° 56' 0' W 438.37 feet to the place of beginning and containing approximately 0.52 acre. PROFFER OF CONDITIONS (1) A maximum 110 suite retirement facility will be constructed following the existing entrance road and parking lot. (2) Type D screening and buffering or its equivalent by modification will be installed on all property borders. (Natural growth will be salvaged to maximum extend possible.) (3) Final plan will be in substantial conformance with concept plan. (4) One concrete sign no greater than 24 sq. feet will be installed; no other signage will be constructed. . April 25, 1989 169 In response to a question from Supervisor Johnson, Mr. Hartley advised none of the property was in the flood plain. Both Supervisor Johnson and Supervisor Robers advised they were opposed to down zoning of properties. Frank Caldwell was present to represent the petition. He reported that the property is not in the flood plain according to the topography map. Bill Emory advised he has tried to rent the building adjacent to the property and could not rent the property. In response to a question from Supervisor Nickens, Mr. Hartley advised the problem concerning emergency vehicles leaving the property would be addressed at the site plan review. Supervisor Johnson moved to deny the petition. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, Garrett NAYS: Supervisors McGraw, Nickens IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 489-12 Petition of Old Heritage Corporation and Rockvdale Quarries Corporation to vacate portion of a 50- foot right-of-way referred to as "North Mountain Drive", Section 5, Southern Pines Subdivision, Cave Spring Magisterial District. .. April 25, 1989 Hearing 487-7) completed her comments concerning her opposition to the matrix system used to rank the landfill. She also asked that Roanoke County approach Bedford County to discuss the possibility of a joint landfill; and that the Mount Pleasant proposed landfill site should be included as the third site. Mr. Hodge responded that the Mount Pleasant site was excluded because it would be impossible to expand, more houses surround the site, and there is a deep fault on the site. 2. Roy Lochner, (no address given) reminded the Board of Supervisors to consider the possibilities of underground water. IN RE: REQUEST FROM COUNTY ATTORNEY County Attorney Paul Mahoney asked for direction from the Board of Supervisors on changes in the zoning ordinance concerning residential density. He asked if the Board wanted the standard changed. Supervisor Nickens requested a report showing the rezonings in the past six months based on density. There was a discussion among the board members concerning how to proceed concerning residential density. The County Attorney responded that he would report back with what may legally be required in a rezoning request. A-111589-5.a ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~ "~'' AT A REGULAR MEETING OHE ROANOKERCOUNTY UADMINIISTRp, O ON OC NTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT MEETING DATE November 15, 1989 SUBJECT; Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Industrial Development Authority and Planning Commission COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The following nominations were and must now be confirmed by nominee has agreed to serve. made at the previous board meetThe the Board of Supervisors. Industrial Development Authority Supervisor Robers nominated B re Sept tuber 26Se1993another four- year term. His term will p Planning Commission Supervisor McGraw nominated Wayland Winstead to another four-year term. His term will expire December 31, 1993. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: c~~~ Mary H. Allen Elmer C. Hodge Clerk to the Board County Administrator --------------- - ------- VOTE ------------- ACTION Yes No Abs Approved ~ ) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens/ Garrett x Denied ( ) Steven A. McGraw Johnson Absent Received ( ) McGraw x Referred Nickens x To: Robers x cc: File Industrial Development Authority File Planning Commission File { ~ .:w~ AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1989 RESOLUTION 111589-5.b REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF WILLIAMSBURG COURT INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the proceedings herein, and upon the application of Williamsburg Court to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have heretofore been dedicated by virtue of a certain map\maps known as Williamsburg Court Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 82, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on January 11, 1989 and that by reason of the recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said right-of- way for drainage. 