Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/9/1991 - RegularACTION NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 9, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session on the Capital Improvements Program COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At this work session staff would like to review all CIP projects with the Board of Supervisors to determine the overall ranking of each project. Those projects approved by the Board of Supervisors will be included in the final draft of the Capital Improvements Program FY 1991-92 through FY 1995-96. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, Reta R. Busher Elmer C. Hodge Director of Management County Administrator and Budget ITEM NUMBER ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To Motion by: Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers ~~ f ®~' [~ISCUSS~OrI ~R1y Subject to Revision ALL-AMERICA CM 1 , ,OAN, `." ~~9~8~9 County of Roanoke, Virginia Capital Improvement Program Proposed for Fiscal Years ~{ 1992 - 1996 ALL-AMERICA CITY ~ , ~~9~8~9 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 1992-1996 RECOMMENDED TO ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS Paoe Letter of Transmittal ............................... i Summary of Recommended Capital Improvement Program ...... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1-5 Project Description Sheets ....••••••••••••••••..•" 6-117 ALL~AMERICA CITY o~ROANp,Y~ 1'I I~) ~ ,A ~ Ir Z ~ ~ i~ ~~~~~ 1979 ~ Z °v ,a ~~~~~ Y 1989 150 /~ ^ 1 8 YEAFS VV SFSQUICENTENN~P~' A BeautifulBeginning BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RICHARD W. ROBERS, CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW. VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR LEE B. EDDY ELMER C. HODGE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT January 8, 1991 Members of the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission: Attached for your review is the first draft of the 1992-1996 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Capital Improvement Program is an excellent summary of the capital projects that need to be addressed by Roanoke County over the next five years. In prioritizing projects, staff has worked within existing tax rates and fees. Several projects totaling $500,000 have been recommended for funding from the FY 1991-92 general operating budget; while several larger projects are being d t~Ommeondemd nded funding levelsdwill be the amount of $14.7 million. These projects an reviewed in greater detail during the upcoming budget process. The types of projects included in the CIP involve facility development or improvement and large equipment needs. Project activities may include land, building, or equipment acquisition; renovation or construction of schools, libraries, parks, fire and rescue stations, government offices and water and sewer facilities; or such things as road improvements, drainage facilities, and industrial park site development. More specifically, new capital 000 and lasting a minimum of facilities are defined as those costing a minimum of $50, necessa , or D desirable. seven years. Projects have been prioritized as (U) urgent, (l~ rY ( ) A project classified as urgent is one that cannot be postponed, is required to complete a partially finished project or to maintain an established program, or is needed to deal with an emergency situation. A necessary project is one that should be carried out within the next few years to meet anticipated needs or is needed for replacement of unsatisfactory facilities. A desirable project is a project that is needed for the proper expansion of a departmental program or to create an ideal operation, but may be postponed until funds are available. A Project Request Form was completed for each capital project. The information provided included the project name, description, location, justification, project cost, impact on the County operating budget, and relationship to the Comprehensive Plan. A summarized version of the Project Request Form for each project in the CIP has been included in the enclosed packet. i P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 • (703) 772-2004 This is the first time in of Roanoke County's history. that we have undertaken this many major capital projects. You are all familiar with -the county's efforts to expand the Roanoke Regional Sewage Treatment Plant, to site a new regional landfill and to build Spring Hollow Reservoir. In addition, there are a number of school and county projects that are less publicized but just as important. There are requirements for additional parks, expansion of school buildings and libraries and some day, a new county office complex. We had hoped to address some of these small to P o forwa d as plaiuied• HoweverNthe the landfill and the treatment plant will have g smaller projects will have to be delayed due to reductions in state funding and the uncertain economy. It is very likely that Roanoke County will have to absorb at least a $2 million reduction in state funds for schools. Onsthand the Board of Superviso s will fa s and Public Health will also expenence reducti the difficult decision of whether to offset these reductions with local tax dollars or to reduce the level of services offered. In preparing in the CIP summary, the staff assumed that there will be approximately $500,000 in the FY 1991-92 budget available for new county and school capital projects. After careful review by the Management Team, the following projects have been identified for inclusion in next year's capital budget: • New ambulance for Cave Spring Rescue Squad $14,500 • Roof replacements for several county buildings • Repairs to HVAC systems in several county $91,000 buildings • Site renovations at Cave Spring Junior $150,000 High School • Option on land for new Cave Spring High $100,000 School $89,500 • Replacement of school buses At this time, the Department of Management and Budget has not yet completed the revenue projections for FY 1991-92, nor do we have the operating budget requests from all departments. We also expect to receive notification of further reductions in state revenues in the next few weeks. So, you can see that we are making assumptions that we will be able to fund these projects with General Fund operating revenues. If we find during the review of the departmental budgets that it will be possible to fund more projects, we will submit those projects next on our priority list. The Board of Supervisors may wish to substitute other projects for those recommended. If so, we should attempt to stay within the dollar range mentioned above. In addition to the items recommended for inclusion in the operating budget, the following projects are recommended for a bond referendum in November of 1991 of approximately $14.7 million: • Drainage $2'~'~ • New Hollins Branch Library $1,375,000 ii • Green Valley Elementary - Iabrary, Kindergarten classrooms, Building renovations including $1 ~'~ air conditioning ' • Cave Spring Junior High School - Building renovations including 500,000 $2 air conditioning , • New Cave Spring High School - $~~~ Site acquisition • William Byrd High School - $~~ ~ Additional Science classrooms ~ • Glenvar High School - 000 500 $2 Middle School addition , , • Northside High School - 000 $1 500 Classrooms for 9th grade ior Citizens Recreation Center S N , , $913,000 en ew • The projects proposed fora 1991 referendum are large in scope and cost and are difficult to fund in the annual operating budget. Te t e Boardlof Suuervisors and the Planning planning and construction. I would encourag P Commission to evaluate these projects with regard to a general obligation bond issue rather than any other type of funding source such as VPSA Bonds or a Literary loan. It is advantageous, for long-range planning purposes, to look at all projects together until we have a better idea if the downward trend in the economy will be sustained. A referendum could be held this fall and bonds sold in early 1992, if the vote is favorable. In conclusion, the staff should be commended for the fine planning document that has been prepared. This is a first draft, with many revisions expected before the CIP is adopted by the Board of Supervisors. We will have another work session with the Planning Commission on February 12, 1991. Public hearings will be held by both the Board of Supervisors and the Planning fisrmalm es onsib Inua nanP owe ~ at~has made every effort to find that balance o p tY Roanoke County what is today. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator js iii (1\\_~ ~.Y p o ~ v o '.. c m °` ~ m Z o+ ~~// CY O O a! O+ m a GC Ct. F ~ ! u _ \ ` ~ ~ y O \\~I u%] m a O Ls. i Z , Z V 6.., U rZr d m o y a o 0 ~- rn oz. vFi m m O~ o O U DG ZCa] m '~-' F 2 Y i O i "" OS' S i i s ~ ~ ~ m o--. z O ! F y .i ' U F H m a Z U d ~ F O ! CL U U ~ T ti OC Z O aC ~ ' .--i OO 1 St., ~ C'C J O a F m i a., F d v m a m m m ~ u "r o ""' ~" as ~ m m m_ m m = m ~ m m_ _ z _ _ o ~ z z m m m m m y m m ~ d' = Y ~ m m as ?~ c':a ' ry m m m m m x m c'..~ m m m ~ ~ m m m ~ m w m G m m x a. o. a s a o 60 `"' o y o 0 o m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p p z z z z z z z i m m o m ~ m ry m m y v v v --~ v v m m om ca om °m v 0 o O p o 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° ~ N° 6 O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N •"~ O O O _ O c~ co .~ a v v~ c v c o 0 0 o c o 0 o O c °o ° °c °° ° °O o0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 ° °0 0 0~ o o_ _ o °p 0 0 c o 0 0 ~-a .s. o m ..s o ~a w 0 0 0 0 o c c °c O O 00 00 0 O O O C O O O O O p O o ~ ~ ~ - - _~ ~ ~ O O ~D ~~'+ F ~p N .-+ O O O_ G p N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O_ O O O O 0 0 O O_ O O O m O O~ O N N 0 0 O to ~ O O ~ .-r o O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 ~ O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ~ O o 0 0 0 o O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O 0 0 0 ~ ~ o ~ p 00 O O F ~ ~ U m ~ Y U Cd D[ ~ U m U S T U m m ~ Z U U U x x Z Z O Z ~o eta ~ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z C Z O O G rn .-r .-.~0.~ ca ~-~ N w N T en •--. .r .r .r .r .-n m S m p Y D p m i ~--• O m F m S Z V U ~~ F O V] i x OC - i m D[ va y V m ~ F Z OO p m = Z m m i V f A O Y D. ~ i O: m m ~I .~/ di iF D J GfC 00 ! y V l Z ~ ` y ti `rG ~ cA C. iyn H U iA .~ CY O m F O m Z ! Q i m .j s Z [.~] O ! 7 ! ~ F ~ Z m M0-1 (.7 y rA J i U J oC u ~ !' p0-. .~ Z O O i U O O m m i s. Z C V ! Z 0 0 m J V U m m y~ F U C Z y ~ "" i ~ Y F m V] o _ ~ `~ i op ~ e h O~. ~. O y . s V Z s' O .~ '~ u F„~ C9ia 6 z Z i d U F S ~ m Z = va m U ! m J ~' m Oi Op Z m Z j m ! m i h V] m h x -~ Z F u ~ ~! .` ~.~ S a Z m~ Z i Z . J V ~ u O i Z Ca. Y Csl y y F J U O ~ ' O m i ~ E Z ti _ Z F s ~ i i OO U iE 1 i! h m G i '' m ~ ~ F J F U OC ] m s y ! u '~ Y i O y ~ .. ed u i! Z ~ O O 6 ~ = O i = w H DO y U m i O y d m O t U V m Z h CC O 1 y ti ! V cC ~ h m m m CC O m Z im F O F H a V ~ i S ~" ~ m p p ~ ~ p u V i m at C y.. p C i O F d F S O S H O G Z F S • ~ i ti ~ Z m O ` i O ~ s= m m ~ h F F Z . 0 F V J i ce F !! • O [C i m m U V 0 0 2 ~ f. m -. - ~ V 'J ~ p 2! F Z m Y y o5 u F O CC ~ F O i y V S~ i x x 0 O CC m Z Y t J F CC C u tm m a U O m m~ F Y !! f=/Oi N~ o D i m m Y ..~ G O h L u O i [Y. U p d 2 u! O d O ~. [ m Y m~ F CJ m O iY V m o~ F Z m a F V=? U Z~ i Z F Z h iI Z O F F Y i m OL .~ p O N Z ! S i fA V O i F 9 i V m~ S oC O V O O ~ O S Z F S m m Z d Z Z V ~' Z Q m O x j y p ~ ~ U Z V oC O6 j obi] ~ S' © Z C F F m H m p Ot V d O Z! C O i lilt O Of ' F ! i m~ C o f F F i o 0 i m 2 i O S F_ O6 i G p N o x o y y! m m z ~-+ ~ i m p m m c o ~ y ~ o ~+ pL ! V S i m J ~• i CL m y y~ .r N Z e•9 h r. . Z i K! Y CY O m ~ N n ~ ~ t0 ~ m O~ ~ u .r u .-r r .--~ .-+ V Z m m V ` _ ~ m ti Z m Z O V o. O ~ p os v m = U V V V ' y m Z Z Z Z ! OHO OZG OZp Op m m GO+ O ! Z Z ~ m V V V ~ z z z m m m or m Z y F ~J' O V C5 H O m i aV.. J 1 O rs2 F Z V i 1 i z i s m .~. V m 06 p ~f 1 F ~;mm~ y~ ~ _ _ ! _~~_~ ~ b] ! ! .~ OZO S Cy C ~ C H ~ 6] GO ~ " C ~ = Z O t '.~ O O. at y. y cC y y y _ _ ~ y O m y u 0 0 0 0 y _ o. = 0 y y Cz. va O ~+-1 O~~ O J O O G O O O z m Z ~ CZz] [Zr] m 2 ~ m U V V V C7 V V 0 0 0 0 0 O O o O O o O ° m O y ! ~ ., O o O O rn .~ o O _ Z Z Z Z Z m V C.7 V C.i U O O o 0 0 0 ~ o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m m 1 1 = O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 00 00 °! O 00 0 0 O o O O o O o O m m os - O N O V A O ~ O m N ~t'a at a .-n .-w 'a O N .-° O m oa ~ "' N o o O O O O O O O O- O- m m O o~ 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O~ O O O O T O _ so n~ O N .-r N m ~. 1 F ~ S O O Q E;,,, o o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oeo 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 m m o 0 0 0 o c c _ _ _ - - .~ c- .r ~ ~..r ~n o~ --' o N N 1 1 1 e ~ 1 o O O o 0 0 _ °_ °- - o .• a .-- ~ 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °o m o 0 - - -00 o m s o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 o e o 00 o o ° i ,,. e, i o m l 0 0 o c ° ° 0 00 ! o ... x of .. v . 0 0 0 0 a.., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 ,>, o - - . o 0 0 c N .r N ~ F a N ^ O N ~ O N .--. ~ o N ~ ~. eo .-i .~ GOZ - N ..-. oa N m m .-n ~p y - . F O .~ ^ ~ O .~ U F ! •--~ O m m r ! O p' y GOC C. ! < 1 Z ~ rr Z U 1 O _ '~ ~ F m U ai Oi l Ot 62 ~ OUO m 1• m 1' U U m m 'f! i S S S i-. F V m m m i~ m m ~ Z s s z .... 0 s Y ~ ~"' , U U y ' > f. Z C O G Z O C Z ° Z D Z Z Z Z „Z C Z O 1 d 1 ~ N ! c-- m ! s7 sm N ~ N N m aC ~f a+a ~ N ~ N .r w ~ m ~e> ~ b ~ Iss so u'a ~ i f F - o y y rti u H ! M r ~ Z Z 6 . of < m Cn S O F Z Z S i ? va •r O VO ~ O>> = U m J 03 ~ O G ~ i m d' S ~,,. r/a U CC U O Z m i Z r+ .Fj m K ~ 6+ J_ - U Z Z ` V A ~ ~ tr. Z - D a _ 0 '~ ! Va ' d O O .~ F ~.r y Z ! Z O F U Z U! Oa. a m f Z Z ° ] iY Q d' V F a' ~' m i + F y s J _ ., z s „ o c m 0 m s s i c m t- vFi f ~ s ~~ O~ im m u y Z i O> >e U z F ~ p O O r+ a e e o o.. = a i O D Z ~ Z ~ .~ O G-• y .~ C ~~ O E m F ~' ---- h Z O ~ y F VY m l-r .-. - U U~ V C ! m m N r ~ O ` y y .--. f ~ f 1 m m m n ° OL Z z 0 u~ y O , ~ H -.~ O! m r m i O OS T rA O i y ]6 i J F C. h m ~--~ . S i ~ D Z ~ O 2 m F 1 O U Ge[ O p,., p 1 Z O y. C a Z P p.., y _-.. m rr O~ i ]C m H , ' m V ~ . ZO O m F v~ m G6 O O u U 2 [a O 1 U~ Z 1 O F D U oC O! u .r U `~ Z ~ f J ! r. O S ! wC f/ d i m es OO d O F r - ~ ! Z x aC O o6 ! Z ~ O i V Ou x tir F F ti m m a=. a=~. PZG J u F .~ Ot m 0 Z ..~ OC m Ot 6 ~ r + Z O a S O J [IEY .. G m m? O O. ...] U u o5 C i 0 S S . O 0! m m Z O ~ i G F -~ 6 O O m T m ~ p.. Z~ S C7 tr. C U F U va va m - y 0` OUa ~ - F! O x U Z V U !! m m U ~ o{ m 0 '~ y m= G F Z m f F Z 6-' U°~ b+ ! y m O6 e G O m S 0 .~ m i i V m Z Z J `~ 0 ! Y d Z rn F F. O G Z m i S! m O ~. Z U S y O O m m T O Cp ! u F m d O i U ~ m O CC Ot m ' .j m ~ ~;,~ i 1 p U OO y ` r-1 ~ S Mf-1 O~. .~ oC t - O h cC J! m J OL m S m d V S F V U .~ yY O F O 0 V] Z ]C u U m Z F h ~'^ m Z ~° T GC F U s f A ,~ O2 fA Z 0 z 0' ~ u .~ ti O m J i ~ O m m m U Z~ G li O ""' r J V O V i Q O O m o m ~ O ..~ O H O CG Of O 7e F C m S m ! m m 0 4. U O Z " ~ j µ m ~... a' 1 -1 J O O~ E ~ F i s Z O m i V V S ~mm~.. .r m c-lomzmm o o-• c 6S V Z OL T csc m S cafess~ M i DC m V] ~ J ~ i i U J u U m S 2 H N U m S 0 7C D=~~ y J f F O i! ~ ~- O S y u m G m "y Z 0 C ! Z ~~ H 6. d O m Oi O ! S Z Z Z U m Z . I.r F O d' O U P d m o5 tr + F O u [a Z m V O O C m U GO. O m .~i h o6 V~ d uS C x H F U O O s O m a C O m O x F w d a m i a u = C F Z ! _ r .j ~ U O .~ O ~ i ! S t O.C r~' Z F O~. m Cl U C m .--~ N rf t .[f ep a~ a0 O~ O ~ ..- ~ .-+ • .-~. .--. N us le e.~ ^. N .">• ~' z y m ~ m m m CO _ m c- °"' z H z cFn i va N ~ V ~' ' ! U ! r+ i ! i ~ a ! s s s i i ~ !A z x = ~ = A O A i O Z c ~,,. V u V J ~ D ~ C m y z O F ,Z O . Z 1 .~ S J ' ` 1 ml ~ , y f 1 m m m y ~ H v] OL m CO m m m m m m m U Z m o ~" y ~"1 Oi U y u U U ~ U U `Ui Cry y Z m O CG OL OL m [mod m m m m H y y i Z m ~ f G ~ VJ N h J .~ ..i J .~ ..~ J J i F F S ~ m O F _ ! i ! 6 CC CC ~ ! ! iG e5 a C of Ot qC m m O m m m m m m m Z Z O{ m Z L11L i Z Z m m O=O OZO m m m m m V ! j S a' 1 V V V V V V V V 2 ] OG m .+] ,' = m y 9 m y o 0 J ? ? E- E_ J J ~ [~] _ _ m~ _~ m m m m m m m c'c m ~ - y ~ O 2 C C S v] ti S w _ _ 6. fs ~ 0 0 0~ rr j rr ~--~ r Q v'a aC O Q ° m cc n S= Q ~~ u u u ~--i r r+ ~--~ u F r-~ w G~ O T C Z o p p G Z Z S Z O Z m m m ezi m m m O m m m O m O m m ~a Om OS m m m m m i V V V V O O m V O O ~ ~ V o O O O O O O O o O O o O O O O ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 00 0 00 ~ 0 0 O aD ~sf W Na dal ~ ~ Z 0 0 0~ 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 ~ ° o o -- o 0 0 c °f _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o D o m x oe+ o mo+ _~.-.N~ ~ ~ v r N o 6 0 00 0 o 0 M O O O O o to "-' ' ~ 0° 0 0 00 _ _ 0 0 0 _ _ .a `° 6 - 1 ... t~ o _ _. O O O O O o o° 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 o ~ N m oe. F_ ~ ~ y i ~ ~~ O ° O Oo 0 0 0 0 Fia 0 0 0 0 ~ meea o o_ _ rn ~- m ~ .--- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 6 ° ° e 0 0 0 0 0 O _ ,~ ,-, 0 0 0 0 O - - . O 0 O O o 0 O~ 0 0 O O O o O C O O - 0 0o a o o rn o .sos ~ o N N N ~-+ 0 00 0 o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,~. y _" V o.. ~ F 0 0 0 O Q O 0 0 0 °' 0 o o ~ O 00 O O a ° i ~. O o e O C p 6 0 0 0 0 0 C G o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o ~ m ~s a 0 0 0~ v o~ o m °O°"' _ _~' _ - _ _ - - 0 - o N 0 0 ~ - _ o a o 00 000 0 0 om e o . -. o . ~ E sT ~ m .~ OOt [-~ ~ N O ~ ~ O 00 ~ m a O ° r oa 0 0 u'a O m "'~ N N .r m OO O y - F O ~ ~ ~ O J U r t e +a .r .~ ~ --~ T .--~ N N C Z m O ~ F ! F S O Y O OS i '~' 1' LL i y > ! ~ U ~ 1 ~ ~~ O~. r Z O J ^~ F _ F F [1UO m i CaL S U U U U U U U O U U V U U U U U U U U U U U U U Z rd . y i y O i U V a ~"' ~ F G G G C C O G O Z Z Z Z Z > O > > > ~> > > Z Z > Z O of [Y 1 O O aS t0 ~ to ~ u-~ so ut .r ua h O !~ tD O N N a+s m N O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ " •--~ •--~ ..r •--~ •--~ _ •--~ _+ u ~ m Y' S ~ m V y Z ! o. O ! S _ Z ti! Z > O V J O F S JU 1- ,~ Z i a " Z Oi Z OFO ~ ~ - ~--~ ~ O ~ ~ O y F ~ C`9 G to N G ZO F O Z ~ O u m u F tl Z Z F .~ u i VS o ut U 0 0 F O y O F u Z i sat u m~ _ ~ O Z [ .. .F--~ G eL F G-~ O rr G-~ O d d 9 2 ~ c 0` i H i i ~ u O O i D~ F OO _ U m - O J 6 m ! ~~' ~ tY. S ti !y J! O F ' U S m m i_ y 4 y J O Y S Z a ' O Z m °~ ~"' y V 2 Z 0. 0 m 0 ! C es Z m m U U> V O m i y ~ Z v m C y a. S C S ! i~ Z S p T O V Z C a6 U C O m ~ m O S G C F F er, ~ c-. ~ a m `r O m ! w ! s y oS6 o m c m m y ~-' y ors u o °~ J ti F U F 0 i rw ~ F F ~ C [ C L h i J r-. r i! Z .ra O ~. D. D a~C r .~ u U J u 0 y m e r u y y N m y h V ~ J ` m m a a m d F m rr j ap Z m m OVO 1 m m ~ ~ m u ~ aC D J J F S S J J O~ U 1 V J S Y U O o ~ aC u d ! at O! m 0 0 ~ e S m O o6 Z V~ O O u O O O S~ J ~' S t _ s O S y~ m~ J i W b. S 6> O F y ~ F S S S S S~ N O! C! Z O F> F O V i p m y c ~ F S l m V ~ U l m Z F 'VS. N y c ia m! [i' OC ! O S Z J Z S O U m U m F _ Z F J C< m O S. m O O H O O Z~ O O u Z S y~ S H ~ y ! U m m U m ~ a .. O N O! m D d ed F ]d W~ 6 ~ -. U . W y ~ O~ Z Z O v y .y-+ S CIa S > OO m> m Z m H F nL .~ Z Cat > J i m ! J V V i cs. i m ! sa6 m d n~ S S S O ~ -a ~ m S V i OOC m O o. 0 u d y LY d O_ ~ - O p ti m O N y ? Z V V O V z J O y Z 2~ Z V"' F~ J i 0 H S m S G C S OD Z V m i V 2 ` ~ - .f 0 S ~ J O m 9 Q S aL O at ~ U i U i F S ~ >> i Z s oe O Z y ~ m T Z a' aC F d Z u y sa. O y Z u d O U O . d 'n via o6 to b ~ C Z m y ` 0 0 . Z Z d. m~ U i J CZZ r.~ ~ S O Q O F ! m O s m + i y r Z G i m y m m m @. rr h h m n~ sa[ o a a s s H ! ed ?>> J m Ot A OmO ~ y~ ~ t i ! i i J O< t m ^ N ~ '~ .--~ 6 V V U U U U Z V Z U y F Z m s ae V m y m a v o-. F Z S U i m 1 'r °O ! ~ U y F 1 ~ pNp m m ! ~ Oi U d F m O 0o y C~. ~ O v ° O F J ..] 00[ ~ y o. i ~ F F m i ~. V i F F FO-~ F J O ~ J m s O S ~ d F y O H 3 i S u i m V ti a a F e. z m m i 'o a- 0 os ea OS O. ! O F F O i U V 2 [+] D c' d Z ~ 6r 1 h ~ m i F m T at T m T m d. F ~ Y F m Of i c-~ V m ~ O?. F i D. F O O .~ V H ! F a. s V ~ F U m m ~-a d 1 O T ~ cC F ~ Y ~ F o ~ m m z z ~ z c s 0 0 = o m = ° ~ ~ F' ~ ~ .F~ m a ~, H F `m ca = o 0 V=9 2 Z ~ r rr 4 ~ 6 F .-~ .~ rr p x~ p G 0 Z C d [xl G Z m m m m m o m 0 0 U U U U V U U V U V J Z O O F S m V d y at C.7 . O: CR ! _ V ! F 2 F rZi e+ m O b m Z a o5 m F ~._+' y F o. m m i J F V rZ-r 4i OHO ~- Z O s y G Z O O U O F O~ V S O Z~ O m 0 r--r H U ..> > DC Z y o z .n o 0 m y G1C VJ y m V m ! S O V O Z F v e y 0 ,..~ d O m m 0 ~--~ O D 2 U p y C6 C Z F F M Z T Z ! Z O t Z O S y C! a O z a m m U~ ! .~ S' F OP 1--r Z 00 cC 'S Y F m zd. a.z am`~- 00 0! S o!. m Z •-• ! O F OZO Z ad m m F d m~_ ~ O F e[ ! O o f~ m m OY ! U O OS u= m u m O O S 4G y! Z .~ U y~ a' m m m~ 0 i~ y m rr U O oL ~ O O m va F m ~--I sO U d O6 y V 0 0 .~ i ~a U V t/1 i Z O 0 a m S! m ! mm ,~ ! O O ~--~ F Va U ! d Z 2 Z Z Z i y m 2 m m V ! 3f ~ Z F 1 Z 1 m s o-- ~ of ~ s ~ o, i m O I 1 1 0 [s] 6 ~ 6 _ _ m z cam- z y ? y m m ,.-.. o~~ o .a. c o o cc c`".. o c o c o 0 0 ~ ' ~~ ~. m m o m m o y cti '~ m C° _ o z z° °°z °_ z i z a C Z Z Z O O tr=. C.s. N -= Z Z== Z Z om z "' c.. c.. o o~. o o~. o~. 0 0 m ro.. o o c. ~. o " cam. ~ F F f P-~ o~ T T F P~ ~'""' i ._ .~ ~ .~ .ir c-+ .~ i O ba] ~] r!+ rC- ti H 2 ~ F F N Cz] F z fr F ... V 2 rr U U V Z Z 2 u ~? U 2 Z V U m m m m m m va c m m m m m m m p ~ CL! Z cC Z C aC ~ u'. Y C CC CC CC p: C OC ~_ ~LZf aZ0 G 2 d ~ C [C oC fs• C Z ~ C~ 6] D era O O m m m» O O p= w N m m O D O V U U V O D U ~ U U U O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 00 N O O O O O O, 0 0 O O O O d O O o O m .Oj. pOi ~ O ~ M N c^s ^ r m O O O O O rea b 00 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O N O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O a0 O O~ i' O 00 N O oho eD a- O ~~ Asa ~ N N e"a .--. r .-+ r N O ~-s cam- t A ~+a V U U U U U U U U V U U U U U V U U U V o ~~ z z z: z z z z z:: o z z a z z Z O F O_ O m 2 O m U T E m F _ ~ V Z y c 6 u6 O m 06 O 6 oSrl t O V a 0. w m ! o s pUp V V 6~ M S i O. .~ 00 N d z 0 D6 F H m m m rZ-1 ~ J ! m N] h J S .~ a N k ! ! F V Z= 00 m Z s z oP m m .-. ^-. m m m s ~n a o! o ~t Y F m Z G J t IZ-1 i Om0 r--1 Ca. S m m ~ O 6r. oP d OS ~ A S F+ ~ Z U U y O Z Cm9 06 Z rZ-1 m m 4=i0 m m a F U O C = m Z of of o3 O V] V] OS CA U Z G m .a O O x V D Z ! F ~ a o o 0 m co z U m V ~ J F F H 4 Z m F ~ F ~ Z r -n p p Z S y Z Z F G Pr . O Z a Z S U O G 'Z m S ! ~ m : ~ m U m u m ~~ m S 05 ! O a J r~-r O CaR m i S ad o2 F ~' ~' ~ 0 = 0 m d OP ! m m S F S 00 Cd 6" O O F i O F rr ! H y ! i Z OP 06 r-+ m Oi 'i y y ' °° os m mrr va= ~ m m v a o m y f s as m y~~ z maa v i as mma u m Z V p., m r n m y tr!n .~ 6 -r rZr i .~ O Z~ O m i S' O OY Ot O 3! GG S ! m m m!m mo-yr va +so Z O Z z .~ m -~ ~ z ~ m a 0 O6 ..~ C m m S i S .~ CC O ! Z !~ Z Z 3 m aC V ! ! a0 aP ai O .._ o! aP et ! m o m va ! y y j Va v v m u m V c ~~ o °~~ 00 o °__ ma=y ~o~~~.oo~oo m a 4 T O~ E i~ Q 6 D ~ J u d O y F~ Z E--~ Z tr] r u Crl OO ~' m m m m m 6. ~~ OC C c"C a 2 h 6~. C p: = CC [Y. G G m Or. Cs] ~ V U U U c O 0 a 0 0 0 0 o d O O 0 0 0 D 0 00 O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ C ~' ~ i 1 1 F O O O O O O O O o 6 O O Z m O 1 m c~ e+~ i! T ~. to CG os era ~ Cs] ~ ~ ~ F 1 Z ~~ E. o O O O O O O O O O O O m w O O ~a'a O rt+ i Z~ V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O U ~~ o h o pp o O O O O O O O o _ ~ F e~ ~ O ~ O O ~"+ ~ OK F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cV ~ t d H m OO Z ~ F J U O ~ Z ' m E F ~ O O eS a6 "" ~ d ! S O ~ ~ U ~ ~~ Cz r-~ Z D ~ ! ' F m F F 'S.. ~,,,,~ O. U U U U U U U U U U 1 ~ U U F O. ~ F Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z O at rn w m a rn m m rn m rn Z I m O m F F i F y m z d ~ ..] Z i Z OUO O. m ~! F F O~ F m GS m Z t ~-+ a'- Z 7 O m m~ m U y m m 0 d' F ~ O S O h 0-' d ! O Of OC ~r m DO d Z ~ s ~ ~ O ~ -. O ~ h m OL pp H i--i a6 d t i V d o' - S p6 i m cC y 00 of ! u m C:1 F p m i F CC F ! m F m O O i F! s' m F 0.' i i m y~ V! m Z ! F i F F Z 1 _ pS ! F at d p m 06 i U C !C i! m U F \ V! o o J O F Z Z O OS ..~ O ! of Z ~ m m ~ ~ F T U S m Z ~ O Ov. 6 Z Z r/ ! S a S F a F aG OG U .~] CC Z [7 Oo t t Z O 00 ! Od h-i ! h rw m 0 Ot~ i S~ U U d 1 F U m d F Z ..i Y m F s ~ ... .~ ! ~"' u [s' 1 ! ~ ! F m = F O F J O F m ~ F V V m ~ ~ S ~ - p. ami[ - OO Z 00 F O~ Z ! T m J F ! a OO IF-1 i rU-~ F ~--~ m ! 0 ! m `9 U tr] i ~ d • Y~ m G6 v • ! m F H ! Y Z H OS ~ F V U t~iJ at Ct 00 m O ~ Z C o~ ~ o. 5 PROJECT CATEGORY: Animal Control PROJECT TITLE: Regional SPCA Facility Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 $150,000 -0- 30, 30,000 30,000 30,000 Operating Revenues Description• The Roanoke Valley SPCA desires to purchase or construct a • new animal shelter to service the needs of Roanoke and Botetourt Counties and the City of Roanoke. Justification• The existing SPCA facility is located in the flood plane and has • been severely damaged on several occasions. There are also significant space and accessibility limitations. F~~g ~~~: Recommended funding source for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: A minimal operating cost increase would result due to additional utility and boarding costs. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 6 PROJECT CATEGORY: Engineering Total Estimated Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 PROJECT TITLE: Regional Stormwater Management Plan By Fiscal Year Funding 1995-96 Sources $3,000,000 I -0- ~ 700,0001 1,000,OOOI 1,300,0001 -0- I Bonds Description• Stormwater management projects as they relate to the Fifth District • Planning Commission's Regional Watershed Development Study. Justification- Roanoke County has expressed the intent to participate in a regional stormwater management plan for the purpose of addressing existing and future stormwater management problems. F~~g ~~~: Recommended funding source for this project would be a general obligation bond issue. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 7 PROJECT CATEGORY: Engineering Total Estimated Project Cost $250,000 Annually PROJECT TITLE: County Share of VDOT Secondary Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding 1994-95 1995-96 Sources 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 _0- 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Operating Description- Funding of this project would provide the local match to the • Virginia Department of Transportation (VDO'1~ grant for upgrading existing Secondary Roads at various locations in the County. The County has the opportunity to match up to $500,000 annually. Justification• Current funding of road improvements by VDOT is not sufficient • to meet the road needs in Roanoke County. Funding Sources: Recommended funding source for an annually reoccurring project of this type would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 8 PROJECT CATEGORY: Engineering Total Estimated Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 PROJECT TITLE: Peters Creek Watershed- B Fiscal Year Funding Sources 1994-95 1995-96 $600,pp0 I _p_ I 300,0001 300,0001 -0- I -0- I Bonds Description- This project is to be conducted jointly with the City of Roanoke • to alleviate flooding within the Peters Creek watershed. The project would consist of the construction of detention facilities and channel improvements. Justification- Property along Peters Creek Road has long been subjected to flooding and conditions will become progressively worse as development in the watershed continues. Funding ~~~-_ Recommended funding source for this project would be a general obligation bond issue. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 9 PROJECT CATEGORY: Engineering Total Estimated Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 PROJECT TITLE: Storm Drainage Fiscal Year Funding 1995-96 Sources $3,000,000 I -0- I 1,000,OOOI 1,000,OOOI SOO,OOOI SOO,000I Bonds Description• Construction of new storm sewer facilities and repair/rehabilitation • of existing deficient facilities county-wide. Justification• Numerous locations through-out the county have sub-standard • or inadequate drainage facilities and are subject to frequent flooding and/or drainage problems. This project would increase public safety and promote community development. F~~g ~~~; Recommended funding source for this project would be a general obligation bond issue. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 10 PROJECT CATEGORY: Fire and Rescue PROJECT TITLE: Bunk Room Additions Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Estimated 1994-95 1995-96 Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 $105,000 -0- 105,000 -0- '0- "a' Funding Sources Description• Addition of bunk room facilities for the Catawba, Mount Pleasant, and Masons Cove stations. This addition will allow for seven individual cubicles for a co-ed sleeping dorm at each location. Justification• Rapid response to emergency calls is enhanced by personnel • sleeping at the fire and rescue stations. The stations noted above currently do not have sleeping facilities for volunteer personnel. Funding ~~~; Proposed source of funding for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: Routine maintenance of additional living space will cause a slight increase in station operating costs. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 11 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TTfLE: Fire and Rescue Emergency Generators Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Sources Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1995-96 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 _a $275,000 170,000 70,000 35,000 -0- Aerating evenues Description• Placement of emergency power generators at the Roanoke County n Center and the Cave Spring, Mount Pleasant, ti i o stra Admin Bent Mountain and Catawba fire stations. This project will allow the listed locations to act as an emergency shelters during a natural disaster or other emergency situation. • Completion of this project will give the County additional ability 7ustification to provide emergency shelters. Emergency response must also be maintained at all stations and in order to complete this objective, electricity is a necessity. Funding ~~~• • Proposed source of funding for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: Maintenance and fuel costs would be the only ongoing operating costs of this project. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due ensive plan, and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Compreh 12 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Ambulance Replacement Program Fire and Rescue Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Sources Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1994-95 1995-96 1992-93 1993-94 000 000 55 $55 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 perating , , evenues Annually Description• Replacement of an ambulance each year. The first five to be • placed at Cave Spring, Vinton, Hollins, Fort Lewis, and Masons Cove. Justification• This project will replace approximately a third of the units over • a five year period. F~~g ~~~; Recommended funding source for an annually reoccurring replacement program would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to itve Plan. and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensi 13 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Fire Pumper Replacement Program Fire and Rescue Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Sources Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1994-95 1995-96 1992-93 1993-94 000 -0- $250 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Operating nues , eve Annually Description- Purchase of a pumper annually to replace the oldest pumper in the fleet. Justification• In order to maintain current insurance rating, fire pumpers must • be replaced on a regular basis.. Recommended funding source for an annually recurring project Funding Sources: would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 14 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TTTLE: Fire and Rescue Opticom Traffic Control System Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated 1995-96 Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 -a 246,000 _a _a _o.. perating $246,000 evenues Description: Installation of traffic control devices at stoplights in the Hollins, Cave Spring, and Vinton areas as well as installation of devices on emergency vehicles for these stations. Justification: Current state law and county policy requires that emergency vehicles come to a complete stop before proceeding through a red light. The increase of traffic in the more traveled sections of the county has increased response time due to the stoplight requirements. The installation of the Opticom System will allow emergency vehicles to change the light in their favor upon approach while running emergency calls. Funding ~~~: Recommended source of funding for this type of project would be a lease/purchase agreement over a period of five years. Operating Budget Impact: Minor maintenance considerations will cause a slight increase in operating costs. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 15 PROJECT CATEGORY: Fire and Rescue PROJECT TITLE: Station Bay Heaters Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated 1995-96 Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 $105,000 -o- 105,000 -a -o- -o- Operating Revenues Description- Replacement of current heaters at Catawba, Clearbrook, and - Bent Mountain fire stations with modern efficient radiant heaters. Justification- Current heating systems in the older stations are outdated and are not fuel efficient. The current cost for heating the older buildings is three times the amount to heat newer buildings with the updated heaters. Funding ~~~- Proposed funding source for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: It is anticipated thaor therCatawba, Clearbrook and Bent Mounttain annual heatuig b~71s f fire stations by as much as 300%. Also, the yearly maintenance cost of the new heaters will be significantly lower than the heaters now in use. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 16 PROJECT CATEGORY: Fire and Rescue Total Estimated Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 PROJECT TITLE: Bay Doors and Openers ~enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Sources ~ooz_Qa 1994-95 1995-96 $105,000 1 -0- 1 105,0001 -0- 1 -a 1 0- IRPvPm1i1Plsg Description• Replacement of glass bay doors with heat efficient solid doors • in stations at Catawba, Hollins, Clearbrook, Bent Mountain, and Fort Lewis. Electric door openers would also be installed. Justification• Due to enormous glass surface of e~dsting doors, a high level of heat loss occurs. The addition of door openers will increase security and reduce heat loss. Funding ~~~; Proposed source of funding for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: Operating savings should be recognized due to greater heating efficiency. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 17 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Fire and Rescue Medium Duty Squad Truck Replacement Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated 1995-96 Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 $200,000 -a 100,000 100,000 _a _a perating evenues Description• Replacement of medium duty squad trucks at Fort Lewis and Cave Spring to carry equipment to handle accidents and special rescue situations. Justification• Squad trucks at above locations need to be replaced due to age • and unreliability in order to maintain optimum service levels. F~~g ~~~: Recommended funding source for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 18 PROJECT CATEGORY: Fire and Rescue Total Estimated Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 PROJECT TITLE: Fire Hydrants B Fiscal Year Funding 1995-96 Sources 1994-95 $183,000 I -0- I 61,000 I 61,000 I 61,000 I -0- Description: Addition of 91 fire hydrants at various locations throughout the county as identified and prioritized by the Fire and Rescue Department. Justification• The addition of 91 hydrants will increase the fire flow capabilities - for varying areas of the county as well as maintaining code standards for hydrant placement and insurance ratings. Funding ~~~- Proposed source of funding for this project would be general - operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 19 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Fire and Rescue Pager Replacement Program Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1994-95 1995-96 1992-93 1993-94 Sources _a 000 $50 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 perating s , evenue Annually Description• Replacement of 400 pagers over the next several years. These pagers are currently being used by fire and rescue volunteer personnel. Justification• Existing pagers are old and do not work consistently. Most pagers in the system are over 10 years old. This purchase will provide volunteers with pagers with new multi-page features. Funding ~~~•_ Recommended source of funding for a replacement program of this type would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: Routine maintenance costs will be incurred. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan• This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 20 PROJECT CATEGORY: Fire and Rescue Total Estimated Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 PROJECT TITLE: Additional Drive-Through Bays B Fiscal Year Funding 1995-96 Sources 1994-95 $300,000 1 _a 1 _0.. 1 _a 1 100,0001 200,0001 Bonds Description• Addition of one drive-through bay at the Hollins, Bent Mountain, • and Fort Lewis stations. Justification- Current stations are at capacity and equipment is routinely kept outside. The addition of one drive-through bay at each of these stations will increase the capability to garage current vehicles. F~~g ~~~•_ Recommended funding source for this project would be a general obligation bond issue. Operating Budget Impact: Slight increase in operating expenses due to additional maintenance and utility costs. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 21 PROJECT CATEGORY: Fire and Rescue PROJECT TITLE: General Renovations to Various Stations Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 $loo,ooo _o- loo,ooo -a -o- -o- Funding Sources Description- General renovations includes general repairs, replacement of intercom systems, rest room and shower renovations, and 911 line installation on phones outside of buildings. Justification- Fisting structures need a variety of renovations to maintain function and appearance. The addition of 911 lines on the exterior of the bindings is needed to provide immediate access to the dispatcher for citizens at times when the stations are not manned. Funding ~~~: Proposed source of funding for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: Monthly telephone charges for the 911 lines would increase operating expenses for each station. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 22 PROJECT CATEGORY: Fire and Rescue Total Estimated Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 $300,000 -0- -0- PROJECT TITLE: New Heavy Duty Squad Truck ienditures B Fiscal Year Funding 1995-96 Sources 1993-94 1994-95 _a _a 300,000 ase Description• Heavy duty squad truck for the Cave Spring station. Justification• The Fire and Rescue Department currently has one of these • vehicles stationed in north county and there is a need to provide the same coverage in south county. Funding ~~~•_ Recommended funding source for this project would be a lease/purchase agreement over a period of five years. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan• This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed • in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 23 PROJECT CATEGORY: Fire and Rescue Total Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 $loo,ooo ~ -a PROJECT TITLE: Clearbrook Station Addition Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Sources 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 _a _a Operating 100,000 -~" n.._.e.,,,o~ Description• Addition of meeting room, bunk room and offices at the Clearbrook • fire station. Justification• The existing building at Clearbrook does not have adequate meeting facilities for volunteer in-house training. The existing bunkroom does not meet fire code standards, as it is on the second floor and has no secondary exit. The completion of this project will bring sleeping areas in line with code requirements. F~~g ~~~- Proposed source of funding for this project would be general • operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: Operating costs would increase due to routine maintenance and additional utility requirements. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 24 PROJECT CATEGORY: Fire and Rescue Total Estimated Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 PROJECT TITLE: 800 MHz Base Stations Fiscal Year Funding 1995-96 Sources 1994-95 $72,600 I -0- I 72,6001 -0- I -0' I -a' Description• Placement of 800 MHz base stations at all public safety buildings. Justification• The public safety buildings have no radio communications with • the "in-transit" units or dispatchers. Personnel currently have to pull a vehicle out of the building and use that radio. Funding ~~~; Proposed source of funding for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: Operating expenses would increase to reflect the maintenance costs on the new units. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 25 PROJECT CATEGORY: Fire and Rescue Total Estimated Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 PROJECT TITLE: Low Band Paging System ienditures B Fiscal Year Funding ,....., ~,. ~oQa_gS 1995-96 Sources 72,000 _a -0- Operating $72,~ _a -a Revenues Description• Addition of four back-up low band paging systems. One for • Hollins, Fort Lewis, Cave Spring and Mount Pleasant. Justification• Should there be a fa~ure of the communications center at Soutlrview, the above stations would serve as remote dispatch facilities. This project will prepare four stations for paging capabilities for alerting volunteer fire and rescue personnel. Funding ~~~: Proposed source of funding for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: A slight increase in operating costs would result due to routine maintenance costs. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 26 PROJECT CATEGORY: Fire and Rescue Total Estimated Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 PROJECT TITLE: Ladder Truck Additions Fiscal Year Funding 1995-96 Sources 1994-95 $ l,ooo,ooo I _a I -a I -a I -a I l,ooo,ooo Description• Addition of one ladder truck at the Fort Lewis fire station and • the replacement of one ladder truck at the Hollins fire station. Justification• This project will give additional rescue capabilities from high • rise buildings. Current ladder trucks are not adequate to provide rescue services to high rise structures. Funding ~~~: Recommended funding source for this project would be a lease/purchase agreement over a period of five years. Operating Budget Impact: A slight increase in operating costs would result due to routine maintenance and fuel costs. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 27 PROJECT CATEGORY: General Services Total Estimated Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 PROJECT TITLE: Vehicle Wash Bay Fiscal Year Funding 1995-96 Sources $l~o,ooo ~ -a ~ l~o,ooo I -a ~ -a ~ -o- Description. Construction of four vehicle wash bays to maintain Solid Waste, • Utility and Police Department vehicles. Justification- Currently the county is washing most of its service vehicles at the Public Service Center. The run-off is in violation of EPA guidelines as well as state and local water discharge laws. This project is designed to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Standards as detailed in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Funding ~~~; Proposed source of funding for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: Slight increase in operating expenses would be recognized due to increased utilities and maintenance costs. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 28 PROJECT CATEGORY: General Services PROJECT TITLE: Expansion of Automated Refuse Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Project Cost 1995-96 Sources 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 $1,500,000 -0- 750,000 750,000 -0- -0- ase urchase Description• • The county is converting the residential refuse collection program to automated collection. This project provides for the purchase of two new collection vehicles manned by a single operator and approximately 13,000, 90 gallon refuse containers. The conversion ram will be half completed as of the end of FY 1990-91. prog This project would provide automated service for the remainder of county residents. Justification• The automated collection program would provide a significant • savings to the county and free refuse collectors to handle recycle collection and separate collection of bulk and brush materials. Funding ~~~: Proposed funding of this project would be a lease/purchase agreement. Operating Budget Impact: Personnel savings should be recognized, but this savings would be transferred to the recycle collection program and other separate collection programs. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 29 PROJECT CATEGORY: General Services PROJECT TITLE: Microwave System Test Unit Total Estimated E enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated 1994-95 1995-96 Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 $207,900 -0- 197,100 10,800 -0- -0- Operating Revenues Description• Purchase of equipment to give the Communications Shop the • ability to provide in-house maintenance for all 800 MHz equipment. Justification- In house maintenance is considerably cheaper to perform; however, it does take lead time to acquire equipment, training and assume responsibility. Much of the equipment required has already been purchased due to the maintenance program assumed for the mobile and portable radios. g~~g ~~~; Proposed source of funding for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: Operating savings of approximately $31,500 will be realized due to the elimination of an outside maintenance contract. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 30 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: l Automated Commingled Recycl ti id General Services a en Res Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1994-95 1995-96 Sources 1992-93 1993-94 $1,513,000 -0- 466,000 349,000 349,000 349,000 urchase Description: Equipment to fully convert all recycle collection to the efficient commingled collection program. This project provides for one d truck (one-arm bandit) and 25,500, 60 gallon carts. t e automa Justification: The Board of Supervisors approved the testing of automated commingled recycle collection during the current year. In anticipation of a successful test period based on reports from other municipalities, purchase of the above equipment will establish this program county- wide. The project is phased to meet the mandated recycle targets set by the state. Funding Sources: Proposed source of funding for this projectwould be alease/purchase agreement. The $1,513,000 is net of the anticipated yearly grant from the Regional Landfill Board of $80,000 per year. Operating Budget Impact: This project should save the county a substantial amount in tipping fees once it is fully implemented. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 31 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: General Services Knuckle Boom Trucks Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1995-96 Sources 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 $220,000 -0- 110,000 110,000 -0- -0- ase urchase • This project would provide an automated means to collect brush Description • and pick up white goods. The purchase of four units would be necessary to cover the entire county. Justification• Refuse collectors are currently picking up large items and material by hand and placing the items on rear loader trash trucks. This practice has caused this department to have an unusually high insurance claim rate. Providing this service through automation would also reduce collection time. Funding Sources• Proposed source of funding for this projectwould be alease/purchase agreement. Operating Budget Impact: Automated collection will reduce the overall cost to collect brush and bulk material and allow a portion of the work force to collect recyclable material and other separate collection material. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 32 PROJECT CATEGORY: General Services PROJECT TITLE: Service Center -Building Upgrade Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated 1994-95 1995-96 Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 _a 110,000 110,000 -o- -o- Operating $220,000 evenues Description• This project is designed to complete the original internal and • external upgrade project at the Public Service Center. Project includes outside painting, window replacement, drainage, guttering, demolition of boiler room, and paving. Justification• After the 1985 flood, several low priority items were never completed. The more time that passes without making the above building improvements, the greater the cost of repairs and the greater the general deterioration of the building. ]~unding ~~~; Proposed source of funding for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Phan• This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed • in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 33 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: General Services Mobile Drop-Off Vehicles Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Sources Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1995-96 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 000 -0- $174 60,000 60,000 54,000 -~- perating , evenues Description• • Purchase of truck-trailers as mobile drop-off vehicles that would i b s so as be transported to designated locations on a scheduled residents can drop-off their recyclable materials. Trailers will be compartmentalized to separate different materials. The truck is detachable and can be used to either haul other trailers or other refuse business. This project provides for the purchase of two trucks and five trailers. Justification: The Board of Supervisors approved the testing of automated rt of the overall plan, some recycle collection; however, as pa rural areas were to be serviced by drop-off stations rather than door to door. F~~g ~~~: Proposed source of funding for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: This project will provide a more economical method of collecting ral areas as compared to a "door to door" h i e ru n t recyclables program. Equipment cost per resident is $17.00 for this program compared to $37.00 per resident for door to door collection. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 34 PROJECT CATEGORY: General Services PROJECT TITLE: RCAC Telephone System Upgrade Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated 1995-96 Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 .1994-95 $100,000 _a 100,000 -0- -0- -0- perating evenues Description• Replacement of the existing telephone system in the Administration • Center with state of the art equipment, including a voice mail system. Justification• The existing system is outdated and needs to be replaced. Parts of the system have never worked and there is no capability to expand the service. Requirements for new telephone lines can not be accommodated. The message handling system could store and deliver messages to county personnel, direct inquiries to the proper person and disseminate information to citizens 24 hours per day. Funding ~~~: Proposed source of funding for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: A slight decrease in operating costs could result due to reduced maintenance costs. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan• This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed • in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 35 PROJECT CATEGORY: General Services PROJECT TITLE: Freeloader Service Upgrade and Expansion Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated 1994-95 1995-96 Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 $170,000 -o- 120,000 50,000 -o- -o- Lease urchase Description- To expand the freeloader service, two additional trucks would need to be purchased as well as eight new trailers (replacement of two trailers currently in use and six new ones). Justification• The county currently has two trailers which can be reserved by residents to dispose of trash on their property at no charge. These vehicles are used year round and are generally reserved three or four months in advance. This service is cost effective in that refuse crews do not have to handle this trash and it eliminates the temptation for residents to dump along county roads. Funding Sources: Proposed source of funding for this project would be a lease/purchase agreement. Operating Budget Impact: This project would require three additional motor equipment operators (Grade 13) and additional operating expenses for the maintenance of an expanded fleet. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan• This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed • in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 36 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: General Services Structure Maintenance, Repair and Upgrad Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated 1995-96 Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 $~ 1,000 _a 100,000 100,000 15,000 15,000 Operating Revenues Description• This project would provide the resources to handle major upgrade and repair to all County buildings including painting, ceiling the replacement, windows, lighting, and carpet replacement. Justification• Structural maintenance of buildings must be ongoing. Emergency repairs traditionally cost as much as 20% more than normal repairs. Funding ~~~; Proposed source of funding for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: Operating savings would result due to a decrease in the need for emergency repairs. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 37 PROJECT CATEGORY: General Services Total Estimated Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 $152,500 14,500 14,0 PROJECT TITLE:: Roof Replacement Program ienditures B Fiscal Year 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 87,000 9,000 28,000 Funding Sources Description• County-wide roof replacement program. Justification• A program of roof replacement is needed due to leakage and • age of many buildings. Failure to replace roofing will result in structural damage. Funding ~~~-_ Proposed source of funding for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 38 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Mechanical Heat and Air Conditioning General Services Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Sources Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1994-95 1995-96 1992-93 1993-94 000 91,000 $145 31,000 23,000 -0- -0- Operating , evenues Description- • Replace old heating and cooling systems at Clearbrook Fire Station, Clay Street sheriff's Circuit Court h , e Office of the Clerk to t Mount Pleasant Fire Station, Hollins Library and Catawba office , Recreation Center. Justification- • Existing units are old and expensive to operate and repair. The lacement program and most systems are reflecting e h p as no r county maintenance and upkeep problems associated with age. Funding ~~~; Proposed source of funding for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: Operating savings would be recognized due to reduced repair and maintenance costs. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 39 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: General Services Paving Program -County Wide Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Sources Estimated Project Cost 1995.96 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 $~ ~ _a 287,000 278,000 87,000 12,000 perating ~ evenues Description• • General paving program to repair various parking areas and Projects identified nt h y. e cou driveways at facilities throughout t include requests from Fire and Rescue, General Services and Parks and Recreation. Justification- Parking lots, driveways, and service roads have large pot holes and pavement is breaking away due to age and weather resulting in erosion problems, public inconvenience and high repair costs. Also, some buildings require additional parking facilities. Funding ~~~; Proposed source of funding for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: A slight increase in operating costs would result due to normal maintenance. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 40 PROJECT CATEGORY: General Services Total Estimated Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 $12s,ooo -a -a PROJECT TITLE: Refuse Collection Vehicle Replacement Program ienditures B Fiscal Year Funding 1995-96 Sources 1993-94 1994-95 125,000 125,000 125,000 Operating Description- 3 year replacement program for automated refuse collection vehicles. Justification- To maintain adequate service levels for refuse collection in the • automated program. Regular replacement of equipment must occur as age and wear dictates. Funding ~~~: Proposed source of funding for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: Maintenance costs will be minimized with a routine equipment replacement program. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan- This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed • in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 41 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Hollins Branch Library Relocation Library Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 Sources 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 $1,375,000 -o- 1,375,000 -o- -o- -o- onds Description- Relocation of present Hollins library to a visible location in the h i t Hollins district. This facility should be 15,000 square feet w parking for sixty cars. This project requires new construction and land acquisition. Justification• The present facility is 6,500 square feet. In ten years, it will • be serving 25,000 citizens. It is recommended that the library contain 6/10 square foot for each resident in the service area. This is the most used branch library in the Roanoke Valley with circulation of 144,180 in 1989. Funding ~~~: Proposed source of funding for this project would be a general obligation bond issue in FY 1992-93. Operating Budget Impact: Increasing the size of the facility will cause a slight increase in utility and janitorial costs. There would be a need to increase the staff by two for a personnel cost increase of $30,000. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 42 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Management Information Systems Upgrade Central Computer System Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 $230,000 -0- 150,000 80,000 -0- -0- ase urchase Description•_ Upgrade existing computer capacity to provide for expanded utilization. Expansion of current memory and purchase of two additional CPU units. Justification- As the usage of new software packages increase, we expect to see degradation of system response time. If we are going to open the CAMA (real estate) and clerk of court indexing systems to fee paying users outside the county government, we must maintain an acceptable level of service for them as well as other county users. Funding ~~~; Recommended funding source for this project would be a lease/purchase through Hewlett Packard. Operating Budget Impact: Minor increase in operating costs for maintenance should result as well as an increase in hardware and software support costs for the larger machines. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan• This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 43 PROJECT CATEGORY: Management Information Systems Total Estimated Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 $53,000 -a i s3,ooo Description: Justification: PROJECT TITLE: Disc Drive Replacement ienditures B Fiscal Year 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 -a -a -a Funding Sources Replacement of all disc drives with the newest model offered by Hewlett Packard. The new drives w~l speed transfer of data to the CPU. Maintenance costs and electrical consumption would be significantly reduced and the floor space required is much less than for the disc drives currently installed. Funding ~~~; Recommended funding source for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: Maintenance costs would be reduced approximately 75% and electrical consumption would be reduced 85%. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 44 PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks and Recreation PROJECT TITLE: Leaf Collection Equipment Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Sources Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1995-96 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 $177,500 -0- 177,500 -0- -0- -0- ase urchase Description• • Purchase of replacement equipment for effective continuance of county leaf collection program (residential). Equipment purchases would include two truxinore vacuums, one dump truck and two leaf vacuums. Justification• • In fiscal year 1989-90, 851 tons of leaves were collected. The 671 for 423 and 100 168 i k , , s s average mileage for packer truc dump trucks. Current equipment is old and often out of service. Purchase of replacement equipment would improve service delivery. Funding ~~~; Recommended funding source would be the lease/purchase of ment over a five year period. ui tion e ll f p q ec co the required lea Operating Budget Impact: Operating cost savings of approximately $9,500 should be realized i rs. as a result of reduced equipment repa Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 45 PROJECT CATEGORY• PROJECT T1'TLr:: Parks and Recreation Senior Citizens Center - Land Ac uisition & Construction Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1994-95 1995-96 Sources 1992-93 1993-94 - _... _ $913,000 -o- 913,000 -a -a -o- Bonds tion• Descri Construction of a new multi-purpose Roanoke County Senior h p e Citizens Center to be located on a parcel of land within t Southwest geographical area. Justification• • Present center requires major renovations and repairs. Ogden functional usefulness and does not currently Center has outgrown meet space needs of a growing county senior population. Funding ~~~• Recommended funding source would be a general obligation bond issue in FY 1992-93. Operating Budget Impact: Minimal operating budget impact would occur based on existing appropriation levels. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 46 PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks and Recreation Total Estimated Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 PROJECT TITLE: Baseball/Softball Field Renovations B Fiscal Year Funding 1995-96 Sources 1994-95 I _a I 104,0001 106,0001 52,4001 -0- (Operating $262,400 evenues Description- Renovation of existing baseball/softball fields located in twenty - individual parks/public land areas (46 fields in total). Replacement of infield fill, backstop and fencing repair/replacement, outfield turf renovation and replacement of selective player's benches. Justification- Subject fields have received only routine maintenance during - the last several years. Fields are presently severely compromised regarding function and public safety. General field conditions are very poor to critical. Funding ~~~- Recommended funding for project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: Approximately $78,600 in additional annual expenses would be required to maintain fields in renovated condition. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 47 PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks and Recreation PROJECT T1'1'L~: General Park Renovations/Repairs Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated 1994-95 1995-96 Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 $425,200 -0- 82,800 223,900 118,500 -0- uP Pnt,Pg Description• Majority of existing public parks/land areas have experienced • noteworthy deterioration due to lack of repair and preventive maintenance over several years. Areas of concern include turf management, repair of small buildings, park fencing, restroom repairs, parking lot/service road repairs, playground repairs, renovation of pedestrian bridges, erosion control and lighting. Justification• Protection of public parkland infrastructure assets, protection • of public safety, health and welfare. Funding Sources: Recommended funding sources would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. i 48 PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks and Recreation PROJECT TITLE: Recreation Centers -Renovations and Repairs Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 $284~Spp _a 67,500 217,000 -o- -o- Funding Sources Description• Required renovation and repair of Craig Avenue Recreation • Center in Vinton and the Leisure Arts Center in Southwest County. Project work wi71 consist of I-1VAC repairs, improvements of exterior elevations, interior repairs, roof repairs, plumbing, electrical and lighting repairs. Justification• Recreation centers have received minimal attention for several • years due to budgetary constraints. Public convenience, safety, function and aesthetics have been severely compromised. Funding ~~~: Recommended funding source for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 49 PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks and Recreation Total Estimated Project Cost Estimated 1991-92 1992-93 $~o,ooo PROJECT TTTLE: Parks Maintenance Equipment for District O erations ~enditures B Fiscal Year Funding i44~.4a 1994-95 1995-96 Sources -a ~ ~o,ooo ~ -a ~ -a ~ -a Description• Purchase of required equipment to implement decentralization of park maintenance on a regional county basis. District locations will include Green Hill Park, Walrond Park, Gearhart Park and Penn Forest Park. Justification• Increase in park acreage and mowing acreage since 1984 is 89% • and 67% respectively. A well developed plan will effectuate adequate maintenance service levels throughout Roanoke County. Funding ~~~: Recommended funding source would be general operating revenues Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 50 PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks and Recreation Total Estimated Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 PROJECT TITLE: Public Tennis Court Renovation B Fiscal Year Funding 1995-96 Sources 1994-95 $322,000 I -0- I 170,0001 152,OOOI -0- I -0- Description• Renovation, resurfacing, and repainting of 39 e~sting county outdoor • tennis courts located in ten individual parks/public land areas. Justification: All courts scheduled for required renovation are rated as in poor or fair condition. Continued deterioration will require eventual replacement at a substantially higher cost or public closure of courts due to public safety or liability considerations. Funding ~~~: Recommended funding source for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: Annual general maintenance costs are estimated to be $12,850. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 51 , PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks and Recreation PROJECT TITLE: Outdoor Basketball Court Renovations Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated 1994-95 1995-96 Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 $159,500 -o- 90,000 69,500 -o- -o- 12pvPntmg Description• Renovation, resurfacing and repainting of existing county outdoor • basketball courts located in sixteen individual parks/public land areas. Justification-_ All courts scheduled for required renovations are rated as in either poor or fair condition. Continued deterioration will require eventual replacement at a substantially higher cost or public closure of courts due to public safety and/or liability considerations. Funding Sources: Recommended funding source would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: Estimated annual operating costs of approximately $3,200 would be necessary for general maintenance after year two. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 52 PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks and Recreation PROJECT TITLE: Picnic Shelter/playground Renovations Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 $229,500 -a 78,000 151,500 -a -a Operating Description: Renovation of four existing outdoor picnic shelters in four individual parks, replacement of six playground apparatus areas within six separate parks and replacement of four non-functional outdoor drinking fountains within four separate parks. Justification• All four specified picnic shelters require roof renovations. Specified • playground apparatus areas are in deteriorating state of repair due to age well beyond usefulness and appropriate function. Drinking fountains are not functional or repairable. Funding ~~~: Recommended funding source would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. i 53 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TTTLE: Parks and Recreation Replacement of Outdoor Lighting Systems Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $186,800 -o- 86,000 100,800 -a -o- perating evenues Description: Replacement of antiquated, expensive and minimally functional outdoor lighting systems at three tennis courts and one basketball court. Justification: Repair costs are increasingly high. Energy costs are also high due to prunarily incandescent systems with faulty lighting. Funding Sources: Recommended funding source would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: Estimated annual operating cost savings of $6,200 would be recognized due to reduced maintenance costs and electrical consumption. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 54 PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks and Recreation Total Estimated Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 PROJECT TITLE: Green Hill Park Development - Phase III B Fiscal Year Funding 1995-96 Sources 1994-95 $1,142,000 I -0- I -0- I 110,0001 812,8001 219,2001 Bonds Description: Phase III development of Green Hi71 Park would include a recreation center, picnic shelter, playground apparatus area, split rail fencing, landscaping, two soccer fields, a football i"ield and amphitheater. Justification• Completion of Phase III would substantially meet the recreation • needs of west county residents. Funding ~~~; Recommended funding source would be a general obligation bond issue. Qperating Budget Impact: Approximately $250,000 in additional operating expenses will be required for personnel and operations. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 55 PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks and Recreation Total Estimated Project Cost Estimated 1991-92 1992-93 $746,500 PROJECT TITLE: Vineyard Park - Phase II & III Develo ment ~enditures B Fiscal Year Funding 1995-96 Sources ~49~.9a 1994-95 _a I _a I 268,0001 478,SOOI -0- I Bonds Description: Phase II and III development consists of the construction of concessions/restrooms/storage facilities, installation of utilities, four tennis courts, two basketball courts, playground, drainage improvements and park amenities. Justification• Completion of prior approved development to meet the needs • and interests of area county residents. Funding Sources• Recommended funding source for this project would be a general obligation bond issue. Operating Budget Impact: Approximately $68,000 in additional operating expenses will be required for personnel and operations. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. i 56 PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks and Recreation Total Estimated Project Cost 1991-5 $145,700 ~ -0- Estimated E' 1992-93 8,600 PROJECT TITL)~:: Picnic Shelter Development ditures B Fiscal Year Funding 1995-96 Sources ~gz_ga 1994-95 137,100 ~ -0- ~ -0- Description: Development and construction of new revenue producing picnic shelters at VSThispering Pines Park, Starkey Park, Happy Hollow Gardens and the Craig Avenue Center. Justification•_ Rentals at existing picnic shelters are at a saturation point. Rental opportunities are being turned away, thereby not meeting the public's needs. Funding Sources: Recommended funding source would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: Estimated annual operating revenues of approximately $6,100 would be recognized. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 57 PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks and Recreation Total Estimated Project Cost Estimated 1991-92 1992-93 $297,800 PROJECT TTTLE: Starkey Park Development - Phase II & III ~enditures B Fiscal Year Funding 199_94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources _a ~ -0- ~ 26,100 ~ 191,400 ~ 80,300 I Bonds Description• Starkey Park Development Phase II and III includes lighting • of existing baseball field, erosion control, construction of restroom/concession fac~7ity, installation of ut~ities, and development of a playground apparatus area. Justification: Completion of prior approved development to meet the needs and interests of area county residents. g~~g Sources: Recommended funding source for this project would be a general obligation bond issue. Operating Budget Impact: Approximately $16,800 in additional operating expenses would be required for personnel and operations. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 58 PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks and Recreation Total Estimated Project Cost Estimated 1991-92 1992-93 $1,580,250 PROJECT TITLE: Walrond Park Development - Phases I II III ~enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Sources 1993.94 1994-95 1995-96 _a ~ -0- ~ 396,OOOI 890,600 I 293,650 I Bonds Description• Development of Walrond Park to consist of two new baseball • fields, two basketball courts, roadways and parking facilities, concession stands, restrooms, playground, community center, grading/drainage, trails, picnic shelter, security lighting, and landscaping. Justification• To complete development of Walrond Park as the North Roanoke • County District public park. g~~g ~~~: Recommended funding source for this project would be a general obligation bond issue. Operating Budget Impact: An additional appropriation of $221,000 would be necessary for personnel and operations. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 59 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Parks and Recreation Spring Hollow Park Development - Phase I Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated 1995-96 Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 $475,800 -o- -o- 56,000 305,400 114,400 Bonds Description• Preparation of park development master plan, site utilities, existing • facilities repair, furnishings/equipment, swimming pool repairs and landscaping/fencing. Justification•_ Repairs and renovations will provide exceptional revenue producing opportunities and would be the only public facility of this type in region. g~~g ~~~: Recommended funding source would be a general obligation bond issue. Operating Budget Impact: Approximately $72,000 additional annual operating costs would be required for the first two years. Project should be self- sustaining after two operational years. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 60 PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks and Recreation Total Estimated Project Cost Estimated 1991-92 1992-93 $519,700 PROJECT TTTLE: Whispering Pines Park Development - Phases II & III ~enditures B Fiscal Year Funding ~gq~_ga 1994-95 1995-96 Sources _a I _0- I 167,0001 352,700 I -0- I Bonds Description: Phase II and III development consists of the installation of utilities, restroom/concessionfacflities, site development and one baseball field. Justification: Completion of prior approved development to meet the needs and interests of area county residents. Funding ~~~; Recommended funding source for this project would be a general obligation bond issue. Operating Budget Impact: Approximately $12,500 in additional operating expenses will be required for personnel and operations. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 61 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TTTLE: Fire/Police Departments Southview Garage Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 $170,000 -o- 170,000 -o- -o- -o- Operating evenues Description: A five bay garage would be constructed adjacent to the evidence/SWAT building at the west side of Southview Public Safety Center. Attachment to the smaller building would be optional. The evidence section would be renovated at the same ili in which the evidence well a ui ed fac tune to have a modern q pp ty technicians could perform their duties. A maintenance pit would be installed to provide for the servicing of vehicles. Awash bay would also be installed to clean and maintain vehicles. Justification: This building is necessary for the proper collection and preservation of evidence that might be associated with motor vehicles. The building is also necessary for the storage and maintenance of several low use Police and Fire vehicles that are necessary for the proper operation of both departments. At present, evidence technicians have no place to perform their duties. This project will greatly enhance their ability to function properly. Funding Sources: Proposed source of funding for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: Operating savings may be recognized as a result of personnel not having to travel to various storage locations in the county. Further operating savings may be obtained by having vehicles cleaned at this location by personnel under court supervision. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: .This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 62 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TTTLE: Sheriffs Office Jail Expansion/Regional Jail Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $3,000,000 -a -a 3,000,000 -a -a Bonds Description• • In 1989, a needs assessment study for a Regional Jail Farm for the Roanoke Valley was undertaken. The original scope of the project was to include all members of the Fifth Planning District. Subsequent to the first meeting for the project all parties dropped out except Roanoke County, and the Cities of Roanoke and Salem. The needs assessment is now in draft form and includes information relative to current jail capacities and projected jail population through the year 2000. Based on the data considered, the study committee feels that a minimum security detention facility with an initial capacity of 300 beds would meet the needs of Roanoke County, Roanoke City, and the City of Salem. The facility would be built to house minunum security sentenced offenders including misdemeanors and felons with short sentences for non-violent crimes and would operate under the direction of a Regional Jail Authority. Dormitory facilities, such as those being discussed here, are estimated to cost approximately $40,000 per bed: A facility of this type would qualify for 50% reimbursement from the state for construction costs, 100% for security positions andtwo-thirds funding for program positions which include nurses and recreational supervisors. Justification: This project would relieve the severe overcrowding in the county jail facility. Current capacity is 108, however, the average inmate population for 1989 was 113. The projected average population for 1990 will be 117. Currently (December 1990) we have a population of 125. Projected population through the year 2000 is 309 inmates. Roanoke City's inmate population is growing at an even more alarming rate. Appraaamately 75% of our prisoners, at any given time, would qualify for minimum security confinement. 63 PROJECT CATEGORY: Sheriff's Office (Continued) PROJECT TITLE: Jail Expansion/Regional Jail Funding ~~~: A 300 bed, minimum security facility would cost approximately $12 million to construct, of which 50% would qualify for reimbursement by the state. Based on current jail population statistics, the county's portion of the net $6 million in construction costs would be 18% or approximately $1.1 million. However, with the state facing a $1.9 billion deficit, and with many other capital projects already on hold, state financing of this project appears slim. For Roanoke County to expand its existing jail facility, by adding another floor and 32 beds, it would cost an estimated $3.0 million. The proposed source of funding fora $3.0 million expansion of our existing facility or a $1.1 million participation in a regional jail would be a general obligation bond issue. Operating Budget Impact: Not known at this time. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 64 PROJECT CATEGORY: Other Capital Projects Total Estimated Project Cost 1991-~ $12,000,000 ~ -0- PROJECT TITLE: County Administration Center Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding 1994-95 1995-96 Sources 1992-93 1993-94 -0- I 6,000,OOOI 6,000,000 I -0- I Bonds Description- Construction of a new 120,000 square foot Roanoke County • Administration Center to consolidate administrative functions to allow a more efficient and cost effective level of service to county residents. Justification• Current administrative functions are located at various sites • throughout the county. A centralized location would provide better and more timely communications and greater service to the community. g~~g ~~~: Proposed source of funding for this project would be a general obligation bond issue. Operating Budget Impact: Unknown at this time. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 65 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Other Capital Projects 800 MHz Radio Expansion Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 $689,000 I -0- I 172,2501 172,2501 172,2501 172,2501Operating Description: Upgrade all existing departmental radios outside of the public safety area to the 800 MHz system as required by FCC frequency loading. Justification: This project is the continuation of the long range plan for radio communication within the county. This expansion will bring the county up to date by installing state-of-the-art equipment and meeting the targets for frequency usage required by the FCC. Funding Sources: Proposed source of funding for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: Unknown at this time. Relationslvp to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 66 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Other Capital Projects KDT Mobile Data Terminals Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 $1,26s,21o ~ -o- ~ -o- ~ -o-~ 1,26s,21o ~ -a Description: Install mobile data terminals in all law enforcement and Fire and Rescue Department vehicles. Justification: This project would enable the emergency services departments to perform their duties more efficiently and effectively; thus, increasing productivity of all units. Funding Sources: Proposed source of funding for this project would be a lease/purchase agreement for a period of five years. Operating Budget Impact: Unknown at this time. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type, due to its nature and/or scale, is not addressed in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 67 PROJECT CATEGORY: Schools Total Estimated Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 PROJECT TITLE: Green Valley Elementary Addition and Renovation ~enditures B Fiscal Year Funding 1995-96 Sources ~49~.9a 1994-95 $1,000,000 I -0- I 1,000,000 I -0- I -0- I -0- I Bonds Description- Addition of a library and kindergarten rooms and general renovations, • to include air conditioning, at Green Valley Elementary School. Justification• Present library space is inadequate and kindergarten rooms do • not meet state standards. Funding ~~~: Recommended funding source for this type of capital project would be a general obligation bond issue. Operating Budget Impact: An increase in operating costs would be necessary due to increased maintenance and janitorial requirements. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 68 PROJECT CATEGORY: Schools Total Estimated Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 PROJECT TTTLE: Cave Spring Junior High - Site Renovations ~enditures B Fiscal Year Funding 199'x_94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $150,000 I 150,000( -0- I -0- I -0- I -0- (Operating Revenues Description: Various site renovations at Cave Spring Junior High School. Justification• When VDOT widened Route 221, portions of the basketball • and tennis court areas were eliminated. These courts will need to be relocated. There are drainage problems that must be taken care of and the parking lot must be surface treated. The bus drive also needs to be relocated for safety reasons. Funding ~~~: Recommended funding source would be general operating revenues in FY 1991-92. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 69 PROJECT CATEGORY: Schools Total Estimated Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 $Z,soo,ooo ~ -o- ~ ~,soo,ooo PROJECT TTTLE: Cave Spring Junior High - Building Renovations ~enditures B Fiscal Year 199'x.94 1994-95 _1995-96 -o- I -o- I -o- Funding Sources Bonds Description: Various building renovations at Cave Spring Junior High School, to include air conditioning, electrical upgrade, and window treatments. Justification: Completion, in the future, of a new Cave Spring High School, will permit the Cave Spring Junior High School building to be replaced as a school and converted to offices. The completion of a new high school, however, will take s to 8 years. The present junior high is in need of improvements now for it to remain functional for the next several years as a junior high school. F~~g ~~~; Recommended funding source for this type of capital project would be a general obligation bond issue. Operating Budget Impact: To be determined at a later date. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 198s Comprehensive Plan. 70 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TTTLE: Schools Cave Spring High School Site Ac uisition O tion Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 $l~,ooo loo,ooo _a _a _a -a Operating Revenue Description• To secure an option to purchase a site needed to construct a new Cave Spring High School. Justification• Need to secure rights of acquisition before identified property • is sold or taken off market. Funding ~~~: Recommended source of funding for this project would be general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 71 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Schools Cave Spring High School - Site Ac uisition Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 $900,000 -0- 900,000 -o- -o- -o- Bonds Description: Purchase of land for construction of new Cave Spring High School (net of $100,000 purchase option). Justification: Land for the construction of the new high school should be acquired as soon as possible because site options are limited. Funding Sources: Recommended source of funding for the purchase of land for a new Cave Spring High School would be a general obligation bond issue. Operating Budget Impact: To be determined at a later date. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 72 PROJECT CATEGORY: Schools Total Estimated Project Cost Estimated 1991-92 1992-93 X20,000,000 PROJECT TITLE: Cave Spring High School - School and Stadium ~enditures B Fiscal Year Funding 1g9~_gc1 1994-95 1995-96 Sources -a ~ -a ~ -a ~ -a ~ -a ~ Bonds Description- Construction of a new Cave Spring High School that would provide - for grades 9-12. Construction of a stadium would be included in this project. Justification: The present Cave Spring High School is overcrowded and there is no capacity for future growth. This project would include 9th grades from Hidden Valley and Cave Spring Junior High. The present high school building would become Cave Spring Middle School. g~~g Sources: Proposed source of funding for this project would be general obligation bond issue. Operating Budget Impact: To be determined at a later date. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 73 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Schools William Byrd High School - Science Room Addition Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $2,000,000 -0- 2,000,000 -0- -0- -0- Bonds Description: Addition of science classrooms at William Byrd High School. Justification: Addition is needed to relieve overcrowding. Funding Sources: Recommended funding for this type of capital project would be a general obligation bond issue. Operating Budget Impact: To be determined at a later date. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 74 PROJECT CATEGORY: Schools Total Estimated Project Cost 1991-~ $Z,soo,ooo -a PROJECT TITLE:: Glenvar High School - Middle School Addition Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Sources 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 2,s00,000 -a -a -a Bonds Description: Construction of a middle school addition at Glenvar High School. Justification: Addition is needed to relieve overcrowding and to permit the middle school organization at Glenvar High School. Funding Sources: Recommended funding for this type of capital project would be a general obligation bond issue. Operating Budget Impact: To be determined at a later date. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 198s Comprehensive Plan. 75 PROJECT CATEGORY: Schools Total Estimated Project Cost 1991-5 $lsoo,ooo -a PROJECT TITLE: Northside High School - Classroom Addition 9th Grade Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding 1994-95 1995-96 Sources 1992-93 1993-94 1,s00,000 -0- -0- -0- Bonds Description: Construction of classroom addition for 9th grade at Northside High School. Justification: Addition is needed to relieve overcrowding and allow Northside Junior High School to become a middle school. g~~g Sources: Recommended funding for this type of capital project would be a general obligation bond issue. Operating Budget Impact: To be determined at a later date. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 198s Comprehensive Plan. 76 PROJECT CATEGORY: Schools Total Estimated Project Cost 1991-~ $800,000 ~ -0- PROJECT TITLE: Cave Spring Elementary School - Libra and Buildin Renovations Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Sources 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 _0_ I 75,0001 225,000 I SOO,000I Bonds Literary Loan Description• Library addition and general renovations including air conditioning and asbestos removal at Cave Spring Elementary School. Justification: Due to increased enrollment and age of current building, library addition and renovations are necessary. g~~g ~~~; Recommended source of funding for this type of project would be a general obligation bond issue or a state literary loan. Operating Budget Impact: To be determined at a later date. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 77 PROJECT CATEGORY: Schools Total Estimated Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 $180,000 -0- -0- PROJECT TITLE: Mason's Cove Elementary School - Classroom Addition enditures By Fiscal Year Funding Sources 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 20,000 160,000 -0- Bonds Literary Loan Description• Classroom addition at Mason's Cove Elementary to accommodate • kindergarten and special education classes. Justification: Three additional classrooms are needed to accommodate expanded enrollment. g~~g Sources: Recommended source of funding for this type of capital project would be a general obligation bond issue or a state literary loan. Operating Budget Impact: To be determined at a later date. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 78 PROJECT CATEGORY: Schools Total Estimated Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 $600,000 -a -a PROJECT TITLE: Back Creek Elementary School - Classroom Addition Land Ac uisition enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Sources 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 100,000 500,000 -a Bonds I.iterarv Loan Description• Construction of four additional classrooms at Back Creek Elementary • School. Purchase of additional land would be required to complete this project. Justification: Additional classroom space is needed for increasing enrollment. g~~g ~~~: Recommended source of funding for this capital project would be a general obligation bond issue or a state literary loan. Operating Budget Impact: To be determined at a later date. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 79 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Schools Classroom Additions for At-Risk Pre-School Pro am Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $500,000 -o- -a -o- 50,000 450,000 Bonds Literary Loan Description: Classroom additions for at-risk pre-school students. Justification: The Governor is calling for a public school program for at- risk pre-school children to be operational by 1996. Additional classrooms will be needed in each area of the county. Funding Sources: Recommended funding source for a capital project of this type would be a general obligation bond issue or a state literary loan. Operating Budget Impact: To be determined at a later date. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 80 PROJECT CATEGORY: Schools Total Estimated Project Cost 1991-5 $b,800,000 -0- PROJECT TITLE: Asbestos Abatement Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 250,000 250,000 250,000 Funding 1995-96 Sources 250,000 Operating Description: Asbestos removal program at affected locations throughout the county. Justifcation• Asbestos removal would be in accordance with plans submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. Funding Sources: Recommended source of funding for a recurring project of this nature would be the school operating fund. Operating Budget Impact: To be determined at a later date. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 81 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Schools Underground Fuel Tank Replacement; Bus Lot Relocation Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 $195,000 -o- -o- 195,000 -0- -0- Bonds Literary Loans Description: Replacement of underground fuel tanks where applicable throughout the county. Relocation of school bus lot from Vinton to Roanoke County Career Center site when tanks are removed at the current school bus lot. Justification: Federal regulations require replacement of remaining underground tanks with new tanks. Relocation of school bus lot should be undertaken because there is more space and security at the Roanoke County Career Center site. Funding Sources: Recommended funding source for this project would be a general obligation bond issue or a state literary loan. Operating Budget Impact: To be determined at a later date. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 82 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TTTLE: Schools Various School Renovations Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $200,000 -0- 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Operating Annually Revenues Description: General repairs and maintenance at various schools throughout the county. Repairs would include roofing, paving and carpeting. Justification: The school operating maintenance budget is used to make minor repairs but cannot sustain major replacements in the above areas. An amount is needed in the capital improvements budget for these repairs on an annual basis. g~~g Sources: Recommended source of funding for an annualized building repair program would be the school operating fund. Operating Budget Impact: To be determined at a later date. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 83 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Schools Bus Replacement Program Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $333,000 89,500 333,000 333,000 333,000 333,000 Operating Annually Revenue Description: Annual replacement of approximately 10 school buses per year. Justification: School bus fleet must be kept in good condition for safety and efficiency reasons. Funding Sources: Recommended source of funding for the annual school bus replacement program would be through the school operating fund. Operating Budget Impact: To be determined at a later date. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 84 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Schools General Renovations - Elementa Schools Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 $7,500,000 -a -a -a -a -a Bonds Literary Loans Description: Renovations and repairs to various elementary schools throughout the county, including electrical and air conditioning work. Justification: Repairs and renovations are badly needed due to age and neglect over the years. Funding Sources: Recommended source of funding for this project would be a general obligation bond issue or a state literary loan. Operating Budget Impact: To be determined at a later date. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 85 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Schools Northside Junior High School -Gym Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $500,000 -0- -0- -0- -o- -o- Bonds Literary Loan Description: Construction of new gym at Northside Junior High School. Justification: A full sized gymnasium is needed to accommodate the curriculum related to the middle school concept. Funding Sources: Recommended source of funding for this project would be a general obligation bond issue or a state literary loan. Operating Budget Impact: To be determined at a later date. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 86 PROJECT CATEGORY: . Schools Total Estimated Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 $3,000,000 -a -o- PROJECT TITLE: Bonsack Elementary School enditures B Fiscal Year Funding 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources -a -a -a Bonds Loan II Description: Construction of a new elementary school to service the Bonsack area. Justification: To relieve overcrowding in Herman L. Horn and Hardy Road elementary schools. Anew elementary school in Bonsack will also reduce the travel time for these students. Funding Sources: Recommended source of funding would be a general obligation bond issue or a state literary loan. Operating Budget Impact: To be determined at a later date. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 87 PROJECT CATEGORY: Utilities PROJECT TITLE: Spring Hollow Water Project Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $53,685,000 9,560,000 22,125,000 22,000,000 -o- -o- G.O. Bonds Rev. Bonds Description• • Construct a raw water intake and off river storage reservoir as a raw water source of 23 MGD to provide valley water needs through the year 2040. Construct a water treatment plant, transmission lines, and a utility facility at Glenvar. Extend the Roanoke River Interceptor from Fort Lewis to the Glenvar Treatment Plant. Justification• All water supply plans for the valley during the last eight years cite this facility as the best method to provide future water supply needs. The county's permit requires treatment intake at Glenvar. .Construction of the treatment plant will include water and sewer facilities to the area. The extension of the Roanoke River Interceptor is required for the operation of the water treatment plant. F~~g ~~~; The proposed funding for the Spring Hollow Water Project includes using the $15 million in general obligation bonds already approved by referendum but not issued. As well as, approximately $38 million in utility revenue bonds. Operating Budget Impact: Additional annual operating costs are estimated to be approximately $75,000. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 88 PROJECT CATEGORY: Utilities Total Estimated Project Cost 1991-5 $9,000,000 -0- PROJECT TITLr:: Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding 1994-95 1995-96 Sources 1992-93 1993-94 _0- 9,000,000 -0- -0- Sewer Bonds Description• Participation with the cities of Roanoke, Salem, Town of Vinton • and Botetourt County in a project to upgrade the capacity of the City of Roanoke owned Regional Sewage Treatment Plant. Justification: The actual amount of county participation will depend on the City of Roanoke's willingness to extend the sewage treatment contract from year 2002 to 2015. Costs provided are to upgrade our capacity to meet year 2015 requirements. Negotiations are currently underway with all participants. Funding ~~~: Proposed source of funding for this project would be a new sewer bond issue. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 89 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Utilities Roanoke River Interceptor Upgrade Ci -owned rtion Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $5,340,000 -0- 5,340,000 -0- -0- -0- Sewer Bonds Description; Participate with the cities of Roanoke and Salem to upgrade the Roanoke River Interceptor for a capacity to supply county sewer service to at least year 2015. Justification- The Roanoke River Interceptor does not have wet weather capacity for use by Roanoke County. In order to use our available capacity in the treatment plant to serve south and west county, the Interceptor must be upgraded or replaced within the section owned by the City of Roanoke. gm~ ~~~; Proposed source of funding for this project would be the issuance of new sewer bonds. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 90 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Sewer Replacement - SSE/R Utilities Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $300,000 -a 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Depreciation Annually Description• Annual replacement of existing sewer lines that are determined irreparable through the SSE/R Program. Justification• Most economical solution to reduce I/I in some types of sewer lines. F~~g ~~~; Proposed source of funding for this project would be funded depreciation. Operating Budget Impact: A reduction in maintenance and water treatment costs should be realized. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 91 PROJECT CATEGORY: Utilities Total Estimated Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 $~so,ooo -o- -o- PROJECT TITLE: Garvin Creek Sewer Interceptor ienditures B Fiscal Year Funding Sources 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 250,000 250,000 250,000 epreciatio~ Description- Replacement of Garvin Creek Sewer Interceptor. Justification- This sewer interceptor is beyond repair through the normal S.SF~JR - program and needs to be replaced. F~~g ~~~; Proposed source of funding for this project would be funded depreciation. Operating Budget Impact: A reduction in maintenance and water treatment costs would be realized. Relationship to Comprehensive plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 92 PROJECT CATEGORY: Utilities PROJECT TITLE: North County, I-81 Exit 43 Site Improvement Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $500 000 50,000 450,000 -a -a -a Depreciation , Offsite Fees Description: Establish new water system to service existing and vacant sites. Project will require pump station from Carvin Cove transmission line and storage reservoir on North side of I-81 along with transmission and distribution lines under I-81, through the sites across Plantation and connect with existing system. Justification: This area is currently supplied water from the city water system and does not have adequate pressure for commercial/industrial use or fire flow. Service to 225 acres of vacant industrial and commercial sites will make this project feasible. Funding Sources: Proposed source of funding for this project would be $200,000 from depreciation and $300,000 from offsite facility fees. Operating Budget Impact: Operating costs would increase along with operating revenues. Sanitary sewer extensions to the sites would be made by the landowner/developer as part of each site development. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 93 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Utilities Purchase of Water Systems Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 $428,125 I 428,125 I -0- I -~- I ~ I -a I Bonds Description; Purchase of private water systems within the existing service area. This project is included in CIP to properly allocate the funds provided for this purpose. Justification: County desires to own and operate all water systems within the county. g~~g ~~~; The funding for this project has been previously approved. These water systems will be purchased with existing water bonds issued for this purpose. Operating Budget Impact: Operating budget would increase with a corresponding increase in revenue from the water systems purchased. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 94 PROJECT CATEGORY: Utilities PROJECT TITLE: Brookwood/Hidden Valley Water Project Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 $375,000 375,000 -o- -o- -0- -o- epreciation ffsite Fees Description: Construct a 500,000 gallon reservoir behind Bridlewood subdivision fed by a pump station located at the Highfields well property. Supply and discharge lines will be constructed along Roselawn with connection to the Hidden Valley system. Justification: This project will provide fire flow for the Roselawn area Highfields system, Mt. Vernon Forest and Bridlewood subdivisions. It will provide supply to the Brookwood system and make expansion of water along Route 221 and Cotton Hill Road possible without establishing separate isolated water systems. F~~g Sources: This project is currently funded from the depreciation account and through offsite facilities fees. Operating Budget Impact: Minor increase in pumping costs would be off-set in the future with revenue from new customers. Relationship to Comprehensive plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 95 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: ~ Utilities Mudlick Interceptor I Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 $365,000 I 365,0001 -0- I -0- I -0- I -0- I Sewer Bonds Description; Replace existing 18" and 15" Mudlick Interceptor with one 24" interceptor from the City of Roanoke boundary to Cresthill Drive. ~~ Justification: The existing 15 sewer installed in 1958 is beyond repair. It is more economical to replace both lines with a single 24" line installed in the same location as the existing 18" to minimize excavation costs. Funding Sources: This project is currently funded through existing sewer bonds. Operating Budget Impact: Reduction of maintenance costs and reduce I/I from 15" line. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 96 PROJECT CATEGORY: Utilities PROJECT TITLE: Starkey Water System Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $340,000 340,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- Depreciation Offsite Fees Description: Construction of a new Starkey water system by connecting to and pumping from the Penn Forest system at the Starkey 1 & 2 well transmission line and construction of a 5(X1000 gallon reservoir on the Munger property. These systems would connect to the Buck Mountain transmission line and be at the Avenham working elevation. Arlington Hills wells connected to the Penn Forest system would be part of this project. Justification; Supply water service to the Starkey area and provide additional water supply to the Southwest Industrial Park and adjacent Atlantic Concrete property. Project will then provide adequate water service to Merriman, Buck Mountain, and Starkey Road areas. Funding Sources: This project is currently funded from the depreciation account and through offsite facilities fees. Operating Budget Impact: Additional operating costs will be off-set with additional revenue from the area served. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 97 PROJECT CATEGORY: Utilities Total Estimated 1 Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 $300,000 -0- 300,000 PROJECT TITLE: Glenvar Reservoir ~enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Sources 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 ~ ~ -0- Offsite Fees Description: Construct a 500,000 gallon reservoir in the Cherokee Hills area of west county. Justification: Existing storage for the Cherokee Hills area is not adequate for existing fire flow or additional development. Project would include connection of this reservoir to the Big Hill transmission line to establish the west water pressure zone. Fang ~~~: Potential source of funding for this project would be offsite fac~7ities fees. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 98 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Utilities Carson Road Sanitary Sewer Sub-Main Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 $150,000 150,000 -o- -o- -o- -o- Sewer Bonds Description; Construct sanitary sewer line along Carson Road from the Glade Creek Sub-main to the north side of Route 460. Justification: Need for public sewer in Route 460 east Ruritan Road area. Funding Sources: This project is currently funded through existing sewer bonds. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 99 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Utilities Sugarloaf Farms Water Improvements Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 $114,500 114,500 -0- -0- -0- -0- Funded Description: Upgrade of existing water lines in Sugarloaf Farms area. Justification: Replace undersized and aged facilities. Funding Sources: This project has already been approved for funding from the FY 1991-92 depreciation account. Operating Budget Impact: Reduction of maintenance costs of aged facilities. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 100 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Utilities Castle Hill Water Improvements Tom Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 $110,000 -0- 110,000 -0- -0- -0- Depreciation Description: Upgrade of existing water lines in the Castle Hill area. Justification: Replace undersized and aged facilities. Funding Sources: Proposed source of funding for this project would be the FY 1992-93 depreciation account. Operating Budget Impact: Reduction of maintenance costs of aged facilities. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 101 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Utilities Grandin Road Sanitary Sewer Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 $loo,ooo ~ 40,000 ~ 60,000 ~ -o- ~ -o- ~ -o- Description: Replace sanitary sewer line along Grandin Road. 'T'his is the balance of a replacement project that was started under an hourly contract. Justification: Existing sewer line is not structurally sound and therefore cannot be repaired. Funding Sources: The $40,000 in l;Y 1991-92 is already funded through the depreciation account. It is proposed that the $60,000 also be funded through the depreciation account. Operating Budget Impact: Reduction of maintenance costs of aged facilities. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 102 PROJECT CATEGORY: Utilities Total Estimated E Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 $233,000 -0- 233,000 PROJECT TITLE: Brambleton I & II/Mt. Vernon Heights ~enditures B Fiscal Year 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 -0- I -0- I -0- IDep Funding Sources Description: Upgrade existing water lines in Mt. Vernon Heights. Justification: Replace undersized and aged facilities. Funding Sources: Proposed source of funding for this project would be the FY 1992-93 depreciation account. Operating Budget Impact: Reduction of maintenance costs of aged facilities. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 103 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Utilities I-81/Richfield Sanitary Sewer Replacement Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Sources Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 590,000 90,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- Funded Description: Replace existing sanitary sewer from the north side of I-81 through Shamrock/Richfield property to Route 11/460. Justification: Existing sewer line pipe has deteriorated beyond the point of economical repair. Funding Sources: This project is currently approved for funding through the FY 1991-92 depreciation account. Operating Budget Impact: Reduction of maintenance costs of deteriorated sewer lines and the i/I into system. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 104 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Utilities Barrens Road Sanitary Sewer Replacement Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $85,000 85,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- Funded Depreciation Description: Replace sanitary sewer line in Barrens Road prior to reconstruction of the road. Justification: Barrens Road is being reconstructed by VDOT. This sewer line has some cracks and other signs of structural weakness that would not sustain the road construction traffic. Replacement now will preclude repairs and/or replacement within five years. Funding Sources: This project is currently approved for funding through the FY 1991-92 depreciation account. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 105 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Utilities Berwick Heights Upgrade Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $84,ppp -Q -0- 84,000 -0- -0- Depreciation Description: Upgrade of existing water lines in Berwick Heights. Justification: Replace undersized and aged facilities. Funding Sources: Propcued source of ftuiding for this project would be the depreciation account in FY 1993-94. Operating Budget Impact: Reduction of maintenance costs of aged facilities. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 106 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Utilities Summerdean Water Improvements Total E i Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding mated st Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $73,000 -0- -0- 73,000 -0- -0- Depreciation Description: Upgrade of existing water lines in Summerdean area. JustiScation: Replace undersized and aged facilities. Funding Sources: Proposed source of funding for this project would be the depreciation account in FY 1993-94. Operating Budget Impact: Reduction of maintenance costs of aged facilities. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 107 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Utilities Buck Mountain/Upland Game Water Pum Station Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $70,000 70,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- Funded Depreciation Description: Construct a water pump station on the Buck Mountain transmission main to pump into the Upland Game Reservoir. Justification: The existing feed lines on the Hunting Hills Pump Station are undersized and do not permit efficient pumping. The Upland Game Reservoir was connected to the Buck Mountain transmission line with the Clearbrook Project using 10" and 12" lines. This project will pump from the Starkey water system into the Hunting Hills system. This project is a replacement for the Tanglewood Pump Station which can not be constructed due to a lack of water from the City of Roanoke inthe Tanglewood/South County area. Funding Sources: This project is currently approved for funding through the FY 1991-92 depreciation account. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 108 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Utilities Delaney Court Upgrade Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $53,000 -o- -o- -o- 53,000 -o- Depreciation Description: Upgrade of existing water lines in Delaney Court. Justification: Replace undersized and aged facilities. Funding Sources: Proposed source of funding for this project would be the depreciation account in FY 199495. Operating Budget Impact: Reduction of maintenance costs of aged facilities. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 109 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Utilities Farmingdale Water Improvements Total Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Estimated Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $52,000 -0- 52,000 -0- -0- -0- Funded Depreciation Description: Upgrade of existing water lines in Farmingdale area. Justification: Replace undersized and aged facilities. Funding Sources: This project is currently approved for funding through the FY 1992-93 depreciation account. Operating Budget Impact: Reduction of maintenance costs of aged facilities. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 110 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Utilities Wendover Drive Water Improvements Total E ti d t Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding s ma e Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $52,000 52,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- Funded Depreciation Description: Upgrade of existing water line on Wendover Drive. Justification: Replace undersized and aged facilities. Funding Sources: This project is currently approved for funding through the FY 1991-92 depreciation account. Operating Budget Impact: Reduction of maintenance costs of aged facilities. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 111 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Utilities Highfield Water Improvements Total E ti d Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding s mate Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $50,000 50,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- Funded Depreciation Description: Upgrade undersized water lines in the Highfield subdivision. This project will be scheduled for construction at the same time public sewer is constructed in this subdivision under the Public Works Improvement petition process. Justification: Existing water lines are totally inadequate to provide fire flow. Adequate fire flow will exist to supply this system when the Brookwood/Hidden Valley Project is complete. It is desireable to do the water construction along with the sanitary sewer construction project. Funding Sources: This project is currently approved for funding through the FY 1991-92 depreciation account. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 112 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Utilities VDOT Highway Projects - Sewer Relocation Total E ti t d Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding s ma e Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $50,000 -o- -o- -o- -o- 50,000 Depreciation Description: Replace, relocate and/or adjust existing sanitary sewer lines, which conflict with highway facilities on road construction projects. Justification: Required to avoid conflicts between facilities. Funding Sources: Proposed source of funding for this project would be the FY 1995-96 depreciation account. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 113 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Utilities Chaparral Drive Transmission Line Estimated Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $50,000 -0- -0- -0- 50,000 -0- Depreciation Description: In order to complete a water line loop on Chaparral Drive, a water line needs to be constructed between Kelley and Poff Lane. Justification: To improve water flow in the Penn Forest area. Funding Sources: Proposed source of funding for this project would be the FY 1994-95 depreciation account. Operating Budget Impact: None. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 114 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Utilities Castle Rock -Storage Reservoir Est mated Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $zso,ooo -o- -o- -o- -o- Zso,ooo offsite Fees Description: Install 500,000 gallon water reservoir to provide adequate storage and fire flow in lower Castle Rock pressure zone. Justification: Provide storage and adequate fire flow. Funding Sources: Proposed source of funding for this project would be offsite facilities fees. Operating Budget Impact: Additional $1s,000 per year in operating and maintenance costs. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 198s Comprehensive Plan. 115 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Utilities Starmount Water Improvement Total Estimated Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $83,000 -~- -0- -~- -0- 83,000 Depreciation Description: Replace aged waterlines in Starmount area. Justification: Reduce maintenance costs and improve water quality. Funding Sources: Proposed source of funding for this project would be the FY 1995-96 depreciation account. Operating Budget Impact: Reduction of maintenance costs of aged facilities. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 116 PROJECT CATEGORY: PROJECT TITLE: Utilities Pine Mountain Water Improvement Est mated Estimated Ex enditures B Fiscal Year Funding Project Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 Sources $52,000 -o- -o- -o- -0- 52,000 Depreciation Description Upgrade of existing water lines in Pine Mountain subdivision. JustiScaton Replacement of undersized and aged facilities. Funding Sources: Proposed source of funding for this project would be the FY 1995-96 depreciation account. Operating Budget Impact: Reduction of maintenance costs of aged facilities. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. 117 0~ p,OANp~~ ~ ' ~' Z ~ ~~~ a ~Yt~ i1~ ,~~~tYt ~~ ~a ,J ss SFSQUICEN7ENN~P~ A Bcauti~ul8cgimm~g ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA JULY 9, 1991 ALL-AM~ICA C(11f 1 I x•9.8.9 Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call AT 3:07 P.M. HCN ARRIVED AT 3:09 P.M. 2. Irnocation: The Reverend Gordon Grimes Cave Spring Baptist Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS ECH ADDED ITEM D-S: SUPPORT FOR SENATOR GARTIAN'S BEVERAGE CONTAINER DEPOSIT BILL, AND ITEM D-9: REQUEST FOR SUPPORT FOR PARTICII'ATION IN VRS FOR BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS i r r C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS NONE D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for additional funds from the Alleghany Health District. A-7991-1 HCN MOTION TO DENY -DEFEATED AYES-HCN,SAM NAYS-LBE,RWR,BLJ HCN SUBST. MOTION TO REFER TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO BRING BACK IN 30 DAYS ALONG WITH OTHER BUDGET REQUESTS FROM SOCIAL SERVICES, ETC. -DEFEATED AYES-BL,T, HCN NAYS-LBE, RWR, SAM LBE MOTION TO ALLOCATE $8,000 FROM BOARD CONTINGENCY FiJND AYES-LBE,RWR,BLJ,SAM NAYS-HCN 2. Request for additional funds from the Roanoke Valley Cornention and Visitors Bureau. A-7991-2 BLJ MOTION TO ALLOCATE $3,000 FROM BOARD CONTINGENCY FiJND AYES-LBE,RWR,BLJ, SAM NAYS-HCN 3. Approval of Additional Projects to the Drainage 2 Maintenance Priority List. A-7991-3 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE WITH BALANCE OF BOARD CONTINGENCY FUND ALLOCATED TO THE UNFUNDED PROJECTS - NO VOTE BLJ SUBST. MOTION TO APPROVE URC 4. Request to apply for a Planning Grant from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. R-7991-4 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE - URC 5. Acceptance of Grants from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for Enhancing Drug Enforcement and Prosecution A-7991-5 LBE MOTION TO APPROVE - URC 6. Acceptance of Grant from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for Community Crime Prevention Services A-7991-6 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE - URC 7. Authorization to enter into a Contract with the SPCA to provide Animal Shelter Services. A-7991-7 LBE MOTION TO APPROVE - URC 8. Request for Support for Senator Gartlan's Beverage Container Deposit Bill A-7991-8 LBE MOTION TO REFER TO COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR REVIEW AND POSSIBLE INCLUSION IN LEGISLATIVE REQUESTS - URC 3 r 9. Request for Resolution of Support for participation in Virginia Retirement System for Boards of Supervisors A-7991-9 BLJ MOTION TO REFER TO COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR P~:VIEW AND POSSIBLE INCLUSION IN LEGISLATIVE REQUESTS - URC E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS WORK SESSION SET FOR 8/13/91 ON PRIVATIZATION STUDY F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code, Article III, Sewer Use Standards of Chapter 16 Code of 1971 (Chapter 18, Code of 1985) BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 7/23/91 - URC H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code by the addition of Section 2-5 to establish a schedule of fines and fees for overdue, damaged or lost public library materials. 0-7991-10 LBE MOTION TO ADOPT ORD - URC 4 2. Ordinance to authorize the purchase of the Ponderosa Park Water System. 0-7991-11 RWR MOTION TO ADOPT ORD - URC I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Clean Valley Council 2. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission HCN NOMINATED ROGER FALLS TO ANOTHER 3-YEAR TERM EXPIRING 6/30/94. J. 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. u_~44~ _~ BLJ TO ADOPT - URC 1. Approval of Minutes -June 11, 1991 2 Confirmation of Committee Appointment to the Transportation Safety Commission. R-7991-12.a 5 r 3. Acceptance of the Sanitary Sewer Facilities serving Hunting Hills, Section 24. R-7991-12.b 4. Acceptance of the Sanitary Sewer Facilities serving Southern Pines, Resubdivision of Lots 1 & 2, Section S. R-7991-12.c K. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS SUPERVISOR EDDY: (1) ASKED FOR REPORT ON TELEPHONE MESSAGE SERVICE. (2) ASKED AMG TO CHECK ON RCT DISTRIBUTION - HE IS NOT RECEIVING. AMG ADVISED THAT NEWSPAPER IS CHECKING. (3) ASKED THAT SEVERAL QUESTIONS ON RCT BE INCLUDED ON UPCOMING TELEPHONE SURVEY -ECH ADVISED SURVEY IS ALREADY PRINTED. (4) ASKED ABOUT BROCHURE OF COUNTY SERVICES. ECH ADVISED CUSTOMER SERVICE COMIVIITTEE IS WORI~NG ON. (5) ASKED FOR REPORT ON SPRING HOLLOW TEST GROUTING. JH UPDATED. SUPERVISOR NICKENS CONIlVIENDED THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THEIR ACTION ON THE RESERVOIR ON 7/9/91. SUPERVISOR MCGRAW: ANNOUNCED VACO/VML TASK FORCE MET IN CHARLOTTESVILLE AND ARE AT A STANDSTILL BECAUSE VML WANTS TO ALLOW TOWNS TO ANNEX BY ORDINANCE. L. CITIZENS' COM1ViENTS AND COMMU1vICATIONS 1. BETTY A. BROYLES , 2040 ELIZABETH DRIVE, VIlV'TON SPOKE ON CIP. ASKED THAT SCHOOL ROOF REPLACEMENT AND REPAIRS RECEIVE A HIGH PRIORITY, AND THAT FUNDS BE INCLUDED 6 r FOR THIS IN CIP. M. REPORTS BLJ MOVED TO RECEIVE AND FILE AFTER DISCUSSION OF ITEMS 3 AND 4 - UW 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Board Contingency Fund 3. Report on Privatization Study WORK SESSION SET FOR 8/13 ON PRIVATIZATION SAM ASKED STAFF TO DRA~~ LETTER TO MAYOR TAYLOR REGARDING PRIVATIZATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT UNDER REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP. 4. Report on proposal to reduce or waive Utility Rates for cases of Demonstrable Hardship and Inability to Pay BLJ ASKED FOR REPORT INCLUDING INFORMATION ON FINANCIAL IlVIPLICATION FOR ELDERLY ONLY USING CRITERIA AS FREEZING OF REAL ESTATE TAXES. RECESS: 5:03 - 5:10 P.M. N. WORK SESSION 1. Capital Improvement Program BOARD CONSENSUS ON FOLLOWING PRIORITIES: 117AINTENANCE AND REPAIR; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, HEALTIi AND SAFETY AND EDUCATION. BOARD CONSENSUS TO GO FORWARD WITH LITERARY LOANS. BAYES WILSON WILL BRING LIST TO SCHOOL BOARD. BOARD CONSENSUS NOT TO HAVE BOND REFERENDUM IN 1991. BAYES WILSON TO BRING BACK LIST OF PRIORITIZED ROOF REPAIRS TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON 8/13/91. OPEN SESSION BLJ MOTION TO ADOPT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT STAFF WII.,L BRING PRIORITIZED LIST OF COUNTY AND SCHOOL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS TO 8/13/91 MEETING. AYES-RWR,BLJ,SAM NAYS-HCN,LBE O. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (1) to discuss personnel matters, the Performance Evaluation of the County Administrator and County Attorney, and (7) consultation with legal counsel pertaining to actual litigation or other legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel. BLS MOTION AT 6:27 P.M. - UW P. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-7991-13 BLJ MOTION TO ADOPT RESO AT 7:45 P.M. RECESS: AT 7:46 P.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 2.1-344 (A) (1) PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND COUNTY ATTORNEY s HCN AT 8:16 P.M. - UW CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-7991-14 SAM MOTION AT 10:00. P.M. - UW Q. ADJOURNMENT AT 10:01 P.M. 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: July 9, 1991 SUBJECT: Report on Privatization in County Operations COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On April 23, 1991, the Board requested that staff review the opportunities for privatization and automation of some of our services. The attached report is submitted as an initial response to that request. For purposes of this report, the term "privatization" means that the County would provide a services through a sub-contract arrangement while retaining responsibility for funding. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: A committee consisting of affected department heads was formed. The department heads were requested to review their operations and determine 1) which services are currently privatized, 2) which may be candidates for privatization, 3) which services would not be recommended for privatization, and 4) which services have been privatized and subsequently returned to in-house. The chairperson interviewed each department head, consulted other jurisdictions, reviewed published privatization studies and compiled the report. Studies confirm that there is a growing trend toward privatization of services and it is appropriate and timely for us to review our own opportunities. In doing so we have attempted to determine both the advantages and disadvantages in each instance. Generally, government services have been privatized to reduce costs and/or to employ the expertise of specialized skills and resources. Some potential disadvantages are the displacement of current employees, reduced levels of service delivery, adverse impact on employment practices, relinquished control and diminished levels of commitment to the County's overall goals. From available data it seems clear that privatization of new services has been more successful than the transition of those currently in place. Our study reveals that we have attained a high level of automation within the various County functions and are continuing to seek out further opportunities to reduce /11- 3 costs through that process. The attached material also identifies areas where various forms of privatization are now being used in whole or in part. The most prevalent of these are: buildings and grounds maintenance, vehicle repair, recreation, towing, janitorial and solid waste disposal. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that, on an on-going basis, our department heads seriously consider automation and various forms of privatization as excellent possibilities for maximizing their effectiveness in the delivery of services. Specific areas that bear further consideration at this time are vacuumed leaf collection, recycling and additional grounds maintenance. Respectfully submitted, -~ ~~ Susan . Hansey Procurement Director Approved by, ~~ Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. County Administrator ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ACTION VOTE Approved () Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied () Eddy - _ Received () Robers Referred Johnson To Nickens - _ _ McGraw _ cc: File /?1-3 REPORT ON PRIVATIZATION AND AUTOMATION IN ROANOKE COUNTY OPERATIONS TREASURER The Treasurer's Office has taken steps to privatize the tax payment process. Decal fees and personal property taxes can be paid at First Virginia Bank at a cost to the County of $.15 per transaction. Initial results from this trial support expanding the program to all area banks for the 1992 tax season. Banks would be reimbursed at the rate of $.25 per transaction and required to provide a daily transactions tape for use by MIS. The Treasurer anticipates the elimination of two part-time employees normally hired during tax season and the elimination of the Vinton satellite operation (approximately $1,400 from County budget). The Treasurer's Office has secured direct computer access with the Division of Motor Vehicles, Virginia Employment Commission and the State Corporation Commission records to obtain information for processing delinquent collections. The Treasurer's Office tax collection rate, in excess of 99% after three years, is among the highest in the state. Automation: The mail processor installed approximately eight years ago reduced the need for seasonal help by an estimated 10 part-time employees. This piece of equipment has become outdated and needs to be considered for replacement. Also, automating the cashier operation to data entry via bar code would increase accuracy. However, the Treasurer does not foresee this type of automation reducing the work force. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Mr. Gubala has approached the city's Economic Development Office and the Regional Partnership to determine their position regarding combining the County's and City's departments with the Regional Partnership. Both organizations have responded that this proposed structure would not be feasible due to their conflicting missions. All three directors agree that each organization has defined goals which are separate and viable only within the current framework. (See appendix 1 and 2) This department has privatized in the following areas: Advertising Video productions for marketing purposes Site development Relocation assistance 1 /~1-3 SHERIFF'S OFFICE The Sheriff s Office has presented an alternative to privatization by promoting the use of inmate labor within the County. Inmates have been providing labor in the areas of leaf collection, mowing, landscaping, trash pickup, car washing, painting, building maintenance and construction. Inmate labor will be used exclusively to produce the road signs required for the E911 system. The Sheriff's Office has initiated a small scale flower propagation program which could be expanded to provide landscaping plants for use throughout the County at minimal cost. Another potential area of contribution would be the utilization of the jail kitchen and inmate labor to provide catering for County functions or to supplement the school cafeterias. Inmate labor is currently utilized in the jail kitchen. Should this function be considered for privatization for profit, inmate labor could not be used nor would they be eligible for USDA subsidies. The available inmate labor force is currently limited by the restrictions requiring direct deputy supervision. The inmate work program could be expanded in the areas of grounds and building maintenance, janitorial service, and refuse pickup among others if this restriction is modified or with additional deputies. Statistics for the use of inmate labor for the first 8 months of operations are: Labor savings at a full time rate of $6.81 (Including benefits) $71,708 Labor savings at a part time rate of $5.75 $60,546 Actual deputy costs for same period - 31308 Net savings $40,400 or $29,238 Although legislation was introduced to allow for privatization within the penal system, the bill did not pass. Consideration for privatizing the management of the County jail should be given low priority until legislation is passed. Although the Sheriff could privatize the serving of court papers this would have minimal impact on the County budget as the deputies currently assigned to serve in this function are state reimbursed employees. 