3. That said road known as Williamsburg Court and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as public road to become a part of r ~ the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisor Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson A COPY TESTE: J~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections, and copy for Virginia Department of Transportation ITEM NUMBER ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 15, 1989 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Williamsburg Court into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke Land Development Corporation, the developer of Williamsburg Court, requests that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation requesting that they accept 0.16 miles of Williamsburg Court. The staff has inspected this road along with representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation and find the road is acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT• No county funding is required. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to the VDOT requesting that they accept Williamsburg Court into the Secondary Road System. SUBMITTED BY: ,~ ~/ Phillip T. Henry, E. Director of Engineering ----------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE r.r_ tf .. .. TL.n Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to APPROVED: ~%~~ Yi~ ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Motion by: Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers !~ AT THE REGULAR MEEIIANGHELDTAT THERROANOKEPCOUNTYRADMINISTRATION COUNTY, VIRGIN , CENTER ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1989 RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF WILLIAMSBATIONOSECONDARYTROADISYSTEM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1, That this matter came this day to be heard upon the proceedings herein, and upon the application of Williamsburg Court to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have heretofore been dedicated by virtue of a certain map\maps known as Williamsburg Court Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 82, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on January 11, 1989 and that by reason of the recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said right-of-way for drainage. 3, That said road known as Williamsburg Court and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as public road to become a part of 2 /-~ -.3 the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 3 K-.3 -Q NORTB C O •` .'~ .a •5 s 9~ v' ~1 26 ~' 1 ,06 ~ zr ,\ .E ~._ e~ ~: `~~./ PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY .a DESCRIPTION: Williamsburg Court from the intersection of Roselawn Road 1) (Route 689) to cul-de-sac LENGTH: (1) .16 Miles RIGHT OF WAY: (1) 50 Feet ROADWAY WIDTH: (1) 31 Feet SURFACE WIDTH: (1) 26 Feet SERVICE: (1) 3 Homes IMPROVEMENT NECESSARY: ACCEPTANCE OF {~TILLIAMSBIIRG COURT INTO Tests vtx~lnu' COMMUNITY S$RVICB.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION .SECONDARY SYSTEM . Nn nRV13LOPMSNT AT THE REGULAR MEETIN HELD AT THE RROANORE PCOUNTY ADMINISTRATION COUNTY, VIRGINIA, 1989 CENTER ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, RESOLUTION 111589-5.C REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF STONEWOODTATION SECONDARY ROADNSYSTEM RTMENT OF TRpr1SPOR BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1, That this matter came this day to be heard upon the proceedings herein, and upon the application of Stonewood Drive, from Texas Hollow Road (Route 641) to the cul-de-sac to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have heretofore been dedicated by virtue of a certain map\maps known as Section 1, Stonewood Subdivision which may was recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 130, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on February 3, 1986 and that by reason of the recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said right-of- way for drainage. 3, That said road known as Stonewood Drive, from Texas Hollow Road (Route 641) to the cul-de-sac and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as public road to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisor Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson A COPY TESTE: ~~~f, .~• Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections, and copy for Virginia Department of Transportation ITEM NUMBER ~ - "/ AT A REGULAR MHELDNATOTHEHROANOKE OCOUNTYEADMINISTRATION CENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: November 15, 1989 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Stonewood Drive, from Texas Hollow Road (Route 614) to the cul-de-sac into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Michael East, the developer of Stonewood Section 1, requests that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia DepartmentnewoodanDtiveatf~omreTexas1Ho11owtRoady (Route 0.23 miles of Sto 641) to the cul-de-sac. The staff has inspected this road along with representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation and find the road is acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT' No county funding is required. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends that the VDOT requesting that they Hollow Road (Route 641) to the System. the Board approve a resolution to accept Stonewood Drive, from Texas cul-de-sac into the Secondary Road SUBMITTED BY: / , Phillip Henry, E• Director of Engineering APPROVED: /yL~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ~'~ -------------- ----------------------- VOTE ACTION Motion by: No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Garrett Denied ( ) Johnson Received ( ) McGraw Referred Nickens to Robers ~" 7 AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1989 RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF STONEWOOD DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1, That this matter came this day to be heard upon the proceedings herein, and upon the application of Stonewood Drive, from Texas Hollow Road (Route 641) to the cul-de-sac to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have heretofore been dedicated by virtue of a certain map\maps known as Section 1, Stonewood Subdivision which may was recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 130, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on February 3, 1986 and that by reason of the recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said right-of-way for drainage. 3, That said road known as Stonewood Drive, from Texas Hollow Road (Route 641) to the cul-de-sac and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as public road to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from and 3 .. / after notification of official acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. K'- ~ NORTB 8 v~ O See Map 44.03 " = 200' a~ .~ 18- _ .d PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY DESCRIPTION: 1) Stonewood Drive from Texas Hollow Road (Route 641 to cul-de-sac LENGTH: (1) .23 Miles RIGHT OF WAY: H (1) (1) 50 Feet : ROADWAY WIDT SURFACE WIDTH: (1) 20 Feet SERVICE: (1) 3 Homes IMPROVEMENT NECESSARY: ACCEPTANCE OF STONEWOOD DRIVE, FROM TEAS HOLLOW COMMUNITY SBRVICSS gOAD (R0~ OF 14T~SPO~RTAT ON SECONDARYO ~~IRGINIA AND DBVgLOPMBNT DB~ART-~ ACTION N0. A-111589-5.d ITEM NUMBER ~_~ AT A REGULAR MEEDIAT THE ROANOKER COUNTY ADMINISTRP,TIONRCENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA HEL MEETING DATE: November 15, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Appropriation of Monies to the Development of GreAcreslinPthe Glenvar West Secdtionf f Roanokeof 10 County COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND• At the October 24, 1989 meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved a sale of 10 acres of land in the GlenvarfWo~s astot 1 of Roanoke County to Atlantic and Pacific Inc., $230,000. In accordance with the provisions of the Roanoke County Charter, these proceeds from the sale of a capital asset must be placed in a capital fund. The Board of Supervisors has previously committed to the citizens of this area that it will replace P erties forreconomic facilities lost through the sale of said prop development purposes. The staff, therefore, recommends that the net proceeds ($230,000 less any closing expenses or other costs associated with the disposal of this ten acre ur ose fofa making appropriated from the Capital Fund for the p p improvements to Green Hill Park to replace the parks & recreational facilities lost through this land transfer. Attached is a prioritized listing of the improvements suggested by the urrose& Recreation Department, estimated at $235,900 for this Pop the These suggested improvements would include: fencing completion of four ball fields, one new soccer field, one new T-ball field, a maintenance center, a combinatioi ni°rishelter/ restroom/storage facility, playground aparatus, a p security fencing, signage and landscaping. Based upon the bids received to perform thi romrt andotards the bottomaoflthbselistaff would propose to work f p The Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission has been advised of the recommendation and concurs with the priorities established by the Parks & Recreation Department. 9-20~-~s9 Steve McGraw: This is G°eeneHi111Parke the funds from Shamrock Park at Elmer Hodge ~_ S ROANOKE COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT - GREEN HILL PARK DEVELOPMENT - PHASE II I, EXISTING FENCING - Relocate Glenvar ballfield fencing to S 600.00 3 Green Hill Park facilities (contract) . ....... , I~I . DUGOUT FENCING ~ and pla er's Provide dugout fencing Y benches - four (4) existing Green ..$ 3,800.00 ,, Hill Park ballfields ............... ,•,,,, ,.$ 42,400.00 III, OUTDOOR SOCCER FIELD (1) .••••••••••• " " es (design and ,•,,, ••S Professional servic 6,000.00 survey services) .............. " • S 30,000.00 • Construction (contract).••••••' " ••S . 900.00 Goals/Nets ....................... Associated parking (gravel base/ ,,$ 5,500.00 , chip and seal) .................. D 1 (NO OUTFIELD FENCING).$ 39,400.00 IV. T-BALL BASEBALL FIEL Professional services (design anl 00 600 5 ••$ survey services).......••••••• " ' S . , 28,000.00 . Construction (contracto .S t•fencing 5,800.00 . u Backstop/foul line/dug $ 19,000.00 V, ~, •• PARK DISTRICT MAINTENANCE CENT..R (~• ccount).•S ••••,,,,. 5 800.00 Building (prefab - force a ...5 3,000.00 ravel). .. Access (g ••"•"'•"••• ,$ 4,400.00 Compound fencing/gate......... " ': S 3,200.00 • Compound base (gravel).••••••" •' •$ ... 2,600.00 Electrical ..................... VI, PAR?{ CONCESSION RESTROOM/STORAGE FACILITY•.••••.$ ?0,500.00 (CO,iTRACT).•••••••••••••"_"'- .. design. 'S 3,500.00 Professiional services refab)...S ( ldi 34,000.00 p ng Construction - bui well/electricity.$ 23,000.00 Utilities - water - installed......S 10,000.00 Restroom fixtures $ 18,800.00 VII. ., PLA RM)CONTRACT)•••.• A P INSTALLATZON iPURCHASE AND .....$ 22.600.00 - VIII ...... PICNIC SHELTER (CONTRACT)..•••••• .... , Shelter - prefab (including $ ' 100.00 15 min.•••:::$ concrete base) 24' x 30 , 4,500.00 Construction..........•••••• " " •$ ' 1,800.00 Picnic tables .................. " •$ . 1,200.00 Grills/receptacles ............... + SPLIT RAIL SECURITY FE:`1C-?3G (2-RA~L).•• •••••••••$ l I , OOO .00 IX. ....5 4,800.00 }{, ... PARK SIGNAGE/LANDSCAPING...••••••••' ..... $ 235 900.00 ~~ ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACT: Alternative #1: Appropriate an amount not to exceed $230,000 from the net proceeds of the sale of ten acres land in the Glenvar West section of Roanoke County to further develop Green Hill Park. Alternative #2: Leave the proceeds in the Capital Fund for further appropriation by the Board of Supervisors. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends Alternative #1 (appropriating up to $230,000 for improvements at Green Hill Park). Respectfully submitted, Approved by, ~' ohn M. Chamblis Jr. Elmer C. odge Assistant Administrator County Administrator -------on b .---------_ ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved (x) Moti y. Harrv C Nickens/Steven Denied ( ) A McGraw to approve Alt #1 Garrett ~_ Received ( ) Johnson eb_sent Referred ( ) McGraw ~_ Nickens ~. To ( ) Robers ~_ Attachment cc: File John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator Reta Busher, Director, Marigement & Budget Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Steve Carpenter, Director, Parks & Recreation Paul Mahoney, County Attorney 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: November 15, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: totestablish annintegrated automat dxl brary system COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND' On July 25, 1989, the Board approved Alternative #2 to allow the City of Roanoke to contract with the vendor, install the system, and front the cost of the system. The County would use $60,000 from the Library operating budget to cover the cost of converting the files, installing the termin forathe asyst mhe CThe for a good-faith payment (down paym ) balance ($300,000) would be repaid to the City over the next three years based upon the terms included in an roxim t 1 c113r000 concerning the governance of the system. (App Y $ per year assuming current bond rates, 6.25%.) SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff has negotiated a contract with the representatives of the City of Roanoke and the City of Salem. This contract is substantially in accord with the July 25, 1989, Board action; however, several of the financial terms have changed over the past three and one-half months. These changes are as follows: 1. The cost estimates initially submitted to endix B rof(the Attachment A) have been revised (see App Contract). 2. The County shall pay the City of Roanoke $68,362 during this fiscal year (see Section 16 (a) of Contract). 3. The interest rate for repayment is 8.75% (see Section 16 (a) of the Contract). 4. The County shall repay the City of Roanoke $100,000 on or before July 1, 1990; $117, 500 on or before July 1, 1991; and $108,750 on or before July 1, 1992. The contract and Appendices A, B, and C are attached to this report. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: 1. Authorize the County Administrator to execute this contract on behalf of the County of Roanoke. 2. Do not authorize the County Administrator to execute this contract on behalf of the County of Roanoke. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Ad- ministrator to execute this contract on behalf of the County of Roanoke. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers Vote No Yes Abs ~~ day of This CONTRACT, made and entered into this lg between the CITY OF ROANOKE, a municipal corporation chartered under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, CITY OF SALEM, a municipal corporation chartered under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the COUNTY OF ROANOKE, a county chartered under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the purpose of this Contract is to establish an integrated automated library system, and an integrated automated library system, (hereinafter referred to as "system") is an online, real-time computer system designed around a bibliographic database of MARC (machine readable cataloging) standard records for all types of library materials capable in design architecture and performance capacity of supporting multiple library acquisi- tions, cataloging, fiscal control, online public