2 ~' MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS MIS currently allocates billable time as follows: Maintenance of existing systems 30% Requests for minor enhancements 30% Requests for major enhancements 40% Seventy percent of this Department's time is directed toward the increased automation of services within the County. The attached memo (appendix 3) lists the current systems in place, those systems presently under development, and requests for future development. MIS reviews, prioritizes and coordinates these requests in what is felt to be the best interests of the County. Approved requests are reviewed by the director of MIS to determine if it is more cost effective to purchase an off-the-shelf package, purchase development time from an outside source or utilize County staff. As a result of this process, privatization can be viewed as an ongoing process in this internal service area of the County. A major project now being undertaken by a committee represented by MIS, Engineering, and Utility is the generation of a geographic information data base to be shared by Engineering, Planning and Zoning, Assessments, Utility, Clerk of the Courts, Treasurer, Commissioner of the Revenue, Fire & Rescue, Police and Sheriff's Office. The envisioned system will be used primarily to coordinate and thus eliminate redundancy of transactions related to any given parcel of land. It is estimated that 70% of the data handled by a local government is directly related to one or more parcels of land. The demand for this type of comprehensive data base is present both internally and externally and could eventually become a revenue generating activity. REAL ESTATE ASSESSMENTS Legislation passed in 1979 transferred the responsibility for assessments from a state department to the localities, allowing the locality to privatize or to develop internal staffing. Roanoke County chose to staff a department of professionals and provide ongoing training in this area. Montgomery County has privatized its reassessments at a rate of $11.71 Per parcel. There are additional charges to process new residential and commercial building permits of $12 and $18 respectively. Roanoke County provides both services at $11.30 per parcel. Additionally, the County department has an administrative budget to provide public access 3 ih-3 to this information, which we would need to provide under either scenario, and to pro rate assessments which is revenue generating, and to administer the land use program. GARAGE Each jurisdiction is required to provide its vehicle operating costs to the department of education on a yearly basis. Roanoke County has consistently ranked among the top five jurisdictions in providing low cost/pupil transportation services. These figures indicate that Transportation Operations provides this service at a lower cost than comparable jurisdictions including jurisdictions which have privatized their bus operations. There are several areas of service currently privatized by the garage. Equipment, facilities, expertise and time are the considerations which are taken into account before making a decision to privatize this work. Currently contracted: Automatic transmissions Radiators Recapped tires Body work-based on available shop time or insurance reimbursements Hydraulic work-primarily refuse Welding-packers Exhaust -except buses Windshields Fire tanks and ladders Towing The County's ability to purchase in bulk at below wholesale costs produces significant savings. During the month of May 64,000 gallons of mixed fuel was purchased. At an average saving of thirty cents per gallon, Transportation Operations saved the County $19,200 in fuel costs. This equates to a saving of $238,000 annually less minimal overhead expenses. The purchase of engine oil in bulk is estimated to save $15k to $20k annually, again less minimal overhead expenses. A comparison of the cost from a private garage for work done on a County vehicle and the cost our garage would have charged indicates that the County can perform repairs in- house at a lower cost. The private garage charged 80 percent more for the parts used in repairing the vehicle and SO percent more in labor costs using the approved County rate of $25 per hour rate. (The garage would need to bill in the range of $40-45 per hour in order to be completely self sufficient. The charges for records maintenance, coordination of state investigations, vehicle preparation for surplus sales and other administrative costs as requested would need to be backed out of the $40-45 per hour rate in order to make 4 proper comparisons with private rates.) Safety records are an important consideration in making decisions regarding the privatization of the garage operations. By controlling vehicle records and performing preventative maintenance the County has been able to extend the useful life of its vehicles and report a very low accident rate due to mechanical failure. PARKS AND RECREATION This is an area recommended for privatization in many studies, specifically in the areas of grounds maintenance and facilities operations (i.e., coliseums, civic centers, etc.). Although the County does not have facilities in comparable scope, the Board was recently updated on the commission's findings regarding senior citizens' needs. Anew center was discussed with an interest in involving the entire valley. As stated, new services are more easily privatized than existing services. The Board may want to suggest that the commission consider the pros and cons of privatizing this service. This Department has already reviewed the cost benefit analysis of providing grounds maintenance internally versus externally. As of July 1, 1991, 42 new sites added within the past five years, comprising 97.22 acres, will be privatized at a cost of $107,000 per year. These additional grounds cannot be maintained by current personnel. This work had been performed by the inmate work force which could be continued if a reliable inmate work force with the required deputy supervision could be guaranteed. An initial study indicates the remaining 26 sites, comprising 121.72 acres, could also be sub-contracted at the cost of $134,000 per year. This service is considered by the staff to be a legitimate area for privatization and is recommended for further review. In general, it is not recommended that the County further privatize recreation services. Quality, participation and professionalism are factors to be considered in such a decision. However, due to the number of private firms in the area providing comparable outdoor adventure activities this program could be considered for privatization. Attached is a listing of recreation programs which have already been privatized primarily because of the available facilities in the private community (appendix 4). As stated earlier, this is one of the primary reasons for privatizing. FINANCE The Finance Department has updated the automated meter reading operation. This automation will allow a reduction of staff by one through attrition. Microfiche records, annual audits and cost allocations for indirect welfare cost reimburse- ments are currently privatized. 5 /~1"~ COUNTY ATTORNEY The County Attorney is currently privatizing portions of his responsibilities after considering the level of expertise within the current staff, the time requirements, and potential areas of conflict. Examples of sub-contracted services are bond attorneys, landfill, reservoir and Dixie Cavern issues and certain areas of requests from social services. The Attorney's operation costs the County approximately $45 per hour based on 6000 billable hours per year. When a request for proposal was issued approximately four years ago rates were quoted in the $55 to $100/hour rate. Current .rates would be equal to or greater than those previously quoted. ENGINEERING The Engineering Department currently sub-contracts all major drainage projects while providing in-house response to minor ones. This may be an area for further review toward privatization. However, the County would still need to provide staff to oversee and coordinate these projects. The building permits process is currently being automated. Although this will not reduce staff it will offset the need to increase staff under current operating conditions. We should carefully review the costs and the potential opportunities for conflicts of interest if other areas of Engineering services were to be considered for privatization, particularly the areas of permits and plan reviews. Also, the costs of these services are passed on to the applicant and staff feels this would result in significant fee increases to contractors and homeowners. GENERAL SERVICES Several services within this Department have been identified as potential areas for privatization by national studies. General Services currently privatizes many of the services within Building Maintenance, Communications Support and Solid Waste Services with consideration of price, expertise, equipment and time. Studies indicate that localities can realize substantial savings by privatizing janitorial service. Experience in Roanoke County supports these findings. However, the County also experienced an unacceptable decrease in the quality of the service and has elected to return to in-house labor to provide this service in the majority of the buildings. 6 /y1- 3 Each component of Building Maintenance has some portion, if not all, of the total service contracted to private firms. For instance, HVAC repairs, elevator service, extermination, soil contamination and glass replacement are 100% contracted. The balance of the services including electrical support, building repair, plumbing repair, major structure repair, roof repair, generator repair, janitorial and small engine repairs are completed with a mixture of in-house labor and contracted labor after considering the above mentioned factors. Solid waste disposal is another service commonly privatized at substantial savings. The County currently contracts the collection of school building dumpsters, a portion of the small business service, and the large County containers. The balance is completed by County personnel. The staff is committed to providing the most cost effective service delivery to its customers with the equipment available to them. While it is not known if a private contractor could provide this service at a lower cost we do know that this Department has a 95% customer satisfaction rate. This is a result of commitment which may not be duplicated in the private sector where decisions are by nature based on profit margin. The only way for the County to determine if this service can be privatized at reduced costs is to issue an RFP. One area particularly suited to privatization is recycling. The County will be privatizing a portion of the solid waste disposal after January 1, 1993 when the new landfill is opened. The transportation of waste from the transfer site to the landfill will be 100% privatized by the resource authority. Communications support is the third area of General Services which is a combination of in-house and contracted services. This area is crucial in terms of the safety of the citizen and the efficiency of County operations. Changes in either direction must be carefully considered before implementation. Components which are currently 100% privatized include 800 MHZ site maintenance and microwave service. Low band site service, 800 MHZ portable/mobiles, low band pagers, radio installation, emergency signal installation and internal telephone listings are completed in house. The balance of low and high band service, cable installation and telephone service is performed by a combination of in-house labor and contracted labor. 7 The Rrgi~m~il Partnership l l l Franklin Plaza, Suitr 3 33 Ruan~;ke, Virginia 2-}Ol I APPENDIX 1 703 3-~3-150 ~'~"~ Pay: i03 34~}-60~?6 ROANOKE VALLEY OF VIRGINIA June 18, 1991 Ms. Sue Hansey Director of Procurement Post Office Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Dear Ms. Hansey: In response to Tim Gubala's letter of May 16, 1991, it is not feasible or in the best interest of participating jurisdictions to merge economic development staffs with The Regional Partnership. This has been my opinion since coming to The Partnership in 1988. Each locality has different economic development needs based on its program. The Partnership's mission is to market the Roanoke Valley for industrial, large service, and large office development and expansion. We are not responsible for many of the activities of a governmental economic development department. Many day-to- day economic development issues, such as taxes, utilities, zoning, etc. can not be addressed from outside local government. The Partnership relies on economic development departments in each jurisdiction to assist in helping meet prospects needs. Roanoke County and other jurisdictions must be committed to The Partnership's original goal if they are truly interested in making the Valley's economic development marketing effort more effective and cost-efficient. The following is five-point plan to accomplish that. 1. Individual jurisdictions should discontinue ad placement and direct mail. Rely on The Partnership's marketing plan to generate prospects. For example, Roanoke City and County recently placed ads in an in-flight publication of United Express. The Blz ~c~ Riclcu' ~'1~loi ult~iiftis' ~tilcij~~~tz~. APPENDIX 1 • ~~° Partnership's offer to make up the cost difference and place one full page, color ad in place of the two smaller ones was rejected by Roanoke City. The two ads, on the same page, not only confused readers outside the Valley, but implied waste, duplication, and in-fighting to local readers. 2. Marketing materials for each jurisdiction should reflect the same theme, image, and presentation as The Partnership's.- The Partnership proposes it develop coordinated materials that each jurisdiction could use independently. All would be consistent with the image The Partnership is creating for the Roanoke Valley. We all know that the jurisdictions are selling the entire Valley. No locality can stand totally on its own when recruiting. Multiple ads, marketing materials, videos etc., only confuse prospects ,and weaken the Valley's sales story. The Valley needs a strong, coordinated marketing effort. The Partnership has the resources to develop quality materials. It makes no sense for jurisdictions to spend money on the same materials The Partnership produces on an on-going basis. 3. Jurisdictions will always receive their own inquiries and prospects. And a jurisdiction has the right to sell a prospect on its area. However, once a prospect asks to see options in other jurisdictions, The Partnership should take the lead. This is not being done. Referrals are being made to other jurisdictions, to the Chambers of Commerce, and to realtors. This duplicates effort, wastes time, makes it harder and more confusing on the prospects, and keeps the Valley from putting its best foot forward. It has also created situations where no one followed up and prospects were lost. 4. Let The Partnership coordinate and handle consultant requests for the Valley. Jurisdictions need not waste their staff time duplicating The Partnership's service. 5. One of the founding premises of The Partnership was cost efficiency through economies of scale. Jurisdictions should rely on The Partnership to make marketing trips. It is costly for a jurisdiction to send its staff on the road. Marketing trips are a service of The Partnership. The services. of The Partnership can make the Valley's industrial marketing effort more consistent, effective, and cost efficient. Bha~Riclye NIo~ attains' Majesty. APPENDIX 1 ~~ I appreciate Roanoke County's consistent support of The Partnership and its interest in merger. The issue, however, should not be how to merge local economic development programs. It should examine how to utilize what is already in place to get the most for the tax dollars. There are other long term considerations which would help move the Valley forward. First, The Partnership should be the conduit for multijurisdictional site development. Each locality must be involved heavily in this process. But, a facilitator is needed. The Partnership is the obvious choice. The Partnership should coordinate private efforts to develop an on- going shell building program for the Roanoke Valley as a whole. Quality building options are part of a successful marketing program. Finally, The Partnership should assist the chambers of commerce as they determine how to avoid duplication by working together. If the chambers agree to form one Roanoke Valley Chamber of Commerce, the chamber and The Partnership should explore formalizing their working relationship. These suggestions are intended to make the Valley's economic development effort more professional and less confusing. Virginia's confusing structure of independent cities and counties is a factor prospects don't have to deal with in other states. We must do all we can to level the playing field in a game that already has too many participants, too few prospects, and not enough dollars. Since ely, G~l/~ L~~'' " Mark D. Heath, CED Executive Director MDH/ fr cc: Tim Gubala Partnership Executive Committee B(i~~Ricfrje Mozuztavzs' Mc~est~~. 1. APPENDIX 2 - J VIRGINIA,CNARTERED 1882 Office of Economic Davelooment June 3, 1991 Ms. Sue Hansey Director of Procurement County of Roanoke P. 0. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Dear Ms. Hansey: I am writing in reference to Tim Gubala's letter of May 16, 1991 concerning Roanoke County's privitization study. As I understand it, Supervisor Robers has requested that the County explore the privitization feasibilities including combining the County's department of Economic Development, the City's Office of Economic Development and Regional Partnership. I'm a little confused as to what the City of Roanoke's Office of Economic Development has to do with the County's Economic Development office being merged with the Regional Partnership. Certainly, if Roanoke County decided, in its wisdom, that it was best to merge its department with the Regional Partnership, it can do that without the City of Roanoke's involvement. However, I will try to lay out for you why this office would not have any interest in that idea. The trend in regional economic development organizations, is towards 100% private funding. Probably the most successful regional organization in the state today is Forward Hampton Roads, which covers the South Hampton Roads area of Virginia. It is the successor to several failed regional economic development organizations in that area which had combinations of local government and private funding. Over the years, most if not all of the governments eventually pulled out of the regional organization. Finally, the private sector, through the combined regional chamber in the South Hampton Roads area raised money to fund the regional marketing effort. That organization is now 1000 privately funded. That might be something you want to recommend if your goal is saving public money. Each jurisdiction in the South Hampton Roads area, however, still has its own separate economic development offices, some, in fact, much larger than the regional organization itself. There are two very sound reasons why cities in that area and the jurisdictions in this area should keep separate organizations. One is that the function for regional organizations around the state of Virginia is very narrow in scope. Room 355 Murncipal Building 215 Church P,venue, S.'~N. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2715 APPENDIX 2 Ms. Sue Hansey June 3, 1991 Page 2 m-3 Specifically, if you look at these regional economic development organizations around the State, their work is limited to business recruitment and the marketing that goes along with that recruitment. In fact, the definition of business recruitment (basic industry) narrows their work even further. It would not include things like hotel, retail, restaurant, and institutional type activities. Urban cities in Virginia as well as sophisticated counties around Virginia, of course, have much broader, diverse activities beyond just basic industry recruitment. Those activities range from business retention to financing assistance to zoning assistance to road and utility assistance to site acquisition and development, shell building construction, retail, restaurant and hotel recruitment, institutional recruitment, developer recruitment, infrastructural improvements in support of development, tourism and supporting activities, convention activities, community development projects, such as in Roanoke, the Jefferson High School redevelopment, the redevelopment of communities, the list goes on and on. Each jurisdiction has its own set of limiting factors, whether it be land or utility infrastructure, work force, etc., as well as its own opportunities like the City of Roanoke with its emerging downtown Farmer's Market area, a large retail and restaurant base, a large cultural base, etc. Therefore, each sophisticated jurisdiction needs to develop its own strategy to overcome its limitations and take advantage of its opportunities. Roanoke City's strategy would not be the same as Roanoke County's. The City of Norfolk's strategy would not be the same as Chesapeake's. The City of Richmond's strategy would not be the same as Henrico County and on and on. It is unrealistic to expect a regional organization to develop a multitude of strategies to carry out a multitude of programs, in a position totally independent and separate from the local government and the general public. The other sound reason that sophisticated local governments in Virginia have separate economic development programs and the scope of the regional organizations in the state are limited is because of the broad powers that local governments have, such as zoning, planning, utility improvement and construction, road improvement and construction, condemnation, etc. Certainly not many localities that I know of want to give away those kinds of rights. The public deserves to have elected officials accountable for those kinds of items. Certainly in Roanoke City that is the case as well as the other cities and counties and the regional organizations around the state. Of course, a lot of dealings with various development projects, whether it is with a developer, like Valley Pointe, or a business prospect, like Allied Signal, can result in the expenditure of public funds. The expenditure of public funds requires the highest level of trust and accountability. Certainly Roanoke County, as with every other jurisdiction that is a part of these other regional organizations around the state, does not want to give up its duty. Since the City APPENDIX 2 Ms. Sue Hansey June 3, 1991 Page 3 / / /'" Administration in Roanoke as well as other communities around the state must ultimately make a recommendation to City Council, it is important that officials of the cities be involved in the recruitment process and that might ultimately involve the expenditure of public funds. Otherwise, it is like trying play a game of poker with someone while you are in separate rooms. It would be awfully difficult to know when someone is bluffing and when they aren't. There have been too many instances during the life of the Regional Partnership, past and present, where they have urged us to give things away and said they were necessary. Our assessment was that they were not. We turned out to be correct and the businesses came here anyway and saved the City hundreds of thousands of dollars in unnecessary giveaways. Regional organizations don't have jurisdictions money. They are only in the business at any cost. Again, that communities around these other regions Hampton Roads, limit the activities of basic industry recruitment only. the same sense of saving the ~erested in successfully locating is why these other sophisticated in Richmond, Peninsula, South their regional organizations to As you know, we do have an independent form of government in Virginia. That is the only tax revenue we get is from business and individuals located within our boundaries. If Roanoke County would like to have some kind of discussion about tax sharing on specific pieces of property or some area in general, maybe some more cooperative effort between the City and the County on business recruitment can be explored. Otherwise, someone has to be responsible for meeting budget needs and keeping the tax base of the City sound and keeping the tax rate down. They need to be held accountable for what revenue is being generated. Again, that right can't be given away to some regional organization which wasn't elected by the citizens to represent them. I hope this information is helpful. If you need any additional clarification, please feel free to call. Sincerely, /~/~ Brian J. Wishneff, Chief Economic Development BJW/kds r~ i-a ~-.' - -~ ~-, - •~ 1 r~ ~_~ r•a 1 _ ~ ~ r• ~_~ t: ~ t ~ _: H r ~ I ~-.' ~_ ~ r--I i ~ r=: e~ -~ APPENDIX 3 . ,.r ~ AH ,~. ~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~t ~ 0 ~~ .~ z p 2 MANAGEMENT IfVFoRMAT10N SYSTEiv15 b ~. 18 iso~ 88 MEMORANDUM YGRS a~SpL~ceNT~~+++~4'~. A Brau~i ful8r~lnxln~ TO: Beta Busher, Director, Management andf $udget FRAM: Oscar D. Bryant, Director of M.I.S. ~~ DATE: 2127/91 SUBJECT: M.I.S, Supported Automated Systems F' 4=i ~. m-~ ~I~~RM~ '~~~~- 1979 1989 OSCAR D. BRYANT DIRECTOR Per the reque~i of.Mr. Hodge, requested during the individual department budget meeting, I am submitting a "brief' synopsis of computerized systems which are currently supported, those currently in production, and those which are requested by using departments. Of the thirty plus autonnated systems in current use by County and School offices, the following eleven are considered the major systems. • Adult Education: Used in registering students in Roanoke County Adult Education classes. Includes class information, student registration, posting and transferring funds, receipts, and check generation. This system supports a revenue $enerating project, • Business License: Tracks County Business Licenses. Allows online computation of licenses from gross receipts. Maintains accounts receivable information. This system supports a revenue generating project. • County Personnel $udget: Tracks yearly personnel budget, has limited projection capabilities. • County Payroll and Personnel: Maintains Fayroll and Personnel records for County employees and includes leave accounting. • Finance System (Farris): Tracks and maintains current and prior year budget and financial information. The budgeting subsystem is BPREF. • Personal Property: Maintains records of all tangible personal property for Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton. The system allows for property pricing, proration of taxes, matching of 17MV information, online filing of returns, decal processing and accounts receivable. This system supports a revenue generatiob program. I'1i~'r'-~4-~-•~ 1 r•1~=~M 1 ~ ~~ PL~F:L I L= `-:i~FET'-r' ~~ENTE~c F~ - ~-y APPENDIX 3 ~~ Reta Busher February 27, 1991 Page 2 • Real Estate Billing; Maintains records of all real estate owners for Raanvke County and the Town of Vi;ntan. Supports real estate billings, accounts receivables, property transfers, late notices, and land book generation. This system supports a revenue generating program. • Sehoal Board Inventory: Tracks fixed assets in each unique location within the school Board's area of administrative responsibility. • School Board Payroll/Personnel: Maintains payroll/personnel records for all school employee's. Includes leave accounting, check generation, and personnel budgeting. • EMS Dispatch and Records: Supports the dispatching and tracking of emergen~r services units. Provides access to state DMV and warrant files, and links to E411 system. • Student Assignment System: Tracks student registration information, schedules students to classes. • Student Information System: Maintains records of students academic, demographic, and family information. Includes grading and attendance information. • Utility Billing: Maintains water/sewer/refuse utility records. Includes property and meter tracking and accounts receivable information. This system supports a revenue generating progrram. • Real Estate Assessments (Pasco}: Computer assisted mass appraisal and property valuation system. 't`his system supports a revenue generating program. • Clerk of Courts Indexing: Indexing system for deeds, judgements, marriages, and financing statements. The M.I.S. department is currently working on the installation and/or redesign of the following systems. • Building Permits: Supports the issuance and tracking of building, water, and sewer permits. Will allow ~vr cross check of contractors licenses in the Business f.icense System. This system supports a revenue generatins program. t•7i=+'-i'--~4-y-° 1 t•1~_~h-a 1 c _ ~ _ P~_~EL I C 1-i~FET'r' C-Eh-aTER F' . ~i~# • APPENDIX 3 t ''~~ Reta Busher February 27, 1991 Page 3 Real Estate Billing and Collections Redesign: This is a major rewrite of the system in current service which was originally written in t9$2. The norm for systems lifespan is six to eight years. Columbia Schools Package: M.I.S. is providing technical and development support for this State provided system. PPS Handheld Meter Data Collections System: M.I.S. is providing development and project management support in conjunction with Micronetics development efforts in the replacement of current handheld units utilized by Utility Billing. This system supports a revenue generating program. The queue of user requests far major systems installation or redesign is quite lengthy. The ability to procure or develop, and install any new automated system is preempted by the need for additional computer hardware. M.I.S. wil! concentrate during the next budget year on existing users and the installation of microcomputer based systems. The twelve requested systems in the followiz-g list are considered major. • Vehicle Maintenance Tracking -General Services • Purchase Order Generation and Tracking -Procurement • Parking Tickets Tracking - Treasurer/Police • Building Maintenance - CYeneral Services • A,pplieant Tracking -1"iuman Resources • Salary Research -Human Resources • Personal Property Name/Address Standardization -Comm, of Rev./Treasurer. • Business Personal Property Enhancements - Comm. of Rev. • NCR Cashiering Systez~n Replacement -Treasurer '"Note: The cashiering system replacement will soon, became a critical need. • Town of Vinton Personal Property Proration -Town of Vinton • Police Records Management -Police • Fire/Rescue Records Management - Fire/1;2eseue cc: EImer Hodge Jvhn Chambliss Don Myers APPENDIX 4 M E M O R A N D U M T0: Sue Hansey FROM: Debbie Pitts, Assistant Director of Recreation THRU: Steve Carpen irector, Parks and Recreation DATE: May 22, 1991 SUBJECT: Contractual Agreements with Private Businesses for Services Listed below are the businesses that we contract with for services: .,.r ~. ~' ~; Roanoke Athletic Club(RAC) Adult Athletics/Lifetime Sports Section PEAK Aerobics--Instruction only Countryside Golf Course Adult Athletics/Lifetime Sports Section Golf Lessons Lancerlot Adult Athletics/Lifetime Sports Section Ice Rink for Ice Skating (includes ice time and instruction) N-DOR Tennis Adult Athletics/Lifetime Sports Section Tennis Instruction (They did not charge for the court time) North Cross School Athletic Field Youth Athletics Exchange for some of our fields Frame N' Things Leisure Arts Instruction and supplies for a program at their place of business Janis Learning Center Senior Citizens Section Instruction which was at a discounted rate not offered to the general public Rainbow Tours and Collett Tour and Travel Senior Citizens Section Trips Lancerlot and Washington Park Pools Therapeutic Recreation Section Pool use and water aerobics This is not a written contract for either and we do not wish to disrupt this agreement. APPENDIX 4 Blacksburg Parks and Recreation Department Therapeutic Recreation Section Ropes Course nl- 3 If you have any questions, let me know. OF p,0AN0~~ ~ L ~ p z ~, a a 18 E50` 88 SFSQUICENTENN~P~ A Beauti~ul Bcginning ~~~n.~ IY~ ~~t~n~~ lu-a~~~cac i 1.9.8.9 ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA JULY 9, 1991 Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. 2. Invocation: The Reverend Gordon Grimes Cave Spring Baptist Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS i D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for additional funds from the Alleghany Health District. 2. Request for additional funds from the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau. 3. Approval of Additional Projects to the Drainage Maintenance Priority List. 4. Request to apply for a Planning Grant from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. 5. Acceptance of Grant from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for Enhancing Drug Enforcement and Prosecution 6. Acceptance of Grant from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for Community Crime Prevention Services 7. Authorization to enter into a Contract with the SPCA to provide Animal Shelter Services. E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code, Article III, Sewer Use Standards of Chapter 16 Code of 1971 (Chapter 18, Code of 1985) 2 H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code by the addition of Section 2-5 to establish a schedule of fines and fees for overdue, damaged or lost public library materials. 2. Ordinance to authorize the purchase of the Ponderosa Park Water System. I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Clean Valley Council 2. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission J. 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 -June 11, 1991 2 Confirmation of Committee Appointment to the Transportation Safety Commission. 3. Acceptance of the Sanitary Sewer Facilities serving Hunting Hills, Section 24. 3 4. Acceptance of the Sanitary Sewer Facilities serving Southern Pines, Resubdivision of Lots 1 & 2, Section 8. K. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS L. CITIZENS' CO1VIlViENTS AND C011~IlVIUlVICATIONS M. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Board Contingency Fund 3. Report on Privatization Study 4. Report on proposal to reduce or waive Utility Rates for cases of Demonstrable Hardship and Inability to Pay N. WORK SESSION 1. Capital Improvement Program O. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (1) to discuss personnel matters, the Performance Evaluation of the County Administrator and County Attorney, and (7) consultation with legal counsel pertaining to actual litigation or other legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel. P. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION Q. ADJOLTIEiNMENT 4 ACTION NO. A-7991-1 ITEM NUMBER ~" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 9, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Request for additional funds from the Alleghany Health District COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Attached is a letter from the Alleghany Health District requesting additional funds of $8,000 to match funds appropriated by the State. Roanoke County originally appropriated $375,300 for fiscal year 1991-92. The state increased their funding level and the Alleghany Health District is requesting an equal increase from Roanoke County. This would bring the total county appropriation to $383,300. While additional funding to the Alleghany Health District would allow them to increase services to their clients, other state agencies such as Social Services have had to reduce their services as a result of state funding cutbacks. I am concerned that if we approve this request, other agencies funded by the state will also request additional County funds. Even without the County match, the Health Department has increased its budget because of the increased state funding. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends that the request for additional funds be denied. ~~~ ~~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by: Lee B. Eddy motion to allocate $8,000 from Board Contingency Fund VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy x Johnson x McGraw x Nickens x Robers x Dr. Hagan, Director, Alleghany Health District Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance cc: File ~ ® pA)t 1 A ALLEGHANY HEALTH DISTRICT Tel. 703857-7800 P. O. BMX 307 Fax No. 857-8991 VINTON, VIRGINIA 24179 Molly L. Hagan Serving the People of: Medical Director Allegheny County Bobby E. Carter Botetourt County Administrator Craig County Linda M. French R ~noke County ro June 7 , 1991 Nurse Manager Ci of Clifton Fo e City of Covington A. M. "Mo" Owen City of Salem Sanitarian Manager Nancy S. Harvey Nurse Practitioner Manager Elmer C. Hodge Administrator Roanoke County P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Dear Mr. Hodge: At the departmental budget hearings for FY 92, the Health Department's appropriation was reduced from $417,000 for FY 91 to $375,300 for FY 92, a 10$ reduction. At that time, you said if the State funded us more than the match money, we should come back to you for additional funds. Therefore, in order to match monies appropriated by the State and the City of Salem, we are requesting that our County appropriation be increased from $375,300 to $383,300. This increase of $8000, together with State and Salem match, will increase our total budget by $25,397. This is slightly more than the starting salary for a nurse or sanitarian. We would very much appreciate your consideration and approval of this request. Sincerely, Bobby E. Carter Administrator BEC/mac cc: Molly L. Hagan, M. D. Director ACTION NO. A-7991-2 ITEM NUMBER `~ , ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 9, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Request for additional funds from the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: i~ ~ ~~'""`" ,,iZ/~P ~~.~!i~iaw!/ r~ ~o .~wkyu~ ~sre~w~ -o~+~~~~..~ . SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Board of Supervisors' recently adopted budget for fiscal year 1991-92 included a contribution to the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau of $25,000. Attached is a letter requesting an additional $5,000 to help the organization balance their 1991- 92 budget. While this is a worthwhile organization, the Board has already adopted the budget for fiscal year 1991-92, and included contributions to various organizations. The County should not categorically deny any emergency request for funding during the year, but at this point we don't know what our own year-end situation will be. We also expect the revenues to be less in this upcoming fiscal year. Many Roanoke Valley human service and cultural organizations are suffering similar budget problems as a result of the economy and funding cutbacks, and I am concerned that if we approve this request, others will also request additional funds. RECOMMENDATION- Staff recommends denial of the request. ~~~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L Johnson motion No Yes Abs Denied ( ) to allocate $3,000 from Board Eddy x Received ( ) Contingency Fund Johnson x Referred ( ) McGraw x To ( ) Nickens x Robers x cc: File Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Tim Gubala, Director, Economic Development .. . ~ ~_ 2 June 7, 1991 Mr. Elmer Hodge Roanoke County Administrator P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Mr. Hodge: As Martha Mackey recently discussed difficult financial position in the fiscal year and we need the county's with you, we are in a approaching 1991/92 help. For the past five years we have been booking conventions for the upcoming fiscal year. Many of the groups were promised free shuttle service, central housing, and subsidized fees for use of the civic center as part of their bid package. It was anticipated that the bureau's budget would increase each year as the volume of conventions increased. Our success in booking these groups without receiving the funds expected has created a dilema for us. As of July 1, 1991 we are faced with beginning our new fiscal year with a budget which is $18,4b5 out of balance. The Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau will be providing central housing and shuttle service for all of the conventions on the attached sheet at a cost of $28,200.00. As you can see, 9,.298 of the convention rooms (25~ of total) are housed in Roanoke County. The City of Roanoke has agreed to find an additional $15,000.00 to provide these services if the County will provide the additional $5,000.00. Please help us. The expected first dollar revenue strictly on rooms and food to the county will be over $1.5 million. Expected tax revenue on these groups will be $75,000.00. ROANOKE VALLEY CONVENTION 8L VISITORS BUREAU P.O. Box 1710, Roanoke, VA 24008, (703) 342-6025 Mr. Elmer Hodge June 7, 1991 Page 2 Please don't conventions. industry by will need to $8.4 million our valley. let us fall short on Tourism is expected the year 2000. If we find an additional s~ in tax revenue it is our promises to these to be the number one don't nurture it now we ~urce of income for the presently producing for Sincerely, im Hinson President JH/pw Enclosure • ~,, ' ~ • p( • p O -a p N (~ . . . ~ . a • a ~., ' o ~ ' . y~ N _ ,~ C7 H "~ '~+ sr ~ O M O O ~t1 O~ O O N PG ~ ~ M n ~ C1 O~ ' ' „d \ . ' rl O~ ' ' Q~ • ~1 ~O tr1 O O O • N O~ O M 00 ~7 • U D•+ ' U y D+ ' E-i ~ ~O o ~t ~n ~t o ~O ~ o0 ~n N O U1 O O ~n ~t ~n I~ u~ N O O E'~ pG y p4 ~•• W O O O O O O O O O O O O O F~ o O o 0 o O o ~n o o O o 0 pq D O H [~ ~' O M O N O M N O .~ o0 M 1~ ~ N ~ '--i ~ ~ O N U i . ~ p4 ~ O~ .~ O\ ~ O~ '--i O~ .~ Q~ '--i O~ .-a O~ .-~ O~ ~ 61 ~--~ O~ '--~ O~ N O~ N O~ AI ti ff n o 0 0 0 0 o v v ro ro ~ ~ z z z A A ~ ~ E Q W V ~ lp ..~ - Z O M ~ loo M ~O O O I u'1 c~1 O I~ M N ~p M O O O N O O 00 cif O N •--~ ~t u'1 O~ C1 00 M I~ •-+ ~ N ~ .--~ ~--i rn ~ v N ~t O O N 00 n .a ~ N N M ~ ~ -~~ 00 L N U .~ U W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~, 00 N O O O O O ~ H •r1 N U ro L+' •r.{ N N N N N W O~ 01 N N O~ O~ O~ rn rn ~ v v v •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti h ti ~ • .n O N g H ~ •IC •IC •Ic u is is is is •It is it is it it ~ ~ U ~ O ~ - as , . m N +~ •~ ro o u •~ ~ ~ ,~.~ H .,~ W ~ ~ a ~+ ~ p G.1 , I ro .C ~..~ U~ b O N to ~ ~ c d O c C ~+ .-1 ro ~ O ~ ~ ~ O ~ N fA cad W G~1 O ~ ~ U V O O ~ O -~y a~ ~+ ~ U >-~ ~ a~ ~ •~ a •~ u G •~ o a v ~ ro ~ ro , ro -d ~ •~ o s~ 0 0 o ro ~ ~+ a~ ro u v o ro a a •~ o ~ as a~ v o U ~ ro +~ ~ ro >a V ~ ~ ~ U ~ H ~ ~ V ro Qi z !~ ~ 41 ~ •rl + i W ~+ b cn H O bD O ~ b N Q, G O 41 Y+ ~ to b ~+ W y .i ~ U N • H •r1 N ~ CA ro v vI U 1.+ ro 41 •r-I G1 •rl G O ~ }..~ W bU .~ 1-+ t~ Q' ~ H U G ro O ro z ,C U O G rx U O H ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ H U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ca t~ • • ~ p U • r.+ W O N A ~ ~ ~ U .a r•i ~ •~ 4 p ' f.i ' S ., ro (n ~,~ ~ ~ !A J •r~ r~ r-I ro P. !-~ •rl ,y m H W O V ro ~ r•+ o v rn 0 3 v ~ a~ ro v ~ .-~ v ~ ~+ ~, v -d w ,~ ~ ~ .n ~ ,.[ as ,~ .a a G -d ~ ~+ ~ u ~ .~ ro a o d ~ o u ~ o o c5 ,., ° a ~ ~ ~ ~ cti v cU o c v ~ ~ •r + ai ~ o ~ ch ~ c7 0 ~ ~n ~ v~ x ~ x z ~ o a A a v~ •u ~ ~ ~-2 S ERV I C E TO C ONVENT I ON S , ACC T ~~ 4 8 0 GROUP HOUSING SHUTTLE VENUE OTHER TOTAL AAU 200 200 SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN YOUTH 200 200 VA ASSN OF VOLUNTEER RESCUE SQUADS %~ 200 200 VA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE 200 200 SE BLIND BOWLERS 2000 2000 SOUTHERN STATES 300 300 ORDER OF EASTERN STAR %^ 2000 3000 5000 LIONS CLUB 600 2000 2600 PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF USA 400 3000 3400 SOUTHERN STATES 600 600 DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION 500 5000 5000 1000 11500 PRE ATTENDANCE PROMOTION TOTALS 2000 2000 $ 3200 $ 11000 $ 11000 $ 3000 $ 28200 * REQUESTED SHUTTLE DENIED %~^REQUESTED POSSIBILITY OF USING ALL MONIES TOWARD VENUE RENTAL ESTIMATED $5,000 NOTE Presently trying to obtain underwriting for Republican State Convention Bid. ACTION # A-7991-3 ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 9, 1991 AGENDA._ITEM: Addition of Projects to the Drainage Maintenance Priority List COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:. .~-e~ ~i~ '`~ .~~ EXECUTIVE SPRY: .BACKGROUND Projects P-56 through P-73 were presented to and approved by the Board flf Supervisors in June, 1990. A status of these current projects are shown in EXHIBIT "A", PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECTS. Staff is now submitting projects P-74 through P-115 for approval and inclusion to the Drainage Maintenance Priority List for FY 1991-92. These projects are estimated to cost $192,075, as shown on EXHIBIT "B", PROPOSED PROJECTS. Funding is available far projects remaining on the priority list from fiscal years 1988, 1989, and 1990. Also, funding is available for the proposed projects P-74 through P-104. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION EXHIBIT "A" PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECTS EXHIBIT "B" PROPOSED PROJECTS `~ ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS No additional funding is being requested. STAFF RECOMl9ENDATION Staff recommends approval of these additional drainage projects for inclusion to the Drainage Maintenance Priority List. ITTED HY: ~ APPROVED BY: rnold Covey, Director Elmer C. Hod g of Engineering & Inspect ons County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved (x} Motion by: Bob L. Johnson No Yes Ab5 Denied ( ) substitute motion to Eddy x Received ( ) approve Johnson x Referred McGraw x_ To Nickens x _ Robers x cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Cliff Craig, Director, Utility `/ - EXHIBIT "A" PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECTS STATUS OF PROJECTS PROJECT DATE APPROVED COMPLETE P-1 thru P-28 February, 1988 93~ P-29 thru P-55 November, 1989 85~ P-56 thru P-73 June, 1990 59 TOTAL PROJECTS COMPLETED 59 (81%) ~- DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE (PRIORITIZED) P-1. B. W. K-__ler Complete 6911 Golf Roan Cost: $2,500 Loman Road P-2. Penn Forest Christian Church Complete Penn Forest Cost: $3,500 P-3. Russell E. Taylor Complete 2824 Emissary Grive Cost: $40,000 Montclair P-4. Bob Hansel Complete 4514 Hammond Lane Cost: $25,000 Eton Hills P-5. Dot Eller Under Construction 3611 McDaniel Drive Cost: $50,000 Andrew Lewis Place P-6. George Warner Complete 3934 Sandpiper Drive Cost: $60,000 Penn Forest P-7. Harry Goin Complete 8167 Hunter's Trail Cost: $20,000 Belleview Estates P-8. N. J. Ho~brock Complete 314 Woodmere Drive Cost: $3,000 Lindenwood P-9. J. D. Thompson Complete 618 Landfair Grive Cost: $3,000 Lindenwood P-10.Richard Smoot Complete 1325 Viv,an Avenue Cost: $2,000 Dwight Hills P-11. Stan Barnhill Complete 3333 t~inaswood Drive Cost: $5,000 Algoma Park P-12. George Coughenhour Complete 3^-•19 Overhill Trail Cost: $37,000 Penn Forest P-13. Lawrence E. Norton Complete ?51C~ Pere For~_t Boulevard Cost: $1,500 Penn Forest 2 ~~~ P-14. Gene Tuttle 5551 Ambassador Drive Montclair P-15. Richard Looney 7340 Barrers Read Barrens RGc P-?6. Norman Caldwell 2233 Rurit.an Ro:~d La Bellevue P-17. David Crosswhite 5216 Burnt ~~uarter Drive Falling CreeF: Estates P-'8. Bridle Lane Sugar Loaf Estates P-19. Watkins Sugar Loaf Mountain Road P-20. Jack Browning 2844 Embassy Drive P-21. W. P. Meador 5516 Lamplighter Drive P-22. Hugh 'Fells 3663 Chaparral Drive P-23. Cheryl Beach 5444 Lakedale Road P-~4. Pauline Roberson 414 Cresthill Dri~~-e P-25. George Billups 3558 varona Trail P-26. Mrs. Charles H. Clum, Jr 5041 Craun Lane P-?7. Mrs. Vcla Ccckram 3549 C~lonv Lane P-28. Dennis Duff 5137 Waxmyrt-~e Complete Cost: $5,000 Complete Gost: $1,500 Complete Cost: $5,000 Complete Cost. $2,Q~0 Complete Cost: $2,000 Complete Cost: $1,500 Complete Cost: $5,000 Complete Cost: $1,000 Comp-~ete Cost: $25,00 Complete Cost: $1,000 Indefinitely Delayed Estimated Cost: $2,500 Complete cost: $1,E~00 Complete Cost: $3,500 CGmplete Cost: $2,Cu0 Complete Cost: $3,F00 3 ~~ P-29. Nelms Lane Complete St. Route #840 Cost: $61,000 North County P-30. John D. Kelly Complete 942 Starmount Avenue Cost: $12,500 Starmount P-31. Lynn KRrk Complete 4704 Wh~pplewood Drive Cost: $5G0 Branderwood P-32. Bobby Joe Hogan Under Constructi on 2814 Embassy Circle Estimated Cost: $20,000 Montclair Estates P-33. Raymond Hodges Complete 509 Palisades Drive Cast: $10,000 Lindenwood P-34. Palm Valley/Sun Valley Complete Cost: $25,000 P-35. Dick Simpson Complete 532 Cave Spring Lane Cost: $4,000 Nottingham Hi11s P-36. J. D. Porter Temporarily Dela yed 2745 Tanglewood Drive Estimated Cost: $1,500 Meadowlark P-37. John Glovier Complete 4620 Vest Drive Cost: $1,500 Eton Hills P-38. Ron Callahan Complete 5138 Springlawn Avenue Cost: $6,000 Springlawn P-39. Kim Hacoad Complete 2G38 Merino Drive Cost: $2,500 Castle Rock. Farms P-40. Th~~mas L. Wright Complete 27:=;7 Tully Drive Cost: $5,OCG Gen Care P-41. William T. Andrews Complete 5762 Pine Acres Lane Cost: $1,GG0 Pine Acres P-42. Samuel Irvin ~omplete X124 Eagle Circle ~~ost: $1,h~~G Penn Forest 4 -~ P-43 P-44. P-45 P-46. P-47. P-43. P-49 P-50 P-51 . P-52. P-53. P-54. P-55 David Smith 1446 Freeborn Circle Hamden Hills Donald Obenchain 37w3 Colonial ,avenue Colonial Heights Glen Unroe 4101 Arlington Hills Drive Arlington Hills Howard Boblett 5443 Cnatswort.h Drive Mount Vernon Forest Lawrence Morgan 4956 Wing Commander Drive Nichols Estates Walter E. Stokley 7887 Enon Drive North 3urlington Ralph Horne 1112 East Grive Dillard Court John W. Vaughn 4443 Wyndale ;venue Wyndale Gary Smith 1160 Vivian Avenue Dwight Hills Steven Bratcher 5402 Green Meadow Road Farmington Lake John Eades 4306 Fontaine Grive Cresth~ll Richard Ferguson 5053 Balsam Drive Be 1 1 e ti~eade Robert M. Bostian 5029 Sugar Loaf Mtn. Road Hidden Valley Court 5 Complete Cost : $1 , 0 ~~0 Negotiating Easements Estimated Cost: $5~0 Complete Cost. $5~0 Complete Cost: $1 .5'0 Complete Cost: $2,0~~0 Under Construction Estimated Cost: $3,000 Complete Cost: $1,560 ~~omplete Cost: $1 ,5C~0 Complete Cost : $5 , 0~~~0 Complete Cost: $500 Complete Cost: $6,OOC Engineering & Surveying Underway Estimated Cost: $20,C:;J Complete Cost : $50 , 0~~0 -~ P-56. P-57 P-58. P-59. P-60 P-61 P-62. P-63. P-64. P-65. P-66. P-67 P-68 P-69 Shelton Shepherd 5417 Gieser Road Grander Par!:. Robert. Boyd 2370 Carvins Cove Ro-ad Bill Murphey 4223 twin Mountains Circle Falling Creek Charles Wilkerson x;712 ~areenwav Drive North Hi11s Julia Kelly 2634 Green Ridge C}role Montclair Estates Ron Adams 4937 Hunting Hills Drive Hunt_,ng Hills Harold Ayers 341 Missimer Lane Crofton Wallace Slusher 2024 Wildwood Road Ronald Martin 1442 Freeborn Circle Hamden Hills Derrick Hall 3460 South Park Circle Southwoods Paul Rotenbarry 6522 Woodbrook Dri~fe Brookwood Geneva Witt 1156 Nover ;venue Dwight. Niiis Howard Ridg?way 5413 South Roselawn Road Laymar~ L<<wn Art D. LaP~_a~e X041 t~i~ -; n.