catalog, cir- culation control and management information applications; and WHEREAS, this Contract shall provide a mechanism for allo- cating and sharing costs for the integrated automated library system; and WHEREAS, $42.1-34 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, authorizes any city or county to enter into a contract with any adjacent city or county to receive or to provide library service on such terms and conditions as shall be mutually agreeable; and WHEREAS, recent studies have shown that the libraries of the three jurisdictions need to make a change of basic technology by having the manual systems and records replaced by a computer- ~i based information system which will facilitate library operations and improve library services; and WHEREAS, by this Contract the parties intend to implement and effectuate a library automation system to a%pand and improve library services to the citizens of the three participating jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the library automation system is a joint undertaking by political subdivisions, pursuant to §15.1-21 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, in furtherance of a proper govern- mental function; and WHEREAS, the parties to this Contract wish to establish the terms and conditions whereby the cost for the system shall be allocated among the parties in accordance with a prescribed for- mula; and WHEREAS, the parties have established an Advisory Committee to be responsible for making key decisions and setting policy for use of the system by all participating libraries; and WHEREAS, the parties have established a Library Automation Committee to manage the system during implementation and opera- tion, to develop policy and budgets, and to report to the Advi- and sory Committee and administrations of the cities and county; WHEREAS, the Library Automation Committee shall be assisted and advised by Library staff and administrative officials from each governing body. THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants, agreements, obligations, and undertakings herein contained, the parties hereby covenant and agree, each with the others, as f ollows: _ 2 _ K-~ 1. The City of Roanoke, City of Salem and County of Roanoke shall implement an integrated automated library system as mutually agreed upon by the City Council for the City of Roanoke, City Council for the City of Salem, and the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County. 2. The type of system to be acquired by the parties will perform library data handling functions as agreed upon by the Library Automation Committee. 3. The membership of the Advisory Committee shall consist of the City of Roanoke Director of Human Resources, the County of Roanoke Assistant Administrator for Human Services, the City of Salem Assistant City Manager, a representative from the Library Boards of the City of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke, the City of Roanoke Librarian, Directors of the City of Salem Public Library, and County of Roanoke Public Library. 4. The membership of the Library Automation Committee shall consist of the City of Roanoke Librarian,•and Directors of the City of Salem Public Library and County of Roanoke Public Library, the data processing managers of the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, and County of Roanoke, and the Automation Coordinator who shall be a library employee in the classified service of the City of Roanoke. 5. All public libraries of the parties to this agreement (hereinafter referred to as "participating libraries") shall abide by the policies and procedures established by the Library Automation Committee for the operation of the system. g. The City of Roanoke shall provide space, at no cost to participating libraries, to house the central site components of - 3 - s stem, such space hereinafter referred to as Central Host the y te. Central site components shall consist of the products sef Si art o forth in Appendix D, which is attached hereto and made a P this agreement. 7, The parties shall jointly own the Central Host Site com- urchased for the system ui ment p ponents and telecommunications eq p under the terms of this agreement and apportioned as shared costs ercentages as set forth in Appendix A, in accordance with the p attached herewith and made a part of this agreement'ible for all g. Each participating library shall be respons sts involved in the creation and transfer of their own biblio- co ra hic records to the shared system database- All participa ing 0 g p 'braries will input, maintain and share these records according h li Eac the procedures developed by the Library Automation Committee. main- articipating library will be responsible for establishing, P ' in and bearing the cost for acquiring these records from their tarn g own source. g, All records entered into the system by each participa- in library or supplied by or for each participating library are t g library. and shall remain the property of each participating Each participating library agrees to share its bibliographic, uthority, item, holdings, patron, and loan records with other Par- a roto- procedures, p ticipating libraries in accordance with policies, the Library Automation cols and regulations established by val of these records shall be use, and remo Committee. The addition, Automation governed by the policies and procedures of the Library Committee. - 4 - /l -~ 10. The contract shall be for a term of three years from the date hereof. 11. Upon the expiration of the initial term of three (3) years this Contract shall be automatically renewed annually for one year terms unless notice of termination is given by any party in writing to the other parties at least twelve (12) months prior to the end of the original term of the contract or twelve (12) months prior to the end of any one year term of renewal. Notice of termination by either of the cities or the county, given as hereinabove provided, shall constitute termination of this contract only to the termina- ting party upon the effective date of such notice of termination, which effective date shall not be sooner than the last day of the original three-year term or the last day of any one year term of renewal. The terminating party shall forfeit any equity in the system to the remaining libraries participating in the system upon proper notice of termination. 12. The total system capital and start up costs herein agreed and as set forth in detail in Appendix B, attached herewith and made a part of this agreement, shall be in an amount not to exceed $973,949.00. The total cost for maintenance and operation of the system is estimated to be $120,000.00 (in 1989 dollars) for the first full year of operation, as set forth in detail in Appendix C, attached hereto and made a part of this agreement; and for each year thereafter the total cost for maintenance and operation shall be an amount based on the actual operating costs and charges as determined by the Library Automation Committee. - 5 - ~-~ to (a) Each jurisdiction's costs for the shared components of the automation system, including annual operating costs, shall be based on shared costs percentages as set forth in Appendix A. The percen- tages shall be adjusted on an annual basis following the initial term of this contract. (b) Upon the renewal of this contract, the percentages will be reevaluated by the Library Automation Committee in order to reflect any changes in the usage of the system occurring on the part of any participating library covered by this agreement. For the initial term of this contract, the parties' shared costs as set forth in Appendix A will be as follows: 50~) of the purchase price and (1) Fifty percent start-up costs and system maintenance, operations and telecommunications thettermaof thepcontracthe City of Roanoke during (2) Forty-two percent (42`x) of the purchase price and start-up costs of the system and system main- tenance, operations and teleofmRoanokelduringsthe shall be paid by the County term of the contract. (3) Eight percent (8~) of the purchase price start-up costs, and system maintenance, operations and tele- communications costs shall be paid by the City of Salem during the term of the contract. 13. The City of Roanoke shall act as the purchasing agent for all components of the system. 14. The City of Roanoke shall comply with the provisions of 1979), as amended, Chapter 23.1 of the Code of the City of Roanoke Chapter ? which is in accordance with the Virginia Procurement Act, of Title 11 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, in the pro- curement of all components of the system. - 6 - 15. The parties agree that the City of Roanoke, as purchasing agent, shall be reimbursed in full for its payment of all indivi- dual library costs and expenditures for operation and services in each jurisdiction's participating libraries. This will include payments for purchase of terminals, printers, light pens, modems, barcode labels, machine readable labels for patron identification cards, and database processing by system vendor as set forth in as purchasing agent, shall make Appendix A. The City of Roanoke, periodic billings to the City of Salem and County of Roanoke, no more frequently than monthly. 16. The parties agree to pay as billed their proportionate share of the cost for the system, not to exceed the following amounts which are accurately set out in detail in Appendix B: City of Roanoke - $ 527,305 County of Roanoke _ ~ 368,362 City of Salem 78'282 (a) The County of Roanoke agrees that in consideration of the continuing library services rendered to County residents by the City of Roanoke, and conditioned upon the continued rendering of such services, the County shall pay to the City of Roanoke $68,362.00 1990) as partial during this fiscal year (on or before June 30, payment for its proportionate share of the cost of the system. The balance of the County's proportionate share of the cost of the the City of Roanoke. The system ($300,000) shall be paid in full by County shall thereafter repay the City of Roanoke in installments of $100,000 per year for a period of three years