-, ~ r i ,`,~, Cast I ? Roct~, 6 Complete Cost : $1 0 , 0 .'0 Engineering & Survey~na Underway Estimated Cost: gS,OC,C Complete Cost: $4,000 Complete Cost: $5,OC0 Complete Cost: $1,500 Complete Cost. $3,FvC Estimated Cost: $2,000 Estimated Cost: $7,50~~ Complete Cost: $2,0~~0 Estimated Cost: $1,000 Estimated Cost: $1,GC~0 Complete Cost: $5, l C'0 Estimated Cost: $5.0 Complete Cost: $4,000 '°_ P-70. Joe Thurston Complete 4614 Hazel Drive Cost: $1,000 Eton Hill P-71. J. K. Findley Complete 4655 West River Road Cost: $3,000 Wabun P-72. Sarah Crosier 3375 Kingswood Drive Estimated Cost: $45,000 Algoma Park P-73. Charles Flora, Jr. 5423 Cave Spring Lane Estimated Cost: $15,000 Nottingham Hills 7 ~~ EXHIBIT "B" PROPOSED PROJECTS ~ -,3 MAINTENANCE PROJECI-S (¢P.IORITIZED) P-74. Josephine Hall (RFA 89E291) 3931 Hawley Drive DESCRIPTION: Extend existing stormsewer system (Givens Avenue Drainage Project P-5) ESTIMATED COST: $30,000 TA.X MAP # 55 . fJ6-:3-1 1 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Catawba P-75. Janet Stump (.RFA 89E272) 3026 Fresh Meadow Lane North Meadows DESCRIPTION: Channel improvements ESTIMATED COST: $5,C)00 TAX MAP # 44.03-8-08 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Catawba P-76. Sandra Griffith ;RFA. 89E356) 4643 Huntr~idge Road DESCRIPTION: Channel improvements ESTIMATED COST: $3,500 TAX MAP # 40.14-i-4 MAGISTERIAL DISTRACT: Hol~~ins P-77. Marie LaFranco (RFA 89E377) 7090 Highfields Farm Trail Highfield Estates DESCRIPTION: Channel improvements ESTIP~IATED C~JST: $3,000 TAX MAP # 85,04-3-22 MAGISTERIAAL DISTRICT: Windsor Hills 9 P-78. John W. Hanna (RFA 89E341) 3035 Tree Top Lane, S.W. Penn Forest DESCRIPTION: Channel im~~rovement.s ESTIMATED COST: X7,500 TAX MAP # 87.09-2-44 MAGISTERI,~:L DISTRICT: Cave Spring P-79. Charles Mason, III 5520 Eveningwnod Lane North Lakes DESCRIPTION: Channel imprevemer~ts ESTIt~1ATED COST: w1 , 300 TAX MAP # 37.05-1-18 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Catawba P-80. Donald L. Dye (RFA 90E674) 3019 Purple F111C"1 Road Penn Forest DESCRIPTION: Channel improvements ESTIMATED COST: $4,Ci00 TA.X MAP # 87.13-5-: P~1ACaISTERA.L D~=STRtCT: Ca~ae Springy P-81. David H. Noble 5?27 ~:.hukar Drive, S. W. Hunting Hills DESCRIPTION: Channel improvements ESTIMATED COST: X1,975 TAX MAP # 87.08-2-1~- MAGTC:TERiAL DISTRIc::T: Cave Spr~nr P-82. Wi?liam Graybill (RFA 90E64E) 4444 Crastf~iil Drive. S. W, 10 ~ -3 Cresthi?1 DESCRIPTION: Channel improvements ESTIMATED COST: $5,400 TAX M.AP # 76.12-5-11 MAGISTERIAL. DISTRICT P-83. Alfred Lee Abbot 4354 Sheldon Drive Cresthill DESCRIPTION: Extension improvements ESTIMATED COST: $700 TAX MAP # 76.16-1-9 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Windsor Hills of storm sewer/channel Windsor Hills P-84. Mary Peterson 5402 Lakeland Drive Castle Rock. Farms DESCRIPTION: Replace existing storm sewer ESTIMATED COST: $1,500 TAX MAP # 76.18-1-10 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Windsor Hi11s P-85. Rosalee Wood 3569 Hyde Park Drive Windsor West DESCRIPTION: Repair existing pipe improvements ESTIMATED COST: $700 TAX MAP # 76-12-2-12 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Windsor Hills P-86. Pete C. Karageorge 8236 Birkdale Road (RFA 90E561) (RFA 90E574) ~ channel ~~~ DESCRIPTION: Install new storm sewer pipe and construct adequate channel ESTIMATED COST: $1.500 TAX MAP # 27.08-1-2 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Hollins P-87. Pinkard Court DESCRIPTION: General drainage improvements associated with road improvements in the area ESTIMATEC COST: $5,000 TAX MAP # 87.08-1 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Cave Spring P-88. Arthur Meador (RFA 9OEG62) 3502 Brandywine Aven+.ae Mount Vernon Heights DESCRIPTION: Construct adequate channel ESTIMATED COST: $4,000 TAX MAP # 77,14-5-12 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Cave S~arinq P-89. Samuel P~tazingo (RFA 90E598) 528 Stacie Drive Bali Ha; DESCRIPTION: Maintenance of~existing storm sewer system ESTIMATED COST: a80G TAX MAP #61.06-1-53 P~1AGI5TF_RIAL DISTRICT: Vinton P-90. Ruth Lipnik (RFA 9OE635) 3660 Bunker Hiil Drive Mount Vernon Heights 12 7ESG~RIPT:trJPJ: Construe ar~ec~uate channel ~ improve existing storm sewer system ESTIMATED COST : $ ~ , +~00 MAGISTERIAL DI`~TRICT: Cave Serino P-~1. Maurice Ro;~e tRFA. 90E645) 4404 ~~resthill Drive ~;resthill DESCRIPTION: Extend existing storm sewer system & construct adequate c{~~annel ESTIMATED COST: $4,500 Tp;X. MAP # 76.12-5-17 MAGISTERIAL C~ISTRTCT: Windsor Hills P--92. Bc~~ Shive~l ~ (RFA 90Ef376) 5521 Grandson Road Extension C J Carmacl;. Map DESCRIPTION: Replacement of existing inadequate storm sewer s~~sterr~ wit'. VDO"- par~:icipat~on ESTIMATED COOT: $3,200 T.AX MAf-~ # 7~~.05-6-15 ~1AGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Vv' in~~sar Ni 1 is °-'~3. Greg Barton (RF.A 90E6?3) 2774 Ivy Lane DESCRIPTI~JN: Exter:d existinG pipe ESTIMATED COST: $500 TAX MAP # 61.02-4-13 MAGISTERIAL !~TSTRICT: Vinton P-94. 8,:11 Gradwell (RFA 91E58S) 3570 Packwood Drive Green Valley 13 DESCRIPTION: Construct adequate channel ~. replace existing pipe ESTIMATED COST: $2,200 TAX. MAP # 77.18-1-43 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Cave Spring P-95. Sandra Murray 6348 Back Creek Road DESCRIPTION: Construct adequate channel & extend storm sewer system ESTIMATED COST: $2,600 TAX MAP # 98.04-3-17 MAGISTERIAL DISTRI~~T: Cave Spring P-96. James R. Craig 2808 F_llison Drive Robin Hood Park DESCRIPTION: Construct adecuate channel ESTIMATED COST: $2,000 TAX MAP # 56.03-1-13 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Catawba P-97. Ruth Ann Davis (RFA 90E568) 6102 Cove Road DESCRIPTION: Construct adequate channel ESTIMATED COST: $1,200 TAX MAP # 36.11-2-32 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Catawba P-98. Ken Smith (RFA 90E618) 5426 Doe Run Road Hunting Hills DESCRIPTION: Channel improvements 14 F:STIM~.TED ~",OST : $3 , 000 TAX. MAP # 87,11-1-~- M.AGISTEFIAL DISTR!_'T: ~:~a•~%e Sr~rrn~~1 P-fag. Frances S. Tyree ~~c5 Sunny S~~de Drive Bellemende DESCRIPTION: Channel improvements ESTIMATED CsDST - $1 , 0!~0 TAX MAP # c,6.08-2-2~ MA~IS~~ ERIAL tiiISTRICT ; Cave Spri n P- 100. Edward W{'r i snant 5117 Norseman Drive Viking Court DESCRIPTIOf~: Construct adequate channel ESTIMATED COST: $800 TAX MAP # 37 . 1 i)-,>- 1 4 NiA.C~ISi ERIAL DISTRI~:-T: Catawt>a (RFA 90E64' ) ( RFA QC?EG4 ~ 1 P-101. Dennis Putnam (Rf=A 90E656 i 840 Brubaker Drive, N.W. Wiliam Creek DESCRIPTION: Imprr~ve existing storm sewer system and install erosion control stone ES7~IMATED COST: $5,50? TAX. MAP # 07.0;-~.-6 MAGI STERNAL ~;~IS1-RI~";T: Catawt~a P-1It~%. Randy Gerber IKEA 91r<CBa; 3038 Pebble D~~ive Hamden H i ' l . DESCRIPTION: Construct adequate channel ]5 ESTIMATED COST: $1,100 TA.X MAP # 79.01-1-67 MA~aISTB~RIAL DISTRI+~T: `•:'inton P-10.3. betty Overstreet (RFA 91E~3S7) 5:316 Cave Spr~nq Lane Nottingham Hills DESCRIPTION: Channel ir)~provemen~,s ESTIMATED !CST: $LS,Out".t TAX. fulAP # 76.19-1-27 MAGISTERIAL DIf7TRIC;~: Windsor ~i11s P-104. %~-?.ton Prillaman (RB=A 9 iE7iC~ ) 61:aQ Darby Road DESCRIPTION: ~:,ons~•ruct adequate channel trom `JDOT right-a~-U~a.y to na ura~~ watercourse ESTIMATED COST; X500 TAX MAP # >8.~~6-6-11 MAGISTERIAL DISTRI~~T: Hollins F'-105. John Newman iRF.A 'a0E675) 8242 Loman Chive DESCRIPTION: Con~t.ruct adequate channel relative to possible rural addition ESTIMATED COST: $5,000 TAX MAF # 27.05-- 1 - 3 MAGISTERIAL DISTRIi~T: Hollins P-106. Summit Ridge ;~aad La ~3e1 le~!ue GFSCRIPTION: Joint project with VDOT, construct adequate cP~an~el to natural watercourse ESTIMATED COST: $2,600) 16 ^~ TAX MAP # 39.02-3-18,23 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Hollins P-107. Lero_Y Moran 5000 Carriage Drive DESCRIPTION: Improve existing Swale ESTIMATED COST: $1,000 TAX MAP # 76.07-6-3 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT; Windsor Hills P-108. Elbert Lester 2695 Eastland Drive DESCRIPTION: Construct adequate channel ESTIMATED COST: $1,50C TAX. MAP # 70.04-4-23 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: >'inton P-109. Jerry Arnold 4233 Arlington Hills Arlington Hills DESCRIPTION: Channel improvements ESTIMATED COST: $2,800 TAX MAP # 86.16-4-24 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Cave Spring P-110. P. W. Carroll 5529 Merriman Road DESCRIPTION: Channel improvements ESTIMATED COST: $5,000 TAX MAP # 86.16-3-29 MAGISTERIAL DISTRI~~T: Cave Spring (RFA 90Ef~50 ) (RFA 91E700) (RFA 91E738) (R-A 91E746) 17 ~ v +~^~, P-111. Betty Prater Berry (RFA 91E742) 3402 Overhil~ Trail Penn Forest DESCRIPTION: Install new inlet and stormsewer system - ,joint project with VDOT ESTIMATED COST: $15,000 TAX. MAP # 87.06-6-33 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Cave Spring P-112. Harry Williams 1001 Martin McNeil Road DESCRIPTION: Construct adequate channel - joint project with VDOT ESTIMATED COST: $1,500 TAX MAP # 44.03-6-50 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Catawba P-113. Deborah Lynn Marshall 7192 Bent Mountain Road DESCRIPTION: Construct adequate channel ESTIMATED COST: $1,000 TA.X MAP # 95.01-2-40 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Windsor Hills P-114, Robert Tunnell (RFA 91E725) 5522 Galloway Circle Castle Rock Farms DESCRIPTION: Remove debris from existir~q storm sewer line ESTIMATED COST: $3,300 TAX MAP NO # 76,15-6-9 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Windsor Hills 18 r~ P-115. W. H. Farthing (RFA 90E643) 1848 Dorset Drive, S.W. DESCRIPTION: Channel improvements ESTIMATED COST: $1,500 TAX MAP # 76.10-5-36 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Windsor Hills 19 ~ ""~~FF~~ Lf ~ i ~ ENNFIr BEAR ~~.f-~' y, __. ~ L~. I~„G i. ROCK ~ ~ ~ L .~ s'w ~C $`,a~ M~ ~p A' ~ ~I +.tt ~~ n ~ `'~~ c~ j CAl~S ~~+' S ~dr~~ ~` f ~iG fs '~ ~ dot ~E ~, ~,a ~.x.y GLENVaF~ ~J~Sq ~~~ 7rS.,, ~,..MIGMSCH~~~Y pf7 /'~"pr ,.. i :~~ ~ ~~~t~~ ~ ~ VICINITY MAP .;~u ;~, ~~~. ~ ~~5,~ ~'~ BNGINBBRING TA% MAP #55.06-3-11 JOSEPHINE HALL 3931 HAWLEY DRIVE 2U ~.3 NORTB .~~ P-74 ..17 - 3 Q NORTB BNGINBBRING TA% MAP #44.03-8-08 JANET STUMP 3026 FRESH MEADOW LANE NORTH 3"fEADOGJS 21 P-75 -~ Z!' NORTS .• ~6 ~~ ~~~ ~ / ~ / I.3 ~~* ~ J v .18 ~~ ~ v ~yA `.~, ,e 2 ~6 0 ti i •~ 1,2 '',~ 1.17 . J a 'a m ~ • m~ ~ ape 4e s 9~ ~ ~ 4+ 9 9 i f . a 8 7 T 9 a ~Js I O ~s ~ ~' ~ 5 ~ 18~ wh O ~9 • ~ , o '~ ~.J" ~ ~ ~ e H~~~t;d9 ~'' 4>>0 •~ ~~ , ~e°6 I7 s ~P,6 16 ? 15 ~ t 14 F , , 1 13 J , `+ ~( 1. . ~0 19 i5 ~ ~~~~~~``'' /~. `. . f 20 .~~ 31 ~ ,~q^ O -6 ~fl 5 ~'~ ~' ~>. ~'o ~. ~ B o °' ~ 4 8 ~ ~ , `~ 10~ 3' A1~ ~~ 50 ~V 1jo• ~~ '' ~ ~+ ~ 49 ~o0 3 h• J d ,.~ 2 21 ~ 193A n, • ~, 48 p 2~ .~ O ~ d tZ ~ h '} 22 ~ ~ 47 j ,• i i , an FZ ~ 0 0y • ~ 23 ~ ~P~ b' 46 A ~4~ c T ~m 51 146At ~ p c SANDRA GRIFFITH BNGINBBRING 4643 HUNTRIDGE ROAD TAX MAP #40.14-1-4 22 P-76 ~% b' ~~>4SS ~~ :,y 4 qQ 6~ Y.. ~ ~ Sa' SFARRYS HEIGHTS 0 ~ /+0 Mi~M:IEw~ ~~[f74E$RN y~y'!~ ' ".wHIOS r y j O ~~( YI ~` ~~ ~G~ 3 Q ~yµ ~' CGS FOREST ', M~NtA1N `'~ ~ pwY ~ T ;~ a ,; ~~E t t FA ' ~' ~ . 690 ` ~ o BEN , ~~-- TI ~;ti.~+, . JV I~ L a~,~ ~}` y r BENT MOUNT4IN RO ~ BACK CRfEKLJ ~ ~ ELE4t SM ', ~ ~p -----=~ -- - ~ VICINITY 1KAP 690 .qo~ ^. ._.../ NORTR .....~. MARIE LAFRANCO 7090 HIGHFIELDS FARM TRAIL BNGINBSRING HIGHFIELD ESTATES TAX MAP ~~85.04-3-22 23 P-77 ~~ - ~ Rq ~'J` ''+o ~ ~~ ~Y'4F ,•~. ~$ 4" ', `fir y - z,~a~ -- `e"`ymty~'.r,~ NIGNFIE(p5~(~ s ~. n ~ ~ ~ ai" ~ O !~ ~~ € 4~ - ~, o ROSE MAN' P Ty~' ~~. ~~~ ' f - ~ ~E..wl ~ ~~ L~ ..v+.a w ~` u ~$t' iV~OjV'Q~'r+~~'~ u~.ry~~~, wK,r_ ~4 ~ ~~~~e~. J ~ 7~, mac„ ~pq~,h~ LIN r ~~~ 1wr+T~,+4~ ~ ~w,asr~."roc~v ~",-,~,,~ r~` ,~Gt~~" fig! ~'~LIRN~~~s~` ry~`gJ' ffwi".SE^, ~ ENN FORE57 -i S ~ P~<E~ 721 - `~;, ~b s~"~~s M°'~M~ ~- ~ ° ~ ~~ ? t' - ' a' ~~~P- _ f ~ .,,~ _ • VICINITY MAP ~p~ ~°y. 'S~a s - ....v- .3 ~- NORTtI ^.~... JOHN W. HANNA 3035 TREE TOP LANE, S.W. 14'NGINBBRING PENN FORE S T TAX MAP 4687.09-2-44 24 P-78~ ~~ __ ~. ; ~~ wsitI iriaowsss°°x'421 ~\~ ...~ f ate. Go±C bi ..~~~ r ~ ~ ~, ~ '" , _ C ~ u - --- -- pw ~ . aP ~ ~ / ~~ c ) ,~,~„~ ~.~ . .VICINITY MAP ~~'~ , _ ~ g ~, ~ ~i ~~ ~~~ ~•.^ NORTS ^..~..~ 9 ,9A 6 3.85 A i9 a5 g~ 9~ ~S ° B 3jo ~ i6 6 / ~ ~ b g`~ ~9/S a~ OO \\~~ ~e J ~ ~593A J9~% ~ 6 e ~ j ~ ~~ 5520 ~O ,~ Z 9 ~~''°~ 20 Cass 51 A / c mo S42 Zoe a4 9 509 ~, 6 02 6 ~O a N 2a 5~2 a` ~A~oo ` ~ 7 s 5 ~~ ~2 ~Je~~~ ` ~ // ~o r O~ v ~~ ~ ~` i3` O~ CHARLES MASON, III BNGINSBRING NOR~HELAKESGWOOD LANE TAX MAP ~~37.05-1-18 25 P-79 RosECR~37yo ! •~FR ,Ffa~ '~''~rraa 3' ~ `W '~au+yy~$'',gRbr ~ ygpU N'$.(~~MT.V • AAR67N '-'".~~ri,~6~,.I~4 ~~ ~' ~J~' 4 t fOR~i4~G ~ \ gtrn'{~EEECf I ENN FOREST p~ N "Y~ Q "M 90 /- 9 ~ ~r.lr 21 ~ MN~URK ~ ~c r djpC `_ ~ J 4O NIC ~`' --~j.S1 ,5.~i,,.f~~ 4~~t~~`/ P?~' 2 4 Y l~~~S/z~ ~' 3 ~' o~ ~ F4 ~,• `~ _.M VICINITY MAP ''$' ~~ a~~~R.~ ; .~i/ ; ~j V NORTB .^^~..~ •' - b o ~~~ h / ` 6 ~i6 ,Z . a~ ~ / Bey b o iy h rn tih / yh b~D ° / w ~~ v" /..._\ / h1 58 'ss ~2 '>7 ~e / ' L~ 5 25 ~s . .; °'' 22 .ti e3 3 J 23 ~`~' ti 0 391 / ti e~ti S 22 • ~ `ti, / A~ i ~y JG ~p ~ / 39 a 23 ,, / 6 ~ a ~ ~~ .~ 39 a . 24 , ~. _ e~ y `P I' n°i. ^ ~ ~~ • / ,. 15 5 v ~a v ~ ~ .. 0 °0 14 SNGINEBRING TAX MAP ~i87.13-5-3 DONALD L. DYE 3019 PURPLE FINCH ROAD PENN FOREST 26 P-80 Sri Rt1KTON Arnc[irc ciulP f~,p ~'h '~. `~~, o c ,y~p,~ CMG( ~~ OUCN ~9p ? OF ~.. ~~ `\' r~~ ~ 904 O . g,~~,~,~ :'~'n"'"'nroK~` '~ 67 4__!?~ / Y R~ ~ XUN tiA,~ R[D~~ ~ C iluAf r~ . 1 r o .: s ~" a ~ rs M*ya . ~ , r ~ESTERFi~D ~ ~ o ~ .1 rt ~.eot. EDEN AV - p ~ tt ~~a~Ct O ~ _'tY CHURUIILL w~ Z yg o t ~5 'DD VICINITY MAP ¢ ~,~ n~ ~~ .Ti SKY1 ANC DR i - ' nl_ As . i ^• r NORTB e 1186 10 . ~t, Q . t,~. /~ 45 ~' 13 F 1 N° U 14 \ ~, i2 . ~,~ , 99 '''` ' is ~I .E,,, .•r, _• I6 ` Q l9 17 ,,~ a~ v ! r •j1t G Ouoil Valley Condominiums z///6a~~~ `r~ . Q See Map 8708 Insert" / ~, •E.,, 9 I•, 40r / Q - P/0 8805- I- 1 / 10 ~ Q t ~,• "` ~, = 100 ,o .._ ' 16 \ 6 ~ . J~ 15 s:,y 51:1 2 \` „a. ,. -~. ~z `,.j 13 ~rn '" ~ 19 18 ~ szo~ o~ 17 sz// szis o~ ~,~~M :° ,b S1r61,z i :sue f O~ lh yep 111011 ~o e 5 ,_~~ ~ N~ 1 ~o (~ 52l9 /~ CemeAvy \ \~ 1.03Ac R~ ~55~ BNGINBBRDYG TAX MAP 87.08-2-14 DAVID H. NOBLE 5227 CHUKAR DRIVE, S.W. HUNTING HILLS P-81 Z'1' NORTB ..~~. ~~ I q,~•, ~ 15 _ ib o 12 13 14 • I 9 IO II - 44/a 7 g - r~ ' 4504 4446 4440 /s ~° ~o5a3 i22 45/6 45/0 '' s ° co vo ice ~ s c I ~ e . ~ /? +1 i3 ' B ~, ~;~z 85 03 ;,, j/ S~OJ y~ ~~ '2' 1y 19 6 I T IS ° - O 19 w IB ;0 21 ,`0p 2~ . .o a 24 N 23 ~ 22 z ti ., °' F 27 ~ 26 25 m 28 W m m ° ~ ~ 4417 444/ 4435 4417 44?/ 44// 4403 ~ 45/7 4525 45// 45G5 yo - to nt 'r a ~~ ~ ~' ~ ~ Dr. ~~ _ st hill - C ~- ~- -~ _ do ~` ,~s~ re es n~ "5 n0 I I 443? 4424 44/8 44/0 I 4404 1 _ 16 w 17 6 7 g g 10 II 12 13 14 15 ~ • N • • •~ ~~ • • • A • N '• 4528 "' 4520 I 45/4 `s 4508 :450 ~ 444 =~ • ~ - u~~ a.~,~ ' O 4438 ° o 7 r /1 r+ ~e /5 I A y~ ., 4~ A~ _ 5 ie PS p.., 'E _.. _ IJ l4 S ny ip 5.'91 ` ~ /R ~~ 1J '~^~ T rH •,c' 16 _ i 9 ,,n h ~ ~. ., 49 48 ,o 1. 1/ i. ,a • N 47 0 46 ~ ~ ~ 1: a52/ 45 44 ~' T b L^ ~ '~ 43 ~i 45/3 507 4437 42 4I ~ ~ 4so/ g447 44/7 40 ~ 39 \T 664 1~ _. 4427 4379 KI rk w0~d 4407 ,t~ ~ f 440/ 4389 ~ ~~ ~~ q~ r' ' ~ ` \~~ WILLIAM GRAYBILL 4444 CRESTHILL DRIVE, S.W. BNGINBI4RING CRESTHILL TAX MAP 476.12-5-11 28 P-82 ' 3 ~. V P~, •Vy7Z,V.w nCJ'r E ab !^'~iEtrra _ rEEEr MNS+ "'. r J -'~wr ~ `th',~~ ~ ,` + H ooc` JGRST NIL_~ ~ > oa o trP ~ ~,/... _y_p?,~. ~} . VAU K T^ r ~ 0 4 g oa:.r ~ PuR Q. ~., ~ a ~~, s~.5~, .,,'r?truac +:y & g `~ S i CORDER, DR s.+5 Q g 3 P aoVrr V' Ti~ ~ ~`~ ~o .v 5'~ fOtl'a~HE . ~ .oR I H~$TURN~ ~ P~ ~ +G~a~ 5: Y 'cREStH~LL r',~',NO r.z •+..~ a}, R;YEV. -- - `9 ` '~ V~ ~' Rr;, H~~~ Da, w ~ '~cd- RD. J' ~.~/ '•, ~. ap ~, AC~QI q~„;r ki ~ RESTHILt ~ ~ ~eROw roy`~ ~ --.~' `'~ RRW ,J~ g ~~ceaoo" ~ .,8E ~~yC 22 OQ YDSTEJIW MEX+ETS \ 419 ~ ~ °° ~-6/~ ,YQ/~~~~}oa ~' a ~+."~'`. ~ . _ Q, ~!'"~ ~ g ~,tN ' ~ 1647 H4~ _~R t'`~0~~~~p1""r,~~ SRI API-.r~ ~ a®R _ gr" W~7 L r~r 8 no ~J is°"~L10Sr ~,%fy .~.....,~ LQ ~p;Y Gr ~ w~iA ~ K . ~ 9 rr~rra - + ~~.+e. "'MiT VE °` $o ~ ,p; ,v~ ~p~p~@ d' ,~ 100°~~ !< ,,,,,, ,~ VICINITY MAP a " .. c.'~R'.~~NG~L4W 662 ~ ^ ~~ o~ ~,.r'191 ALFRED LEE ABBOT 4354 SHELDON DRIVE BNGINBI4RDYG CRESTHILL TAX MAP 4F 76. 16-]-9 29 1~. ^ .. ^ NORTB P-83 ~~, ., ~a RO O S 'y° ~ cEnm «y °7.'°"a/ ~'~ CAS1~~ awuow ,f 6 -- - ---_ ~~ MTVE a ~ WESin°~i~o ~ grow cF ~ ~~ (~^~ ~ .419 ~ Y~ ~ 3 ~ ~+ ~' 9 4 8 ti a~,,,~t 4 '~ ~ ~' «p~ _ c~orc '0a s; ~b y ' F ~NGKFFT.VV L3~ 662 ; ~ 2e'~ '~ ~ F ,Ilu. , CASTLE4tOCK FMS ~~ta.r ~ ~• ~ ~ ~t ` ' ~yTT~ ~ t,~uoowac 4~~.C'~3/WQ~K. jj.~! o~°~i~o ~ qq NOTTINGM~ W0 ~ 9~.trpM f.~~ ! G~~ ~"~Ck~pa, °.F °cf HGTS. [avE SWUNG u M {R RO ~ • ti°v Qp~ `t CQ COop~~LLS +`~~'1 ytvwaH. oa ~' b~,~ ~Y ~ ~ MO+a t' °~'Fr ~b'° ~~1~OT~ G,a'tiiDF"- g16 £10N MILL ~"--- ~pNTEAgC4i HI pP 1652 C. 79ttW ~~cr\ ~ ~vowin lk g r°` ~~ r 3 ff sw' O caSO M ° eo CaN7ERBURZRh ~' ~~b _ fi i E,~'t °~ootonia.7y, °9 720 p°s. '~o aaaK 'va.. ~i~• ~`+~~~ VICINITY MAP ~~ 8 ~ °~"",~:: ~..~a+' '" .. NORTB ~~' ~~ Lakeland / .>r~e ;gin 1l) ~0 25 Oq Oi r3~5 14 ~ 13 ~I 12 ~ _ I Or. a5 ~ °I c • _ »bi ---- 5349 ~ 24 n:~ ---' 7.77J 7332 .., ~ ` ~OVe .. r 25 ~ )~ 2 '+: t ~ - ~ b; 9~ o 26 4 , 8 3315 -° ij y _ 9 ~ ° 27 33C cQ 1_ ti 28 _ ,',ti j, Spring 29 r E ` 10 ~ _ _ ` o _~ ~ ~, 'Ha so ` ~ ~ "O one ~~, 9 ~ '` ~y'S - .~,.>tia N ,~ ., ~ Rt. !S ~ 8 3 e3 N P ? 0 5*?6 5~?~. 33iG ~~ \L° 6 m Zt ~ I I ~ V A 53Q? y~ 5 ,r ;~ ~ 3360 a ° 4 _ k. ~ - 15 ~. ~ Zt ~ ~y 9~ .168 A a ~, 3 t ~ B ~ T 2 yJ n f~ ~ \ ~~. '~, 'r 6 A' 9 14 `., r. B .0 ~ . 0~ 3~ C 194 0~ 0_ 5 39 ~,,~~ 6 O 4 4 ~ ~a P ^ E 23j A6 ,• ' ;C F F 52 0~ y ,.59 ° ` ~ 16 J 1Q' r9 iv ,3 e Get ' .~ z 6e S a° ~ 335517 U 3363 w ~ o sggs 3 ~?7 MARY PETERSON 5402 LAKELAND DRIVE BNCINBBRINa CASTLE ROCK FARMS TAX MAP ~~76.19-1-10 30 P-84 ~'"~ Lr NORTH ~~ }2 79 • ""59 ~ HYde ,5 j eo zz Sg 9 \ • „T 41 3904 ,` 42 -, ~"'~, 3742 "' o ~3 I 3736 • e C9 ~ ~ 372q f o or ;~3~ o bss .~ w ~~ 3720 ~~ 2 ~ Whileha~l 40'46 - ~, 5, `-: • ~ ~~ - 34 33 `~ a~~ ~' 37/4 j~ ~ ,~ nb~° • 0 32 ~. 'e 3 26 • ~,~ 5 , ~ ~ 4042 ~~ 4054 ~~/g •42~ 4, , ~ ~, C I r. ~ 31 q ~ °~ s 4226 ( 2 R-. X741 4060 r , ~ ~r i nor ~ .:36/B ,.°e 1748 ~J~ X56, i59) I n .~,~ ~ ,H; 4L ,, 28 9j n Q 5 9 ~ ~ 29 ~` "36/Z ~ 6 5 • I 4045 - ~ `6i,. I ,.6 ~ ,4 ° 4053 4059 ,~ •. ' ,2 ~ +n b S '~ 36 06 ~' Y 3607 i ~S, S a r 6 > J z 4 i19 eo ~ -~~ es va 43097 ~~, ' ~"'ss a 12 '^ 4325 ,~ 4r g, • ~ II a 432/ v '~90~ _~ Z,~ +i _^' p 43/7 ~ j ~ 8 J~ ~ .., .a ~' `' ep ~ 26 ~, ~ 43/3,5.. ~ ~ ~~ ,; • 93 r 52 ~° 0~ i" ~ ~~' II ~~ si _ ~ _ ~ LL 4328 ~% aQ\ ,.: cos P/0 ~_ ROSALEE WOOD BNGINBBRING 3509 HYDE PARK DRIVE WINDSOR WEST TAX MAP ~~76-12-2-12 31 P-85 ~ -._ o Lta Eq~ \~ ', i ----a. - F _.. , <:~ r ~ "~ e: ~~ _ ~~3 =~ •DOA~vi O~ .. _. _~4 M'Y Rf y~ y~l INIT'Y MAP ,. e~ ~~~E ~p ~~ 7J - 3 Q N NORTB ...~.. 0 9 ~e ~~ ~? i y O I . ~,-. Jo ~9 ~, ,,~ ~ .._ 92?6 _ 1 10 ~ ~`f oa e2. s cj ?,, 2 4 3 u c 0\ / t Jn ~ /• J~J ~ ti e2'v 7 ~ 1~ H "' ;C / . / 3 • e • 10. I 8 4C ~0 I ~ / `6 ~ g \ grU4 /J~ . 3 39 :. ~~ ~ . v J / s s 919 ~ ~ ~~ n`'J ~a s, O, ~,~ti 5 0' ~ I i~J I `O ' ~ B/SE 1.74 Ac b ~ ° ~ry '~ a` \ 6 ` 12 ,ah J •? 4 B/ J7 n r ~j .ti 6~ o ~ ,s 2 +~ ~ ~ 13 %~ n s N ~. 699 0 b 01* s B ~ :~, e n ~~ 3 ~ 14 9~Zr 9 x/36 ~ 1 n ~ .~ `t, ~9 96 • ~ O ° - T a u \ N i~ _ / 15 r ~"~ BNGINBERING TAX MAP ~~27.08-1-2 PETE C. KARAGEORGE 8236 BIRKDALE ROAD 32 P-86 r _ .~..~_.~.. _ z ... ~, ° .~ r +~ "~ ~ .o, wa. ~ COPPER 1 ._ ~'~ ~ - ~ ~~~ ,. So P. r7, A~ CROFT ~' . 1'S~ ,,~. +~ A„ BRIfO PIYILIOM ~ ~~ -,TH~'f~l MIL4S Y ~ Y1tl BEUTAH ~b°HTS A,,55 e~ ~ ~ i.w ~'.~1, l~ ~ - poeRisro~rm i .~ ' " , •ri' ; IT Q1. - ~. P=py ~ Q`QIIL R ~~ Y' 9S~ GRIiiIN RDf .Fi .." 41M __th( ~ ~~A DQ , s t frQe:e~oron o' ~p °c. PMP~SQ'~'[ }'~~ ~~ tr ~ S il".~tccRS ~er"jf°~t ~~ ~~s1t, ~ t~ i rt~ s~ pi krpr .nxrrrc nuR~' E J~ ~i `~i. ~ ~ ° tamo~4 v a n ~ ~(~76 _NU'ROMi R~~ ~RR~ ~~' m ~~ ~~,°• YICINIT7' MAPff `~\\ ~,~„r '. ~RF.YLi OLKF ~ .` ~l - Nn .~ w~ NORTR ~.^~^ .~~ s W N ue o00 ~~~~ /~ 62 ~ IS\ r j e' 9\ 17 ,~ 4 O JI)N ~ P~aa ,~'~18 of /y rFSx. b q, •a~ . ae~s ~p 5 o s^ /• .221 / ~,~.,b R \.~ / .6 10 / J Jo~~e i~~6 x~ ,el ~ ~ I I Issy" ti~ 22 " zee °o x~ 1s~' ~'4• ~ .~_. O ~ 121 ~a y ~'• ,fie ~. ~ $ It` ~~ r •O s ~ze•si 111 % e' ~-. 24 N~ ~2 ,~. • • 7 ' ~ 55 ~' \ • m Y 7 B ~~ Nf 10~/ Q~nM ~: f • Can/y ScAOO/ BoarO ~ o/ Roanoke Cwnly ue2 ~~s •° 4 50Ac IDI 2 `` .~ 9 .D 61 ~ 238 Ac ICI 2 12 Ac V 6 JJ 64 1'( n1 .~ u 4 ISSS '1' :l 111n ~ U 69 u ~~ \\ boe o~• 4 a ii G~pp \ ••• • R ~ \ ~Y' • :' fr ` ~ s '0 6~ eP 91sIS a+ ° a 66. ~~+rr ° ~ P • • c5 •~• 13 a~ ~ , 14 :`N• ti' 10 J 5~ IIy6 121 .,_ ' 99 I"'-`!I~ 15 LI ~ • ~~ 16 ` r Q 5 ~ '(' r~ 18 /~. I 1 17 I Cemetery 1.034c r~~ BNGINBBRING TAX MAP 187.08-1 PINKARD COURT 33 N NO V T o~ %. 7 0 ,~ O• O 7 °s W O 7 O P-87 -. b 0" `''sc~'~a 4''~~ °a~ } KG~ '°q arsE ~ S j ~ ! ~P•n",. ~ ~ ~ rYY y ~ "irG `~~ l.r~ G~^ LSO r plOf~i (9 ~ ~ Icl Fr _.`~ ~nK os~"~~.•~' S~ a ~ r~ p~ p v.vg4f ~ 'k i, ,~Sp'~b I iNA4(' ~/~Cw s~,~Qt~• OP ~Cq~~{y~ P°A'~p'. ~•• T o°~iRF,yAl~trY l ~ ` 4 4b ss ~P`'- 3 cr "~b ryYVyo~O o(.O~No R~pi ~e~, o?+ eY~~y av. ..yp. ~~ -~ ~ ~y/~, i ~' ^ `•~ +a~A, ~ ~ COPPER 3 E?ON HILL ..^m ~ A' f0~..; ` VICINITY MAP np~~~ q~ CROFT y ....o..~,.,~. 'b 1~ - 3 Q NORTB ...~^ ~, / 5" ~6 W =~: ,,,~ ti0 y~ 7"• J d P~~ • o~ .: QzF 1 ~ ,, , g.. ~. ~ S d N f `'` 3a3a do 57 / iq+N b = ~ sa 5E I I o0 s ~ J2 1 0( ~ JC 9 X96, 4/n[on MiiDO• t .~~ O -L"~' J J CAvrtA a~ 'J 5t 16 3y goo ,,,~ 5 J. 0 f _?' ~ . ~, 3ai6 52 T'e ~. 15 9' J6 6 / tiC J - py 0 2° J~ •• J szo ~• ~ J as n ~ 5 54 h' J / ,.c jr,1 18 ~' S 37 so ~~ao 48 9` `~,' ~ q 181 , Gsi~ ,g4ia 38 18 ,~19 ~ s~ ~titi / p 5~ 47 ,h , ~, 'r H 17 1 JQ ~ / ~ J y i~z. 20 7 .5^ s 39 ze z ?? 341?' ,p v 21 ~ 36. •Jazo ~ ~ 17 ° ' ~ 67 ~, • •' ~ _ s 45 c ~ s L~ ~^ Ii 6 b J~ 2,9 ~tJ .2 6 ~ r~ i ';j ~ 6 (~ 68 'fli 3519 `' ~y22 3azr5 ;.3x26 z1 44 s ja,. J~ ~• 41 ,~ r ~~ •' rg / ~ so .g 15 \,p ~^.3525 o~ 23 so Jc `42 23 ~`' ~ a 69 ., ~/ 3g20 'u 36 ~~ s 2, . c°i~ 24 3427 so ,~ ~~ 1a ` ~ 70 03 • •• 3g30py :.~ ~. '~, 43 3 ~ 3531 / ~ ~ `Q 33 ~ ~ 's 3438y ~ ~ 2oJs • _ Ja ~'' m9 'gyp, 71 32 3s3~ t 17`0 ~, ' 73 26 39 ~ n \7 iH c~ '?543 3443 ~ Z a ~ ~i 0 ~ T2 1. ?o ~ 7 °O b i / / ; IS, 9`~O a/ y~~ '92~ '?~s 3 S 53 5 5 ~ 1<° 74 ~ ~' • ~~~ 7 N 0 / 3336 54 2g ... ~~ ,~ . • .A o. ARTHUR MEADOR BNGINBBRING 3502 BRANDYWINE AVENUE TAX MAP 477.14-5-12 MOUNT VERNON HEIGHTS 34 P-88 '.~ - '~ ~ r' NORTH ~. 1 38 3 t, 10 TPr~ I~ '/ ..y ~ /S -j " 25 *• 72 49 ? ~• u5 ., ~ 71 ~ .~ V Tv ._ ' 70 51 'Qi s O~ 14 52 ~Py ,.~ 69 ~ ~' 13~ ~ ~ ~ I6 68 ,~ / ' ~~ F~,~ ~ .~ d II 22 ,` 10 ` 66 n \ boo a ~. 23 l.. ~ 15 65 s ~ 9 24 ~~ ~ 64 tioi, ~ 17 , ~'~ ~ 7 ., any 3 26 ~, 48 2. ~ '~ 6 -~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ / 1 3 q~ ,9 ti 19 ~' .? I 57 ti . ~ -'~ 62 ~ • ' . 61 SAMUEL MAZINGO 528 STACIE DRIVE BNGINBBRING BALI HA I TAX MAP I~61.06-1-53 35 P-89 ~_~ ~~~i M~TUR~ a yPJ ~R,`~ n~v~yr '.. ~ J[FFERSCN @ n 7 ~~V ~'E ,.. • c4AK y, ~ 9~ °vc.+,~ an. PJm ~ ,i4~~ ~ ~. 2p0~~1y'%~ `~ $ .%~y~? -S f~ p-ya(~r H~ r "`^Z.tQ ~p, p-1'~~,L $ Qai '~± x 0~ PE89.4 tC7~t ~• ~ ~~ qk ./ ~.-,. ['~nJ~ ,tR ,_ ~.. 9 M T V E Pf'°``(., $ E~ o vo ~ rd ~ ~s g ~,, ~ ' F _` ,t C ~ ~~ LSO pE 9 ~ ~ cnrt. \ ~ o D ~ - . FE b~ d ~~ Eae.c. ~ ~ ~ *` `A EE f R' ~.,~ E~' .~K ! „~~,~E;~ ,Pv' ." ``$o P P o° V '~'v'r 5G ~Jf' EA' 9 ~~ w~ ac ]• c 'f ~0.ay o~Gw~bs~az~. ~.,~ VICINITY 1KAP ~ `°~: ~., r~ NORTB ~. RUTH LIPNIK 3Fi60 BUNKER HILL DRIVE BNGINBBRING MOUNT VERNON HEIGHTS TAX MAP X77.13-1-40 36 P-90 °q g ~p~ ~~ g CRESTHILL "'E~d+o« /~-~ ro~`~ p 4R 10 giY`A y~uF OP~~ g t«8~~ 16tl2~y3~ dc•c 22 p0. rO5f 6'_ ~~~~d&'~ Vu~D NFjGN75 a ' OR ¢ 0~ ` 8 I ,pos _ ~ .. ~Q? °u ~f.1o~ 0. ~"~ P ~' m "~ $v ~ y1 ~yaC~ r f SHE ~ 0~'t'„ J~J.t r`O TtY ~~y~ 7~' fK v ~~,{~~s a ~o- ~~~ c~.,y "~°g~~^°c i,;0 ~~N'~G}°o~, ~ip1~4i~~~ c ' ~~ ~`RO "~~P~~- ~.. O ttwm~ ,- 419 ~ -._~~/ ~~ c`o ~, $~'+9 ~. A3T 9i.ESROCK~FM ~B FjNG~UYR bbz < 'W'~7~`~4~Y~~Wpl~Qp~ '`~.,,~~, ~,pPFS~3~~~L `b J . GREEN~DOW~i~MiNGTON ~ C~ yrq"^'IC ~ d9 ['~4Q (F~" _.y E~~ p op yyy Nan DR ~'t .~vo oc a Qis VioHr `e~,~d ltylfDUU~ ~9i~Gw i~a~" oy ~ c,_ NOT HATS AM c+iE saviN6 SD CNE SPRANG L~ ~~ Rn _ clr ! oy ~~ o° RF f'~ n 4 LUWNI pl ~~' .~ VICINITY MAP '"°~° <. ~'~~.~" P~ a'prj ``'~4 ~~ .~..^~~~ ~~' NORTB .^..~.^ 032 4 424 15 = 16 ~ '^ ~ : 14 : mT - 6 56 13 I 0 ~ m 4419 °2636 ,~ 1ss ~a ;j 95 90 73 90 .. loo IOS 4i I JS A v jp 73 +I m I X2642 j, 2 _ o 21 ~ 0 19 ~ 18 N I 20 P .O . N I ~ a v 4403 4435 4427 44p/ 44// ~ 7 '~° \6910 °sv , /6'S 51 9 jd ,~ "~' 49 4370,~t ~ _pp 436? • T ~ 4366 `~° 13 9 s 167 5 I~~2 99 g46J;57B ~ ~ A05y c ~c, 80 .. ~- 10 ~. ~j '4 4,73/ 43350 58 ~ 59 ~ 60 ~I 61 - 62 ~ ; 436/ ~ 4349 4343 4337 _ 4, s3 ~ 90 7o A I .. ~~ ~_ 4~., ~- Rt. 1658 ~- ----- .~ ~° Qf. "~ .. - o„ i 13 99 ~ b 90 .. 95 tl0 tlC ,. ~~. '~ ~~~ 4332 4326 4344 41738 2[ m 2 ~-. ,~ ~ a a 4432 4424 4418 4410 44 ~ "_. = 19~ ., ~~ ~', ~ • N 14 15 ~ a ni 12 13 N 4356 ~ 4350 54 s g4 t 14 j ~, ~, ~ _. ,~ i43B N ° 1 t92~ e_Ola -~4 _.,~ ~. _,~ 4595 i00 ib 9 6~ ~/ ~~ 0e -'9 jp S9 ~ 6j 5 ;~ 4, ~o ~ W 33 ~. 32 ~_,, ~.,~ 39 ~~ ~ u' °' iR 13 ~'~ ab / " • 52 s 4339 v 433? %~ SS ' 9 zo ' 28 :6 02 ~ ~ 4347 17 11 ~ ~, 23 8742 ~5 90 2 ~!. i~ ?8 E 4 2 C 4 .7o A i y 5 Og a0 i "~ y 6 77 3Gf o ~ ~ ~ ~ 4355 Kirkwood ~ . ~ Zn 11 ~3 t~ ~ 12 `'4 a 37 ~~ ,0 ~ / 20 7ti 2 ~ 6 v ' a 6264 \p2 .. a 6 .! 38 y 43 ~ ~ 6763 a ~\ 5 6 42 N 41 ~ D ~°° ~6rO ,9~'t s 4348 4337 0 ~, 4an• 40 v ~ /~ ' 0 4 ~-' qo 366e m 39 ~ „ 427 "' 4379 \io o~, 4356 ~ 7 4407 4366 3 ~ a 4343 i n 440/ 4399 ~o /~~~ \a~ ''~ nti R °r 29 „ ~ 'e~+ 3 ay a • 1~ ~~ 90 '.v9~ / ? "246 9 8 / O ~~ ~~- / e69 ~~4372 1 ;~ 9 °~J 4353 ~ r `2 49 . 1 l ...~, MAURICE ROWS BNGINBBRING 4404 CRESTHILL DRIVE CRESTHILL TAX MAP ~~76.12-5-17 37 P-91 "~ NORTH ~,J °~ 's~ e ~ , a / 22 l ~ 4, ,? • ~~. ~ ~9 3 ~ ~ 9 l 2 I' . N -sue oi ~D 5~ •16 ., 3 ,_ 75 ' .5 • • to I t~. _ 4 q ~ .~ ~ J Q~ ti~ 17 16 °s~ ~ IS 19 _` 20 ~ t~,ra ~,a4s 531 5!?7 ~ij9 ;: ~a ~• ---- Rt 686 .~- -~' --_ ~= 1~ ,. S .5 e. :, ie5 r 7J 72 9 J /~ b . g m 8 p 13 °, 12 n II p 10 s ~ ~ ' ~ ~n ~ ^, 1745 52)9 tl ~' S3C'7 ~ S~~'J S`S. a Ob ti " ' ~- Ext ~~ ~ Rood ~~ ~~' ~ .. 5?31 9i \ ` 5302 5246 520 ~ 5322 5308 5354 5346 I 53?9 ~ 5340 533q ~ ,2 w i 42 j 43 4~ i ~ 44 45 IN r 48 ^' 49 i.v 50 •• yi 39 , ~ 40 o _ T „ ~ m I. _ T S s3/4 46 47 n s P i ~ I 1 I ., r~ 6 eRJn c.' ~ .•71'. 04 09 ' 6 i'• . In q6 , 35 y y479 84 J9 6 4 ~ ` ~ 34 •.9 f~ ~ J7 ~ J2 _i.~ JI 33 r ~ Js /2 !6 7ezo 32 ,a/ ~ I ~•• ~ez6 31 ~, e 30 5 A6 -E iea4 I 29 ~ 28 ~. ~ a6 'S ie4o " 27 26 I 25 24 Hs ` Br;d ° 'A /a4e ~ • ~e ~~ /856 , 9' ~ bs `` , - ~ , ..,,,. ~~ r ~ ~aan ~.' ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ BOB SHIVELY 5321 GRANDIN ROAD EXTENSION BNGINBBRING C . J . CARMACK MAP TAX MAP ~i 76.06-6-15 38 P-92 r _ ' v ~~~~ i .r, '~ I s? ~ ~ ,..651 ~ 9 T O,y Q~ ~p ~` 1 i g i, t NEBRID ~ . 4CRE5' 09 ' • 6 TO,/ o i/ ~ ~ ~~_ J~ ~S/ / . Sri y ~ P OOf ~~1 ~ I SPRING G OvEp ^, ~a° w~cw S ~ ~ SPRING GRO \/~ ~•o M14C~.- ey s , _ as e'^~ +F `J~~v~y~+r~! ,,T ~e~~ n1AR S VIC7NI7Y MAP ~~ ~~F,.vv~<-.. , „ . , NORTS ~~ s N `°~ 53 Nm °'. ~,6 ~, RC B S ~~ ~ is 30 ~• 3.72Ac 4 29 ~ ~ so ~~~ ~ /4 y • 6° ~ '_~ 28 ' /3 e ~ a~`+e~ - 27 p"o Qty ~'31$e > b ~~~~ ; 26 • • e., ~e 32 66' _~ ~',~ i ~ ; ~ 33 ~ s ~.r 25 ,o~ ~' : a ~~,~ .~ . 34 ~e~ ?' e i 36 ~ e~ 6 '~'-\ ~ 23• •~ $ 22 r ~~~~ ~ ,9~6 "8 ~ •„ ~ 5.07 Ac a 0 s • 21 ~ ~~. County Schoo/ Boord ~ M •7 e8 19 s~ '' " b ~. of Roanoke Co. n %g '~\ a ° °16'x., Sunfiower~.~ bq~ 3•' 2 s -m~. ~ 6 ,~ ti ,,,,,>6 6' g •'~ • _ i RC.B.S b~5 s ~ c ~"'7, 6 ~•J~ z ~~ 3.53 Ac Jp ~' v O = ' •5 ' ~~• ~, ,~ 14 ~ ~ 8. N s ~ ~: ~ Z 1 9 ~J~ '~ 9• ~~ 9 9 N N~ $' r p• Q~ 3. _ ` ,o p ~ 4 z`~~ r'J '~ •p• 9 12 I I !O , .~ z ' ~ ~ T6 j2 ~ ~w 52.2 i2 ~ ,.: -, -, 1 ~:• ,o~ ^~ ~ ~0 8.41 AC N ~, 55 Q~ / ~,. R.CBS County Schoo/ ~ i 7.96Ac Boord of Roo^oke Co. GREG BARYON 277G IVY LANE BNGINBB'RDYG TAX MAP #61.02-4-13 39 P-93 ,.y Po °agk~WQ,i J~' POr op.~. I, n v nv 4 P °~ <a 01C.D~ y^N QP !~4` ? 9 7~`y F~ '~w ~ ~ ' • C~,n L NOarNr''E~ 41 Y~`fY y~SO~Y O40` ~ P ~ ~~ ~~ ~~er ~ A ~ COROfT ~ ,~~~ N %~ e CROSSLJ ~~~ (~ 'T!~ l~y~`~y~~II.IfO NYIt/011 ~4 ~i scNaa ~~ yco~oxr BEULAH ~b~{1T$(Q~}, ~csaW~ f ~, .N 1~ ro~~'~. ~ cGL~eN}l~r~ g rx x - j~~ '~Q~ i~R ~ ,,~}c~y,,R,.~.goa' ii?. /G A ~N3 ar e.:~cw.. o ~.~~bQO 3 P"v^rP°'iT 5 ~'C '~y~, ~ r g woo -°• iM v[~iAS p < ~ . ~ o ~'~0lvp u O `! COYO.NI(5.O [ D ~KY ~r ~ ~ 9~ ~rx*,t ',F`, R.: ([~y(~F ,uari [r ALd~'riQs "vL. r..~ ~°sy'b - O ~ \\y~ ~ J Hrr ,NP~~ s ~Q_~[ ~Kj,~a vrCtNrrY~ ,E~" ~ ~P~f ~-3 NORTS BNGINBBRING TAX MAP X677.18-1-43 BILL GRADWELL 3570 PARKWOOD DRIVE GREEN VALLEY 40 P-94 -~ - '~ . r' NORTB SANDRA HURRAY 6348 BACK CREEK ROAD BNGINBBRING TAX MAP X98.04-3-17 4] P-95 F. ~ $bUtV{$~Q~ pryP ~ MpE7q/v > ~~.. ,_.~,am.. _ _ _-_ ~` `Q~lilt_L~77G O~ ~C~~ pr q~ y ~ P +"" ~ o0p694t Uy~SrI ,i lS~n~ ~a~t° qq ~,pSt~ ~ OVA \;' ~~ ~~ G $~~ pY'<~3Mip D~ ~ ~ CC.v ~ER R~.R`~t,"~ ooa a ',~~.k CF~,Q ~.a , ~ s Q ~E GH15 ~ '~8 ~,~,C ' o" 9 ,,q~. CR` r cr4 .7~~ ~p ei~4 C~1~RR 2'e- J ~• a' c w4 ~ oe~ V ~ °4~,~ u an ~~b O~ O ~ ,. ..._ y aE d ' ,y No.+[ ocnct _ ~ 20 4~~~3~./`~o ro GA0.+' Qo``4 ~~MEPI 1 Qq ~ N ~;o VICINITY MAP ~ L3~p, NORTS .^..~~ eG/ ^ ... ^ 23 ~~~~ 22.2 f. 7 ri .'1 .. Rt 1134' ~' . 'e ~ ,. 0 h0 ti 0 r ~ ~ 1 1a 01 ~~ ~ D py, A !`~ ,~ °~' P~ ~h ~- ~ j h i ~_ ~ z ~ e 2 72 A c tih , ti~ o ~c 3 ~ ~• h ~ ~ 0'' ~o o \ ti / v ~Q~ o ~ JC 3 10 ~ ~ ~ D~ O C / ~ ~p~ 0~ ~i G~\`~ BNGINBBRING TAX MAP 4156.03-1-13 JAMES R. CRAIG 2808 ELLISON DRIVE ROBIN HOOD PARK 42 ~~ r 0 ~ ~ M A - _0 P-96 J __ ~ __ ~ _ \ \~Q ~RIBEEYIEw a6 O '~ ~~ '~'~{ -- rm~+n`r - H~w~oa P~'P. A~o~V_ p~~~'`~ . _-~rRfi~ , Cif if ".4k[4 ,ACT ~, nti 4~ LJ'".Q ~ ~ocH~±p'Fr ,'~ .,as ~ ~' ~ ~,tir~d ~ 41~R~H ' J E~ 4~ `~ ~ ~ ~~ o'Ara ~°' RCU~gvECwNrr wnr+"1~ti~ Q?" ~ p!~' , 54 occu~rnoewi mow,} i ,~ ~ ~ ~ ` SCNOp( ~ l~~y [lll \+~ r Pq '~~, _ _ " f = '` VICINl71' MAP ~ ECM ~` "` - - . ~...+~ . NORTB ...~^ i / ~a 0 5 / 20Ac ~~ iw ~~~, 18 J, 3.13 Ac \ 2 O~ ~ ~ 6~T (v ?~ o ` 15 o~_ s c'G \p1, t \09 'Qi a 6 ~~O m 2.00 Ac 16 ;~°' . 0 e~ 2 9 ~G3 O 10 ~~ 7 `,,9 1.34 Ac \ ati . 17 ~ti ~ IOOAc r ~`O tr ~ v ~' J L~ 0 8 hz~ 31 0~~~\/ ~, - ~ ~' R ~' ' OZ 6Z c ~~~~'' 62 ~O// 'M 20 9~y_ ~ ~° ~` \a s~ 22 4tie °~ ~_ -~ I o2 A c y 30 ~ +~;" • ~~ ^ T 6'b O .....f e ~ o ` /~+ ~ > ~ O .rti 2 .''° oo, ~~ 0b ~6 ~~ 9 9S Q, G i2 ~ 7 1~ 33 a 26.1 ~BJ ~ 68 Ac //^J ~~. P o6 25 \ h \ 24 9 23\ 8// J 34 1.45Ac a r 9 •/ BNGINBRRING TAX MAP X136.11-2-32 RUTH ANN DAVIS 6102 COVE ROAD P-97 , ,o° G ~0 63 23 63 2 y 266 \ 24 25 ~ [pg yirU ~ COI uR. : ~./ a ` ~~ 4 ~K ~v~V~C-- RErN( .. ~I~ ~.. F~ 11 ~ 1y,,~ c~,~- t ,"~V p '4 ~ / K' a ~~ ra!! ~~„}~, ~T fIVF.S Dap ~ey~ ~/ h~~ ~Miw•snan `'Ir?h~4 ~' H ~ '+ i ENN FOREST - V k~~~ 9~fY,, ~~~~ 11aMpY ~na[M ct i E~ ~~q. ~, _ ~i.. ti . , ~+ 706 ,,y ~ _,y ,,~p r ~ .\ i Sv.Na 3 ff. ~ C01ACk 'Hb 2 + 0 4 ~ ~ G F 4,w~ wo g~J. 7 . ,~ _-. - MUN IiNG O " ~'~ PI GIG ~ s T ~ ( CrESTERfIf.~p EDEN AV. $ ~ ui r ~Mu ~~ 4D l ~ ~ p Y IIlA~ ~ 2 o~ ~n ~c a g ~, NORTS i 'non '~ '99 u ~ ~ 28 ati ss Boy ~ ~~' by 15 J ~ '° s .3 \45 ~ . ~ y,6a ~ 6 6 ''a `-'J ~ ` 3~ P 27 SSA ig 2'~q. ~ e `J63i3 h~ 201 5C 6 c^ cdL~y // +I °? ao ~~ ~ ,`,°~ ~ ~' ;~, Li/~ '~ 17 > vz N ,., 5e`' c / 2032 163 3.7 ~ y~3~ O \\ y "~ T N ~5d. 5 ~J~ 2 P 43 z '935 36 a 25 `' 9^~ ~ \ sy ~_ at 9 ~ h 5y .S9 '3.~SQ; J$ ~ pt0 ei' V \ ^ 9 ~ z ti 13 ~' '~'r „~ h S a 3 ~\\/09 ~6 ~QO 02 ".rU v / 0A ~ r 20 i2 9 ~ \6h 07 N yr .;,` 12 ~ ~ s ,'~ \ ~~~ I \~ ~~545 \a~ ~ -\\ \ ,6 va ,05 II ~ m ~ 2\ OQ0 Ae 4 '5448 I~ 0' / 2 's ~ V oa .O 1,5440 gA 2 'v J~ 202 g626 ~ ,\ ~ ~ 6220`= ~~• \ 5~554i2 s 5398 ~ a ~ y1 3 ~z I ~•~ 26 (T iJ .7r 7 OQ ~ ~' a 5396 i '~ ~ ~ 6 i ~~ i ,~ ~"~ `.g as 19 390 ~3s ~"1~ is \a•~ 2 rob6 5384 ,f; 5 ~o ,> ; ~,` 2O54i5 ~ ? o g 9''~J v P' N KEN SMITH 5426 DOE RUN ROAD BNGINBBRING HUNTING HILLS TAX MAP ~~87.11-1-4 44 P-98 J =AN7ERBugY Crn ~' ~~ 8 ~ S •?c ~'q ~'. ~a ~ )~ "" )PARK ~ , ~ ~ cj~5 COlONl1~y ~y 9 ~. ~~NO ~~'JM (~ ~ S! b f ~ OuH Pf. p GLI~'1~71 ~ tS' a ~' ~9 R.v~~r,-,CSC , 8 g_ "H,4~; A f`'°' :N_i ~J ~ °+ iA DOary~ _Tf ^ 4 ` g ~ ® i FS•~ $~~ A ~ .r ?fin'~y,~o d gIVD ' ~+. +° g ~ p4 ao ry~P ' ~ a )549 ~E ~GOE DR ~ o \JF r w~"«<ii •' ,,~'4 4 a j. RD ~iD~ _ , ~ q~,yprvly: 9~ 9c 3iIGHFI~PLDS C~~ l~, b5 •~.2 BE~~~A~ g r taps, 51~. ~4 ~. rt pp Y rt Y Jr= v v Q~ O O a" H~GHlIF[OS.RD c~ LytR"" PD S Q ~~ ,~ E P;71` ~p r "> ¢ r.!9 ~t~.Aii '~ •r~w~cf , ~ .ROS ~ rf~ 't~aRlN~.v.Q aCMM~C~ ~ ,~ RASE(, •~.3"r $R'~NAN V~+ ~aDr+n tRN~ 'dtb Ohc 9c wood '`" ~RV' lRf0o${{~~ ~ °~! ~r'~a'~Jd"~ ~ ~ `~ .,tyom~ ° ` ~ ' ~~q ~,. 00. ROSEC17~1 -~ ]61.GPRI ~~d~ ~ oj'taoa 9 °'t4 ~('+•~~ VICINITY MAP °~`~~ _ ~_ ~; ~ ~~ `"~~ ~ -3. NORTH ~ 4938 ~ l a920 ~ ' C BP Teiepnone Co. I J y/) J Lions C/uC 21 22 175 Ac 23 36 I ,6 Ac 158 Ac / _ ar 0Vti ` J 3 S ° 20 ~, 'a rs ~~ ~0 ,62 Sg 9 2~ a a~ 19 s ~ ~'"` _~ 24 ~ a ~' ~ _ 3 9~f, LI ° :: r• e , zsa~ ~ , ~y _ a B aBCi ~ ~~ a a~ IS 12 ~ 9 ~' ~. „ ~ t ,,. 25 ~ .~ -~ ~ 2~ .S Say ~ 2 ~ ~I av' ~~6~Ai~.~ av ~R,9 ~,; ~' _ T ~ ~~ ~ °'~, o ~_ , ; TV' 4c - RIt:~ h: ti '- Rt 167 ecti10 ~~ • s / J 16 s r a0 ~ w _ - o 1673 'i ~ A ~' `, 9.• 'f ; t~ >' V o a ~t S ~ 'so Isl ~9 ` ` o ?~ Yf O r Q/ T v i ~ fib I J s r y -- O '~ P ' -s ~ 8 '~ - 7 r ~p ~ m 6 >o c ~ 1 r 19 +, '~ ` °O" - 400 000 ~ ~ s v s_` ~~ °~ ` `-Belie-Mead e-Dr---~Rt.1633-- - ~~ '? ~` 2 ~~ FRANCES S. TYREE 4785 SUNNY SIDE DRIVE SNGINBBRING BELLEMEADE TAX MAP ~~86.08-2-24 45 P-92 ~. IID. 17~ K~ ~ 71 VOR SSIpF 1 I ` ; ~ J(e J' 1 `~ 1MOMR/NS t 1. ':~~.~' ~ ~IFC .' d ~ f~SQ - W~l~ -~ ~ . ~ ~~~ llK C~ yy v~ rto«a.E COUV~ w.d"SA+' II -+%N P °"°"~ ~; '_~OC (IPM 1l l T ~ WIKEVA i ~ 7 ~ ~~_. ~ ~~ ~ ^ ~y ~ ~ ~ X172 `. a` ~~5 ~ ~ ` '~ 53 cove ? `~ A ~.c1 ~~s _,~.~`r ~~"~~ I ~ - `~' ~ ~`~ ~,~`~ VICINITY MAP ~;%~_~.~ ~ ~~~~~ -- - J' _ 'L`J- NORTB .~~ EDWARD WHISNANT 5117 NORSEMAN DRIVE BNGINBBRING VIKING COURT TAX MAP 437.10-3-14 46 P-100 ^~~ ~ ILLOW KrNG57pN~ ,a,Q~~E. ~"W ., 1e~REEY - $ ~ ® ~~~ a4~~~` ; N~.i ~~ ~1 T inc ~~ N) e 9 W000 HAaE 5T ~N Nf510C ~6JMLMnAp" ~ ~p •?s ~ l~ ~~v M~~'MER W ~ '. . ® cw~~ ~ ~ p • ~~" ~l wFpk ~.~ ~s SuMNER [R S ~ KM7rWOF ? gE[EM ~~~ .NS ~ d ~~ THORN ~ Wi,rtcn p 69 OEfp ~ V ~ d s ~ ~6 ~6 tt `a ~& o~~ RAN LAKEg ^`°"Da ~ b o~EFwc RD. .' ~ ~`~ c~ ~ '` y ~ a E7U71 ) REN.oniN 1 ~[ttuu ~ <~ .4 ,.s F + 4 h` s iw• ~ 5 dFGt ,~ ~CEK ,o~~ j:r ~~ ~ ~e a ME,aoO~VICINITYMAP ~y f~ ~°9 sx ~ ..E~,,,,,~ -~ . • ' ~ , ROAMDIfECWN7Y 9 ' ~LAq~VIFW .caA rC . r~~.~'>> "`~~ ~.I NORTS I / 1 / 8 1 n ~ ~ e j ; ~ ' N 1°y 00 O~ . .~ 227. : ~0 u ,~ `S 2.94 e a I ra b h 6 0 ~ y 0 ~ ~ 26 ~ O O 1 2 _ - " z2 / _ o ~re~s ti ti" • 23 9 ~ : z : ~r a9 ~ o ar a sPS 0 7 ° 22 ? ep ~ ,g 3 ~. asa/ es/s ~ 21 0 20 29 ~ b Nor-hla ''` 0 6J09 ¢ es° ' 3 S~ ~ ~~ ~d t oa E jo~ ,2 2'3F „ o 4 5 ~ a~~ ~'' Dr a azj5'4 0~ 19 ~ \' . s?e esa .. o ~ 27 O Rt. 1787 ~Q, a a5 iq.F rF ;` ca Bs/6 °6 0 ~ - 28 r - 29 67 a 0~ 2i - ~r6 ~, rs i 30 aJ/o v 31 ~ eso '~ ~ N a 18 ~ 6.1 •5 ' _0 ~ _~ ' ~° ~ ~ ~ tip 32 1 z. ~6s 7 s ~, Z6 3A ~ ~ /., /2 a s ~ a. ~~ ab ~ • ° °~15 `6 a 37 - 36 a ,2 ~ 59"1i ^~ ~~ ? li i39 is ~p ,.L ,~ P ~ ~~ y a ~ o BI? ~ 5 ~ j ~ 9 ~ B4'~ ~ 33 Sr'a ' ~ ~ 16 -o ~ z R- ~ ~ B4p9 a4 °' ' P~~ ~'!6 a~ ~ ~ Reedlo~d /1 '~ a9 aA~>> ` j \ ~ J ~o °i, to 2, ~ 332; 60 Y Road ~/ ~ '23oe _ w V' ` o 8477 BI:g 60 6i BO ~ 4 94 i0 6R 6 ~' 8 ~n 9 10 r„• ~ 15 p y~ D ~ vo II + ~ 3 s " s ^ 12 13 ~9 ° n, ° 4 ousnp ~ ~ y a,: ,30 ~ OJ F.^ 43 Fi s ,~ 'OS 3. ~2b ~[B 36 S'= 20 '~ ~ 33 ° S `~ r~ ~ SO OB ¢ ~ a 37 y 36 ~ ~zz :5 ' ~ M 18 -~y m ~ `` N 9 (// 0 20 g5Z6~ 3B~~o 35 „ 5 ~ 6 . 17 ' / 7 9~ n ao ~ 8334 R t ~ ,6 'b o ~ Cir. 1784 ~ 3e 58 - ~ 21 ~ r~ .: ti 16 0 ~ 34 X22 ss ~ /S ~ J a< z, i ,~ q ~ ` , ,30 oe DENNIS PUTNAM 8402 BRUBAKER DRIVE, N.W. $N(jIN$$RIN(; WILLIAM CREEK TAX MAP ~~37.05-4-6 47 P-101 NORTH ~.....^ r~~ 28 2.88Ac ' ~, t 32 : ~" ~' e ` ~ e. , .;~ ~O• 2 , - ~~ •~ . A- '~ • ~ ~ ~r C 1 j ~ ^' a, Ri ~ ~ 289 '~~ • ,~ J w5 Q C °^1 G '9~9 X61 \' ~~ ~~ 27 ~ , a ~1.d~ ~„fil `+ ti`, ~nonweo/!A ~ ~ a' '~,, ~. , ' ,~ a62• J4~ ,o /'~~~~ o° ,;,.74 ^° 84 ~ •.t, ~ ~~ o,;~;;q ',~,64.~°' .~,3,,~'' ~`0 38 to a- 11.60Ac oe~ y~~, .~ 85 ,:~ ';° ` '83~'~ °'~.2a"'e9~ 58~ ~; e ,n , - .y *~ ~~ V,99 .Pb,22 ~ $~• i ~,1 .~^i~Q ..9 q~ ?'/4 6 ,~' O 41 *u ~,f 9 ~ G ? 88 ,~~0 l ,~ iV ,~i5 b, 2. ' ~°~o ~ ^' ~ O o~aa ~ °y ~ 4 ~ -- °3.19 •. // •.~ ~ 89~~~ ~. / g e ,.,~ ~ N \, ,J:titi .rJ7 ~W~1 ,: F, `2y~ty`~ oaCS97 9 ,q°o s, 44//y ' 4'+~•;.,~~ • I$•~ O ~~•A /B' 078° ~ ~ ~ZZN• /Ci~2 ~ ~e2!• ts~, U 6 s~ T~~ c a~ . ~ /3 i ~ ^ `91 ~~' + Nf ~ BSD 9 y>,`Z.~ H+ ~"' .as ~ 6 0 45 / iy '' ~ 51 ' ~, 6 J i j' ,,~ . 8 e 9 0 ~~° 9 ~ ~ ~ ~''~ +- ao r zs a : // 3~ ~ ~ s . 2 v f~' , ~ + ~ m~Jt ~ ../4,tb ~ 6 ~0~ F' ~ 07jyose~ ~j~ris ~~u ~ ~a" 7 ;93• ° 9 7~e ~ yy ti ~ / T `~ u ~/S •~~ ~ '+°~ J `+° ~ 72142 /2~9' ~7 S ~•*~3m 0 /~ ~ ~ 8 24 3 /6 ' w s~ ~ -~ e s /4 ,~ 4A ~~`'`.oje ,s~ 2 5 ~ .• q~o p 74 ~ ~7~cs- /349., ~ ,,, ~~ ~ v 9 23 0 /7' o+ l9 ~"`C, ° ~ // 14 o J~,r~s~~ ~ J;i9, - ~ 'tUyy •48. s j ~ ~ "~ °` . aJ `~ 4 Qi9 ~z~' e~"" 6 __~ ~°'` a sq '~ `°~ 22 T /B• ti, ~ 30fiSet9 ~ , Dr. ~s to 1 ° •~+~ J~ -1 L ~ p. N ~ ` Sys ' J `~ 11~ s ft3 / ~ ,W] 8 ~ Uy~~0 ay ~~ ~ n`` »R 2 / ~Ao `mss •, °9a'1 r~'o ~4 ~y ~ I ~ ~B , , va Py 3 ~, 3 1 ~ •~ i . . /cA. ~ 's 4 ~ ~ RANDY GERBER 3038 PEBBLE DRIVE SNGINBBRING HAMDEN HILL S TAX MAP ~~79.01-1-67 48 P-102 iL ~' ~ RD ~~ S yo l~(t°rrr. ::~'~~ ~~ M VE }~,~ s.uew.. ~ -7w c ~ CµE$`w~a~°Y ~ n4((~ ~• ~f' (/,y~y.~.~'~ ~1 ,`d-'lp 4 ,yc ~~~ ~ h ~ •~OG[ 9C it QC~1~ P " l.pp' ~ Y°•~ ~' j (f ~ S' i COST ~'pOCKFMS F1~tjNG~IA'R Est t c~ ~ "Z,. ~O °, ~ NOTTING ~ 0(q[ ~ f' '0,, 4 tiGTS av[5°rtn+cu M R ~ ya '`~,~4 41 E '~CO c ef'Y'15 ~~ ~~ ~ Wwnw• ow ~' C ~ ~ , ° `'c• ~~'' NO 'S €? E1pN HILL U,NTE0.8CW H`F32 ~: ~ 221 •. ~aoiT j4a ^~~o ~i O~ °y O a r f ~ 0 7~ 9 ~D',p aa~~Bi: qyR a! mss. _ ~~ SN NORTB ...~.~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~akelond ~~ r ~~ ,~ e s ~ R Or `3~'S 14 h 13 ~ 12 ~ ` ~~ o `~ N 5416 S°t?B N SQL°;, II ~! ~ 1 4 1 s 5 5 5v et fir. _ ~~ 1 4 1 - c ~ • »p~ - 5349 _ r L4 rl 25 ? ~~'~,,; .b CQVe ~ ~ 26 ~; ° o .. ,,~ ~_ ` 8 ° ~ ~ ~ S ~ N 28 ^ 29 E ~~ 33 pan 9 ~ _ 10 ~ V ~ • h yoga 6 f • `~n@ H'0 . G ay ,~sd ,. _Rt.I5~3 N 8 1 1 - ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 0 5*?6 ~ 5+2,. 33iC- j ,~^6 , 6 sio~ ~, '? T ;z~ 3360 ~ ~ O A 5 a ~ 4 - ,, I5 ~2 '' y E5 9~ T'' ~T36B ~ ,~ a ° ., 3 ~, s -~ z r _ ~ ' 2 vi Z ~ ~ ~ .9 14~ 4~ 'n o ~o ±~~ 0 r9a 0~ 0- 593 ~^c.6 O 4 ~ J' sa v 233 Oq E ''%o 6 F ,~ ~ c 2 01 ^55 16 .! ", ~ ny `9'2 S ' ~ 3355 17 ;, 3363 ~ ~ 0 5335 5 ~?7 a Q s r 31 0° gyp` ~2 ~ y ti °9 ~, 3~ BNGINBBRING TAX MAP 476.19-1-27 BETTY OVERSTREET 5315 CAVE SPRING LANE NOTTINGHAM HILLS 49 P-103 ~~ ~ ~ ~ +F~iLL41v T5. .~~ ~F1~t'TH HILI.SP sWfDE's' ••3 RO p, _ "rte W PP~LYrMMpo~~ C~ ,p~7 `- ,,_~ C(,YDNr~:E~w~~' ~.~ _ cp ~.Pr+~ PAV I15 ~~E y2' 'yo . ~ ¢ YrPOUTN 'MR"oa HE 9C-9, DENT Qi ~ ~ PE1TY ~'~!~ Av v0 w f 6Z3 - q,psn.,_ y ~~++ EtoE" ~[' \ ~, ! .~ Rp# MLLiT.~ ClUBMOUSE ?~ O~TY "f fI wf~ '4B, M01/N1.1/N !A_.~ TTT""" MOOIf D/~ Yf ~` wKn vrrw ~" ~ S ~,MOU !N~4q r rw.xN T. c ~ ~ ~. - ~`a'FFINFIFID~O ~o ~9~~"_ RY`~G ~a A~OIIR _ FAQ ~ oa o? ~ 4 p~ i MOR w i~ - 41JTA7 y~A~( o Pic o ~~~ '• OR ao ~OZ yynTFR O~~.~ TJ C4R*NO ` ... ~ fP~ w~ ~~ - yp' ~4r SUN ALLEY ~S4NTEC _a~~ TfN R, _ F/RST fVK ~ORR C~~.. -T; y9 fa ~ •~.. O , ~Q?C '• Q41 ~ [~n~ CKy PHD_ 0 AV ~ORIP~ 7~ ~ . +a50b'R~RwrsO"~i°T _ ~~E{Y~HIIL t '.,J Opi^ ~ P~atn~~. ~ ~ 'D ~RU.no$ ,~~ C~¢Nrz`~~~~ ... t " x °x =, • ICINITY MAP ~T~~ e ~ ~ ~ A - O ? r ~' ~ HR r i ~ o m fi "f y _ - °~ R~ NORTB ~..~ ~ ~~ 1 1 ~ ~_ 1 ~, ~ 0 23 ~ ~~ ~ ~I s0o6 69` `- ~~ ~ ~~ I /~ 2 fe ~ ~ \ ` 3.54Ac s9~ ~ ~ o ~ a N ~ ~'' g ~`~ ~> III - IOOI I ~ a ~?~ tib 9 d \ 7 166Ac rs ' 1 ` ~ ~ s ~~B s 67 D9 70 27 d641~ ~ ' ~ 137 i6 II ~~r.'O~ ' ~~ s f 207 24 6~j' ,~ ` ~ t0 12 ~ T \ ~-~ 6f Sg ~ ` 6/60 /6D ty 6/66 t ~ I I I, ? ~ ~ SB ~ ~'~ ~ 6f39 ~ 3~- 6' 13 ~+ - ~ j ~ DariJy Circle 149 26 114 59 ~ ~ h ~` 3/e 5 e 6's+ sm ~~~ ' ~ 200 G9 9 ! v'/s '^ ° ~r 3091 e> ` ~- ~ / 6/294 v s ~ 14 joss a3 Rid 8~i3 T~~ a ~' s m 15 's : ~ 3~ ~ ~ 16 m ,ja~ ~ ~ - ~ s2 ~ ~~,J ti~y~ 4 r90 ~3 O 3 0 ~b '~' ~0 17/ti's ~8 r Sy N` ' \~ ~ 6 ~ s 3' 2 ~ v v 27 ~/ 3 D3 9B 75 5 b3981 b~ /f ,b o°' $ b~,6 c 3 B 1 / H 6 5025 25 757 74 60.68 I1g 56 ~ j ~ 6 `` r rm 25 ~ 62 123179 9 I ~ / m 2 N ~ c~ ` ~ 4 °e ~ ~ _ 23~ 0 22 _ 21 20 ~ '~j oT 9 7? S n I 'o b ~~ 3 I ~ 133 I; 4 ~ 'I/~ ~ ~!r-~., ~,7j ~' 70/ o ^~ 9 _ ~ f ti 9DQc ~~ 4 A A A d A g i / X65, f rV 8 m it ~ o (1~ ~ ~~ __ 6 5j I~yy'O~ ~ e so9 ~ 7 'o fro Corrimonder ~~ ~ '0 a e 3 44 ~ 4v 4z eo Dr. ~~. 6D 6~3 ' m y ~ `/ 9p~ 80 ~ 8 5 '~~. ~~ N r / 70 J, - m ALTON PRILLAMAN 6139 DARBY ROAD BNGINBB'RI1YG TAX MAP ~~38.06-6-11 5U P-104 "fX 707 _.. e~ .----~--~- ---------~-"'"" --~ ~,~~,~\ P ofl`"''" oR ~~`~``Cfo-._ foot' : olro~ 3 F fa\EN~x~~'J` ~a _ P q P ,x~fec . ~'...p OH ~Q44 ~pL~,a ~g4T. ~- ~ ~"'C NORTH BURLING~~N ~-~~`~,e sRE o HEIGHTS '~' ~ 9 'o~"d9 ~, 'ti e~ ~ oa. P BER`Y~, HAV~y ' f ~ O,y 3~P 9p Q mP ~vy Ex F~ "~ r5 1832 d8 'f .°~ O ooo p~~' ~` ~v PpP~BURIi~lON~~ o~'c~ yf ,~~,CT I1S ~ P ~~~0^ ~ sa P,~~ 2("" {3~PC~^"/.~v~~~~~~ 4pgo~ .•MPp-~, Jr9w~ Opp ~ ~y W° Z MPv '~ ~oJ~' O 20 n. 4QP o I ~V~N~ lIfL1/ CL o ~ PNf k ~ O nNN~~ RDe i~ NORTB 4 ~ O 3 -~ ~ ~,~ LOOAc 9 tih C 86AclC) e o '' ~ ,.L 9 ~o ti° _ o .r. , oa ,3~/y ~ 4 ~"~ ~ _ ~. ?° ~ ~6 s~ QQ a'' S s ` 9~' ~ 20 ~ e ~' ' 5 \ ~ `~° a . ~0 ~ eti~h 7 ,, ~ I.OOAc(D) i~~' 0~ \ did' yb / 3 ti°° ~ `0P / ~, LOOAc ` 6 / ,~6 \ ~ Oj eti oa ~~ P6 ~O e0 4 s 'ao 0ti ,a'' / ~ o, ~~ j I.70AC ,~ 6 \ ~ / \10P6 Jib ,~° 0'L0 i2 33 3g 3 i a 5 ~' s ~ ,., 7 c s ~~ ~0 6 Z a 9. 2 ~ 1.54AC 14'5 a~ uT ~ / \ gds O S~ )B 7 ~ JOHN NEWMAN 8242 LOMAN DRIVE BNCINBBRING TAX MAP ~~27.05-]-3 51 P-105 I TME~RCFIARDS r~ APP ~JV'iJ/ SST, _ o~/V ~ , ~``S~`+ ~,~'h w oP/ t{'~ Off'. ,Pk V / y ~~. / ~ ~ i ' ~ @ELLEVUEu. g .J eto~ur ~~ ,,,~ ao. ~~ ~~ lOw wlsa~w d.~.p ~ ~, q s Rif _ ~ S ° s Oy h \FAD MTp N~~~/_- VICINITY MAP ~~ ;y '..~~ `r NORTB SNGINBBRING TAX MAP ~~39.02-3-18,23 VDOT SUMMIT RIDGE ROAD LA BELLEVUE 2 P-106 W ~ lD~D7/1 ~Y~' > ~ Iy ~ l j ~+{ its"4~9t ,.. ;e`° ., s ~ :,~ r a ~w'~n.~ ~ ,n .'-\ • HID9EN VALitY ~ ANwoDOCT" ~ r +~ W £ I > ~ r ,~' [s ,. 7 ~ ~AY ~ ~~ g - ~ _ ~r[ l J - DR w ; G SM ' 3GRANDIN ~,~R¢_EXS. ~'~ ~ `NY1yME ,,~N ~~yyvryyy'A4c - ~~~, r ~~~ ~` oOIE U` BFIDLE _~~EA d,v~ /~ iF ~i ,~ ~ • ~ M'-~.et~i~ onn ,.9~e~0~ O ~ $ ' '4a R~ .#' ` - ERHIORr "Ofi' P ElB ~ ~ `pa ski ~ ~ HI O P • \Y ~P p i ~ CTNEnP[[ n $ f~ i. '~ a~B_. ~-rP - Gfl RD ,~ ~l ~ Oc" O{~~~p~,. V1E~M ~~/+ ^~~ 1 HGS? b g ~. pE- ~ Sf/ O seooYt'; ~ ,..'$ ~ C E{~I~s ! 9. • c~ T.."'~ ~ r, r i \"~~~ ~ COIL _. ~ .r ~[,! V~ yyl. D IgPtY y ~ COPEIAND P,: ~Ca l ~`/ tMD4~ ~ f E TMI~E.~.. ur C h T N SUGAR lAgf CRES pl q}, ~,, ki,o„ .Z~ -3 NORTB ~~ •: `` ` / 2' ~~ i ~rgey ` Z~~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ z~ u ,~,: ~ /4~,z ,~ ~~ ~'j ~O ,la .1~0~ ~ 7r ,i~.n a ~-~` ~t rA ~. ., 3 /~,'~ S r, o/ /n. \~ ` 69 Oa~rrs ~~ ~ ~K J 1 Q~ 0 J r Cl O l(~ I ~ C 9 F .. oa ~o a~O o° ~~ ~e \ \,o F, ~ ` ` ' C~~ `r.. '',r f `~ 9 ` ` /C ;~ ~/~ ~ i~ ~ ~ G ~. i ~~ <~ F ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 . ~\ / .PP+ /\ ~ \ / r,n! V~ ` i0 / / /~~ / KU ~, N ///;~ `/ ~/ .~ .. 3.67Ac ~~ _ ~ ,~ 09 s.: s ~ ~ ~` ~ +~ ~ N a ~ ~ ~ 9~ ~ , ~ 5 - ' IV4 S3 r ' ~ ! y 28 ~,}\ I; d Si3C t~'~ zlzs o~ O o J ~~ 7 Si4 ~Sr 6R 07 c .~ 26 Y U I 5/50 1 E` \A r \ 'J \ r-' ;. ~ • ~' ~5 r ^` Hy ^~ ? 2 5 22 ~ S~~ LEROY MORAN 5000 CARRIAGE DRIVE BNGINBBRING TAX MAP X676.07-6-3 53 P-1(17 ~ ~~~ NORTB 9 J cn 42 ~~ s 7.49•Ac 2 is } 43 7Ac 4 J4• Ac p ~ 39 ~6p 3.07Ac(D) 38 3.56AclC) 2.29Ac 37 ~~ 42.1 40 1.53 Ac .56Ac 25og 1.02Ac ID) 16 ` :'655 1680 ?69C 1.39AdC) ~ Ac(Dl ` ~ 16 p `_ :,, -~ N ' 15 )~ I9 17 21 •• 22 `, ~ s 2.53 Ac lD) ..,, ~~; '' ;'; 3.01 Ac lCl 19 1.3t A~ ~ ! ~\~ ? 259Ac N ~~ ~ ~ 18.1 r .19.1 '~~ 1.37 Ac '.%~ ~65> 1 23 IS 'Cemeerr 20 3.80/ScID) II 3.OOAt(C1 ,,,~ i 24 Ac 10.43 Ac 4 49Ac , s N J. _ 10 ~ m~ T• ~ 2 o q• .8 4 a i _, I Op Ac T _ / O fl CO/Op S y 1 ~ r M1 ,9 sfl9 w N ~? - 0 .i 3 ELBERT LESTER 2695 EASTLAND DRIVE SNGINBBRING TAX MAP ~~70.04-4-23 54 P-108 ~- - 'i . r' NORTB 4233 ARLINGTON HILLS $NGIN$$RI1VG ARLINGTON HILLS TAX MAP ~~86.16-4-24 55 P-109 ~.`° ,~ NORTH I ~ ~~ , r ~ `; ~, W~ "' `'. . 9~ i 'S, `' 9 U ~ u '1 a w r 1 O 0 v A O D ~ ~ ~•j2 U t I ~p J J ~ ~~ E ~ ~ '~ y ~t V ~ ` ~Q C v9 J J ~ ` ~. . , ~ ~ ~ ~9 ~ ` p2~ J e~ . h ~S a~ 9 fl d` n m ~r °~ a`' ~a i ~ ~ ;n1. .0 ~ 1 29 '. ~' '.y ,o' -, ~,, p P ~ _: 28 P 4G 7~ P. W. CARROLL 5529 MERRIMAN ROAD 56 P-110 BNGINBERING TAX MAP 486.16-3-29 fir G~ 'Z ~~~iiEa ~' ~Nq. f7 .:.: ~~,~ laLt' •~ QraAUa 7p 9 (.1 R~. w ~~Fr sw4nao.~ a ~~ ; ' "'~£yp • ."Y J ~~04 g TM. Gins ' ~ yO~'~ P~ 9y~ fy J ~gO° PM~'~Q~C7 • e~~o 0 SUQPMF p ~o a ~ ~+e ~ , ~ cowAarcso s ~F MfwD WAfIEY ¢ _ ,{ ry ~ CNCI ( ~Q S~ A a W ~ +~ ~ ~a ~ TAILTK ClY/~ ~ ~{ {< • a ,a" c~ , A ' tQ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ' ~ 3 SRM~[r(afL y 4fwM ~r~ tvaopaaiurs 6 9U4 e ~ BLKR SD ~ r O : € ~` 0O g ~ ~, ,~ r u °~4"~C » r~ °4, P ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~a i9s •4~ h ~~~(r ` a MUNIING bJ apD Rp ~C '~- r ~ O LLo- ® '~ ~ ~ ''ML • ~''~ p ~. ~~~ _ ro~,°° VICINITY MAP ~o . „~I.i ~~ 'L NORTB BETTY PRAYER BERRY 3402 OVERHILL TRAIL BNGINBBRING PENN FOREST TAX MAP #87.06-6-33 57 P-111 ~ ~ 0 rEX35 641 q0 I i ~, 787 p~~'a' sr 641 ~ ~, % ~ dR T ~1.n M eks.~=r~ o 06 ERtO ~ S ~' 611 -- , ~ ,. ~f ;NOPUa~ ~ RD LKING +v ~\~ C ~ 640 n~ _~ 4~ ~~w'~"y.= '~; ~*cr 1 P ~._~ ~!{~ 1WAQRD LAKE C40 .pQ . a® ~ rF ~ 4s~ d`~~ ~° AWE ARDIAfC¢~~Y10~~~w~yf ~~"acs ~ $`'~~"~ 8~ _ -, Y~~c~:;~ VICINITY MAP==. , `~.` ~"" //i-^^-..`` NORTH J.LI HC '~%tis 66 69 ,•r;, 3.0 Ac. 1.25 Ac. iC7D o0 4 65 '~ r,•~, ~ 70 58 = 2 ~ 1.56 Ac. ~', 1°64 1.58Ac(~ 57 a ~, b . 25 Ac. ~ tC) ~IowS o• a 9Z ~ 63 1A ~C ~ ~ ~ 3 . ° O 71 o °° ~ b6 "s , g I.0 Ac. , ~ ~ ~ S ,•~° ° \' ~~ 61.1 73 0 I.07Ac. '; '& 'TJ~ -,116 N 't\~~ (% /81° 76 9 61 '°~ ~ ab • 2.0 Ac. 75 JJ • 74 ? 74 s o~°~ ~ l o ~ g ° 0 ~ 53 1.36 Ac (D1~~ ' '' ' \ 2. Ac 1.56 Ac (C) J,~ 51 52 6 ~U 9: gag 9 .:~ ~°° ~~p9 ~,1 ,g 1 Ac . c~~e~l o~t~ 49., ooA •~°~.2` ~ u 4 ~ ~, 9 f y M 9~ 6 .~ 9,S 45 2 ~' q6j 2 '1 41 ~S I.OAc 4430 ` . ~ 1 ~aib/ 3.06 Ac ,~9 ~ ,G' ~ ~ f J 45 o ~ ~.' ~ . ° e`fs 5 1 ~ ~ e5a'~9s 43 42.2 42 1 ~ I a 42 ~; ae . 43 ,. ~, • ( 0 1.11 Ac g46 44 LOAc. 1.12 Ac 40 ' 1.66 Ac. ___ o.:t ~n 4: X31 e 33 ~~~, / oo \ ' ~. 32 ~' ue zz `'8~ 'n .j. r v _ 0 ~ 54 4-- r 5.5i Ac. ~ i ~ ,.~ ~.° ' L:. 0 40 ; ~ rZs 2~, ~ 39 X 3 9 ~z s 1'01 AC e / a> >s 37 HARRY {~IIILLIAMS 1001 MARTIN MCNEIL ROAD BNGINBBRING TAX MAP #44.03-6-50 58 P-112 AD 4. O o =~~ So HiGM~~E'Mtwn RrA Y~ ~ ~ O swn. KIjJGS REST ~~ ~b~~, S~C~i.~R1~0('~~ M ~„ • BENt• ~•• y Rc or J ' _. kE~ N"'``~ 4 REE 31 ~ r -..-w FORE57 ~~'!~y~ EDGE ~ •MSn+ HOI~IOOE 'H 690 ._ -___ na+Y __..__ D VICINITY MAP _ ~ ..i/ NORTH ~.~.. I ~ $, 3.94 Ac 7. I '~.Ac ,.., ~1 1~28A„(C) 3 \ 2 , 6.34 Ac (D) 5.76 Ac (C) A ~~ 79 6 8.66 Ac \N \O 0 c^ 4 ,ii9 ''f ' +oa 1.41 Ac ~i ~, a 5~~ ,~ ~i~ ~ ~ 120Ac ~' 5.2 ~ ' / ~~ ~~~ai + / o / 30 Bock Creek 43 E/emen~ory ' Schoo/ 7.00 Ac i6~ ~ Counly Schoo/ Board ~/ ~ 'B6 42 ~' of Rocnoke Counly Jy N . ,., j 38 ~, 37 ~ ~~,., ~. . . ,. ~~, e ~ n ;0 i i DEBORAH LYNN MARSHALL BNGINBERING 7192 BENT MOUNTAIN ROAD TAX MAP #95.01-2-40 59 P-113 19iAC ~ !,' C.B S. ' nwnt~Enup .. ., - ry~ 7 : ¢ "4RpRH ~ ,7p~"~ Ljwn /q~.w tnca~r 6/[ f O [lrrif pq O5~^ yWF "~ ~ OPJ~ ,dg ~ ~ TEgN pa ~ 0 3`j 8 419 1 - cf• i E~V~S7E R0(~ v ~ Y ~ SMEt 'Bq, /~ d, h yWF 9~ ~' ot~w y. by R;c RD ORSP~ ,~ oCC~ n°E C er+uo... j _-- - _ ._s - g~ va AliDC[ 9~~i3 pq~~ gr L ('hy -' ~plb'~ . Tv. ~"R+s~ C4STLE'ROCK FMS ~ f~~~ff"'pflIEA,tt~YYY'NG~~ 6~ ~^ QRf ~~ ~ ~ GREEH~9 ROpOIy? 2pN,NG~T0~1^D 4 e C ~ 99 _~iYyTN1A pa ~ lAM(l MD p~ ~P "40 0 ~ NVr ~ iNii FlAMti.vE svv~rry M~ i~ <~ C H;,TS. o u~ Clvf $W7~RC El suGAQ~e VICINITY MAP '~ = :~ _ -`~„", °" J ~ ~~ ^ .. ^ NORTB ~~ OO O ,S J y m~O -~ SS ~ ` 'g 3S ' Sa 4U S~ ~ o `° SS v ~~ 63 no O' \ . 9 °° i i/ 0 cc 16 76 34 S ~ ~ z ,,, . ~c 0 ~ ~ ZS /3p a~ ~ ~ - 6 ~ ~ ~ 3i j ~ o ~ CA ~ 4 m ~ ^ j~OG w o °° . 5 ' 3 o `~ b 33 5 5~ ~ 55"3 . ,~, ~,~. ~ laz 33 Y, ~ 'h 6 ~ ~ ~(~' ~ 4~ 75 43 ~ ~ v 7 J P ~ o „~ ~ iJ ,'h'O ~ Circle _ E ~ ~ a ~ ~- 32 (2 ~ti, Ej 49 ,j 9 1449 ~0 ~ S 1 ~ ~„b 6 2~ L Z 8 /~/ V ~ h ~~\ ~ O to y U p ~ r+ ~ /O ~'~ 9 _ 147 47 _ , 99 31 q +,lO 7 ~ ~ ~ L~ ~ ~ i 7 J i ~~9 ~v ~ ~~ Q N Q ~r ~, ji41~ > a,5 a S29 ~ ti ~ ~ 9 s .c w j 30 ~ yA~ ~ v Sp 09 l hh ~ ~ i jam' ,fie .r. ` , `~~ X64 54 ~9 ~ ~a ~j * _ ~ r ~ j O ~ ~~ ~` ~ ~ ~ j I ~ a :, 3i B 30 5529 s , - ` ~-s~s..~ .~ ~ ~ . , Ai tP 2136_' S o . ~ "~ p 25 .t rs ~O ~. ~H 9P 9~ s 29 Z ~rp R T v `\ OO I 'j, ~ q0 r o s ~ 9 ~ 28 ~I T '.. 0 d 'Q ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ 9 1. '~y oa ` ~ 7 T pti 6 12 ~3~~ ~a 13 ,,~ '' 20 o, ` j i 's 2 ~ s'`9 r m `1 g 5 J ~~, j, ~ I I J `~~ N ~~ 21 e 6 ~~ O~ \b5 -o ~~ .~,s 12 ~' ~ ~ ~p r '~ J a \~1 O '94 ~ I. ~o °.~ ~s ` ~° ~'s S 14 h5 `~,. 9sa ' ~ `? TO 15 04 yti ,~,6 "~ 16~~, ROBERT TUNNELL BNCINBBRING 5522 GALLO~dAY CIRCLE CASTLE ROCK FARMS T~ MA.P #76.15-6-9 60 P-1 14 ~ ~`M'yIAOEN saook, 51°R~oRRe~ AmoQ'C1BT~r vt no S~r, oYµo 3o 1PAE3T'~"'°. r - ,•+irvN ~ r p hVT SUGA•S~!?OAT ~q' ~~no.c'. (•PLL ~`i'41 ~, w 0.ac<.~,~i ciaot Ga P RKDIH. ~ r 4p "^'" ~ COAOEII_ ~ ~ ~' ~ u ~1r ccav~u 4! 2 oR sOO•yyPs F C~, 0~ 0?~~ '~ ft fONTA1NE~. u ~`oy ~ avlJ[~C) Cq ~q'f(. ~.5 CRES Y'R[ISLLH~~i DN w y~~r~w'frro~ "iF+S wy. y~i P''YE SUGAR IAAF 4~y vF ~ ~4~q, `1, ; l/`~/O/ - _ ~ Ii1GM1~lND5 P?'~ ~p 6iC~gN in R g pl q~„!L' kgkw ~ CRESE Hill ~ q~u aP~„~ ro„ vi o o LI TAE Oq ~ 1,~~, ~j` l} ~^O ~p.J g tiictBPOO~ f 891 sg ~ ~i701SkRO~gf 0e°d^`'yd 419 1641 .t8°o- sNE~? ~ .Bq~N K o ~ cES Y 5~ c~o~n•o~ 0Q'r CASsf',M, .~~ RD 0 S 9p ~a~ni ~,cryZ "f• ~. '"~~`~° ~ VICINITY MAP i4~ b ;s m. NORTH .,, J ~ s N N 44 ~ ,~ ~ d6a !6 U t6 s '~ 43 ~. o,~ ~B09 ~ti ;611 ~ ~• 000 by ti 42 i! aJ '~J U ti° ~e2s 41 ,, , ~ ,,2 Sg Eli /s ,2s 40 %s ~ 1833 ' O~ 1841 ~6 ° 39 ~3~ .~ Z ° 1849 do 3 v ~ /~ ~~ 36 '~s ~ sa ~ ~ 35 ' . `~~ ~~. 1.61 Ac ~ e5 a j /B3B ~' ~ ~ ~o /B60 ~'~ 5 37 a ~~ ~ N 34 /B4B ~~ ' 9 'm 46 \p2 laze tih Dorset a 11z o7 ae~ a 0 ~ a~h~ 591 110 06 12.1 Df. .~~ ~ ,~0 ti 189.47 I 60.64 a 33.1 / 0 `~~ 25 /85 7 ~~'e h .A - -- 0 °~ .~ W. H. FARTHING BNGINBBRING 1848 DORSET DRIVE TA% MAP #76.10-5-36 6] P-115 ~! ~. ~~"~~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1991 RESOLUTION 7991-4 AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FOR A PLANNING GRANT FROM THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development administers community development block grants for the Commonwealth of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Department of Economic Development recommends that the County apply for a Virginia Community Develop- ment Block Grant/Planning Grant to conduct a preliminary engineer- ing study and prepare a marketing strategy for an industrial site located in Roanoke County and Botetourt County; and WHEREAS, Hollins College Corporation (the owner of the property), Botetourt County, and the Roanoke Valley Regional Partnership support this grant proposal. NOW, THEREFORE be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to submit an application to the Department of Housing and Community Development for a Virginia Community Development Block Grant/Planning Grant to conduct a preliminary engineering study and to prepare a marketing strategy for an industrial site owned by Hollins College Corporation. 2. That if the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development awards this grant to Roanoke County, then this grant 1 will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for formal accep- tance. 3. That no County funds are appropriated for this purpose at this time. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Tim Gubala, Director, Economic Development Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development 2 Item No. ~~ / AT A REGULAR MEETING HE ROANOKECOUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT T IN ROANOKE, VA ON TUESDAY, MEETING DATE: July 9, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Request to apply for a Planning Grant from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: Roanoke County is an eligible applicant for a Viea~n 1991~~unThe Development Block Grant (VCDBG) for fiscal y Department of Economic Development would like to appstud o and competitive grant to conduct a preliminary engineering owned prepare a marketing strategy for an industrial site currentlo 150+ by the Hollins Colleg en to Ex t 43,TInterstate(I 81 ap Since the acres is located ad~ac there is an opportunity to apply property lies in both Counties, rant to develop the site for a future joint VCDBG construction g into another industrial park. The Regional Partnership and Hollins College are Botetourt County, aware of this grant proposal and support its concept. No Coun y matching funds are required and the maximu1991a and wnot f cation0of The filing deadline is Friday, July 12, an award would be mid August, 1991. FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no fiscal impact to apply for the grant. If a grant award is offered it wice tance.rought back to the Board of Supervisors for formal ac p ALTERNATIVES: 1. Concur with the staff recommendation to apply for a Virginia Community Development Block Grant. (Planning Grant) 2. Do not apply for a grant. ~' ~" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve attached resolution and authorize the staff to execute necessary documents to apply for a Virginia Community Development Block Grant (Planning Grant). Respectfully submitted: Approved: ~ w, ~~ ~~ Timothy W. Gubala, Director Elmer C. Hodge Economic Development County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to ACTION Motion by: No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers Attachment • •~. ` ~ ~^~ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ~R DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES ,,.,~.• 5058 IV NW sgj 592 57'30" 593 i (oALEVILLEJ 595 ~1 i. ~ too i~ ~ ~~~~%~~j, '" ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ a$ \ ---~ l~~ ~_- ~~ ~ ~. q t ~ ~,, 1 ~1 i ~ ~ Q \ / F ~ "_ ,. ' `' " - ~.-- s- ~, ~ ~ ,~~ ,_~ ti~ _ ~ ; _~ ~ _~ 1~----~~ _ ~ ~~ n N ~ i4 , O ~ ~ ~• ~ q ~y ~ ap /JS~ ~ ~ % __ l • .p~ la ~ ~ ~ ~=-- •~i~~ -. -- ~ 'o ~ m ~ i ~ /197x ~ ° i/~ ~ ~ ° 1 ~~ ~ ' ~ L y~~ ~: ~ ~ :r ~.--JO. a ,~+136 \ ~~~ li ; P~ ~ .6 /~ ~.\ ' i •A 7~ "~ ~O l/ v~ i ~ ~; _~~ ~...// V /~ ~ p ~~ 8 ~ ~ ij. • _ ~~ ~o ~ ° ° ,~ ~ ~~~ . ~ ro en in ~ ~ `~~ ~ ~ ,~ .•••-''' '•'• , as ' Q .F \ . • _• • • h ii • _ O o O }~ /ee 1 G .'f. '\ ~ +~ ,. • ; '' ~1.- ~=0 i • it { ~~ - O • •'~~• _ ~~ ~ f riv ••i - i` "R I N _, ~. ~ Q ° bR M ~ ~.~ ,~ m ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ • 0\ ~ lo9<x \ • ~ ;~ O a ~"~ ~ o t:.Gar~ns a< _ o A• ; I $ ~ ` ~ 71 • •~ ,~ 0 //` a ~~ ~• / O 175 ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ - ~ ,y7? • ~o ~\ ~ ~ ~\~) ~~ i' .© O a^ ins /~ ~ '`~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1991 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FOR A PLANNING GRANT FROM THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development administers community development block grants for the Commonwealth of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Department of Economic Development recommends that the County apply for a Virginia Community Develop- ment Block Grant/Planning Grant to conduct a preliminary engineer- ing study and prepare a marketing strategy for an industrial site located in Roanoke County and Botetourt County; and WHEREAS, Hollins College Corporation (the owner of the property), Botetourt County, and the Roanoke Valley Regional Partnership support this grant proposal. NOW, THEREFORE be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to submit an application to the Department of Housing and Community Development for a Virginia Community Development Block Grant/Planning Grant to conduct a preliminary engineering study and to prepare a marketing strategy for an industrial site owned by Hollins College Corporation. 2. That if the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development awards this grant to Roanoke County, then this grant 1 ~-~" will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for formal accep- tance. 3. That no County funds are appropriated for this purpose at this time. 2 ACTION NO. A-7991-5 ITEM NUMBER ~'~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 9, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of a grant by the County Police Department for drug enforcement program. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND' The Criminal Investigations Division of the Roanoke County Police Department has been notified by the Department of Criminal Justice Services that it has been awarded a grant of $22,039 for the purpose of enhancing the investigation and prosecution of persons who use Roanoke County motels as a temporary location to distribute drugs. The monies will be used to pay officers and detectives to work overtime, and to pay informants and purchase drugs. Since this enforcement program is conducted during the officers' off duty time, the current level of general law enforcement in the County will not be affected. FISCAL IMPACT' This grant will not require an additional allocation from the County budget. A matching fund of $7,346 will be supplied from seized monies from a DEA Task Force operation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the acceptance of said grant to defray the expense of this additional enforcement action. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, J~. Cease Elmer C. Hodge Chief of Police County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved ( x) Motion by: T,PP B _ F; c3~3y mc~t i can Denied ( ) to aFz rove _ Eddy x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred ( ) McGraw x To Nickens x Robers x cc: File John Cease, Chief of Police 6 A-7991-6 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~ "'tD AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 9, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of a Grant by the Police Department for Community Crime Prevention Services COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~Z~Y ~x BACKGROUND' The Roanoke County Police Department has applied for a grant to continue the existing Crime Prevention Program which provides for a second full time Crime Prevention Officer for the fiscal year 91- 92. The grant was approved by the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) in the amount of $32,235. FISCAL IMPACT' This is a 75~ Federal funds ($24,176), 25$ local funds ($8,059) grant. The local match will be funded from the existing Police Department budget. No new monies are requested from the Board at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the acceptance of this grant to continue the Crime Prevention Services as they exist to the citizens of Roanoke County. ~' Respectfully submitted, ~• C~..~- John H. Cease Chief of Police ~ - to Approved by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved (x ) Motion by: Harry C' _ Ni C`1CPT1S Denied ( ) mnt i nn t-~ aLZ rwP Eddy x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred ( ) McGraw x To Nickens x Robers x cc: File John Cease, Chief of Police ACTION NO. A-7991-7 ITEM NUMBER ^' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 9, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Authorization to enter into a Contract with the SPCA to provide Animal Shelter Services to the County COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND' For the past several years, the Roanoke Valley SPCA has provided animal shelter facilities and services to the County of Roanoke and City of Roanoke, so that these entities would not be required to provide their own animal pound. The County's current contract requires a payment to the SPCA of five dollars ($5.00) per day per animal. For this payment, the SPCA will house all animals turned in by County officials, attempt to provide adoption for animals abandoned and provide for the proper disposal of all destroyed animals. The proposed contract provides for a fee of fifteen hundred dollars per month ($1,500.00) to impound and care for animals delivered to it by Roanoke County officials. This amount has been determined by comparison of animals delivered by the County, City of Roanoke and Town of Vinton, and each of the localities was involved in the contract discussions. According to the Chairman of the Board of Directors, specific plans for a new capital facility have been put on hold for the present time until the operating budget can be stabilized. A reference to this need within the Capital Improvements Plan is still appropriate for long term planning needs of our community. -~_~ ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACT: RECOMMENDATION' Staff recommends that the County Administrator be authorized to execute the above referenced contract on a form and conditions approved by the County Attorney. The effective date of this contract would be July 1, 1991. Monies are included in the 1991- 92 fiscal year budget to cover the cost of this contract revision. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, 'ohn M. Chambliss, Jr. Elmer C. Hodge Assistant Administrator County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- Approved (X) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by: T. e B_ EdcJy motion to aLZ rnvP VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy x Johnson x McGraw x Nickens x Robers x cc: File John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator ACTION NO. A-7991-8 ITEM NUMBER D-8 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 9, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Support for Senator Gartlan's Beverage Container Deposit Bill COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Chairman McGraw requested that information regarding a new beverage container deposit bill be placed on the agenda for discussion. Senator Joseph Gartlan plans to introduce this legislation in the January 199 General Assembly session. RECOMMENDATION• Chairman McGraw recommends that this issue be referred to the County Attorney for further review and possible inclusion in Roanoke County's legislative requests to the General Assembly. /.~~t.c~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (~ Motion by: r, .ddy motion No Yes Abs Denied ( ) to refer to County Attorney Eddy x Received ( ) for review and possible inclu- Johnson x Referred ( ) sion in legislative requests McGraw x To ( ) Nickens x Robers x cc: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney LSE ~~Y~~~~ i 1 x, ~ ~ , F. I~~ (~nvironrnenta~ ~roc~ucts ~orporatio~z Mr. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Roanoke County P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, ETA 2401Q Dear Mr. Hodge ~~~ _„~..,-~'--.,.~.11L~~~.rG ~~~~ ~ ,-_ -G~NIA ___.,, ~ ~-a ~ ~ ~ ~ -~~ ~ rye ~~ie~~~(r~-~~ .~ June 21, 1991 Senator Joseph Gartlan will submit a "new style" beverage container deposit bill in Richmond this coming January. His bill is similar to ones being considered in Ohio and Florida. The basic structure of the new bill was developed by government oversight committees, industry representatives and environmental groups across the U.S. As a private business with ten years of beverage container redemption experience we believe this to be the most comprehensive, effective and efficient deposit program we have seen. As fellow Virginians we strongly recommend its passage and implementation. The Virginia version entitled the Virginia Beverage Container Recycling Act has features that are especially important to local governments both rural and urban. The purpose of these features is, first, to reduce the amount of solid waste that local governments have got to manage. Second, to provide grants to local governments for their various recycling program needs. Importantly the proposed Act being self funding does this without increasing taxes. Those consumers who litter our roads and parks or just do not care enough to recycle their containers pay for the system by foregoing the return of their deposits. Under the proposed Act, using estimated recycling rates of 65 to 80 percent over the five year startup period, Roanoke County would receive the following amounts: Year #1 513,224 Year #2 401,396 Year #3 289,569 Year #4 233,655 Year #5 177,741 Total 1,615,585 ** { . Additionally the proposed Act benefits existing recycling activities such as drop-off and curbside programs. Today for instance these programs get about 1 cent scrap value for each 2 liter plastic bottle they collect. Under the proposed Act these programs would get both the scrap value and deposit amount. This would be 11 cents instead of 1 cent for the plastic bottle. Opponents of the proposed Act carefully obfuscate these facts. We propose you examine them as did officials in Cincinnati. The Cincinnati Public Works Department found that combining its curbside program with a deposit program would increase the amount of material diverted from the landfill by 60~ (because deposit systems are very effective) while simultaneously reducing the cost of recycling by 25~. Other studies have found similar results applying to a wide variety of communities. This Act is the kind of innovative and productive public policy at the state level that will help in your management of local government services. We suggest you consider asking your Delegate(s) and Senators} to support and vote for this Legislation. The solid waste problem has reached the crisis level in Virginia and this Act is an important step in the direction of a comprehensive solid waste management solution. Sincerely, ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION Bruce H. DeWoolfson - Chairman and CEO BHD/pj *F ACTION NO. A-7991-9 ITEM NUMBER D-9 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 9, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Request from Accomack County for a Resolution of Support for participation in Virginia Retirement System for Boards of Supervisors COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: p ~~- ~ // S ARY OF INFORMATION: The Accomack County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution requesting the right of participation in the Virginia Retirement System for members of city councils and board of supervisors. They have requested that other local governments adopt a similar resolution. Chairman McGraw requested that this item be placed on the agenda for discussion. RECOMMENDATION' It is recommended that the attached resolution be adopted and sent to the appropriate members of the General Assembly, the Virginia Association of Counties and the Virginia Municipal League. ±,/ ~ /^/ V L Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: R~ L. Johnson motion No Yes Abs Denied ( ) t rPfPr o County Attorney for Eddy x Received ( ) ra~~iPw and possible inclusion Johnson x Referred ( ) ;n 1Pg;~la ive requests McGraw x To ( ) Nickens x Robers x cc: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1991 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE RIGHT OF PARTICIPATION IN THE VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEM BY BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS AND CITY COUNCILS WHEREAS, throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia selfless, dedicated and able men and women devote themselves to service on Boards of Supervisors and City Councils; and WHEREAS, many of these local lawmakers have served for decades at quite low salaries; and WHEREAS, in gratitude for their service and as an encouragement for future service, the right of participation in the Virginia Retirement System would recognize the contributions of boards or supervisors and city councils. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia supports participation by members of city councils and boards of supervisors in the Virginia Retirement System, and urges the Virginia General Assembly to adopt the necessary legislation to allow them this opportunity. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia directs that a copy of this resolution be sent to members of the House Appropriations Committee, the Roanoke Valley legislators, the Virginia Association of Counties and the Virginia Municipal League. `J U iii ~ U d ;7 COUNTY OF ACCOMACK OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR P. O. BOX 388 ACCOMAC, VIRGINIA 23301 ~804~ 787-5700 (804) 824-5444 Arthur K. Fisher County Administrator June 24, 1991 The Honorable Richard W. Robers Chairman, Board of Supervisors County of Roanoke Post Office Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Dear Honorable Robers: Enclosed you will find an. attested copy of a Resolution adopted by the Accomack County Board of Supervisors at its meeting June 19, 1991, requesting the right of participation in the Virginia Retirement System for members of city councils and boards of supervisors in the Commonwealth. We are asking that your municipality support the action of the Accomack County Board by adopting this, or a similar, Resolution, and forwarding a copy of your Resolution to the members of the House Appropriations Commitee, your representatives in the Virginia State Senate and House of Delegates, the Virginia Association of Counties, and the Virginia Municipal League. We would appreciate it if you would also send a copy of your resolution to this office. Yours very truly, Arthur K. Fisher County Administrator ~~c~ ~[JO GAO l c_. L.C,~~ ~ '~ ~ Q~°o,D~~or> VIRGINIA: At a Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors for the County of Accomack held in Board Chambers on the 19th day of June, A.D., 1991. Members Present: William D. Sawyer, Chairman Julia E. Major, Vice Chairman Paul B. Merritt C. D. Fleming, Jr. Harry L. Wessells, Jr. James C. Payne Warren F. Nock Laura Belle Gordy Donald L. Hart, Jr. Mr. Merritt made a moticn to adcpt the following Resolution. Mr. Fleming seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS, throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia selfless, dedicated and able men and women devote themselves to service on City Councils and Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, many of these local lawmakers have served for decades, and WHEREAS, the salary paid to the Council members and Supervisors has always been quite low, 'and WHEREAS, in gratitude for their service and as an encouragement for further service, the right of participation in the Virginia Retirement System would-be a way a grateful Commonwealth could recognize its Council Members and Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Accomack recognize the justice and fairness of having its members made eligible for benefits under the Virginia Retirement System: NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Accomack adopts this Resolution and directs that copies of it be sent to Members of the House Appropriations Committee, Senator William E. Fears, Delegate Robert S. Bloxom, the Virginia Association of Counties, and the Virginia Municipal League; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Accomack invites the governing body of every city and county in the Commonwealth to adopt a resolution urging the General Assembly to include members of Councils and Boards of Supervisors under the Virginia Retirement System. A COPY - TESTE: ~~~~_ Arthur K. Fisher County Administrator r 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: July 9, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: First Reading of Ordinance Amending Article III, Sewer Use Standards, of Chapter 16 of the Roanoke County Code of 1971 (Chapter 18 of the Roanoke County Code of 1985) COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND' The 1972 Sewage Treatment Agreement between Roanoke City and Roanoke County requires the County to adopt such ordinances and regulations that conform to those adopted by the City of Roanoke as they pertain to Sewer Use Standards. The County of Roanoke adopted Ordinance 62486-146 on June 24, 1986 and Ordinance 91289-14 amending Ordinance 62486-146 on September 12, 1989 in order to meet the above requirements. Recent requirements of the State Water Control Board and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have required the City of Roanoke to amend their Sewer Use Standards. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Attached is the proposed amendment to the Roanoke County Sewer Use Standards that are required so that our Ordinance conforms to the form and intent of the City of Roanoke Ordinance. The amendments are minor in nature and will not have a significant effect on sewer use within Roanoke County. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: There is no practical alternative to adopting this Ordinance. Adoption is required by the 1972 Sewage Treatment Agreement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the first reading of this Ordinance be held July 9, 1991. It is further recommended that the Ordinance be adopted after the second reading on July 23, 1991 with an effective date of August 1, 1991. ,~. A ~'-/ SUBMITTED BY: Clifford~r~ig, P.E. Utility Director APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers Ca ~ / AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1991 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING ARTICLE IV, SEWER USE STANDARDS, OF CHAPTER 18 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE OF 1985 (formerly, Article III, of Chapter 16 of the Roanoke County Code of 1971). WHEREAS, the 1972 Sewage Treatment Agreement entered into by and between, and still binding upon, Roanoke City and the County of Roanoke requires the County to adopt such ordinances and regulations as necessary to conform to those adopted by the City of Roanoke as they pertain to Sewer Use Standards; and WHEREAS, by Ordinance # 62486-146, § 1, adopted on June 24, 1986, Chapter 16 of the Roanoke County Code of 1971 was amended to add an Article III relative to sewer use standards and by Ordinance # 91289- 14, adopted on September 12, 1989, said Article was further amended; and WHEREAS, recent regulatory requirements enacted by the State Water Control Board and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency have necessitated changes by the City of Roanoke to its Sewer Use Standards; and WHEREAS, the operative requirements of the current Sewage Treatment Agreement between Roanoke City and the County of Roanoke requires amendment of the County's ordinances to bring them into conformity with the current Roanoke City Sewer Use Standards; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 9, 1991, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on July 23, 1991. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1 .~. 1. That the amended "SEWER USE STANDARDS" be reenacted as "ARTICLE IV. SEWER USE STANDARDS" of CHAPTER 18 of the Roanoke County Code of 1985. CHAPTER 18 ARTICLE IV. SEWER USE STANDARDS Sec. 18-151 Definitions. For the purpose of this article, the words and phrases set out in this section shall have the following meanings: Act means the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq., as amended. Approving Authority for purposes of this Article only shall mean the county Administrator or his duly authorized representative and shall be equivalent to control authority. BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) means the quantity of oxygen by weight, expressed in mg/1, utilized in the biochemical oxidation of organic matter under standard laboratory conditions for five (5) days at a temperature of twenty (20) degrees centigrade. Building sewer means the extension from the building drain to the public sewer or other place of disposal (also called house lateral and house connection). Categorical Standards means National Categorical Pretreatment Standards or Pretreatment Standard. Capital costs means a sum sufficient recovered by user charges computed by using the capital recover factor for the average life of all capital items including capitalized O & M charges (unless collected separately) 2 ~I on which expenditures have been made or will have to be made for wastewater treatment facilities, processes or transmission lines. Capital costs may be adjusted from time to time to reflect cost experience. Categorical standards means National Categorical Pretreatment Standards or Pretreatment Standard. Class I user means any person discharging normal domestic wastewater into a sanitary sewer and any industrial user discharging Group B wastewater into the sanitary sewer. Class II user means any person discharging Group A wastewater into a sanitary sewer. COD (chemical oxygen demand) means the measure, expressed in mg/1, of the oxygen consuming capacity of inorganic and organic matter present in water or wastewater, expressing the amount of oxygen consumed from a chemical oxidant in a specific test, but not differentiating between stable and unstable organic matter and thus not necessarily correlating with biochemical oxygen demand. COD-BOD ratio means the ratio of the value of COD to BOD as these values are defined above. COD (soluble) means the COD of the filtrate from wastewater that is filtered through a gooch crucible as required by the suspended solids test in "Standard Methods." Control manhole means a manhole giving access to a building sewer at some point before the building sewer discharge mixes with other discharges in the public sewer. 3 C,-! Control point means a point of access to a course of discharge before the discharge mixes with other discharges in the public sewer. County means Roanoke County. Discharge means any introduction of substances into the sanitary sewer. Garbage means animal and vegetable wastes and residue from the preparation, cooking and dispensing of food, and from the handling, processing, storage and sale of food products and produce. GroupA wastewater means wastewater discharged into the sanitary sewers in which any one of the parameters below are more than the given loading: Average Daily Parameter Monthly Composite Total suspended solids (TSS) 62.5 lbs./day 75 lbs./day Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) 62.5 lbs./day 75 lbs./day Total phosphorus (TP) 3.75 lbs./day 4.5 lbs./day Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 4.50 lbs./day 5.4 lbs./day Group B wastewater means the discharge of permitted industrial wastewater not otherwise qualifying as Group A wastewater. Incompatible waste means a waste which is not susceptible to adequate treatment by the wastewater treatment plant. Industrial user means any user of publicly owned treatment works identified in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987, Office of Management and Budget, as amended and supplemented, under 4 G-/ divisions A, B,D, E, and I, including governmental facilities that discharge wastewater to the plant. Industrial waste means waste resulting from any process of industry, manufacturing, trade or business from the development of any natural resource, or any mixture of the waste with water or normal wastewater, or distinct from normal wastewater. Infiltration means water entering a sewer system, including service connections from the ground, through such means as, but not limited to, defective pipes, pipe joints, connections or manhole walls. Infiltration does not include, and is distinguished from inflow. Inflow means water discharged into a sewer system, including service connections, from such sources as, but not limited to, roof leaders, cellar,yard and area drains, foundation drains, cooling water discharges, drains from springs and swampy areas, manhole covers, cross connections from storm sewers and combined sewers, catch basins, storm waters, surface runoff, street wash waters, or drainage. It does not include, and is distinguished from infiltration. Interference means a discharge which, along or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, (1) inhibits or disrupts the plant, its treatment processes or operations, or its sludge processes, use or disposal; or (2) causes a violation of the plant's VPDES permit. Milligrams per liter (mg/1) means the same as parts per million and is a weight-to-volume ratio; the milligram-per liter value multiplied by the factor 8.34 shall be equivalent to pounds per million gallons of water. National categorical pretreatment standard or pretreatment standard means any 5 C, - / regulations containing pollutant discharge limits promulgated by the EPA in accordance with Sections 307(b) and (c) of the Act (33 U.S.C. 1317) and 40 C.F.R. Subchapter N (Parts 401-471) as amended, which applies to a specific category of industrial users. Natural outlet means any outlet into a watercourse, ditch, lake or other body of surface water or ground water. Normal wastewater means wastewater discharged into the sanitary sewers in which the average concentration of total suspended solids and BOD is not more than 250 mg/1, total phosphorus is not more than 15 mg/1, total Kjeldahl nitrogen is not more than 18 mg/1 and total flow is not more than 25,000 gallons per day. Overload means the imposition of organic or hydraulic loading on a treatment facility in excess of its engineered design capacity. Pass through means a discharge which exits the plant into water of the United States in quantities which may cause a violation of the plant's VPDES permit. Person includes individual, corporation, organization, government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership association and any other legal entity. pH means the logarithm (base 10) of the reciprocal of the hydrogen ion concentration expressed in grams per liter. Phosphorus (total) means the sum of the various types of phosphate expressed as elemental phosphorus found in wastewater. The various forms include ortho phosphate, condensed phosphates (gyro, meta, and 6 ~-I poly-phosphates), and organically bound phosphates. The concentration of total phosphate is determined by the "Standard Methods" test procedure. Plant means the City of Roanoke Regional Sewage Treatment Plant, e~ Public sewer means pipe or conduit carrying wastewater or unpolluted drainage in which owners of abutting properties shall have the use, subject to control by the County. Sanitary sewer means a public sewer that conveys domestic wastewater or industrial wastes or a combination of both, and into which storm water, surface water, groundwater and other unpolluted wastes are not intentionally passed. Slug means any discharge of water, wastewater or industrial waste which, in concentration of any given constituent or in quantity of flow, exceeds, for any period longer than fifteen (IS) minutes, more than five (S) times the average twenty four (24) hour concentration or flows during normal operation. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) means classification pursuant to the Standard Industrial Classification Manual issued by the Executive Office of , Management and Budget, 1987, as amended. Standard Methods means the examination and analytical procedures set forth in the latest edition, at the time of analysis, of "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater" as prepared, approved and published jointly by the American Public Health Association, the American Water Works Association and the Water Pollution Control Federation. ~3 ' / Storm sewer means a public sewer which carries storm and surface water and drainage and into which domestic wastewater or industrial wastes are not intentionally passed. Storm water means rainfall or any other forms of precipitation. Suspended solids means solids measured in mgll that either f loat on the surface of, or are in suspension in, water, wastewater or other liquids, and which are largely removable by a laboratory filtration device. To discharge includes to deposit, conduct, drain, emit, throw, run, allow to seep or otherwise release or dispose of, or to allow, permit or suffer any of these acts or omissions. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen means the combined ammonia and organic nitrogen in a given wastewater, as measured by the "Standard Methods" test procedure. It does not include nitrite and nitrate nitrogen. Trap means a device designed to skim, settle or otherwise remove grease, oil, sand, flammable wastes or other harmful substances. Unpolluted wastewater means water containing: (1) No fee or emulsified grease or oil. (2) No acids or alkalis. (3) No phenols or other substances producing taste or odor in receiving water. (4) No toxic or poisonous substances in suspension, colloidal state or solution. (S) No noxious or otherwise obnoxious or odorous gases. (6) Not more than ten (10) mgll each of suspended solids and BOD. (7) Color not exceeding fifty (SO) units, as measured by the Platinum-Cobalt method of determination, as specified in "Standard Methods." s ~! User charge means the charge made to those persons who discharge normal wastewater into the County's sewage system. This charge shall include a proportionate share of any capital improvements to the system (capital costs). User surcharge means the charge made, in excess of the user charge, for all wastewater over and above the loading defined as normal wastewater. Waste means rejected, unutilized or superfluous substances, in liquid, gaseous or solid form, resulting from domestic, agricultural or industrial activities. Wastewater means a combination of the water-carried waste from residences, business buildings, institutions and industrial establishments, together with any ground, surface and storm water that may be present. Wastewater facilities includes all facilities for collection, pumping treating and disposing of wastewater and industrial wastes. Wastewater service charge means the charge on all users of the public sewer whose wastes are treated at the plant and is the appropriate sum of the user charge and user surcharge. Wastewater treatment plant means any municipal-owned facilities, devices and structures used for receiving processing and treating wastewater, industrial waste and sludges from the sanitary sewers. Wastecourse means a natural or man-made channel in which a flow of water occurs, either continuously or intermittently. sec. 18-152. General Requirements. (a) All discharges into public sewers shall conform to requirements of this article; however, the federal categorical pretreatment standards or any standards imposed by the state water 9 Ci -/ control board or its successor in authority are hereby incorporated by reference where applicable and where such standards are more stringent than those set forth in this article. (b ) ~lAzrr~9 }-~-rztr'r-ate .. i i a ~ .. ,.ti.., ,., a„,. i. ,,. ~ .. i ,. ~. ,... ~ ~ ..,,.,. ,,. } .. .. vz..c wu u.~c...i ~~~~~-~ere~s~ze~--ei~eeg~-as No sicinificant industrial user or other user as determined by the auprovinct authority shall discharge industrial wastewaters into the sanitarv sewer system without an appropriate industrial waste discharge hermit as provided in this article. (c) Unless exception is granted by the approving authority or by other provisions of this chapter, the public sewer system shall be used by all persons discharging wastewater, industrial waste, polluted liquids or unpolluted waters or liquids. (d) Unless authorized by the State Water Control Board or its successor in authority, no person shall deposit or discharge any waste included in subsection (c) of this section on public or private property in or adjacent to any natural outlet, watercourse, storm sewer or other area within the jurisdiction of the County. (e) The approving authority shall determine, prior to discharge, that wastes to be discharged will receive such treatment as is required by the laws, regulations, ordinances, rules and orders of federal, state and local authorities, or such discharge shall not be permitted. (f) Each industrial user discharging industrial waste waters into the sanitary sewer system shall provide protection from accidental discharge of prohibited materials or other substances regulated by this Article. Facilities to prevent accidental discharge of prohibited 10 °"( materials shall be provided and maintained at the owner or user's own cost and expense. Detailed plans showing facilities and operating procedures to provide this protection shall be submitted to the approving authority before construction of the facility. All such existing users shall complete such a plan by July 1, 1986. No such user who commences operation after the effective date of this section shall be permitted to introduce pollutants into the system until accidental discharge procedures have been so approved. Review and approval of such plans and operating procedures shall not relieve the industrial user from the responsibility to modify the user's facility as necessary to meet the requirements of this Article. In the case of an accidental discharge, it is the responsibility of the user to immediately telephone and notify the approving authority of the incident. The notification shall include location of discharge, type of waste, concentration and volume and corrective actions. Within five (5) days following an accidental discharge; the user shall submit to the approving authority a detailed written report describing the cause of the discharge and the measures to be taken by the user to prevent similar future occurrences. Such notification shall not relieve the user of any expense, loss, damage, or other liability which may be incurred as a result of damage to the sewer system or treatment plant, fish kills, or any other damage to person or property; nor shall such notification relieve the user of any fines, civil penalties, or other liability which may be imposed by this article or other applicable law. A notice shall be permanently posted on the user's bulletin board 11 G-I or other prominent place advising employees whom to call in the event of a dangerous discharge. Employers shall insure that all employees who may cause or suffer such a dangerous discharge to occur are advised of the emergency notification procedure. (g) In the event of an emergency, as determined by the approving authority, the approving authority shall be authorized to immediately halt any actual or threatened discharge. (h) A person discharging in violation of the provisions of this article, within thirty (30) days of the date of such discharge, shall sample, analyze and submit the data to the approving authority unless the approving authority elects to perform such sampling. Sec. 18-153. Prohibited Discharges Generally. (a) No person shall discharge into public sewers any waste which, by itself or by interaction with other wastes, may: (1) Injure or interfere with wastewater treatment processes or facilities; (2) Constitute a hazard to humans or animals; or (3) Create a hazard in receiving waters of the wastewater treatment plant effluent. ,~ Generate heat in amounts which will inhibit biological activity in the plant resulting in interference, and in no case heat in such quantities that the temperature at the plant exceeds forty (40) degrees Celsius (one hundred four (104) degrees Fahrenheit) unless the approving authority approves alternate temperature limits. (b) Discharges into public sewers shall not contain: 12 ~-i (1) ~a~r~de-gi~eate~--t~i~-~~t/~ Antifreeze . (2) Fluoride other than that contained in the public water supply greater than 10.0 mg/1. (3 )szr~rvrru~e9~.zr-cvirce'nzrcctz~6i•3'9 ~i~ea~ei`~~?.•,,• ^ c n ~~.,,/ ~ Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene and Xylene (BTEX) greater than 5.0 mq/1. (4) Qasv~e~e~en , a~tte~--s-Herat-k~.. ~, ~~~°'~, ' Flammable or explosive liquid, solid or aas in hazardous amounts. (5) Substances causing a chemical oxygen demand (COD) greater than 1,500 mg/1 in the wastewater. (6) Strong acid or concentrated plating solutions, whether neutralized or not. (7) Fats, wax, grease or oils, whether emulsified or not, in excess of 100 mg/1 or containing substances which may solidify or become viscous at temperatures between thirty-two (32°) degrees and one hundred fifty (150) degrees Fahrenheit (0° and 65° Centigrade). (8) Obnoxious, toxic or poisonous solids, liquids, or gases in quantities sufficient to violate the provisions of subsection (a) of this section. (9) Waste, wastewater or any other substance having a Ph lower than 5.5 or higher than 9.5, or any other substance with a corrosive property capable of causing damage or hazard to structures, equipment or personnel at the 13 ~~ wastewater facility. (10 ) Substances which cause a COD to BOD ratio greater than 5 . (11) Waste, wastewater or any other substance containing phenols, hydrogen sulfide or other taste-and-odor producing substances that have not been minimized. After treatment of the composite wastewater, effluent concentration limits may not exceed the requirements established by state, federal or other agencies with jurisdiction over discharges to receiving waters. Sec. 18-154. Technical based local limits. (a) Discharges shall not contain concentrations of heavy metals greater than amounts specified in subsection (b) of this section. (b) The maximum allowable concentrations of heavy metals and toxic materials stated in terms of milligrams per liter (mg/1), determined on the basis of individual sampling in accordance with "Standard Methods" are: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Arsenic: B-~-A~g~ .25 mq/1 Barium: 5.0 mg/1 Boron : ~-A-~ 1.0 mg/ 1 Cadmium: 0.02 mg/1 Chromium, Total: rA-~~ 2.0 mg/l Chromium VI• (7) Copper: (8) Lead: (9) Manganese: (10) Mercury: .011 mgf L. 1.0 mg/1 ~ . 2 mg f l 1.0 mg/1 0.005 mg/1 14 ~-1 (11) Nickel: ~8-~ 2.0 mg/1 (12) Selenium: 0.02 mg/1 (13) Silver: 0.1 mg/1 (14) Zinc: 2.0 mg/1 (15) Cvanide: 1.0 mg/1 In addition, if it is determined that any one of these parameters exceeds the state effluent requirements for the wastewater treatment plant, an adjustment in the given parameter concentration limit will be required. To accomplish this, the industrial discharge permits for industries discharging the particular compound will be adjusted to insure compliance. (c) No other heavy metals or toxic materials shall be discharged into public sewers without a permit from the approving authority specifying conditions of pretreatment, concentrations, volumes and other applicable provisions. (d) Prohibited heavy metals and toxic materials include, but are not limited to: (1) Antimony. (2) Beryllium. (3) Bismuth. (4) Cobalt (5) Molybdenum. (6) Uranium ion. (7) Rhenium. (8) Strontium. (9) Tellurium. 15 ~~- ~/ (10) Herbicides. (11) Fungicides. (12) Pesticides. Sec. 18-155. Discharge of garbage. (a) No person may discharge garbage into public sewers, unless it is shredded to a degree that all particles can be carried freely under the flow conditions normally prevailing in public sewers. Particles greater than one-half inch in any dimension are prohibited. (b) The approving authority shall have the right to review and approve the installation and operation of any garbage grinder equipped with a motor of three-fourths horsepower (0.76 hp metric) or greater. Sec. 18-156. Discharge of storm water and other unpolluted drainage. (a) No person shall discharge into public sanitary sewers: (1) Unpolluted storm water, surface water, groundwater, roof runoff or subsurface drainage. (2) Other unpolluted drainage. (b) The approving authority shall designate storm sewers and other watercourses into which unpolluted drainage described in subsection (a) of this section may be discharged. Sec. 18-157. Temperature of discharges. No person shall discharge liquid or vapor having a temperature higher than one hundred fifty (150) degrees Fahrenheit (65° Centigrade), or any substance which causes the temperature of the total wastewater treatment plant influent to increase at a rate of ten (10) degrees Fahrenheit or more per hour, or a combined total increase of plant 16 G -/ influent temperature to one hundred four (104) degrees Fahrenheit. Sec. 18-158. Discharge of radioactive wastes. (a) No person shall discharge radioactive wastes or isotopes into public sewers, without the permission of the approving authority. (b) The approving authority reserves the right to establish, in compliance with applicable state and federal regulations, regulations for discharge of radioactive waste into public sewers. Sec. 18-159 Discharge of substances capable of impairing, etc. facilities. (a) No person shall discharge into public sewers any substance capable of causing: (1) Obstruction to the flow in sewers; (2) Interference with the operation of treatment processes or facilities; or (3) Excessive loading of treatment facilities. (b) Discharges prohibited by subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, materials which exert or cause concentrations of: (1) Insert suspended solids greater than 250 mg/1 including, but not 1 invited to Fuller' s earth, 1 ime slurries and 1 ime residues. (2) Dissolved solids greater than 500 mg/1 including, but no limited to sodium chlorine and sodium sulfate. (3) Excessive discoloration including, but not limited to dye wastes and vegetable tanning solutions. 17 ~ -/ (4) Wastes having a COD to BOD ratio greater than 5 to 1. Industries having wastewater of this nature shall provide pretreatment as required by the approving authority. (c) No person shall discharge into public sewers any substance that may: (1) Deposit grease or oil in the sewer lines in such a manner as to clog the sewers; (2) Overload skimming and grease handling equipment; (3) Pass to the receiving waters without being effectively treated by normal wastewater treatment processes due to the nonamenability of the substance to bacterial action; or (4) Deleteriously affect the treatment process due to excessive quantities. (d) No person shall discharge incompatible waste into public sewers which: (1) Is not amenable to treatment or reduction by the wastewater treatment processes and facilities employed; or (2) Is amenable to treatment only to such a degree that the treatment plant effluent cannot meet the requirements of other agencies having jurisdiction over discharges to the receiving waters. Subsection (b) (3) of this section illustrates the types of substances intended to be regulated by this subsection. (e) The approving authority shall regulate the flow and 18 ~-/ concentration of slugs when they may: (1) Impair the treatment process; (2) Cause damage to collection facilities; (3) Incur treatment costs exceeding those for normal wastewater; or (4) Render the waste unfit for stream disposal or industrial use. Industrial operations which, on occasion, release sludges of waterborne wastes into the sewers, or which, on occasion, release any significant quantities of materials which adversely influence the effectiveness of treatment in the wastewater treatment plant shall notify the plant in advance of their release, and shall control, at the discretion of the approving authority, the rate of release of these wastes. Permission for such planned releases shall not be unreasonably withheld. Persons failing to comply with these requirements shall be subject to a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) per incident, and shall also be liable for the payment of any damages caused, either directly or indirectly, by the unapproved discharge. (f) No person shall discharge into public sewers solid or viscous substances which violate subsection (a)of this section, if present in sufficient quantity or size, including but not limited to: (1) Ashes. (2) Cinders. (3) Sand. (4) Mud. (5) Straw. 19 ~ -i (6) Shavings. (7) Metal. (8) Glass. (9) Rags. (10) Feathers. (11) Tar. (12) Plastics. (13) Wood. (14) Unground garbage. (15) Whole blood. (16) Paunch manure. (17) Hair and fleshings. (18) Entrails. (19) Paper products, either whole or ground by garbage grinders (20) Slops. (21) Chemical residues. (22) Paint residues. (23) Bulk solids. (g) No person shall discharge into the public sewers pollutants which cause interference or pass through. (h) No person shall discharge into the public sewers pollutants with a high flow rate or concentration of conventional pollutants as to interfere with the plant. Sec. 18-160. Right to require pretreatment and control of, or to reject discharges. 20 G, -1 (a) If discharges or proposed discharges into public sewers may deleteriously affect wastewater facilities, processes, equipment or receiving waters; create a hazard to life or health; or create a public nuisance; the approving authority shall require: (1) Pretreatment to an acceptable condition before discharge into the public sewers; (2) Control over the quantities and rates of discharge; and (3) Payment to cover the cost of handling and treating the wastes, in addition to capital costs. (b) The approving authority shall reject wastes when he determines that a discharge or proposed discharge is included under subsection (a) of this section and the discharger does not meet the requirements of subsection (a) of this section. (c) No person shall utilize dilution as a means of treatment. (d) The approving authority shall have the right to determine whether a discharge or proposed discharge is included under subsection (a) of this section. Sec. 18-161. Desiqn, installation and maintenance of pretreatment and control facilities. (a) If pretreatment or control is required, the approving authority may, at his sole discretion, require, review and approve the design and installation of equipment and processes. The design and installation of such equipment and processes shall conform to all applicable statutes, codes, ordinances and other laws, including Federal Categorical Pretreatment Standards. (b) Any person responsible for discharges requiring pretreatment, 21 G. - i flow-equalizing or other facilities shall provide and maintain the facilities in effective operating condition at this own expense. Sec.18-162. Requirements for traps. (a) Discharges requiring a trap include: (1) Grease or waste containing grease in excessive amounts; (2) Oil; (3) Sand; (4) Flammable wastes; and (5) Other harmful substances. (b) Any person responsible for discharges requiring a trap shall, at his own expense and as required by the approving authority: (1) Provide equipment and facilities of a type and capacity approved by the approving authority; (2) Locate the trap in a manner that provides ready and easy accessibility for cleaning and inspection; and (3) Maintain the trap in effective operating condition. Sec. 18-163. Measurement, sampling, etc., and report of discharges. (a) The owner of each facility discharging other than normal wastewater or discharging Class A wastewater shall submit monthly, or at such other frequency as may be required by the approving authority, to the County, on forms supplied by the County, a certified statement of the quantities of its wastes discharged into the sewers and sewage works of the County or into any sewer connected therewith. Copies of pertinent water bills may be required to be submitted with the above statement. Such documents shall be filed with the County not later than the tenth day of the following month. A separate statement shall be 22 ~ -/ filed for each industrial plant. The total quantities of wastes to be measured and certified by the person so discharging shall be established by the approving authority and shall, as a minimum, include: (1) Liquid in gallons. (2) Five-day BOD in pounds. (3) Suspended solids in pounds, on a dry solids basis. (4) Total phosphorus in pounds. (5) Total Kjeldahl nitrogen in pounds. (6) COD in pounds. (b) Unless otherwise provided, each measurement, test, sampling, or analysis required to be made hereunder shall be made in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Part 136, as amended. (c) In order to provide for accurate sampling and measurement of industrial wastes, each person discharging Class A wastewater shall provide and maintain, on each of its industrial waste outlet sewers, a large manhole or sampling chamber to be located outside or near its plant boundary line, where feasible. If inside the plant fence, there shall be a gate near the sampling chamber with a key furnished to the County. There shall be ample room provided in each sampling chamber to enable convenient inspection and sampling by the County. (d) Each sampling chamber shall contain a Parshall flume, accurate weir or similar device, with a recording and totalizing register for measurement of the liquid quantity; or the metered water supply to the industrial plant may be used as the liquid quantity, where it is substantiated that the metered water supply and waste quantities are 23 r~ -i approximately the same, or where a measurable adjustment can be made in the metered supply to determine the liquid quantity. (e) Samples shall be taken every hour, properly refrigerated and composited in proportion to the flow for a representative twenty-four (24)hours sample. For oil and grease, pH, phenols, cyanide, volatile toxic organic and other appropriate pollutants, property grab sampling shall be performed. Each sampling shall be repeated on as many days as necessary to insure representative quantities for the entire reporting period. Industrial plants with wide fluctuations in quantities of wastes shall provide an automatic sampler paced automatically by the flow-measuring device. (f) Minimum requirements for representative quantities under this section shall include re-evaluation during each twelve (12) month period. The determination of representative quantities shall include not less than seven (7) consecutive days of twenty-four (24) hour composite samplings, taken during periods of normal operation, together with acceptable flow measurements. The frequency of sampling, sampling chamber, metering device, sampling methods and analyses of samples shall be subject, at any time, to inspection and verification by the County. Sampling and measuring facilities shall be such as to provide safe access for authorized personnel of the County for making such inspection and verification. (g) Plans for sampling chambers, with their locations shown on a site plan, shall be submitted to the County for approval. (h) All owners of facilities governed by this section shall also comply with any applicable Monitoring Requirements and Regulations 24 U -/ established by the approving authority which are hereby incorporated by reference. (i) All owners of facilities governed by this article shall comply with the applicable requirements of 40 C.F.R. 403.12 as amended, which is incorporated by reference herein, including, without limitation, the signatory, certification and record keeping requirements of 40 C.F.R. 403.12 (c),(d), (i), and (1). All records shall be retained for a minimum of three years and this retention period shall be extended during litigation or upon request of the approving authority. ~.j1 Sampling for discharge limit compliance shall be taken at the sampling chamber without any dilution factor except for properly classified categorical or si~cnificant users. Sampling for prohibited materials may be collected at either the sampling chamber or end of process to determine the absence of the prohibited material. Sec. 18-164. Discharge permits for industrial waste. e~e~a-e~~s elrap-~e~p~e~ded~a~l~e _~ a ~_} ~'., . -i - ~}-P~e~-Lei-erg-gee-t-~ea~te~t „~._: ~.~ ~~, :....~.:..~ ; ~.w; ~ i --------- --- -rr--=------ --------- ---- ~z j- F~e~~r~rg~~~e~t-me~~~n-a-ts~~~ttr~app-~rea~~e~~n 25 ~-~ p e~€rea~e~rs-~e~~e~ea~rte~€a~°~~es~n see^~~i~te; t-he~~~rd~st~a~s_= ~~st-terra-t _,~- ~ , ~ g~s~e~--ge-~ ~ r r_ rea~~e~r-~s-~eee~e~re }~~i~e~t~ne~~~--av~--'iz~ =~ies~ts+. w^ ^~~,.....~^a : a.w:.. w.,~a~,.,.a ~h~Y~-1,8c~€~e~-t~i~e;~~ee-~~~ i~ e' r'- - - ='~ = - - - - ~~ tri-~e~es~s~e= ---- ---------- ~ - r ---••- f-~~--C-e~p~-yes-~it~i t~i_ ~eq~e~e~s e~--€e~e~a-? _~~^..^,~, ...., -~------ s~da~ds , ewe-a}~}~3-~ea~-fie ; i ??e3~d~g~e~e~e~e~-e€-airy ~eq~ed~e~3 ~a~ree-s e~e~t~l-es ea,. ~~. = =~ r'- =c='-"'- = r,"~ - -- - ---- = f ~s a~rei-e . (a) It shall be unlawful for any significant industrial user or other user as determined by the approving authority to discharge industrial waste into the public sanitary sewer system unless an appropriate Industrial Discharge Permit has been issued by the approving authority. In order to obtain an Industrial Discharae Permit. such erson shall• Submit a complete application at least ninety (901 days prior to the date proposed for initial discharge on forms sunnlied by the approving authority. The approving 26 ~ -/ authority will act upon the application within sixty (60) days. LL Comply with all requirements for the discharge permit including, but not limited to, provisions for payment of charges, installation and operation of pretreatment facilities and sampling and analysis to determine quantity and strength. S3~ Provide a sampling point subject to the provisions of this article and approval of the approving authority. ,L~ Comply with the requirements of federal categorical standards, where applicable, including the development of any required compliance schedules or the applicable provisions of this article. (b) An industrial user applying for a new discharge shall meet all conditions of subsection (a) of this section and shall secure a permit prior to discharging any waste. (c) A person not applying for a discharge permit within the allotted time and continuing to discharge an unpermitted discharge shall be deemed to be in violation of this article. (d) A permit issued under this section shall be valid for up to five (5) years from its date of issuance, after which time the industrial user shall be required to obtain a new discharge permit. (e) The approving authority shall have the right to accept or reject any increases in flow or pollutants under existing or new permits. sec. 18-165. Waiver or modification of requirements of article. 27 C.~-/ The approving authority shall have the right to waive or modify, on an interim basis to be noted in any permit issued under this article, the requirements of this article as they pertain to strength of contaminants. No such waiver or modification shall be granted contrary to any County, state or federal regulation and no waiver or modification shall be granted, if it would result in the violation of the discharge permit for the plant, as it is now issued or as such permit may be amended. sec. 18-166. Charged generally. Persons making discharges of industrial waste shall pay a charge to cover the cost of collection and treatment in addition to capital costs. When a permit application for industrial waste is approved, the County or its authorized representative shall issue a permit stating: (a) The terms of acceptance by the County; and (b) The basis of payment. sec. 18-167. User charges and added costs. (a) If the volume or character of the waste to be treated by the plant meets the requirements of other provisions of this article and does not cause overloading of the sewage collection, treatment or disposal facilities of the County, the approving authority shall require that the discharger pay a charge to be determined from the schedule of charges which shall include capital costs. (b) If a proposed discharge of waste is responsible for exceeding the existing capacity of the wastewater treatment facilities and the wastewater treatment plant must be upgraded, expanded or enlarged in order to treat the wastewater, the approving authority shall require 28 Cy-l that the discharger pay in full all added costs which shall include capital costs the County may incur due to acceptance of the wastewater. (c) The schedule of charges pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall include, but not be limited to: (1) Capital costs, including debt retirement and interest on debt, of the County's cost on all capital outlays for collecting and treating the waste, including new capital outlay and the proportionate part of the value of the existing system used in handling and treating waste. (2) Operation and maintenance costs (capitalized), including but not limited to, salaries and wages, power costs, costs of chemicals and supplies, proper allowances for maintenance, depreciation, overhead and office expense. Sec. 18-168. Schedule of charges. (a) Persons discharging wastewater shall pay a charge to cover the capital cost and the cost of collection and treatment of all wastewater discharged. (1) All Class I users discharging normal wastewater or Group B wastewater shall pay a user charge computed upon cost per volume of wastewater discharged. (2) All Class II users discharging Group A wastewater shall have their user charge computed upon a cost per unit volume basis for the amount plus the unit cost of treatment for all over the base amount for volume, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), suspended solids (SS), phosphorus (P) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN). In 29 C -I computing the contaminant loading, the parameter concentrations for normal wastewater will be considered as standard strength in determining the base amount in the effluent discharge flow. Initially, the responsibility for determining the contaminant loading for each category of establishment will be that of the approving authority. However, each establishment must verify its own contaminant loading monthly by initiating a sampling and analytical program at its own expense and with the approval of the approving authority. (b) The units costs to be used to compute the charge for Class I and II users shall be established by the approving authority. The unit costs for all users and the allowances for normal wastewater for users may be revised as necessary to correspond to current costs and experience. Revisions may be made, no more often than once a year, upon approval of the approving authority. The user charge for users shall be computed as follows: Class I Users: Cu = Vu x Vd Class II Users: Cs = Vu x Vd + VSVc + BSBc + SSSc + PSPc + NSNc And: Cu Charge for Class I users Cs = Charge for Class II users Vu = Unit cost of treatment chargeable to normal wastewater ($/1,000 gal.) Vd = Volume of wastewater from normal wastewater (1,000 gals.) 30 ~ -i Vs = Volume of Class II wastewater (1,000 gals.) in excess of Class I wastewater Vc = Cost of treating 1,000 gals. of Class II wastewater ($/1,000 gal.) ~~-t~~}~_r l i m i t r 1 1~g , 1 .----. B - Class II wastewater BOD contribution in excess of Class I -s wastewater limit (lbs.) Bc = Cost of treating Class II BOD contribution ($/lb.) S =Class II wastewater SS contribution in excess of Class I wastewater s limit (lbs.) Sc = Cost of treating Class II SS contribution ($/lb.) Ps = Class II wastewater phosphorus contribution in excess of Class I wastewater limit (lbs.~ Ns = Class II wastewater unoxidized nitrogen contribution in excess of Class I wastewater limit (lbs.) Nc = Cost of treating Class II nitrogen contribution ($/lb.) Sec. 18-169. Adjustment of charges. (a) The county may adjust charges at least annually to reflect changes in the characteristics of wastewater based on the results of sampling and testing. This adjustment will correspond to charges established by the operating authority for the treatment plant. (b) The county shall review at least annually the basis for determining charges and shall adjust the unit treatment cost in the formula to reflect increases or decreases in wastewater treatment costs 31 -a based on the previous year's experience. Sec. 18-170. Billing and payment of charges. (a) The county may bill the discharger by the month or by the quarter and shall show waste charges as a separate item on the regular bill for water and sewer charges. The discharger shall pay in accordance with practices existing for payment of sewer charges. (b) In addition to sanctions provided for by this article, the County is entitled to exercise sanctions provided for by the other ordinances of the County for failure to pay the bill for water and sanitary sewer service when due. Sec. 18-171. Right of entry to enforce article. (a) The approving authority and other duly authorized employees of the County bearing proper credentials and identification shall be authorized to enter any public or private property at any reasonable time for the purpose of enforcing this article for sampling purposes, inspect monitoring equipment and to inspect and copy all documents relevant to the enforcement of this article, including, without limitation, monitoring reports. Anyone acting under this authority shall observe the establishment's rules and regulations concerning safety, internal security, and fire protection. 32 ~-i ,~b,1 Appropriate information submitted to the approving authority pursuant to these regulations excluding any information utilized in determining effluent limits may be claimed as confidential by the submitter at the time of submission by stamping the words "confidential business information" on each page containinq such information. If a claim is asserted the information shall be treated in accordance with applicable law. (c) No person acting under authority of this section may inquire into any processes, including metallurgical, chemical, oil refining, ceramic, paper or other industries, beyond that point having a direct bearing on the kind and source of discharge to the public sewers. ~?~s~ra~~e-fires e-~egt~a~e~s e~e3~~g ~€e~a~e~~~e~r~ det~~i-~~-e€~l~x^~~~Ti~i~s e-~a-i~ned-a~-ee~r~rde~r s~~e~at~~r^~~. e~ ss~ i e-~t~t~-i-~r~t-k~e-~e~~s " ^ ^ ~ F ; a ^ ~ } ; ~ , app}~ea~ l ^~ Sec. 18-172. Authority to disconnect 3@rv1C@. (a) The county reserves the right to terminate water and wastewater disposal services and disconnect a customer from the system and revoke any discharge permit issued under this article when: (1) Acids or chemicals damaging to sewer lines or treatment process are released into the sewer causing rapid deterioration of these structures or interfering with proper conveyance and treatment of wastewater; 33 G -I (2) A governmental agency informs the County that the effluent from the wastewater treatment plant is no longer a quality permitted for discharge into a watercourse, and it is found that the customer is delivering wastewater to the County's system that cannot be sufficiently treated or requires treatment that is not provided by the County as normal domestic treatment; or (3) The customer: a. Discharges industrial waste or wastewater that is in violation of the permit issued by the approving authority; b. Discharges wastewater at an uncontrolled, variable rate in sufficient quantity to cause an imbalance in the wastewater treatment system; c. Fails to pay bills for water and sanitary sewer services when due; or d. Repeats a discharge of prohibited wastes into public sewers. (4) The permittee has engaged in fraudulent reporting to the approval authority or failed to report adequately as required changes in discharge. (b) If the service is disconnected pursuant to subsection (a) (2) of this section, the County shall: (1) Disconnect the customer; (2) Supply the customer with the governmental agency's report and provide the customer with all pertinent information; 34 C~-/ and (3) Continue disconnection until such time as the customer provides additional pretreatment or other facilities designed to remove the objectionable characteristics from this wastes. sec. 18-173. Notice of violations The county shall serve persons discharging in violation of this article with written notice stating the nature of the violation and requiring immediate satisfactory compliance. The approving authority shall have the authority to publish annually in the Roanoke Times and World News Newspaper or a newspaper of general circulation in the Roanoke area a list of persons which were not in compliance with the terms of this Article at least once during the twelve (12) previous months. Sec. 18-174. Penalty for violations. (a) A person who violates the provisions of this article shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor and upon conviction is punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000) per violation per day and confinement in jail for not more than twelve months, either or both. In the event of a violation, the approving authority shall also have the right to terminate the sewer and water connection. (b) In addition to proceeding under authority of sub-section (a) of this section, the County is entitled to pursue all other criminal and civil remedies to which it is entitled under authority of state statues or other ordinances of the County against a person continuing prohibited discharges, including, without limitation, injunctive relief. 35 ~-1 Scl Any person who knowingly makes any false statements, representations or certifications in any application, record, report, plan or other document files required to be maintained pursuant to this ordinance, or wastewater permit, or who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required under this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be punishable by a fine of $1,000.00 per violation, per day, or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. 1~ The apt roving authority shall be authorized to implement such other program and enforcement mechanisms as are consistent with regulatory guidelines and are deemed appropriate. Sec. 18-175. Payment of costs for work required by prohibited deposits. In any case where a sewer main or pipe connection is stopped, damaged or choked by any materials or rubbish being deposited therein contrary to the provisions of this article, by any tenant or property owner, upon due ascertainment by the County Administrator, he shall cause the main pipe connection or manhole to be opened, cleaned, replaced or repaired, and shall cause the cost for doing such work to be collected from the property owner. The payment of such cost shall not relieve any person from prosecution for a violation of this article. Sec. 18-176. Public access to data. Effluent data complied as part of the approving authority's pretreatment program shall be available to the public. 2. That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and 36 G -~ ordinance, or wastewater hermit, or who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required under this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be punishable by a fine of $1 000.00 per violation, per day, or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. Sd1 The approving authority shall be authorized to implement such other program and enforcement mechanisms as are consistent with regulatory guidelines and are deemed appropriate. Sec. 18-175. Payment of costs for work required by prohibited deposits. In any case where a sewer main or pipe connection is stopped, damaged or choked by any materials or rubbish being deposited therein contrary to the provisions of this article, by any tenant or property owner, upon due ascertainment by the County Administrator, he shall cause the main pipe connection or manhole to be opened, cleaned, replaced or repaired, and shall cause the cost for doing such work to be collected from the property owner. The payment of such cost shall not relieve any person from prosecution for a violation of this article. 8@C. 18-176. Pub11C aCC@33 tO data. Effluent data complied as part of the approving authority's pretreatment program shall be available to the public. 2. That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after August 1, 1991. 36 1 ~~) AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1991 ORDINANCE 7991-10 AMENDING THE ROANORE COUNTY CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 2-5 TO ESTABLISH A SCHEDULE OF FINES AND FEES FOR OVERDUE, DAMAGED, OR LOST PUBLIC LIBRARY MATERIALS AND TO PROVIDE FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE THEREFOR WHEREAS, the first reading and public hearing on this proposed ordinance was held on June 25, 1991; and the second reading was held on July 9, 1991. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Article I of Chapter 2, Administration, of the Roanoke County Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Section 2-5 as follows: Sec. 2-5. Library fines and fees. There is hereby established the. following schedule of fines and fees for overdue, damaged or lost public library items or materials: Overdue Fines Adult book or material per day $0.10 Children's book or material per day 0.05 Video cassette per day 1.00 Other materials per day 0.10 Maximum fine per item 5.00 Maximum fine per item for children's book or material 1.00 Fees Replacement library card $1.00 1 Bindery (for books damaged but usable if rebound) 6.00 Lost Materials Service charge $5.00 Lost item charge (Total = service charge + lost item charge) Each adult book $20.00 Each children's book 15.00 Each video cassette 25.00 Each multi-reel book cassette 45.00 Each single reel book cassette 10.00 Each compact disc 20.00 Denial of Privileaes A person shall be denied library privileges if $25.00 in fines, fees or charges have accrued and are unpaid or if 25 or more items are overdue. 2. That these fines, fees and charges shall be credited to the library book budget account. 3. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect on and after August 1, 1991. On motion of Supervisor Eddy to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~' Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File George D. Garretson, Director, Library 2 Circuit Court G. O. Clemens, Judge Kenneth E. Trabue, Judge Elizabeth W. Stokes, Clerk Family Court Services Joseph M. Clark, II, Chief Judge Intake Counsellor General District Court John L. Apostolou, Judge George W. Harris, Jr., Judge Theresa A. Childress, Clerk Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Magistrate Main Library John H. Cease, Chief of Police Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, S.W., Rke 24016 Roanoke County Code Book Michael F. Kavanaugh, Sheriff Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Kenneth L. Hogan, Animal Control Officer Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections ,. ACTION N0. u _ ITEM NUMBER /7 "~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 9, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of Ordinance Establishing Fines for the County Library COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~Q~ / BACKGROUND• In 1970, the Roanoke County Public Library stopped charging fines for overdue materials. Although it was felt that the policy engendered public good will, no study was ever done to determine if the elimination of fines improved the rate of return of library materials. It continued through the years because of the cost and complexity of manual record-keeping. Salem and Roanoke City Libraries discontinued fines when the Valley-wide card was adopted in 1986. With the advent of automation the three library systems now agree that it is appropriate to reiastate fines. The automated system has the capability to efficiently manage the process of computing fines and sending notices. Any funds which might be generated would be helpful in offsetting the increased costs of materials. Salem and Roanoke City governments have already given approval for the reinstatement of fines. The cooperation and standardization among the libraries will be damaged if one system does not charge fines. FISCAL IMPACT• Because there are many variables, it would be difficult. to determine the income that would be generated by overdue fines. At this time, it is estimated to be $15,000 per year. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the reinstatement of fines in order to standardize library policies in the Valley and to assist in the mo~aetary support of the library systems. Respectfully submitted, eorge D. arretson Library Director r' Approved by, r~~~~ Elmer C. Hodge, Ji'. County Administrator ------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred McGraw To Nickens Robers H- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON ~~d TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1991 7q~~ CODE BY THE ~/ ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 2-5 TO ESTABLISH A SCHEDULE OF !'i pp FINES AND FEES FOR OVERDUE, DAMAGED, OR LOST PUBLIC ~,V LIBRARY MATERIALS AND TO PROVIDE FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE U' THEREFOR WHEREAS, the first reading and public hearing on this proposed ordinance was held on June 25, 1991; and the second reading was held on July 9, 1991. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Article I of Chapter 2, Administration, of the Roanoke County Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Section 2-5 as follows: Sec. 2-5. Library fines and fees. There is hereby established the following schedule of fines and fees for overdue, damaged or lost public library items or materials: Overdue Fines Adult book or material per day Children's book or material per day Video cassette per day Other materials per day Maximum fine per item Maximum fine per item for children's book or material Fees Replacement library card $0.10 0.05 1.00 0.10 5.00 1.00 $1.00 1 y-~ Bindery (for books damaged but usable if rebound) 6.00 Lost Materials Service charge $5.00 Lost item charge (Total = service charge + lost item charge) Each adult book $20.00 Each children's book 15.00 Each video cassette 25.00 Each multi-reel book cassette 45.00 Each single reel book cassette 10.00 Each compact disc 20.00 Denial of Privileges A person shall be denied library privileges if $25.00 in fines, fees or charges have accrued and are unpaid or if 25 or more items are overdue. 2. That these fines, fees and charges shall be credited to the library book budget account. 3. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect on and after August 1, 1991. 2 f i ~`~ AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER TUESDAY, JIILY 9, 1991 ORDINANCE 7991-11 AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF PONDEROSA PARR WATER SYSTEM WHEREAS, on November 4, 1986, the voters of Roanoke County approved at referendum the issuance of general obligation bonds to finance the costs of improving the County's public water supply; and, WHEREAS, $1,000,000 of this referendum was allocated to the purchase of selected private water systems and wells; and, WHEREAS, the Utility Director has negotiated an agreement to acquire the Ponderosa Park Water System owned by H & B Water Company; and, WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition of real estate be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 25, 1991, and the second reading was held on July 9, 1991. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: (1) That the acquisition and acceptance of the Ponderosa Park Water System, located between Merriman Road and Crystal Creek drive, from H & B Water Company, Inc. for the sum of Thirty-five Thousand Dollars ($35,000.00) is hereby authorized and approved. (2) That the sum of Thirty-five Thousand Dollars ($35,000.00) is hereby appropriated from the 1988 General Obligation Bond proceeds to fund the purchase of the Ponderosa Park Water System for the purposes herein described. The full faith and credit of the County is pledged to the payment of this bond; however, the County plans to pay this bond from the proceeds of the revenues from the County water system and Utility Enterprise Fund. (3) That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish these transactions, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Robers to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~/ . ~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Cliff Craig, Director, Utility Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney John D. Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance f 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: July 9, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Authorization to Purchase Ponderosa Park Water System COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : ,/f _o,~,~N,,,,~ BACKGROUND' At the May 14, 1991 Board Meeting, the Board authorized staff to negotiate with the H & B Water Company to purchase the Ponderosa Park Water System. This water system is located between Merriman Road and Crystal Creek Drive. It consists of a 52 gallon per minute well, a 30,000 gallon reservoir, 4 inch and 2 inch distribution lines and serves 28 customers. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Utility Coordinator and Water Operations Supervisor met with the owners of the Ponderosa Park Water System, H & B Water Company, Inc., to negotiate a purchase price for this system. They agreed on a price of $35,000. In a letter dated May 20, 1991, the H & B water Company, Inc. has offered to sell the water system including two parcels of real estate, well, pump house, storage tank and all connections at a price of $35,000. The first reading of the ordinance authorizing this purchase was held June 25, 1991. FISCAL IMPACT' Funds are available for the purchase of the Ponderosa Park Water System from bonds sold for the purpose of acquiring private water systems. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that after the second reading, the Board of Supervisors adopt the ordinance authorizing the purchase of the Ponderosa Park Water System. • -- ~ , SUBMITTED BY: Cliffor raig, P.E. Utility Director ACTION Approved ( ) Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to APPROVED: H' ~~ ~"' Y t Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers ~-~-a AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER p~~~ TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1991 ~0~-1 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF PONDEROSA ~ ~ ~ PARK WATER SYSTEM 1"_ ~~+ WHEREAS, on November 4, 1986, the voters of Roanoke County approved at referendum the issuance of general obligation bonds to finance the costs of improving the County's public water supply; and, WHEREAS, $1,000,000 of this referendum was allocated to the purchase of selected private water systems and wells; and, WHEREAS, the Utility Director has negotiated an agreement to acquire the Ponderosa Park Water System owned by H & B Water Company; and, WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition of real estate be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 25, 1991, and the second reading was held on July 9, 1991. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: (1) That the acquisition and acceptance of the Ponderosa Park Water System, located between Merriman Road and Crystal Creek drive, from H & B Water Company, Inc. for the sum of Thirty-five Thousand Dollars ($35,000.00) is hereby authorized and approved. (2) That the sum of Thirty-five Thousand Dollars ($35,000.00) is hereby appropriated from the 1988 General Obligation Bond proceeds to fund the purchase of the Ponderosa Park Water System for the purposes herein described. The full faith and credit of the County is pledged to the payment of this bond; however, the /f -a County plans to pay this bond from the proceeds of the revenues from the County water system and Utility Enterprise Fund. (3) That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish these transactions, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. ACTION NUMBER ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 9, 1991 SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. Clean Valley Council Two-year term of Vince Reynolds expired June 30, 1991. 2. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Three-year term of Robert L. Falls, Vinton Magisterial District expired June 30, 1991. SUBMITTED BY: ~. Mary H. lien Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: E r~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) McGraw To ( ) Nickens Robers AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1991 RESOLUTION 7991-12 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. that the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for July 9, 1991, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 4, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of Minutes - June 11, 1991 2 Confirmation of Committee Appointment to the Transportation Safety Commission. 3. Acceptance of the Sanitary Sewer Facilities serving Hunting Hills, Section 24. 4. Acceptance of the Sanitary Sewer Facilities serving Southern Pines, Resubdivision of Lots 1 & 2, Section 8. 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 Johnson to adopt resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None .~11 ~.1 A COPY TESTE: ~`-l~ Mary H. lien, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Transportation & Safety Commission File Cliff Craig, Director, Utility George Simpson, Assistant Director, Engineering June 11, 1991 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 3738 Brambleton Avenue S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 June 11, 1991 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 June, 1991. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman McGraw called the meeting to order at 3:06 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Steven A. McGraw, Supervisors Lee B. Eddy, Bob L. Johnson, Richard W. Robers MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chairman Harry C. Nickens (arrived at 3:10 p.m.) STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Mary H. Allen, Clerk to the Board; John R. Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator, John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator, Don M. Myers, Assistant County Administrator, IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by the Reverend Charles W. Easley, Jr., St. Mark's Lutheran Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. ~f ~ +.~ June 11, 1991 ~ 4 ~, C NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia wishes to express its sincere appreciation to Minor Keffer for his many years of devoted service to the residents of Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors offers its congratulations to Mr. Keffer upon the 50th anniversary of the Catawba Mercantile. On motion of Supervisor Eddy, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None 2. Resolution of Appreciation upon the retirement of Samuel W. crews. R-61191-2 Mr. Crews was present to accept the resolution Supervisor Eddy moved to adopt the resolution. The motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw. NAYS: None RESOLUTION 61191-2 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO SAMUEL W. CREWS FOR ELEVEN YEARS AND SEVEN MONTHS OF SERVICE TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, Samuel W. Crews was first employed on November 5, 1979, as a Part-Time Account Clerk II in Finance, and became a Full-Time Account Clerk on July 1, 1980; and r r June 11, 1991 ~t 4 ~ Finance Director Diane Hyatt was present and accepted the award from Chairman McGraw. b. Reta Busher for receipt of Distinguished Budget Presentation for the Annual Budget Director of Management and Budget Reta Busher was present and accepted the award from Chairman McGraw. c. Brent Robertson for receivincx his desicxnation as a Certified Public Accountant. Brent Robertson was presented to be recognized. IN RE: NEW BIISINESS 1. AD~roval of agreement with Appalachian Power Company for the purchase of electricity A-61191-3 County Attorney Paul Mahoney reported that the new Public Authority Agreement with Appalachian Power Company will control the electricity rates for a three-year period from July 1, 1990 until June 30, 1993. This agreement will result in a credit to localities of the difference between the old rates and the new rates for the period between July 1990 and November 1990. Supervisor Eddy asked to see the comparison between the old rates and new rates, and Mr. Mahoney responded that he would give him that information. Supervisor Nickens moved to accept the agreement. The motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw. June 11, 1991 ~4~ on ac im i ere is any problem in placing an item on the agenda. Supervisor Johnson moved to grant the request of the Firefighters Association for payroll deduction of dues. The motion was defeated by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Robers, Johnson NAYS: Supervisors Eddy, Nickens, McGraw IN RE: REQIIESTS FOR WORR SESSIONS 1. Rearrest for Work Session on June 25, 1991 to discuss water lines for new water system. Supervisor Nickens advised that he would be out of town during the June 25 meeting and asked that the work session be held over until July 9. Supervisor Johnson moved to set the work session for June 25 and that it be continued to July 9, 1991. The motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw. NAYS: None G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing an increase in the Utility Service Tax and addin Water Service as a taxable utility service Assistant County Administrator John Hubbard reviewed the history of the Spring Hollow Reservoir Project. Finance Director Diane Hyatt presented the financial plan for ~ ~~ June 11, 1991 s cou c ange a ee s ructure whenever they choose, but the governing body would still be responsible for paying off the revenue bond. Supervisor Eddy moved to defer action until the completed rate and feasibility study is received from the consultants. Supervisor Nickens offered a substitute motion to approve first reading of the ordinance. Supervisor Eddy asked to present a statement prior to the vote and requested that his comments be included in the minutes. "Mr. Chairman, in the mid 1980's a committee that included representation from all the Roanoke Valley governments recommended that a side-stream reservoir at Spring Hollow in western Roanoke County was the best choice for a new water source to supply the future needs of the region. This recommendation was made after the committee evaluated many different possibilities. In 1986, County voters approved a $15 million General Obligation Bond issue to finance the County portion of the proposed Spring Hollow dam and reservoir. About this same time, the Board of Supervisors increased water rates and connection fees significantly to a level calculated to generate the revenue needed to build and operate the associated treatment plant, transmission lines and storage facilities. This was all done with the expectation that Roanoke and Salem would jointly contribute 40~ of the reservoir cost, and that the County's share would be $16 million. At that time payment of debt service on $16 million in bonds was estimated to equal six cents of the County's real estate r r June 11, 1991 4 5 _. o a erna Ives s ou a conducted before the Spring Hollow project passes the "point of no return". Thirdly, the original purpose of a new water supply was to serve the needs and to promote economic development in the entire Roanoke Valley. That concept was abandoned during the consolidation discussions and afterwards. I think the Spring Hollow project should be deferred until we make at least one more serious attempt to approach the Valley's future water needs on a truly regional basis. Fourth, I have questions over the specific rate and fee structure that the Board is being asked to approve. I am not convinced the consultant and staff have evaluated or given the Board any realistic alternatives to consider. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I plan to vote "No" on the first reading of the proposed ordinance to increase water rates and fees. Thank you." Supervisor Nickens's substitute motion to approve first reading of the ordinance was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw. NAYS: Supervisor Eddy 3. Ordinance vacatinct an existing 12 foot public utility and drainacxe easement located on Lot 4, Block 5, Section 1, Hidden Valley Homes Subdivision, upon petition of Ronald B Smith r June 11, 1991 ~~ _ __ __ ___ i s ommuni y eve opment Project to Botetourt County for acceptance by VDOT There was no discussion of this ordinance and no one was present to speak. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve first reading of the ordinance. The motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw. NAYS: None 6. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code by amending Section 12-8, Adoption of State Law of Article I of Chanter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic There was no discussion of this ordinance and no one was present to speak. Supervisor Robers moved to approve first reading of the ordinance. The motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw. NAYS: None 7. Ordinance authorizing the dedication of Vinyard Park Drive to the City of Roanoke and the execution of a new agreement with the City concerning Vinyard Park Drive. There was no discussion of this ordinance and no one was present to speak. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve first reading of the r F June 11, 1991 ~5 ~ y e oar o upervisors o Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. that the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for June il, 1991, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 5 inclusive, as follows: 1. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Board of Zoning Appeals, Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission, Virginia Western Community College Board, and Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee. 2. Acceptance of Sanitary Sewer Facilities serving Sink Sewer Extension. 3. Acceptance of Buckwood Trail into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 4. Acceptance of Fairway View Trail into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 5. Approval of Fireworks Permit for the Town of Vinton. 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 Johnson with Item 5 removed for a separate vote, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None Item 5 approved upon motion of Supervisor Johnson contingent r F ' June 11, 1991 4~ t • nown as uc woo rai an w is is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as a public road to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw NAYS: None RESOLIITION 61191-6.d REQIIESTING ACCEPTANCE OF FAIRWAY VIEW TRAIL 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 Fairway View Trail from the intersection of Fairway Estates Drive (Route 1380) to the cul-de-sac for a distance of 0.60 miles to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1- 229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have heretofore been dedicated by virtue of a certain maps known as Fairway Forest Estates, Section 1 & 2 Subdivision which maps were recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 41, and Plat Book 10, Page 122, of the records r June 11, 1991 ~t e mo ion Carrie y a unanimous voice vote. 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Board Contingency Fund IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1. Capital Improvement Program County Administrator Elmer Hodge reported that he would like to adopt the Capital Improvement Program for future planning purposes. He stated that he felt the format is not as important as the process and the projects, .and asked the Board to set priorities or eliminate the projects. He advised that the Capital Improvement Program should be adopted before going to bond counsel. Supervisor Nickens responded that the first priority should be to maintain what the County has now. Supervisor Eddy disagreed and stated he felt that maintenance should not be included in the CIP. School Superintendent Bayes Wilson was present and advised that they need to apply for literary loans now because it would be at least two years before they could get the money. The School Board could not afford to finance literary loans before then because of the current debt service. Supervisor McGraw asked about the deadline for placing a bond referendum on the ballot. Mr. Mahoney responded that action must be taken sixty days prior to Election Day. The Board would need to take action at the first or second meeting in August. Following further discussion, there was board consensus to set r r June 11, 1991 ~~ IN RE: ADJOURNMENT At 6:50 p.m., Supervisor Nickens moved to adjourn. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. Steven A. McGraw, Chairman A-7991-12.a ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~"' .. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 9, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Committee appointment to the Transportation Safety Commission COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The following nomination was made at the June 25, 1991 meeting. Transportation Safety Commission Supervisor Eddy nominated Horace McPherson to a four-year term expiring 4/1/95. RECOMMENDATION• It is recommended that these appointments be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, ~ Q~~ ~' /d Mary H. Allen Elmer C. Hodge Clerk to the Board County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred ( ) McGraw x To ( ) Nickens x Robers x cc: File Transportion & Safety Commission File { ? ACTION # A-7991-12.b ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 9, 1991 SUBJECT: Acceptance of the Sanitary Sewer Facilities Serving Hunting Hills, Section 24 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Developers of Hunting Hills, Section 24, Old Heritage Corporation, have requested that Roanoke County accept the Deed conveying the sanitary sewer facilities serving the subdivision along with all necessary easements. The sewer facilities are installed, as shown on plans prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C. entitled Hunting Hills, Section 24, dated September 9, 1988, which are on file in the County Engineering Department. The sanitary sewer facility construction meets the specifications and the plans approved by the County. FISCAL IMPACT' The value of the sanitary sewer construction is $13,000. RECOMMENDATION' Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the sanitary sewer facilities serving Hunting Hills, Section 24 along with all necessary easements, and authorize the County Administrator to execute a Deed for the transfer of these facilities. ~-3 SUBMITTED BY: Cliffor ig, P.E. Utility Director APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved (X) Motion by: Bob r_,. ,7ohnson No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy _~ Received ( ) Johnson x Referred McGraw X to Nickens X Robers X cc: File Cliff Craig, Director, Utility George Simpson, Assistant Director, Engineering ~S3 ~~ NORTB ~~ i . ~`` _ ~~ ~f~~,~ : ---- ----1-; __ __ FUTURE "''STREET II , ,---- --- - i ~ -- ~~ •tsaf. ~1 -._-__- 9 v _ _~ d' (off. 1f~ ~10 NMt »'oRAnwlt H+~X~~ ~~/ ~~ ~ -.L ~ ~ ~a .; ~~ * ~. .~ ~ s.-~ :, ~~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ P`\, F~ ~,'~,. ( ~ ~~ ~ g 3 L~,~^ ` ~ ~'`1 ~~~e ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~, ~~ ~\ COMMUNITY SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT SEWER ACCEPTANCE FOR HUNTING HILLS , SECTION 24 ~.f -' DEED OF EASEMENT AND ASSIGNMENT THIS DEED, DEED OF EASEMENT AND ASSIGNMENT, made this 18th day of June, 1991, by and between: Old Heritage Corporation hereinafter referred to as the "Developer," party of the first part; the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, hereinafter referred to as the "Board," party of the second part; and ELMER C. HODGE, County Administrator of Roanoke County, VIRGINIA, party of the third part. W I T N E S S E T H THAT FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual benefits to accrue, the Developer does hereby GRANT, CONVEY, ASSIGN AND TRANSFER, with the covenants of GENERAL WARRANTY OF TITLE, in fee simple unto the Board all water and/or sewer lines, valves, fittings, laterals, connections, storage facilities, sources of water supply, pumps, manholes and any and all other equipment and appurtenances thereunto, in and to the water and/or sewer systems in the streets, avenues and public utility, water and/or sewer easement areas that have been or may hereafter be installed by the Developer, along with the right to perpetually use and occupy the easements in which the same may be located, all of which is more particularly shown and described and designated as follows, to wit: As shown on the plan entitled Hunting Hills, Section 24 dated September 9, 1988 made by Lumsden Associates, P. C. and on file in the Roanoke County Engineering Department. Page 1 of 3 ~S- 3 The Developer does hereby covenant and warrant that it will be responsible for the proper installation and construction of the said water and/or sewer systems including repair of surface areas affected by settlement of utility trenches for a period of one (1) year after date of acceptance by the Board and will perform any necessary repairs at its cost. Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, party of the third part, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance of this conveyance pursuant to Resolution No. adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. WITNESS THE FOLLOWING signatures and seals: Developer: Old Heritage Corporation By : ~ ~-~r-t~- ~ i ~~ Y c,2,C~. ~ State of: /City of: , to wit: The foregoing deed was acknowledged before me this: ~ Dday of 19 ~/ , By : //l n.C~iC ~_ /,// ~ ~'~%~ a s c /'D~/~~~~Q Duly authorized officer Title on behalf of Notary P~Cfblic My Commission expires: ~ / Page 2 of 3 r e Approved as to form: County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia County Attorney By Elmer C. Hodge State of: County/City of: to wit: The foregoing deed was acknowledged before me this: day of 19 , by Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. Notary Public My Commission expires: Revised 10/16/90 Page 3 of 3 ACTION # A-7991-12.c ITEM NUMBER ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 9, 1991 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Sanitary Sewer Facilities Serving Southern Pines, Resubdivision of Lots 1 & 2, Section 8 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Developers of Southern Pines, Resubdivision of Lots 1 and 2, Section 8, James F. Garlow and Richard L. Updike, have requested that Roanoke County accept the Deed conveying the sanitary sewer facilities serving the subdivision along with all necessary easements. The sewer facilities are installed, as shown on plans prepared by Buford T. Lumsden and Associates entitled Southern Pines, Resubdivision of Lots 1 and 2, Section 8, dated April 29, 1988, which are on file in the County Engineering Department. The sanitary sewer facility construction meets the specifications and the plans approved by the County. FISCAL IMPACT' The value of the sanitary sewer construction is $28,000 respectively. RECOMMENDATION' Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the sanitary sewer facilities serving Southern Pines, Resubdivision of Lots 1 and 2, Section 8 along with all necessary easements, and authorize the County Administrator to execute a Deed for the transfer of these facilities. s~ SUBMITTED BY: Cliffor r ig, P. . Utility Director APPROVED: L~~ ~ Elmer C. Hodg County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred McGraw x to Nickens x Robers x cc: File Cliff Craig, Director, Utility George Simpson, Assistant Director, Engineering y j `~'M ~OGOEN \,~ rn '4r A~ ~ o^\.n:,,-~ <', \' y-N rj cwt N9 /~ ... ~'~1..-a~~Ll~y ~ ~ + 6 17` ,~ay~ y~v " so ~~~L~ !~ ~lSC x1W~E Cs t V 1 2S F (j .. J ~' }'4~ 1 ~ g~l~a. n 8 A= ~ ~ ~ ~ E j li ~° ,,On"v~a~~~ 2 i ,~\ d\ Z~7ya ~O ~DH. W ~W+Or~~ Q y n ~ ?~34yV `T_ v \\i3'w~f~ 1~ ~~aqp ~~~~ ~~ gpf N ~~a DP.. ~" i ~ y I. by a+ H W O Qo o,. 6"4''i `T c~-~o> Qo `e ~ t'~d ~. .Y 9:V 'w `~~'s~'Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1~~ ors ,~~ t;' - ,' •~v~ ~1Sx ~S u ¢L '°~, de',~5~\~d;'~,,~,~~ o9Enyay~j Vgpro~~ 4~``\ ~" .~ :'9~b~ ` `.c ~ . " .~ ~•~ w~1N3 5< ~,~ ~~ a ~> ~ ~ VICINITY MAP ,}d _ ~~ H~'a' 3a' ~ .'~(7 P J ~~d cv~ ~~ ~hr~ -~ ~ P S ~ '.+. .. .. _ S=`~ ~~Z~' NORTB ~~ OS.~MN~ S(N(~ fsn-~. ~ ~ ~ I N I , 1 ' I ~. ~= . y 11v-ur io .\ 0. _ I SSMN I _ fo' NN. - ~ ~ 'rr~W. W S J T w ' > „°vi s i \ ~ PU EISNr~N 0 - ~ ro q i . ~ ~,~ w,w. i ~ L.. 51NN A I ~ p,wrrixx ~ \ ' M((• r(N K ~_. > ._rop. ~ e r0 / ~ 1 ~ ~1 ~ ; a ffM1 ~`r/ ~ ~ T , Pw+ ~N~iuo / / I '~ O ~a M)t M(I[.i I (Trr ~~ I fl ljM ~ ~ I / / -_ / g$ d Qs ~ i r ~/ / rxr ae6e"r ~'+' ~?b~ ~ ~ q ~ ~~ ~ .~1 ~ ~ e / ~ n ~ ~~ ~ I I ~ o~ o ~ / n^ +~ OVERLAND V O t ~ Ip g I ~ r moo' ~ / / ip ~ F °' ~ 2 ' ~ .rtt Norf / \s~ ` r I '~~. ~ Pti~ f/1sT MIN y~~ 1 ~~L/NI = j I / • du r~rrR v~nu Loxxu n.w sw~u nr ~wn x/r' Hr 'rye ~~ i~i:E / ' S r ~ ' \ ~ NJ 1 5 u.... 7b N i z I • ~ ~ ~ 0 \ ~ Z De W a I ~ J ~ Y f ~ i y n r, S~ ~ - ~1 i Y ~' s~ > :_ _ / I =- --L•~--- _ STARKEY ROAD COMMUNITY SERVICES .SEiIIER ACCEPTANCE FOR SOUTHERN PINES RE-SUBDIVISION FOR AND DEVELOPMENT LOTS 1 ~ 2 , SECTION 8 .T-'~ DEED OF EASEMENT AND ASSIGNMENT THIS DEED, DEED OF EASEMENT AND ASSIGNMENT, made this 7 day of June, 1991, by and between: James F. Garlow and Richard L Updike hereinafter referred to as the "Developers," party of the first part; the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, hereinafter referred to as the "Board," party of the second part; and ELMER C. HODGE, County Administrator of Roanoke County, VIRGINIA, party of the third part. W I T N E S S E T H THAT FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual benefits to accrue, the Developers does hereby GRANT, CONVEY, ASSIGN AND TRANSFER, with the covenants of GENERAL WARRANTY OF TITLE, in fee simple unto the Board all water and/or sewer lines, valves, fittings, laterals, connections, storage facilities, sources of water supply, pumps, manholes and any and all other equipment and appurtenances thereunto, in and to the water and/or sewer systems in the streets, avenues and public uti 1 ity, water and/or sewer easement areas that have been or may hereafter be installed by the Developers, along with the right to perpetually use and occupy the easements in which the same may be located, all of which is more particularly shown and described and designated as follows, to wit: As shown on the plan entitled Southern Pines, Resubdivision of Lots 1 and 2, Section 8 dated April 29, 1988 made by Buford T. Lumsden and Associates and on file in the Roanoke County Engineering Department. Page 1 of 3 S~ The Developers does hereby covenant and warrant that it will be responsible for the proper installation and construction of the said water and/or sewer systems including repair of surface areas affected by settlement of utility trenches for a period of one (1) year after date of acceptance by the Board and will perform any necessary repairs at its cost. Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, party of the third part, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance of this conveyance pursuant to Resolution No. adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. WITNESS THE FOLLOWING signatures and seals: Developers: James F. Garlow and Richard L. Updike By: l~-~ f, G flow ~~. 1~ By: n„~ Richard L, Updike ~` _ As: Developers State of: ', ~ N; County/Git~of: ____ ~_~~~_ _, to wit: The foregoing deed was acknowledged before me this: ~~, day of ~~t-k-~-= ----- 19 -- ~ ~-~- , By: James F. Garlow and Richard Updi e s Developers on behalf of James F. Garlow and Richard L. Updike. ~ ~ /~, Notary Public My Commission expires: ~~ /~~ ~,_ ~~ Page 2 of 3 J~ Approved as to form: County Attorney Elmer C. Hodge State of: County/City of: County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia BY to wit: The foregoing deed was acknowledged before me this: day of 19 , by Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. Notary Public My Commission expires: Revised 10/16/90 Page 3 of 3 /~I - / COUNTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE ~ of General~i~ Amount Fund Expenditures Unaudited Balance at July 1, 1991 $4,269,399 6.10 Submitted by Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance Note: On December 18, 1990 the Board of Supervisors adopted a goal statement to maintain the General Fund Unappropriated Balance at 6.25 of General Fund expenditures ($70,036,927). m-~ COIINTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY Beginning Balance at July 1, 1991 $ 50,000 Submitted by ~~~, ~. Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance 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: July 9, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Report on Proposal to Reduce Utility Rates for Cases of Demonstrable Hardship and Inability to Pay COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY• On June 25, 1991, Bob L. Johnson, in discussions regarding the new water rates, directed County staff to report on alternatives to reduce utility rates for citizens showing a demonstrable hardship and inability to pay. This report suggests several alternatives to achieve this goal. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Board directed staff to prepare a plan to freeze or limit utility rate increases for citizens on fixed incomes. Staff has explored several alternatives in response to this directive. One alternative follows the model of real estate tax relief for the elderly, based upon age and income factors. A second alternative follows the model of the fuel assistance program in social services (welfare). Eligibility is based on a percentage of the federal poverty level (130 for fuel assistance or food stamps), adjusted for household size. Water usage per month should also be a factor in this alternative. This would provide relief for everyone with a financial hardship, not just the elderly. This program should be limited to the rate of increase since July 1, 1991. The second option would have a far greater fiscal impact, since it is similar to a general relief program. Keep in mind that we will not be adding any new people to administer the program, so it should be kept simple. Either option would require reimbursement of the utility enterprise fund by the general fund. rn-Y There may be a "Dillon Rule" question with respect to the authority for either alternative. FISCAL IMPACTS' Staff is currently reviewing the financial and household income data for the County to determine the fiscal impact of the various alternatives. This data will be available on July 9, 1991. For example, the current real estate tax relief for the elderly program costs approximately $300,000 per year. ALTERNATIVES' Staff requests that the Board provide it with guidance concerning methodology (elderly only vs. poverty level) eligibili- ty, and general size of fiscal impact. Following general discussion agenda items for a subsequent readings may be required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion by If the standard is "demonstrable hardship and inability to pay," then the "fuel assistance" (social services) model may be preferable, although more costly. The "tax relief for the elderly" model limits this additional benefit to an existing special interest group. Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to by the Board, staff will prepare meeting. Public hearings and Respectfully submitted, ~. Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers Vote No Yes Abs AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1991 RESOLUTION 7991-13 CERTIFYING E%ECUTIVE 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. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~• Mary H. llen, Clerk CC: File Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Executive Session AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1991 RESOLUTION 7991-14 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. On motion of Supervisor McGraw to adopt resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: • L~~? ~~ Mary H. lien, Clerk CC: File Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Executive Session 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 AGENDA ITEM NO. ~- L APPEARANCE REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS SUBJECT: I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, 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. ^ Speaker will be limited to a ppresentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ 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. ^ SQeakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK NAME _r~ ~_ ~-u ~ ~~,~, i /~.s ADDRESS .,~ D L/~~ ~ % .z,q-~~~_~-(,~ fir- r v ~ [~'1 r~ ~~~ PHONE ~ ~~ - ~, i ~ 1 III11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 O~ p,OANp~.~ ~ ,N ~~ J 'a2 150 1 V YEAflS $$ SFS~UICENTENN\P~' A Beautiful Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE ~, ALL~AMERICA CITY C~~~n~ ~~ ~~~Yt~r~~ 'I i' I I 1979 1989 July 10, 1991 Mr. Horace L. 3561 Forester Roanoke, VA McPherson Road, S.W. 24015 Dear Mr. McPherson: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STEVEN A. MCGRAW. CHAIRMAN CATAWElA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS. VICE-CHAIRMAN VINTON MAGISTERUL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HIL1S MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERIAL DSSTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS CAVE SF~RING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT This is to advise that at their meeting held on July 9, 1991, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you as a citizen representative to the Transportation & Safety Commission for a four-year term beginning April 1, 1991, and ending April 1, 1995. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed, or re-appointed to any body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act; your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflicts of Interest Act. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Very truly yours, 741 Mary H. lien, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Enclosures cc: Mr. William G. Rosebro, Chairman P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANR'7KE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004 of aoANO,~~ ~ ~ A 2 ~ J ? • a 18 E50 88 SFSQUICENTENN~PV A Beau[iful Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE June 10, 1991 Mr. Jim Hinson, President Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau P. O. Box 1710 Roanoke, ~irginia 24008 Dear M~bn; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STEVEN A. MCGRAW, CHAIRMAN CATAWElA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS. VICE-CHAIRMAN VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT This is in reply to your recent letter requesting that Roanoke County's 1991-92 appropriation to the Bureau be increased by $5,000. The Board of Supervisors will consider this request for additional funding at their meeting on July 9. The meeting begins at 3 p.m., and I would suggest that you or Ms. Mackey plan to attend in order to answer any questions the Supervisors may have. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me or Board Clerk Mary Allen (772-2005). Very truly yours, ~ ,'~ I /'V1u/ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator meh cc -Mrs. Mary H. Allen, Clerk, Board of Supervisors Ms. Reta R. Busher, Director, Management and Budget ALI~AMEflICA CITY C~u~rt~ ~~ ~t~~trtnl~~ 'I I' I I 1979 1989 P.O. BOX 29800 ROAN6KE. VIRGINIA 2401$-0798 (703) 772-2004 ~ -/ OF aOANp~.~ a ~ ~ p z ~ J .. 2 a 18 '~ 88 S~SQUICENTENN~P~ A Beauti~ulBeRinning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE June 10, 1991 Mr. Bobby E. Carter, Administrator Alleghany Health District P. O. Box 307 Vinton, Virginia 24179 Dear Bobby: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STEVEN A. MCGRAW. CHAIRMAN CATAWELA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS. VICE-CHAIRMAN VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE 8. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERAL DISTRICT BOB L JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS CAVE SPRING MAGISTERAL DISTRICT This is in reply to your recent letter requesting an $8,000 increase in Roanoke County's 1991-92 appropriation to the Roanoke County-Salem Health Department. The Board of Supervisors will consider this request for additional funding at their meeting on July 9. The meeting begins at 3 p.m., and I would suggest that you or Dr. Hagan plan to attend in order to answer any questions the Supervisors may have. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me or Board Clerk Mary Allen (772-2005). Very~uly yours, ~~-~~''. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator meh cc - Mrs. Mary H. Allen, Clerk, Board of Supervisors Ms. Reta R. Busher, Director, Management and Budget All-AMERICA CITY u~trt~ ~~ ~~r~rt~~~ 'I I' 1979 1989 P.O. BOX 29800 ROANbKE. VIRGINIA 2401>~-0798 (703) 772-2004 } ~ ~~~~,~ ~~~ <; ~. ` ~~ . {, ~ ~ _ ~ , ;~. ,n ,_.t_; _: ~;~ - ~ ,' r: - , ~, Thy Regional Partnership ll] Franklin Plaza, Suite 333 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 703 343-1550 Fax: 703 344-6096 ROANOKE VALLEY OF VIRGINIA June 21, 1991 Mr. Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. Roanoke County Administrator Post Office Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Dear Elmer, The attached letter from Earl Smith is forwarded for your consideration. Earl called me prior to faxing the letter and I believe Allied- Signal is sincere. In the conversation, I discussed your proposal that Allied voluntarily give up its rights in return for an agreement that the site would be made available to them on the same terms negotiated originally if they have an acceptable use for the site prior to the County finding another tenant. This works for all parties. Roanoke County gets back the site, and controls it as we market it aggressively. We remain in favor with Allied-Signal as it continues as a prospect for future projects. Roanoke County receives a return on its investment. You may want your legal dates for lari to come t to discuss this prior to department to draft a response and offer o xoanolce County. Please call if you wish the meeting on Tuesday. Sincerely, Gl~~ Mark D. Heath, CED Executive Director MDH/fr cc: Tim Gubala Blue Rir~ye Mountains'Majesty. tee.. ,~ .Qa-<=~--~..~ -cc~ - ~ ~Q.~'3~.nc/ 9~ ~ ~~ ~ .~ ..~ O~ ROANpk~ ~ ,h i Z A o :. a? 1$ E50 $$ SFSgU1CENTENN~P~ rl BeautifulBeRinninR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE June 12, 1991 Mr. Alan T. Lingerfelt, P.E. Lingerfelt Development Corporation P. O. Box 8570 Richmond, Virginia 23226 Dear A1: AIL~AMEflIG LITY '~II~' 1979 1989 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STEVEN A. MCGRAW. CHAIRMAN CATAWElA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS. VICE-CHAIRMAN VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS CAVE SPRING MAGISTERAL DISTRICT I have been advised by County Supervisor Bob Johnson that you cannot pay more than $50,000 every two months. Members of our financial and legal staff have reviewed your offer and agree that it is inadequate and that it would cause serious year-end reporting problems for us. I plan to discuss this with the County Board in executive session on July 9 and would recommend that you arrange your schedule to be in town that evening in case the Supervisors want your input. We will do everything we can to work with you, but we have to reduce the past-due total on your outstanding balance. Very truly yours, ;~~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ECH/meh cc - Ms. Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Department Mr. Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Ms. Mary H. Allen, Clerk, Board of Supervisors (~v~tnt~ of ~u~tnnk~ P.O. BOX 29800 ROANC3KE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004 SUPERVISOR MCGRAW: ANNOUNCED THAT THERE WILL BE A MEETING OF THE VACO/VML TASK FORCE ON JULY 2 IN RICHMOND. L. CITIZENS' COn~IlVIENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS NONE M. REPORTS BLJ MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE - UW 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Board Contingency Fund N. WORK SESSIONS 1. Capital Improvement Program WORK SESSION SET FOR 7/9/91 ECH TO BRING BACK DEBT RETIREMENT SCHEDULE, PRIORITIES, COSTS OF SAIARIES, AVAILABLE REVENUE, ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES. 2. Parks & Recreation Commission BOARD CONSENSUS THAT PARKS AND REC COMII~IISSION SURVEY SENIOR CITIZENS ON PROGRAMS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE NEEDS, AND THAT TIDY EXPLORE POSSIBILITY OF MERGING ACTIVITIES WITH OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. O. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia section 2.1-344 A NONE 8 COMMITTEE VACANCIES IN 1991 JANIIARY FEBRIIARY REGIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION Three year term of Richard W. Robers will expire 02/10/91. MARCH LEAGIIE OF OLDER AMERICANS-ADVISORY COIINCIL One year term of Frances R. Holsinger will expire 03/31/91. LEAGIIE OF OLDER AMERICANS-BOARD OF DIRECTORS One year term of Murry K. White will expire 03/31/91. APRIL TRANSPORTATION AND BAFETY COMMISSION Four year terms of Lt. Art LaPrade for the County Police; Fred C. Altizer, Jr., for the Virginia Department of Transportation; H. Rodney Smith for the Senior Citizens, and Harry C. Nickens, Board Liaison, will expire 04/01/91. MAY JIINE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Five year term of Eldon L. Karr, Windsor Hills District, will expire 06/30/91. CLEAN VALLEY COIINCIL Two year terms of Vince Reynolds and Richard W. Robers, Advisory Member, will expire 06/30/91. FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION Three year term of Charles Steve Garrett will expire 06/30/91. 1 PARRS & RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION Three year terms of Kenneth D. Bowen, Catawba District; Yvonne Willis, Catawba District; James Bryant, Hollins District; Paul D. Bailey, Windsor Hills District; and Roger L. Falls, Vinton District; will expire 06/30/91. ROANORE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD - APPOINTED BY SCHOOL BOARD SELECTION COMMITTEE Four year terms of Frank E. Thomas, Catawba District, and Barbara Chewning, Vinton District, will expire 06/30/91. VIRGINIA WESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD Four year terms of Stephen A. Musselwhite and Jean Glontz will expire 06/30/91. JULY ROANORE VALLEY REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD Four year term of John Hubbard, will expire 07/31/91. AIIGUST COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS RESOURCES BOARD One year terms of Bernard Hairston and Edmund J. Kielty, Alternate, will expire 08/31/91. SEPTEMBER GRIEVANCE PANEL Two year term of Kim Owens will expire 09/27/91. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Four year terms of Charles R. Saul and Bill Triplett will expire 09/26/91. OCTOBER GRIEVANCE PANEL Two year term of Cecil Hill, Alternate, will expire 10/12/91. 2 NOVEMBER HEALTH DEPARTMENT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Two year term of Anne Renner will expire 11/26/91. DECEMBER ROANORE COIINTY RESOIIRCE AIITHORITY Four year terms of Steven A. McGraw and Richard W. Robers will expire 12/31/91. COIIRT-COMMIINITY CORRECTIONS POLICY BOARD Three year terms of Harry C. Nickens and Betty Pullen will expire 12/31/91. LIBRARY BOARD Four year terms of Jane Bryant, Catawba District, and Dr. Paul M. Zeis, Windsor Hills District, will expire 12/31/91. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES OF THE ROANORE VALLEY COMMIINITY SERVICES BOARD Three year terms of Rita J. Gliniecki, and Dr. Joseph Duetsch, Member at Large, will expire 12/31/91. ROANORE PLANNING COMMISSION Four year terms of Ronald L. Massey, Hollins District and Donald R. Witt, Cave Spring District, will expire 12/31/91. 3 1990 UNFILLED COMMITTEE ~~PPOINTMENTS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Five year term of M. E. Maxey, (:hairman, Vinton District, expired 06/30/90. BUILDING CODE BOARD OF ADJIISTMENTE~ AND APPEALS Four year term of Wilmore T. Leffe:ll expired 12/12/90. ROANORE PLANNING COMMISSION Four year term of A. Kyle Robinsozi, Vinton District, expired 12/31/90. APPOINTMENTS/VACANCIES TO BE FILLED FOR 1991 DISTRICT TERM ERPIRES ROANORE COUNTY RESOURCE AIITHORITY Steven A. McGraw Catawba 4 yrs 12/31/91 Richard W. Robers Cave Spring 4 yrs 12/31/91 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Eldon L. Karr Windsor Hills 5 yrs 06/30/91 M. E. Maxey, Chairman Vinton 5 yrs 06/30/90 BUILDING CODE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Wilmore T. Leffell 4 yrs 12/12/90 CLEAN VALLEY COUNCIL Vince Reynolds 2 yrs 06/30/91 Richard W. Robers, Advisory 2 yrs 06/30/91 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS RESOURCES BOARD Bernard Hairston 1 yr 08/13/91 Edmund J. Kielty, Alternate 1 yr 08/13/91 COURT SERVICE UNIT ADVISORY COUNCIL/YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD (INACTIVE IINTIL FURTHER NOTICE) James K. Sanders Windsor Hills 2 yrs 03/22/91 Gerald Curtiss Catawba 2 yrs 03/22/90 Roger Smith Catawba 2 yrs 03/22/90 Gary J. Minter Hollins 2 yrs 03/22/90 Sherry Robison Windsor Hills 2 yrs 03/22/90 Hoyt C. Rath Vinton 2 yrs 01/26/89 James L. Trout Cave Spring 2 yrs 03/22/89 Ted R. Powell Cave Spring 2 yrs 03/22/89 Dr. J. Andrew Archer Vinton 2 yrs 03/22/88 Youth Members Cave spring 1 yr William Byrd 1 yr 1 PARRS & RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION Kenneth D. Bowen Catawba 3 yrs 06/30/91 Yvonne Willis Catawba 3 yrs 06/30/91 James Bryant Hollins 3 yrs 06/30/91 Paul D. Bailey Windsor Hills 3 yrs 06/30/91 Roger L. Falls Vinton 3 yrs 06/30/91 ROANORE PLANNING COMMISSION Ronald L. Massey Hollins 4 yrs 12/31/91 Donald R. Witt Cave Spring 4 yrs 12/31/91 A. Kyle Robinson REGIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION Richard W. Robers Vinton 4 yrs 12/31/90 3 yrs 02/10/91 ROANORE COIINTY SCHOOL BOARD - APPOINTED BY SCHOOL BOARD SELECTION Frank E. Thomas Barbara Chewning Catawba 4 yrs Vinton 4 yrs 06/30/91 06/30/91 ROANORE VALLEY REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD John Hubbard 4 yrs TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY COMMISSION 07/31/91 Lt. Art LaPrade, County Police 4 yrs 04/01/91 Fred C. Altizer, Jr., VDOT, Cave Spring 4 yrs 04/01/91 H. Rodney Smith, Sen.Citizen, Windsor Hills 4 yrs 04/01/91 Harry C. Nickens, Board Liaison Vinton 4 yrs 04/01/91 VIRGINIA WESTERN COMMIINITY COLLEGE BOARD Stephen A. Musselwhite Jean Glontz 4 yrs 06/30/91 4 yrs 06/30/91 3 Glenvar High 1 yr Northside High 1 yr COURT-COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS POLICY BOARD Harry C. Nickens Betty Pullen FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION Charles Steve Garrett GRIEVANCE PANEL Kim Owens Cecil Hill, Alternate HEALTH DEPARTMENT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Anne Renner 3 yrs 12/31/91 3 yrs 12/31/91 3 yrs 06/30/91 2 yrs 09/27/91 3 yrs 10/12/91 2 yrs 11/26/91 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Charles R. Saul 4 yrs 09/26/91 Bill Triplett 4 yrs 09/26/91 LEAGUE OF OLDER AMERICANS-ADVISORY COUNCIL Frances R. Holsinger 1 yr 03/31/91 LEAGUE OF OLDER AMERICANS-BOARD OF DIRECTORS Murry K. White 03/31/91 LIBRARY BOARD Jane Bryant Catawba 4 yrs 12/31/91 Dr. Paul M. Zeis Windsor Hills 4 yrs 12/31/91 MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES OF THE ROANORE VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD Rita J. Gliniecki 3 yrs 12/31/91 Dr. Joseph Duetsch, Member at Large 3 yrs 12/31/91 2 ~~~~~~ FOR ECH AND PMM. EACH WILL FILL OUT AND AT 7/9 MEETING (2) ASKED ABOUT IlVIPROVING COMPLYING WITH ORDINANCE REQUIRING BUILDING AND HOUSE NUMBERS. ECH WILL ASK CEASE AND FUQUA TO REPORT BACK ON 7/9/91. (3) ASKED WHAT COULD BE DONE TO ASSIST JERRY GRUBB'S PROBLEMS WITH HIS LOTS THAT DON'T PERICECH + D WHAT HAD BEEN DONE AND NO CONSENSUS TO ASSIST FURTHER (4) ASKED FOR REPORT FROM STAFF ON WAYS TO CONSERVE WATER SUCH AS ENCOURAGING USE OF LOW FLOW TOILETS. (5~ EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT HIGH COST OF PRINTING BUDGET BOOKS. (~ ASKED FOR RESPONSE FROM STAFF ON CRITERIA FOR RANI~NG CIP PROJECTS. ECH WII.L RESPOND. SUPERVISOR TOHNSON: QUESTIONED SOME INFORMATION REGARDING SPRING HOLLOW RESERVOIR INCLUDED IN LBE'S BULLETIN TO HIS DISTRICT. SUPERVISOR ROBERS: (1) ASKED ABOUT PRIVATIZATION REPORT. ECH WII.L BRING BACK EITHER FIRST OR SECOND MEETING IN JULY. (2) ASKED ABOUT PMM AND ECH EVALUATION. SAM ASKED EACH BOARD MEMBER TO FILL OUT IN ADVANCE AND DISCUSS AT 7/9/91 MEETING. SUPERVISOR MCGRAW: (1) VACO TASK FORCE MET 6/24/91 TO DISCUSS PLANS FOR VACO/VML TASK FORCE MEETING NEXT WEEK. I.. CITIZENS' COD~IlI~NTS AND COIbIlVIUNICATIONS NONE M. REPORTS BLJ MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE 6 r I'. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-62591-5 BIB MOTION AT 7:03 URC WITH HCN ABSENT Q. PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 691-1 Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code by the addition of Section 2-5 to establish a schedule of fines and fees for overdue, damaged or lost public library materials RWR MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 7/9/91 URC WITH HCN ABSENT R- PUBLIC 1[EARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 691-2 Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code by amending and reenacting Section 21-3, Utility Service Tax of Chapter 21, Taxation providing for an increase in rates and expansion of services subject to this tax. 0-62591-6 7 SPOKE IN OPPOSI'T'ION 2 SPOKE IN SUPPORT BIB MOTION TO ADOPT ORD. AND THAT STAFF BRING BACK OPTIONS TO FREEZE OR LINII'r INCREASES TO SENIOR CITIZENS ON FIXED INCOMES URC WITH HCN ABSENT 691-3 Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code by amending and reenacting Section 22-82, Rates and Fees of Chapter 22, Water by providing procedures for an increase in water service rates and connection fees. s H. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance to authorize the purchase of the Ponderosa Park Water System LBE MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 7/9/91 URC WITH SAM AND HCN ABSENT I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Clean Valley Council 2. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission ~O~! ~~ 3. Transportation and Safety Commission "~ °~ .~ LBE NOMINATED HORACE MCPHERSON TO FOUR-YEAR TERM J. CONSENT AGENDA 4 OF ROANp,Y~ ~ ,N i Z ~~ ~ z v _:~ 'a ^x 150 1 V YEARS 88 SFSQ!-ICENTENN~PV A Beautiful Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE ALLAMERIG CITY C~~~~~ ~~ ~u~~t~~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, 1979 1989 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Rev. Gordon Grimes Cave Spring Baptist Church 5133 Brambleton Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Reverend Grimes: June 6, 1991 l %~1 ~ ~ .~ t STEVEN A. MCGRAW. CHAIRMAN GTAWElA MAGISTERAL DLSTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS. VICE-CHAIRMAN VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERAL DISTRICT BOB L JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERALL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS GVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 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 Tuesday, July 9, 1991, at 3:00 p.m. For your information, I am attaching a list of the board meeting dates for 1991. These meetings are held the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month and the invocation is always given at 3 p.m. If the date requested above is not convenient, 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 your time to offer God's blessing at their meetings. Sincerely, ~" Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ,, i~ ,. \ A :/, ~` '. P.O. BOX 29800 ROANpKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 • <703) 772-2004