at 8.75 interest per annum on the remaining balance- (b) Specifically, the County of Roanoke agrees to repay the City of Roanoke as follows: - 7 - C~ 1~p~ v D 0 ~ ~~~ shall be paid to the (1) Payment in the amount of $ City of Roanoke on or before July 1, 1990; (2) Payment in the amount of $117,500 shall be paid to the City of Roanoke on or before July 1, 1991; (3) Payment in the amount of $108,750 shall be paid to the 1, 1992. City of Roanoke on or before July The obligations of the County under subparagraph (b) shall (c) be subject to and dependent upon appropriations being made from time to time by the Board of Supervisors of the County for such purpose. The County Administrator or other officer charged with the respon- sibility for preparing the County's budget shall include in the pro- posed budget for each fiscal year all amounts referred to be paid under this contract during such fiscal year, and the County admin- istrator or other such officer of the county shall use his best efforts to obtain the annual appropriation throughout the term of this contract. (d) The County reasonably believes that funds sufficient to make all payments required to be made by the county during the term of the contract can be obtained from County revenue sources and intends to make annual appropriations during the term of this agreement sufficient to make such payments. (e) If the County shall fail to repay the City of Roanoke for its payment of the County's proportionate share of the cost as herein agreed, the County shall forfeit any and all services, title, interest, equity and claim to the system. (f) All payments made under this agreement shall be accounted - 8 - / l ~~ for pursuant to generally accepted accounting principles for politi- cal subdivisions. 17. The City of Roanoke shall make periodic billings to the City of Salem and County of Roanoke for their proportionate share of the cost of maintenance and operation, no more frequently than monthly. 18. Any additional interested parties may be considered for • participation in the system by making application to the Library Automation Committee. IIpon recommendation of the Library Automation Committee to the Advisory Committee and approval of the participat- ing governing bodies, the contract may be amended to allow alloca- tion costs and participation in the system by interested parties. 19. All participating libraries are bound by the terms of ven- dor contract, which is attached hereto as Appendix D, for perfor- mance and proper use of system. 20. The use of any growth capacity must be approved by the Library Automation Committee. 21. This Contract and the attachments hereto, which are incorporated by reference, constitute the entire contract between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, represen- tations or agreements, either oral or written. 22. This Contract may be amended by a written amendment or modification hereto authorized by resolutions of the City Council for the City of Roanoke, the City Council for the City of Salem, and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke. 23. This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. - 9 - "_ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, each duly authorized have hereunto affixed their signatures and seals to this agreement, executed in triplicate as of the day of ATTEST: 1989. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk (SEAL) ATTEST• ity ler (SEAL) ATTEST: Mary Allen, Clerk of the Board (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM ounse ity o oano e APPROVED AS TO FORM e~C,G , / ~ /. ~: oun el, ity o alem APPROVED AS TO FORM ~'~, Counsel, County of Roan ke CITY OF ROANOKE By W. Robert Herbert City Manager CITY OF SALEM By andolph mit City Manag r COUNTY OF ROANOKE By Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator - 10 - ~- Appendix A Funding for the initial purchase and ongoing support of the Roanoke Area Public Libraries Automation Project will be in three (3) forms: (1) shared costs based on the use of the agreed upon percentages; (2) individual library costs based on use which will be reimbursed to the City of Roanoke as purchasing agent for the automated system; and (3) individual jurisdiction costs which are incurred and paid by each jurisdiction independently of this agreement. Shared Costs: 1. Purchase of central computer equipment and software 2. Preparation of computer host site 3. Installation of telecommunications network 4. Conversion of patron ID machine readable file 5. Monthly hardware maintenance costs for central site 6. Monthly telecommunication circuits costs 7. Monthly personnel costs for operation of system, speci- fically an Automation Coordinator and system support staff 8. Telecommunications equipment at the Central Host Site 9. Monthly software maintenance costs 10. Supplies necessary for operation at the Central Host Site 11. All costs for equipment insurance, i.e., theft, casualty, fire, etc. 12. Any other costs agreed upon by the Library Automation Committee Individual Library Costs: 1. Purchase of smart machine readable barcode labels 2. Machine readable labels for patron ID cards 3. Terminals, printers, light pens, moderns and other peripheral equipment located within individual library buildings Individual Jurisdiction Costs: 1. Preparation of sites for terminals in individual libraries 2. Labor for bar code labeling materials 3. Machine readable bibliographic data The funding formula used for this project is based on the following four statistical measures: 50% circulation; 30~ number of circulating points; 10~ number of titles in the data base; and 10% number of terminals within each library. The result of these statistical measures is an equitable breakdown of the shared costs as follows: City of Roanoke - 50%; County of Roanoke - 42~; and City of Salem - 8%. APPENDIX B 14,181 10/16/89 AUTOMATED LIBRARY SYSTEM CAPITAL AND START-UP COSTS Central Roanoke Roanoke Salem Total One time cost --------------- Site ------------ City ------------- County -------- ---------- --------- Hardware 333,547 -0- -0- -0- 333,547 Terminals & Telecom. * 146,903 90,095 50,798 14,181 301,977 Software 85,000 -0- -0- -0- 85,000 Miscellaneous 58,451 -0- -0- -0- 58,451 Sub-total 623,901 90,095 Central Site Prorated System total Implementation Services Bid Award Total Library Coordinator (89-90) CIS Position (89-90) Total Salaries (89-90) Library Site Preparation Library Temporary Help CIS Support Cost Estimate (89-90) TOTALS 311,951 402,046 51,330 453,376 5,870 9,457 15,327 20,100 24,678 13,824 527,305 50,798 262,038 312,836 31,040 343,876 4,931 7,943 12,874 11,612 368,362 49,912 64,093 9,525 73,618 939 1,513 2,42 ~~ ~ 778,975 778,975 91,895 870,870 11,740 18,913 30,653 20,100 24,678 2,212 27,648 78,282 973,949 * Terminals & Telecommunications equipment cost based on individual library system installation plans. Appendix C /-~'- ~ AUTOMATED LIBRARY ANNUAL OPERATING COST Central Roanoke Item Site City SYSTEM ESTIMATE Roanoke County alem 10/16/89 Total Hardware/Software Maintenance 12,564 10,554 2,010 25,128 * Terminal Telecomm. Maint. 14,016 7,380 4,584 1,176 27,156 Central Site Prorated 7,008 5,887 1,121 Telecommunications 6,504 6,180 1,176 13,860 System Total 33,456 27,205 5,483 66,144 Library Coordinator 10,168 8,541 1,627 20,336 CIS Personnel 16,385 13,763 2,622 32,770 Salary Total 26,553 22,304 4,249 53,106 Estimated Annual Operating Cost 60,009 49,509 9,732 119,250 * Terminals & Telecommunications equipment maintenance cost based on individual library system installation plans. Attachment A k' -- ~ ROANOKE AREA PUBLIC LIBRARY AUTOMATION PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Central site hardware Telecomm. Hardware Software Miscellaneous Online user stations (111 @ 1129/station) System total cost Library preparation cost TOTAL RKE CITY RKE CO SALEM 50~ 42~ 8$ 333,547 166,773 140,089 26,683 209,495 104,747 87,987 16,759 85,000 42,500 35,700 6,800 58,451 29,225 24,549 4,676 125,375 75,643 37,257 12,419 (67) (33) (11) 811,868 418,888 325,582 67,337 97,125 55,858 15,644 Onetime project cost total 516,013 381,440 82,981 Monthly maintenance and 5,949 2,974 2,498 476 telecommunications cost Additional cost considerations: Personnel Back-up circulation equipment Supplies Miscellaneous cost includes training, shipping, installation, performance bond, etc. Library Preparation Cost includes site preparation, tape processing, bar code labels, labor, etc. ~-r COUNl'Y OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA IJNAPPROPRIATID BAT~I~TCE -CAPITAL FCl1~ID Beginning Balance at July 1, 1989 (unaudited) $56,194 September 12, 1989 Contribution towards Hollins Fire Truck (25,000) Balance as of November 15, 1989 Submitted by ~~~~~~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance 31 194 '_",~ OOUDTI'Y OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE - GENERAL FUND Balance at July 1, 1989 (Unaudited) $4,038,318 Balance as of November 15, 1989 Submitted by ~~ ~~ ~~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance 54.038.318 M- 3 COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA RESERVE FOR BOARD O~NTINGII~K'Y Beginning Balance at July 1, 1989 (Unaudited) $11,395 Additional Amount from 1989-90 Budget 50,000 June 14, 1989 Contribution to Va. .Amateur Sports (25,000) July 11, 1989 Purchase of drainage easement (5,000) July 11, 1989 Option on 200 acres real estate (3,750) July 25, 1989 Donation to Julian Wise Foundation (5,000) August 8, 1989 County supplement for new position (869) in Sheriff's department August 22 , 1989 Part time volunteer coordinator (5,800) August 22 , 1989 Public Information for Police (9,000) Department referendum Balance as of Novemper 15, 1989 Submitted by GJ cam ~ ~ ~''`'~~~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance 6 976 a' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1989 RESOLUTION CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia 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 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 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, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia.