The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8/27/1991 - RegularAu-a~et~~ cmr ~~~ ~ ~ P~AN~KF`~ ~ ~ ~~,~ y~. ~ ~ ~~ ~ u~ ~ o a ERV1S0~ ~'9.8 ~ ~ Cp~TrY BOARD OF SUP . rFJ,es ~a 150 s P goAN~~ V SESOUice~~"a ACTION AGENDA ~ g~puti~+l Btgin^ia8 AUGUST 27, 1991 . Regular eriisors meeting• Board of SuP h Tuesday at 3:00 oanoke COUn~' and the fount of each Welcome to the R Tuesday Tuesday are held on the secona 7:00 p•m on the fourth meettngs s are held ll be announced. ublic hearing this schedule ~ p•m• P montb• D~ations from EKEMO~ES (3:00 P M•) A• OPENING C 1• Roll Call. ALL pRESENT AT; 3:10 ~ everend Samuel Crams The R fist Church 2• Invocation: Coopers Cove Bap 'anCe to the United States Flag• 3• pledge of A.lleg- CHANGE THE ~ ADD TO, OR VESTS TO pOS~~ MS B• DER OF AGENDA I NING SESSI ~gDER M D-2 BE ADDED Tp O~ O C~,NGE LBE AS~D TAT i BOARD CONSENSUS N ASR I'~M 8912 RO~,~NTS TO -4 REST StTPpORT1NG INIP .BLJ ADDED ITEU E 220 II,,I, _ CII ALTERNA7`E RO ON DBE CA~~S LANDF SID FOR EPA REPORT HCN A IN' EXECUTE SESSION WILL ,WISE i v~. C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Appreciation to Bern l~vert for his contributions to Roanoke County and the Roanoke. Valley R-82791-1 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT RESO URC t. 2. Recognition of Paul Grice for receiving his designation as a Certified Public Accountant. PAUL GRICE PRESENT D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Report on Year-end Finances NO ACTION TAKEN BI~j ASKED ECH TO BRING BACK REPORT ON USING SURPLUS FOR MID YEAR EMPLOYEE BONUS HCN ASKED FOR REPORT ON ROOF REPAIRS FROM SCHOOLS 2. Adoption of resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of $15,000,000 General Obligation Water System Bonds. R-82791-2 LBE MOTION TO DEFER UNTIL AFTER 891-2 - NO VOTE HCN SUBST. MOTION TO ADOPT RESO AYES-RWR,BL~,HCN, SAM a NAYS-LBE 3. Request from School Board for Acceptance of Federal Entitlement Funds for vocational education. A-82791-3 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE URC 4. Adoption of Resolution supporting improvements to Alternate Route 220. R-82791-4 BLJ MOTION TO ADOPT RESO URC E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS BLJ ASKED FOR WORK SESSION WITH BZA. ECH TO SET ON 9/10/91 F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE G. PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA HCN MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND AND PUBLIC HEARING - 9/24/91 HCN ASKED IF 2ND READING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS COULD BE SEPARATED IN FUTURE. PMM TOP DISCUSS WITH TH AND BRING BACK ALTERNATIVES. 3 1. An ordinance to rezone 4.647 acres from R-3 to B-2 for general commercial use, located on the south side of Peters Creek Road at its intersection with Barrens Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Friendship Manor Apartment Village Corporation. H. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code, Article II, Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code of Chapter 9, Fire Prevention and Protection. HCN MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND READING - 9/10/91 URC 2. Ordinance to authorize acquisition of a sanitary sewer easement from H. M. and Learleen D. Obenchain. LBE MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND READING - 9/10/91 AYES-LBE,RWR,BLJ NAYS-HCN,SAM I. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code, Section 1-10, Classification of and Penalties for violations; Continuing violations of Chapter 1, General Provisions by increasing misdemeanor punishment. 0-82791-5 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC 2. Ordinance authorizing acquisition of a new water, 4 sanitary sewer and drainage easement from Hugh H. and Margaret H. Wells. 0-82791-6 RWR MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC 3. Ordinance authorizing the County Administrator to grant the right to joint use of County water and sewer easement areas by a public utility company. 0-82791-7 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC J. APPOINTMENTS 1. Community Corrections Resources Board 2. Grievance Panel MHA TO CONTACT KIM OWENS 3. Industrial Development Authority K. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. R-82791-8 BLJ MOTION TO ADOPT RESO URC 5 1. Confirmation of appointment to the Clean Valley Council and the Industrial Development Authority. A-82791-8.a A-82791-8.b R-82791-8.c A-82791-8.d A-82791-8.e 2. Approval of a 50/50 Raffle Permit for the Northside Athletic Booster Club. 3. Resolution of Appreciation upon the Retirement of Gloria Z. Divers 4. Approval of Raffle Permit and one-day Bingo Game for Penn Forest Elementary School PTA. 5. Donation of sanitary sewer and drainage easements in connection with Mountain View Estates Subdivision. L. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS SUPERVISOR EDDY: (1} ASKED IF THERE WOULD BE FOLLOWUP ON CITIZEN SURVEY. ECH WILL CHECK ON WHY RESPONSES WERE MADE ON CERTAIN ISSUES. (2) EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT LEAF COLLECTION. ECH HAS STAFF TRYING TO GET VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATIONS AND CDI PROGRAM INVOLVED WITH UNDERSTANDING COUNTY IS REFERRAL SERVICE ONLY. WILL BRING BACK REPORT ON 9/10/91 SUPERVISOR NICKENS: ASKED JH ON RANKING AT DWM OF SMITH GAP SITE VERSUS AREA A AT CURRENT LANDFILL. JH ADVISED SMITH GAP IS #4. ASKED BOARD TO SEND LETTER TO 6 CURRENT LANDFILL BOARD TO CEASE GOING FORWARD WITH AREA A PERMIT AND REQUEST THAT DWM EXCHANGE AREA A RANI[~NG FOR SMITH GAP EVEN IF SPECIAL MEETING IS NECESSARY. ECH TO SEND LETTER. SUPERVISOR MCGRAW: (1) BLUE RIDGE REGION STUDY COMIVIISSION MET ON S/26 AND MEETING WAS VERY POSITIVE. (2) ANNOUNCED HE WAS REAPPOINTED TO GRAYSON C011ZNIISSION. (3) ASKED FOR INFO ON PROPOSED APCO TRANSMISSION LINE ON 9/10/91 MEETING ADDRESSING CITIZENS CONCERNS AND IMPACT ON CATAWBA DISTRICT. M. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND CONIlVIUNICATTONS 1. Bruce Roy to speak concerning the year-end surplus. ASKED THAT COUNTY YEAR-END SURPLUS BE DIVIDED AMONG COUNTY EMPLOYEES. 2. Kitty Boitnott, Roanoke County Education Association to speak concerning the year-end surplus. ASKED THAT SCHOOL YEAR-END SURPLUS BE DIVIDED AMONG SCHOOL EMPLOYEES N. REPORTS HCN MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE AFTER DISCUSSION OF #5 AND 7 - URC 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Board Contingency Fund 3. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance i 4. Accounts Paid -July 1991 5. Summary of Literary Loan Projects LBE ASKED FOR MORE DETAILED INFORMATION AND JUSTIFICATION OF PROJECTS. ECH WILL MEET WITH DR WILSON AND BRING BACK ON 9/10/91 MEETING. 6. Report from County Attorney regarding Approval of Roanoke County's Redistricting Plan 7. Report on the Variance Request of C&D Builders to the Board of Zoning Appeals ECH WILL BRING BACK REPORT ON 9/10/91 MEETING. BOARD ASKED THAT CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE REQUESTS BE GIVEN TO DEVELOPERS WHEN PERMIT IS ISSUED. 8. Report on Appalachian Power Company's application for a 765 kV transmission line known as Wyoming- Cloverdale Line O. WORK SESSION 1. Privatization CONTINUED TO 9/10/91 P. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (7) consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff requiring provision of legal advice regarding the Dixie Caverns Landfill. HCN MOTION TO APPROVE AT 5:10 P.M. URC Q. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION s R-82791-9 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT RESO AT 5:45 P.M. RECESS AT 5:46 P.M. FOR RESOURCE AUTHORITY MEETING EVENING SESSION RECONVENED AT 7:05 P.M. R PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 891-1 Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code, Section 21-73, General Prerequisites to Grant of Division 3, Exemption for Elderly and Disabled Persons of Chapter 21, Taxation to increase the total combined income provision for real estate tax exemption for the elderly and handicapped. 0-82791-10 1 CITIZEN SPOKE HCN SUBST. MOTION TO ADOPT WITH CAP AT $30,000 AND $4,000 ADDITIONAL INCOME AYES-HCN NAYS-LBE,RWR,BI.4T, SAM LBE SUBST. MOTION TO ADOPT WITH CAP AT $25,000 AYES-LBE NAYS-RWR,BI~j,HCN, SAM BLJ ORIGINAL MOTION TO ADOPT ORD AYES-RWR,BLJ,HCN, SAM NAYS-LBE 9 ~. ~ ROANp~ O~~F ~ ~ y Z ~, °.~ a ~B ES~~ 8$ SfS0U1CENTENN~P~' A Bcauti~ttl Bcginning ~IIllli~l~ II~ ~IIFI1tII~iF ROANOIKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA AUGUST 27, 1991 ALL-AM~ICA CtTI( 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. 2. Invocation: The Reverend Samuel Crews Coopers Cove Baptist Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Appreciation to Bern evert for his contributions to Roanoke County and the Roanoke. Valley i 2. Recognition of Paul Grice for receiving his designation as a Certified Public Accountant. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Report on Year-end Finances 2. Adoption of resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of $15,000,000 General Obligation Water System Bonds. 3. Request from School Board for Acceptance of Federal Entitlement Funds for vocational education. E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS G. PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA 1. An ordinance to rezone 4.647 acres from R-3 to B-2 for general commercial use, located on the south side of Peters Creek Road at its intersection with Barrens Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Friendship Manor Apartment Village Corporation. H. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code, Article II, Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code of Chapter 9, Fire Prevention and Protection. a 2. Ordinance to authorize acquisition of a sanitary sewer easement from H. M. and Learleen D. Obenchain. I. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code, Section 1-10, Classification of and Penalties for violations; Continuing violations of Chapter 1, General Provisions by increasing misdemeanor punishment. 2. Ordinance authorizing acquisition of a new water, sanitary sewer and drainage easement from Hugh H. and Margaret H. Wells. 3. Ordinance authorizing the County Administrator to grant the right to joint use of County water and sewer easement areas by a public utility company. J. APPOINTMENTS 1. Community Corrections Resources Board 2. Grievance Panel 3. Industrial Development Authority K. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Confirmation of appointment to the Clean Valley Council 3 and the Industrial Development Authority. 2. Approval of a 50/50 Raffle Permit for the Northside Athletic Booster Club. 3. Resolution of Appreciation upon the Retirement of Gloria Z. Divers 4. Approval of Raffle Permit and one-day Bingo Game for Penn Forest Elementary School PTA. 5. Donation of sanitary sewer and drainage easements in connection with Mountain View Estates Subdivision. L. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS M. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND CO1I~IlVIUNICATIONS 1. Bruce Roy to speak concerning the year-end surplus. 2. Kitty Boitnott, Roanoke County Education Association to speak concerning the year-end surplus. N. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Board Contingency Fund 3. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 4. Accounts Paid -July 1991 5. Summary of Literary Loan Projects 4 6. Report from County Attorney regarding Approval of Roanoke County's Redistricting Plan 7. Report on the Variance Request of C&D Builders to the Board of Zoning Appeals 8. Report on Appalachian Power Company's application for a 765 kV transmission line known as Wyoming- Cloverdale Line O. WORK SESSION 1. Privatization P. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (7) consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff requiring provision of legal advice regarding the Dixie Caverns Landfill. Q. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION EVENING SESSION R. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 891-1 Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code, Section 21-73, General Prerequisites to Grant of Division 3, Exemption for Elderly and Disabled Persons of Chapter 21, Taxation to increase the total combined income provision for real estate tax exemption for the elderly 5 and handicapped. 891-2 Public Hearing and adoption of resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of $65,000,000 water system revenue bonds. 891-3 Ordinance amending Chapter 22, Water of the Roanoke County Code by the addition of a new Section 22-6, "Reduction of Rates" to authorize the reduction of water rates in hardship situations for elderly and disabled persons. 891-4 Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code, Section 21-52 Applications for Special Assessment; Fees, of Division 2, Use Value Assessment of Certain Real Estate, of Chapter 21 Taxation. 891-5 An ordinance to rezone approximately 12 acres from M- 1 to B-2 and obtain a Special Exception Permit to operate a retirement community on 49.3 acres, located north side of Route 11/460, west of Salem, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Richfield Retirement Community. 891-6 An ordinance to rezone .71 acre from R-1 to M-1 to allow aself-storage facility, located at 6426 Merriman Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of 301 Gilmer Associates. S. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND COMMLJI~TICATIONS T. ADJOURNMENT 6 •. „ `7 „. } AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991 RESOLUTION 82791-1 OF APPRECIATION TO H. BERN EWERT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO ROANORE COUNTY AND THE ROANORE VALLEY WHEREAS, H. Bern Ewert has made significant contributions to the Roanoke Valley, including the beautification of Downtown Roanoke, the renovation of the City Market Building, the creation of the Explore Park, and the Roanoke River Greenway Master Plan; and WHEREAS, Mr. Ewert has received a number of awards for his work as a City Manager and civic leader, including the Innovative Manager of the Year Award from the International City Managers' Association and the Man of the Decade Award from the Roanoke Jaycees; and WHEREAS, Mr. Ewert was an important part of the Roanoke County team during the 1989 All America City presentation, and his contribution was instrumental in helping the County win that Award; and WHEREAS, the people of the Roanoke Valley will remain indebted forever to Mr. Ewert for his foresight and his dedication to the preservation of the scenic beauty of the area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, on its own behalf, and on behalf of the citizens of Roanoke County, does hereby extend its deepest appreciation and gratitude to H. BERN EWERT for the contributions he has made to Roanoke County and the Roanoke Valley; and further BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of . ., Supervisors extends its best wishes for the continued success of Mr. Ewert in all his future endeavors. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the 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 Resolutions of Appreciation File C-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO H. BERN EWERT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO ROANORE COUNTY AND THE ROANORE VALLEY WHEREAS, H. Bern Ewert has made significant contributions to the Roanoke Valley, including the beautification of Downtown Roanoke, the renovation of the City Market Building, the creation of the Explore Park, and the Roanoke River Greenway Master Plan; and WHEREAS, Mr. Ewert has received a number of awards for his work as a City Manager and civic leader, including the Innovative Manager of the Year Award from the International City Managers' Association and the Man of the Decade Award from the Roanoke Jaycees; and WHEREAS, Mr. Ewert was an important part of the Roanoke County team during the 1989 All America City presentation, and his contribution was instrumental in helping the County win that Award; and WHEREAS, the people of the Roanoke Valley will remain indebted forever to Mr. Ewert for his foresight and his dedication to the preservation of the scenic beauty of the area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, on its own behalf, and on behalf of the citizens of Roanoke County, does hereby extend its deepest appreciation and gratitude to H. BERN EWERT for the contributions he has made to Roanoke County and the Roanoke Valley; and further BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of '' ~,. Supervisors extends its best wishes for the continued success of Mr. Ewert in all his future endeavors. OF ROANp~~ h '~ ~ Z '31 ~ ~_ ~ 2 "a 18 E50 88 S~SQGICEWTENN~P~ A BeautifulBeginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STEVEN A. MCGRAW, CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS. VICE-CHAIRMAN VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERLAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT August 27, 1991 To: Board of Supervisors Attached is a report from the Finance Department showing the preliminary results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1991. The final audit report will not be complete until October, so it would be premature to appropriate any of these funds at this time. The Board has, by resolution, allowed the Schools to retain their year-end balance in a capital account for the purchase of school buses. Year-end balances on the County side have gone into our unappropriated fund balance. This preliminary report shows that Roanoke County can anticipate $680,000 when the books are closed. That compares to $3 million for 1989-90. The reduction is the result of the recession, reduced revenues from the State, and flattening of the local economy. I must point out, however, that while this is considerably less than it was last year, Roanoke County has fared much better than many other localities. There are other Virginia localities that have year-end deficits in the millions of dollars. The $680,000 is comprised of two major components. The first is revenues that exceeded projections and the second is expenditure savings. REVENUE The attached report shows that net revenues exceeded the budget by $219,128 or 0.32 per cent. The Board instructed staff last year to project revenue to within 1 per cent, and we have done that. A review of the revenue categories shows the greatest decline ($307,498) in personal property taxes. This is the second single largest category of local revenue. Also, real estate tax revenue declined by $61,198. This decline in personal property and real estate taxes is the result of a slower economy and, unless there is considerable improvement, will result in lower revenues for fiscal year '92-93 as well. ALI~AMERICA CITY C~n~t~t~ u~ ~~r~Yt~r~~r 'I I' I I 1979 1989 P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004 ~~ -2- EXPENDITpREB The greatest source of our year-end balance was our reduction in expenditures. Early in the year the County began to postpone purchases and delay filling vacant positions because we saw the economy slowing down. We expect to leave twenty positions unfilled, and we are doing everything to minimize the impact on service delivery. CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES The Board has been increasing the Unappropriated Fund Balance for the last four years and on June 30, 1990, ended the year with a balance of $5,653,756 or 8.57 per cent of General Fund expenditures. During the 1990-91 year, the Board allocated amounts from the Unappropriated Fund Balance for large, one-time expenditures such as economic development, Dixie Caverns landfill, and VDOT matching funds. On December 18, 1990, the Supervisors adopted a goal statement to maintain the General Fund Unappropriated Balance at 6.25 per cent of General Fund expenditures. Based upon our preliminary year-end surplus of $680,000, the Unappropriated Fund Balance at June 30, 1991, will be $4,953,348 or 7.25 per cent of General Fund expenditures. In the 1991-92 fiscal year, this same amount of fund balance will equal 7.07 per cent of General Fund expenditures. COUNTY SCHOOLS The Board has already agreed that any unexpended funds in the School budget should be used to buy school buses. This year, the School system has an anticipated year-end balance of $592,429. This was the first year of the combined Finance Department, and the County and School staffs worked together very well to constantly monitor the expenditure levels of all School departments. Since most of the school buses have been purchased within the past five years, there may be more pressing needs. Dr. Bayes Wilson has recommended to the School Board that this money be used as follows: ° $300,000 for roof repairs, ° $200,000 for purchase of school buses, and ° $100,000 for modifications at Cave Spring Junior High School. I agree with these recommendations. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the County has a lot to be thankful for. Despite the recession problems, unemployment in the area is still relatively low. The County itself has avoided staff layoffs and has been able to reduce staff levels through attrition. Although it is small compared to previous years, our $680,000 year-end balance compares very well with other localities'. .~. f -4- COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCES Undesignated Fund Balance at June 30, 1986 $1,584,637 3.16% Undesignated Fund Balance at June 30, 1987 $2,063,493 3.87% Undesignated Fund Balance at June 30, 1988 $3,037,141 5.32% Undesignated Fund Balance at June 30, 1989 $4,038,318 6.93% Undesignated Fund Balance at June 30, 1990 $5,653,756 8.57% Undesignated Fund Balance at June 30, 1991 (Preliminary) $4,953,348 7.25% Undesignated Fund Balance at July 1, 1991 (Preliminary) $4,953,348 7.07% H 0 O 0 M 0 N 0 N O j Z I W j st 1 r' O 1~ ~A O j I I~ i C O O ~ ~ I W W i G. U Q I i 1 ~ i n o r~ ~ r~ ~ I w i v Z M ~ a ~ =O i v ~ n c° i ~ > ~ Q 1 I 1 1 1 I J I ao I ~ ao M ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ n 1 O I .-. G 0_ ~ Q W ~ ~" I N ~ ~ M O I ~ Z ~ ~ ~ Q ~ Q I W M ~ `~ `-' 1 ~ i _ Z W >> Z YZZ~ ~ A i c~c r00i ~ ~ a0~ i o O I M M O N ~ I Z J D aQOz C3 ~ I ~ i N I~ r C~ tC 1 ~ ~ v_ v_ a 2 Q m ~ M M m v O ~ fn W I I > W Z O W ~ ~ O J Q U O o~ W w a O ~ ~ rn o ~ o rn 2 ~ Z ~ Q ~ O j z ~ ~ ? = ~ ¢ ~ W p v O ~ INI.I m ~ W fn Q ~ ~ Z LL ~ Q L~ W r > ~ ~ Q ~ LL ~ O tWi V ~ O W Z W J Z O Q F_ Q W ¢ ~ U ~ ~ Q -! I H i a° c~° ~ ~ o I Z I W I O 1~ N N tt I N W c0 cG rn N ch r ca I U I O CV N ~' O C C ~ Q ~ I I r I W 1 a I w U Z I I~ 1 D 0 OD C+~ M 1 W 01 O O r I OD I N O tG N r I O I O Q I Z 1 r~ OD M I~ I r I ~ ~ 1 O 1 Q I I O I r f~ N C O I ~ M r M~ 01 I ~ ' '~t ch O 1 ~D > ... N I ~ I I Q I I I I 1 I I I N N 00 M M I O O O O N I CO I M ~ O 1~ tD I O 1 O Q -~ I CO O O C'7 tp I O ~ ~ M I O O r W Q H ~ ~ f' ~ f~ N N~ r r O r cp r ~ O> tD d: st M ~ O ~ I~ ~O ~ ~ 1~ M st ~ O j tD Z Q r ~ Q M Q 1 O N tt N I~ i M r r I 1~ i O O ~ N 1 ~ Q I I I Z W > v0 Z W fA Z~ Y Z~ ~ ~ I O O O O O 1 0 0 0 O r I O I r ~ tp ~ ~ I O I O O lL w W I O O O O ~ I 01 M ~ I Z F. J ~ Z U D ~ 01 O O O O ~ C) i ~ N rn N ~ ~ OpCOC W W~ m i rnoMrr M ~~ N ~ I~ cO N LL ~ D ... I O O w W 1 I 1 >LL~'3} Z O H O w ~ H H O -' oC U W w O a0 r I W X ~ p ~ ~ rn L r ~ L X~~ Q W ~ w w m ~ Z H W U Z~ W p W aZ~~ z g~ U o ~~Nww Q cn^, mW ~ ~ J Z Z m O Q Q W W Q Z U W 2 ~ W H> LL W Q Z =~cnQ?O z ~~ z LLZ O j w w p~ ~ J a 0 O Q w= ~ o woCa~mQ Xm mU D oC w ~ Q ,~' _ ~'ti COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION 82791-2 Date: August 27, 1991 At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, held on the 27th day of August, 1991, the following persons were present or absent as shown: PRESENT' Supervisor Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw ABSENT' None On substitute motion of Supervisor Nickens, the following Resolution 82791-2 was adopted by a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors by a roll call vote, the ayes and nays being recorded as follows:. MEMBER Supervisor Eddy Nay Supervisor Robers Aye Supervisor Johnson Aye Supervisor Nickens Aye Supervisor McGraw Aye VOTE AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGIIST 27, 1991 RESOLUTION 82791-2 AUTHORIZING THE ISSIIANCE AND SALE OF THE COUNTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA $15,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION WATER SYSTEM BONDS SERIES 1991 The issuance of the $16,000,000 general obligation bonds of the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") was authorized by resolution of the Board of Supervisors ("Board") adopted on July 22, 1986, and approved at an election held in the County on November 4, 1986 ("Election") for the purpose of paying all or a portion of the cost of acquiring, constructing, developing and equipping a public water supply and related facilities, including a dam and reservoir ("Project") of which $1,000,000 in bonds have been issued. The board has determined that it is advisable to issue the remaining authorized bonds in an aggregate principal amount of $15,000,000 ("Bonds"). The Circuit Court of the County entered an order on November 19, 1986, authorizing the Board to carry out the wishes of the voters as expressed at the Election. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and to issue and sell the Bonds in an amount of $15,000,000 pursuant to the Election. The issuance and sale of the Bonds is hereby authorized. The proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds 1 shall be used to pay the costs of the Project. In accordance with Section 15.1-227.2 and 15.1-227.65 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code"), the Board elects to issue the Bonds pursuant to the provisions of the Public Finance Act of 1991. 2. Pledcte of Full Faith and Credit. The full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds as the.same become due and payable. The Board shall levy an annual ad valorem tax upon all property in the County, subject to local taxation, sufficient to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due for payment unless other funds are lawfully available and appropriated for the timely payment thereof. 3. Sale of Bonds. The Board authorizes the sale of the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount of $15,000,000 to Alex Brown & Sons Incorporated, as underwriter ("Underwriter"). The County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board, or either of them, are authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Bond Purchase Agreement with the Underwriter, providing for the sale and delivery of the Bonds upon terms and conditions to be approved by such officers, provided that (i) the true interest of the Bonds shall not exceed 9~; (ii) the final maturity of the Bonds shall not be later than 30 years from their date; and (iii) the sale price of the Bonds to the Underwriter shall not be less than 97$ of the aggregate principal amount thereof. The approval of such officers shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery of 2 the Bond Purchase Agreement. 4. Details of Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution and the Bond Purchase Agreement or such other terms as may be set forth by subsequent resolution of the Board. The Bonds shall be issued in fully registered form, shall be dated October 1, 1991, shall mature serially in the years and amounts set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement, shall bear interest payable semi-annually at the rates set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement, shall be in the denominations of $5,000 each or whole multiples thereof and shall be numbered from R-1 upwards consecutively. The Bonds shall be subject to optional redemption on the terms set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement. 5. Forms of Bonds. The Bonds shall be in substantially the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, with such appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as are permitted or required by this Resolution or subsequent resolution of the Board of Supervisors. There may be endorsed on the Bonds such legend or text as may be necessary or appropriate to conform to any applicable rules and regulations of any governmental authority or any usage or requirement of law with respect thereto. 6. Appointment of Bond Registrar and Paving Agent. The Treasurer of the County is appointed Bond Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds. The Board may appoint a subsequent registrar and/or one or more paying agents for the bonds by subsequent resolution and upon 3 giving written notice to the owners of the Bonds specifying the name and location of the principal office of any such registrar or paying agent. ~, Book-Entry-Only Form. The Bonds shall be issued in fully registered form and registered in the name of Cede & Co., a nominee of The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC") as registered owner of the Bonds, as immobilized in the custody of DTC. One fully registered Bond in typewritten or printed form for the principal amount of each maturity shall be registered to Cede & Co. Beneficial owners of Bonds shall not receive physical delivery of the Bonds. Principal, premium, if any, and interest payments on the Bonds shall be made to DTC or its nominee as registered owner of the Bonds on the applicable payment date. Transfer of ownership interest in the Bonds shall be made by DTC and its participants ("Participants"), acting as nominees of the beneficial owners of the bonds, in accordance with rules specified by DTC and its Participants. The County shall notify DTC of any notice required to be given pursuant to this Resolution or the Bonds not less than fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the date upon which such notice is required to be given. The County shall also comply with the agreements set forth in the County's letter of representations to DTC. Replacement Bonds (the "Replacement Bonds") shall be issued directly to beneficial owners of Bonds rather than to DTC, or its nominee, but only in the event that: (i) DTC determines not to continue to act as securities 4 depository for the Bonds; or (ii) The County has advised DTC of its determination that DTC is incapable of discharging its duties; or (iii) The County has determined that it is in the best interest of the beneficial owners of the bonds not to continue the book-entry system of transfer. Upon occurrence of the event described in (i) or (ii) above, the County shall attempt to locate another qualified securities depository. If the County fails to locate another qualified securities depository to replace DTC, the County shall execute and deliver Replacement Bonds substantially in the form set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto to the Participants. In the event the Board, in its discretion, makes the determination noted in (ii) or (iii) above and has made provisions to notify the beneficial owners of Bonds by mailing an appropriate notice to DTC, the appropriate officers and agents of the County shall execute and deliver Replacement Bonds substantially in the form set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto to any Participants requesting such Bonds. Principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Replacement Bonds shall be payable as provided in the Bonds and such Replacement Bonds will be transferable in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 10 and 11 of this Resolution and the Bonds. 8. Execution of Bonds. The Chairman of the Board and the Clerk of the Board are hereby authorized and directed to execute appropriate negotiable Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of 5 $15,000,000, and to affix the seal of the County thereto. The manner of execution and affixation of the seal may be by facsimile, provided, however, that if the signatures of the Chairman and Clerk are both by facsimile, the Bonds shall not be valid until signed at the foot thereof by the manual signature of the Bond Registrar. 9. CUSIP Numbers. The Bonds shall have CUSIP identification numbers printed thereon. No such number shall constitute a part of the contract evidenced by the Bond on which it is imprinted and no liability shall attach to the County, or any of its officers or agents by reason of such numbers or any use made of such numbers, including any use by the County and any officer or agent of the County, by reason of any inaccuracy, error or omission with respect to such numbers. 10. Rectistration Transfer and Exchange. Upon surrender for transfer or exchange of any Bond at the principal corporate trust office of the Bond Registrar, the County shall execute and deliver and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate in the name of the transferee or transferees a new Bond or Bonds of any authorized denomination in an aggregate principal amount equal to the Bond surrendered and of the same form and maturity and bearing interest at the same rate as the Bond surrendered, subject in each case to such reasonable regulations as the County and the Bond Registrar may prescribe. All Bonds presented for transfer or exchange shall be accompanied by a written instrument or instruments of transfer or authorization for exchange, in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the County and the Bond Registrar, duly executed 6 by the registered owner or by his or her duly authorized attorney- in-fact or legal representative. No Bond may be registered to bearer. New Bonds delivered upon any transfer or exchange shall be valid obligations of the County, evidencing the same debt as the Bonds surrendered, shall be secured by this Resolution and entitled to all of the security and benefits hereof to the same extent as the Bonds surrendered. 11. Charges for Exchange or Transfer. No charge shall be made for any exchange or transfer of Bonds, but the County may require payment by the registered owner of any bond of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or other governmental charge which may be imposed with respect to the transfer or exchange of such Bond. 12. Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants. The appropriate officers and agents of the County are authorized and directed to execute a Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to comply with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code"), including the provisions of Section 148 of the Code and applicable regulations relating to "arbitrage bonds." The Board covenants on behalf of the County that the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in the County's Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants, to be delivered simultaneously with the issuance and delivery of the Bonds and that the County shall comply with the 7 other covenants and representations contained therein. 13. Disclosure Documents. The County Administrator, and such officers and agents of the County as he may designate, are hereby authorized and directed to prepare, execute and deliver, as appropriate, a preliminary official statement, an official statement, and such other disclosure documents as may be necessary to expedite the sale of the Bonds. The preliminary official statement, the official statement or other disclosure documents shall be published in such publications and distributed in such manner and at such time as the County Administrator, or such officers or agents of the County as he may designate, shall determine. 14. Further Actions. The County Administrator, and such officers and agents of the County as he may designate, are authorized and directed to take such further action as they deem necessary regarding the issuance and sale of the Bonds and all actions taken by such officers and agents in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds are hereby ratified and confirmed. 15. Filinct of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke, Virginia pursuant to Sections 15.1-227.9 and 15.1-227.42 of the Virginia Code. 16. Effective Date. This Resolution sna11 Laxe eiLG~:~ immediately. On substitute motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the 8 resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw NAYS: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: ~~~~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Bond Counsel Circuit Court Judge Alfred C. Anderson, County Treasurer Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Cliff Craig, Director, Utility The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true, complete and correct copy of Resolution 82791- 2 adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, held on August 27, 1991. Dated: August 27, 1991 ~~ ~ ~/ L2~~c~~J Mary H. A len, Clerk, Board of Supervisors County of Roanoke, Virginia [SEAL] 9 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MHELDNAT THEHROANOKE COUNTYEADMINISTRATION CENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: August 27, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of $15 million in General Obligation Bonds for the Spring Hollow Water Project COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ BACKGROUND' In November 1986, the voters of the County of Roanoke approved a referendum for the issuance of $16 million in General Obligation Bonds. $1 million was approved for acquisition for private water systems and $15 million was approved for construction of Spring Hollow Reservoir Water Supply. Since that time, the $1 million of bonds for purchase of private water systems have been issued through the Virginia R be uauthorizedlfor construction of thelwater of bonds now needs to supply portion of the Spring Hollow Water Project. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Board has approved the Spring Hollow Water Project, which has an estimated construction cost of $72,177,000. These general obligation bonds will be sold at approximately the same time as the Water Revenue Bonds for the Spring Hollow Water Project. The bonds will be sold and brought to the Board for ratification on October 22, 1991. FISCAL IMPACT' Debt Service on the $15 million General Obligation Bonds and closing costs for the slit wConsumera Tax which wasvapprovednbyathe by the increase in Uti y d of Supervisors on June 25, 1991. Boar ~~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution which authorizes the issuance and sale of $15 million in General Obligation Bonds. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, Diane D. Hyatt ,~ Elmer C. Hodge Director of Finance County Administrator ---------------- ------------------------ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Motion by: Eddy Denied ( ) Johnson Received ( ) McGraw Referred ( ) Nickens To Robers ~,.. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, H OND TUESDAY ,R AU UST C27NT19g1MINISTRATION CENTER RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE COUNTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA $15,000,000 GENERALSERIESA1991 WATER SYSTEM BONDS The issuance of the $16,000,000 general obligation bonds of the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") was authorized by resolution of the Board of Supervisors ("Board") adopted on July 22, 1986, and approved at an election held in the County on November 4, 1986 ("Election") for the purpose of paying all or a portion of the cost of acquiring, constructing, developing and equipping a public water supply and related facilities, including a dam and reservoir ("Project") of which $1,000,000 in bonds have been issued. The board has determined that it is advisable to issue the remaining authorized bonds in an aggregate principal amount of $15,000,000 ("Bonds"). The Circuit Court of the County entered an order on November 19, 1986, authorizing the Board to carry out the wishes of the voters as expressed at the Election. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and to issue and sell the Bonds in an amount of $15,000,000 pursuant to the Election. The issuance and sale of the Bonds is hereby authorized. The proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds 1 ~-~ shall be used to pay the costs of the Project. In accordance with Section 15.1-227.2 and 15.1-227.65 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code"), the Board elects to issue the Bonds pursuant to the provisions of the Public Finance Act of 1991. 2. Pled a of Full Faith and Credit. The full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds as the same become due and payable. The Board shall levy an annual ad valorem tax upon all property in the County, subject to local taxation, sufficient to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due for payment unless other funds are lawfully available and appropriated for the timely payment thereof. 3. Sale of Bonds. The Board authorizes the sale of the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount of $15,000,000 to Alex Brown & Sons Incorporated, as underwriter ("Underwriter"). The County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board, or either of them, are authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Bond Purchase Agreement with the Underwriter, providing for the sale and delivery of the Bonds upon terms and conditions to be approved by such officers, provided that (i) the true interest of the Bonds shall not exceed 9%; (ii) the final maturity of the Bonds shall not be later than 30 years from their date; and (iii) the sale price of the Bonds to the Underwriter shall not be less than 97% of the aggregate principal amount thereof. The approval of such officers shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery of 2 ~~~ the Bond Purchase Agreement. 4. Details of Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution and the Bond Purchase Agreement or such other terms as may be set forth by subsequent resolution of the Board. The Bonds shall be issued in fully registered form, shall be dated October 1, 1991, shall mature serially in the years and amounts set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement, shall bear interest payable semi-annually at the rates set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement, shall be in the denominations of $5,000 each or whole multiples thereof and shall be numbered from R-1 upwards consecutively. The Bonds shall be subject to optional redemption on the terms set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement. 5. Forms of Bonds. The Bonds shall be in substantially the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, with such appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as are permitted or required by this Resolution or subsequent resolution of the Board of Supervisors. There may be endorsed on the Bonds such legend or text as may be necessary or appropriate to conform to any applicable rules and regulations of any governmental authority or any usage or requirement of law with respect thereto. 6, A ointment of Bond Registrar and Patina Agent. The Treasurer of the County is appointed Bond Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds. The Board may appoint a subsequent registrar and/or one or more paying agents for the bonds by subsequent resolution and upon 3 .1~~~ giving written notice to the owners of the Bonds specifying the name and location of the principal office of any such registrar or paying agent. 7, Book-Entry-Only Form. The Bonds shall be issued in fully registered form and registered in the name of Cede & Co., a nominee of The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC") as registered owner of the Bonds, as immobilized in the custody of DTC. One fully registered Bond in typewritten or printed form for the principal amount of each maturity shall be registered to Cede & Co. Beneficial owners of Bonds shall not receive physical delivery of the Bonds. Principal, premium, if any, and interest payments on the Bonds shall be made to DTC or its nominee as registered owner of the Bonds on the applicable payment date. Transfer of ownership interest in the Bonds shall be made by DTC and its participants ("Participants"), acting as nominees of the beneficial owners of the bonds, in accordance with rules specified by DTC and its Participants. The County shall notify DTC of any notice required to be given pursuant to this Resolution or the Bonds not less than fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the date upon which such notice is required to be given. The County shall also comply with the agreements set forth in the County's letter of representations to DTC. Replacement Bonds (the "Replacement Bonds") shall be issued directly to beneficial owners of Bonds rather than to DTC, or its nominee, but only in the event that: (i) DTC determines not to continue to act as securities 4 depository for the Bonds; or (ii) The County has advised DTC of its determination that DTC is incapable of discharging its duties; or (iii) The County has determined that it is in the best interest of the beneficial owners of the bonds not to continue the book-entry system of transfer. Upon occurrence of the event described in (i) or (ii) above,. the County shall attempt to locate another qualified securities depository. If the County fails to locate another qualified securities depository to replace DTC, the County shall execute and deliver Replacement Bonds substantially in the form set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto to the Participants. In the event the Board, in its discretion, makes the determination noted in (ii) or (iii) above and has made provisions to notify the beneficial owners of Bonds by mailing an appropriate notice to DTC, the appropriate officers and agents of the County shall execute and deliver Replacement Bonds substantially in the form set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto to any Participants requesting such Bonds. Principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Replacement Bonds shall be payable as provided in the Bonds and such Replacement Bonds will be transferable in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 10 and 11 of this Resolution and the Bonds. g. Execution of Bonds. The Chairman of the Board and the Clerk of the Board are hereby authorized and directed to execute appropriate negotiable Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of 5 ~- $15,000,000, and to affix the seal of the County thereto. The manner of execution and affixation of the seal may be by facsimile, provided, however, that if the signatures of the Chairman and Clerk are both by facsimile, the Bonds shall not be valid until signed at the foot thereof by the manual signature of the Bond Registrar. 9. CUSIP Numbers. The Bonds shall have CUSIP identification numbers printed thereon. No such number shall constitute a part of the contract evidenced by the Bond on which it is imprinted and no liability shall attach to the County, or any of its officers or agents by reason of such numbers or any use made of such numbers, including any use by the County and any officer or agent of the County, by reason of any inaccuracy, error or omission with respect to such numbers. 10. Registration Transfer and Exchange. Upon surrender for transfer or exchange of any Bond at the principal corporate trust office of the Bond Registrar, the County shall execute and deliver and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate in the name of the transferee or transferees a new Bond or Bonds of any authorized denomination in an aggregate principal amount equal to the Bond surrendered and of the same form and maturity and bearing interest at the same rate as the Bond surrendered, subject in each case to such reasonable regulations as the County and the Bond Registrar may prescribe. All Bonds presented for transfer or exchange shall be accompanied by a written instrument or instruments of transfer or authorization for exchange, in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the County and the Bond Registrar, duly executed 6 -6-~ by the registered owner or by his or her duly authorized attorney- in-fact or legal representative. No Bond may be registered to bearer. New Bonds delivered upon any transfer or exchange shall be valid obligations of the County, evidencing the same debt as the Bonds surrendered, shall be secured by this Resolution and entitled to all of the security and benefits hereof to the same extent as the Bonds surrendered. 11. Charges for Exchange or Transfer. No charge shall be made for any exchange or transfer of Bonds, but the County may require payment by the registered owner of any bond of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or other governmental charge which may be imposed with respect to the transfer or exchange of such Bond. 12. Non-Arbitra e Certificate and Tax Covenants. The appropriate officers and agents of the County are authorized and directed to execute a Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to comply with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code"), including the provisions of Section 148 of the Code and applicable regulations relating to "arbitrage bonds." The Board covenants on behalf of the County that the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in the County's Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants, to be delivered simultaneously with the issuance and delivery of the Bonds and that the County shall comply with the 7 .Y "' ~\ other covenants and representations contained therein. 13. Disclosure Documents. The County Administrator, and such officers and agents of the County as he may designate, are hereby authorized and directed to prepare, execute and deliver, as appropriate, a preliminary official statement, an official statement, and such other disclosure documents as may be necessary to expedite the sale of the Bonds. The preliminary official statement, the official statement or other disclosure documents shall be published in such publications and distributed in such manner and at such time as the County Administrator, or such officers or agents of the County as he may designate, shall determine. 14. Further Actions. The County Administrator, and such officers and agents of the County as he may designate, are authorized and directed to take such further action as they deem necessary regarding the issuance and sale of the Bonds and all actions taken by such officers and agents in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds are hereby ratified and confirmed. 15. Filing of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke, Virginia pursuant to Sections 15.1-227.9 and 15.1-227.42 of the Virginia Code. 16. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the 8 ~I~/ '" County of Roanoke, Virginia, certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true, complete and correct copy of the Resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, held on August 27, 1991. Dated: August , 1991 Clerk, Board of Supervisors County of Roanoke, Virginia [SEAL] 9 ~1/'v~ EXHIBIT A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA No. R- COUNTY OF ROANOKE GENERAL OBLIGATION WATER SYSTEM BOND, SERIES 1991 INTEREST RATE CUSIP MATURITY DATE REGISTERED OWNER PRINCIPAL AMOUNT COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA ("County"), for value received, acknowledges itself indebted and promises to pay to the registered owner of this Bond or legal representative, the principal amount stated above on the maturity date set forth above and to pay interest on the principal amount of this Bond at the rate specified above per annum, payable semiannually on 1 beginning on 1, 19 1 and This Bond shall bear interest (a) from October 1, 1991, if this 1, 19 or (b) Bond is authenticated before 1 or 1 that is, or otherwise from the immediately precedes, the date on which this Bond is authenticated; provided that, if at the time of authentication of this Bond, interest on this Bond is in default, this Bond shall bear interest from the date to which interest has been paid. Both principal of and interest on this Bond are payable in lawful money of the United States of America. The principal of this Bond is payable upon presentation and surrender hereof at the office of the Treasurer of the County, as Bond Registrar and Paying Agent ("Bond Registrar"). Interest on this Bond is payable by wire transfer to any registered owner of $1,000,000 or more in principal amount of Bonds or by check or draft mailed to the registered owner hereof at its address as it appears on the registration books maintained by the Bond Regentsashallhbetmade presentation of this Bond. All interest paym to the registered owner as it appears on the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar on the fifteenth day of the month preceding each interest payment date. This Bond has been duly authorized by the Board of Supervisors of the County and is issued for the purpose of paying a portion of the costs of certain water system improvements for the County. The full faith and credit of the County are irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and ~-a premium, if any, and interest on this Bond in accordance with its terms. This Bond shall not be valid or obligatory for any purpose unless and until authenticated at the foot hereof by the Bond Registrar. This Bond is one of a series of $15,000,000 General Obligation Water System Bonds, Series 1991 of the County, ("Bonds") of like date and tenor, except as tossuedeunder the denomination, rate of interest and maturity, authority of and in full compliance with the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and, moreChapteru5ailof issued pursuant to the Public Finance Act of 1991, Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the majority vote of the qualified voters of the County voting at an election held on November 4, 1986, and resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors on August 27, 1991 ("Resolution"). 1, 19 are not Bonds maturing on or before subject to redemption before maturity. Bonds at the time 1' outstanding which are stated to mature on or after 19 may be redeemed before their maturities on or after 1, 19 , at the option of the County in whoent oflthe part (in installments of $5,000) at any time upon paym following redemption prices (expressed as a percentage of the principal amount to be redeemed) together with the interest accrued thereon to the date fixed for redemption: Redemption Date Redemption Price the If less than all of the Bonds are called for redemption, maturities of the Bonds to be redeemed shall be selected by the Director of Finance of the County in such officer's discretion. If less than all of the Bonds of any maturity are called for redemption, the Bonds or portions thereof to be redeemed within a maturity shall be selected by lot, each portion of $5,000 principal amount being counted as one Bond for such purpose. If any of the Bonds or portions thereof are called for redemption, the Bond Registrar shall send notice of the call for redemption identifying the Bonds or portions thereof to be redeemed, the redemption date and pricfirst classlmailwnotelessds are to be surrendered for payment, by than 30 nor more than 60 days before the redemption date to the registered owner of each Bond to be redeemed at such owner's address as it appears on the registration books maintained by the Bond Registrar, but failure to mail such notice shall not affect the validity of the proceedings for redemption. Provideentuons for their redemption are on deposit at the place of paym the redemption date, all Bonds or portions thereof so called for .1~'°~ redemption shall cease to bear interest on such date, shall no longer be secured by the Resolution and shall not be deemed to be outstanding. If a portion of this Bond shall be called for redemption, a new Bond in principal amount equal to the unredeemed portion hereof will be issued to the registered owner upon the surrender of this Bond. The Bonds are issuable as fully registered bonds in denominations of $5,000 and integral multiples thereof. Any Bond may be exchanged for a like aggregate principal amount of Bonds of the same maturity of other authorized denominations at the principal office of the Bond Registrar. This Bond may be transferred only by an assignment duly executed by the registered owner hereof or such owner's attorney or legal representative in a form satisfactory to the Bond Registrar. Such transfer shall be made in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar upon presentation and surrender hereof and the County shall execute, and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate and deliver in exchange, a new Bond or Bonds having an equal aggregate principal amount, in authorized denominations, of the same form and maturity, bearing interest at the same rate, and registered in names as requested by the then registered owner hereof or such owner's attorney or legal representatiexce tnthat P such exchange shall be at the expense of the Coun y, the Bond Registrartaxyorhothertgovernmentalgchargegrequiredctonbe the amount of any paid with respect thereto. The County may designate a successor Bond Registrar and/or paying agent, provided that written notice specifying the name and location of the principal office of any such successor shall be given to the registered owner of the Bonds. Upon registration of transfer of this Bond, the Bond Registrar shall furnish written notice to the transferee of the name and locairi naoenthe principal office of the Bond Registrar and/or the pay g g The Bond Registrar shall treat the registered owner as the person exclusively entitled to payment of principal and interest and the exercise of all other rights and powers of the owner, except that interest payments shall be made to the person shown as the owner on the registration books on the 15th day of the month preceding each interest payment date. It is hereby certified and recited that all acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be performed precedent to the issuance of this Bond have happened, exist or been performed in due time, form and manner as so required and that the indebtedness evidenced by this Bond is within every debt and other limit prescribed by the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia. ~`~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of thebCothey of Roanoke, Virginia, has facsimile signature of its be affixed and attested b and this Bond to be dated caused-this Bond to be signed y Chairman, a facsimile of its seal to y the facsimile signature of its Clerk October 1, 1991. COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA By Chairman, Board of Supervisors, County of Roanoke, Virginia [SEAL] ATTEST: Clerk, Board of Supervisors County of Roanoke, Virginia ~D-a. COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION Date: August 27, 1991 At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, held on the 27th day of August, 1991, the following persons were present or absent as shown: PRESENT: ABSENT: On motion of seconded by the following Resolution was adopted by a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors by a roll call vote, the ayes and nays being recorded as follows: MEMBER VOTE 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ ~ ~' APPEARANCE REQUEST FOR UBLIC HEARING OORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS SUBJECT: ~`~ ,-..1 ~t~J ~~ a ~ c~ 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 1'I~ 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 timeenforcebthe r ule unlessuinst uct d lbyethe smajoritgy of the issue, and vv~ Board to do otherwise. ^ Speaker will. be limited to a ppresentation of their point of view only. uestions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. Q ^ 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 HE I1VCIjIEVI~DUAL TO REPRESENT HEM, THE GROUP ALLOWING T PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK NAME ~ r~ ;~-~e- ~ ADDRESS a ~ a ~ Cam--~-- ~ ~' S w PHONE ~~ y y ~ ~ 2-- 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 J ininunun~ni~ininnniinu~unnniinnuinnnnnnnnniniiii AGENDA TTEM NO~ ~Z APPEARANCE REQUEST FOR ~UBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: (S,S ~~ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may commentD. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AN 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 ~meenforcebther ule unlessuinst uct dlbyethe smajoritgy of the issue, and 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. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments vc~th the clerk. ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE ~ G THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT HEM. THE GROUP ALLOWIN PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK NAME ADDRESS PHONE ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 J illliilllllilllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllilllllllll AGENDA ITEM NO. ______ APPEARANCE REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCE ~ CI'TIZENS 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 tha ~meenforcebthe r ule unlessuinstruct d lbyethe smajor ty of the issue, an 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. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE NG THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT HEM, THE GROUP ALLOWI PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK NAME ADDRESS PHONE 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 s=', v~ ACTION # ITEM NUMBER MEETING DATE: August 27, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: A-82791-3 ~~~ Request for an Additional Appropriation to the School Operating Fund for Vocational Education COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND For several years the Roanoke County School System has been receiving federal entitlements through the Carl D, Perkins Vocational Education Act. These funds have assisted with costs associated with the vocational and special education assessment centers (personnel and equipment) at the Roanoke County Career Center (RCCC) and the Roanoke County Occupational School (RCOS). SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: For 1991-92 the school division anticipated an entitlement of $54,000, and this amount was budgeted. On July 3, 1991 notification was received that the entitlement for 1991-92 would be $115,711--an increase of $61,711, This increase will be used for additional personnel and equipment for programs serving the handicapped and disadvantaged students taking vocational education courses at Arnold R. Burton Technology Center (ARBTC) and RCCC, Primary activities involved will be the integration of the academics and vocational education and transition of special education students mainstreamed from RCOS to ARBTC and RCCC. FISCAL IMPACT: None. No county matching funds are required. Revenue would be recorded to reflect $115,711 in the School Operating Fund. Related expenditures would also be recorded, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends an additional appr priation of $61,711 to the School Operati g Fund. 1 arland J. dd, Director Elmer C, Hodg Vocational & Adult Education County Administrator ~• -2- ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved ( x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens Eddy x Denied ( ) to approve _ Johnson _x Received ( ) _ McGraw x Referred ( ) Nickens x To Robers x cc: File Dr. Bayes Wilson, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance 4 FROM THE MINUTES OF THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY MEETING IN REGULAR SESSION AT 7 P.M. ON AUGUST 8, 1991 IN THE BOARD ROOM OF THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, SALEM, VIRGINIA. ~~ RESOLUTION REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION TO THE SCHOOL OPERATING FUND FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION. WHEREAS, the Roanoke County School System is a recipient of an entitlement through the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act, and WHEREAS, notification was received on July 3, 1991 that the entitlement to Roanoke County for 1991-92 will be increased to $115,711, which is $61,711 more than budgeted, and WHEREAS, the increased funds will be used for additional personnel and equipment for programs serving disadvantaged and handicapped students in the area of vocational education at Arnold R. Burton Technology Center and the Roanoke County Career Center; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County School Board of Roanoke County on motion of Paul G. Black and duly seconded requests an additional appropriation of $61,711 to the school operating fund for vocational education. Adopted on the following recorded vote: AYES: Paul G. Black, Maurice L. Mitchell, Charlsie S. Pafford, Barbara B. Chewning, Frank E. Thomas NAYS: None TESTE: ~ ~,~ ~ ~ Clerk c: Mrs. Diane Hyatt ,~. ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991 RESOLUTION 82791-4 REQUESTING THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXPEDITE IMPROVEMENTS TO ALTERNATE ROUTE 220 WHEREAS, since November 1990, four people have died in traffic accidents on Alternate Route 220 and plans to four-lane the road are not scheduled until 1993, and WHEREAS, immediate improvements to this road have been delayed until final plans for a bypass east of Roanoke that would connect Interstate 81 and U. S. 220 South, and WHEREAS, State Transportation Board member Steve Musselwhite has requested that the Virginia Department of Transportation expedite improvements to the road. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia supports Mr. Musselwhite's request, and asks that improvements to Alternate Route 220 be expedited to alleviate a dangerous situation, and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors requests that the speed limit on Alternate Route 220 remain at 45 miles per hour until such improvements have been accomplished. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors CC: File Steve Musselwhite, Transportation Board B. W. Sumpter, Virginia Department of Transportation F. C. Altizer, Jr. Resident Engineer, VDOT ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~~` AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 27, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution Requesting that the Virginia Department of Transportation expedite improvements to Alternate U. S. Route 220 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Steve Musselwhite, a member of the Virginia Transportation Board, has requested that the Virginia Department of Transportation expedite improvements to Alternate Route 220. However, VDOT has advised that they are waiting for final plans for a bypass east of Roanoke that would connect Interstate 81 and U. S. 220 South. They hope the bypass will be approved after an October 30 public hearing. Supervisor Nickens has suggested that the Board of Supervisors officially support Mr. Musselwhite's request to VDOT. Since November 1990, four people have died in traffic accidents on the road. VDOT does not plan to four-lane the last two miles until 1993. Supervisor Nickens has also suggested that the state maintain the 45 mph speed limit until the improvements are made. Attached is a resolution requesting that the Virginia Department of Transportation expedite the improvements to Alternate Route 220. RECOMMENDATION' It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached resolution and that copies be sent to the Virginia Department of Transportation and Transportation Board member Steve Musselwhite. ~~ /~~~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved Denied Received Referred To Motion by: ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991 RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXPEDITE IMPROVEMENTS TO ALTERNATE ROUTE 220 WHEREAS, since November 1990, four people have died in traffic accidents on Alternate Route 220 and plans to four-lane the road are not scheduled until 1993, and WHEREAS, immediate improvements to this road have been delayed until final plans for a bypass east of Roanoke that would connect Interstate 81 and U. S. 220 South, and WHEREAS, State Transportation Board member Steve Musselwhite has requested that the Virginia Department of Transportation expedite improvements to the road. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia supports Mr. Musselwhite's request, and asks that improvements to Alternate Route 220 be expedited to alleviate a dangerous situation, and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors requests that the speed limit on Alternate Route 220 remain at 45 miles per hour until such improvements have been accomplished. 1 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: August 27, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Requests for Public Rezoning Ordinances Consent Agenda Hearing and First Reading for COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND• The first reading on these ordinances is accomplished by adoption of these ordinances in the manner of consent agenda items. The adoption of these items does not imply approval of the substantive content of the requested zoning actions, rather approval satisfies the procedural requirements of the County Charter and schedules the required public hearing and second reading of these ordinances. The second reading and public hearing on these ordinances is scheduled for September 24, 1991. The titles of these ordinances are as follows: 1. An ordinance to rezone 4.647 acres from R-3 to B-2 for general commercial use, located on the south side of Peters Creek Road at its intersection with Barrens Road, Hollins Magisterial District upon the petition of Friendship Manor Apartment Village Corp. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: (1) That the Board approve and adopt the first reading of these rezoning ordinances for the purpose of scheduling the second reading and public hearing for September 24, 1991. (2) That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth as Item 1, inclusive, and that the Clerk is 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 action. ~' 2 Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Action Motion by Respectfully submitted, ~~.m~. Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers Vote No Yes Abs Date Rec.: Received By : _ ~.~ Case No. •_~~; n. Ord . No -:: ~_;'_ . ROANOKE COUNTY REZONING APPLICATION `- ~ : , , . ~• .,, Village ~_,;.,.. :. ,~~ Friendship Manor Apartment/Corporation ~::., ~~ 65-,200 Steve Rice Phorie~;' (7 `~~'~ . 1, Owner' s Name : `~ y• ~ ` { e,~.4 ,~:, Address• 215 Hershberger Road, Roanoke, Virginia 24012 • ~ Friendship Manor Apartment Villag~one p~~7~~°n?65-2100 2• Applicant's Name: c~ Address: 215 Hershber er Road Roanoke Vir inia 24012 3. Location of Property: Peters Creek Road at Barrens Road Tax Map Number(s): P 0 27.13-5-47 48 & 49• P 0 27. 7-4 13• ~`~ ~ 4. Magisterial District: Hollins ~R ~ l ~~ --z~Ac-r CQ . ~ i ~ A ~-1~-~ 5. Size of Property: 4 647 acres xz~~~. ~ ~ ~ 6. Existing Zoning: 200' fronta e is B-2 rear ortion is R-3 Existing Land Use: Vacant (existing barn is F M maintenance shop 7. Proposed Zoning: Rezcne rear ortion to B-2 KIC E .~,' t~ ~ 't"1"1 ;.5 ~ ri ~, Proposed Land Use: General Commercial District - v~! 8. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Core 9. Are Conditions Proffered With This Request? Yes X No . (If you are voluntarily offering proffers. as a part of your applica- tion, these proffers must be in writing. A member of the Planning Staff can assist you in the preparation of these proffers.) 10. Value of Land and (Proposed) Buildings: $1 000 000 +/- 11. The Following Items Must Be Submitted With This Application. Please Check If Enclosed. Application Will Not Be Accepted If Any Of These Items Are Missing Or Incomplete: x Letter of Application x Concept Plan x Metes and Bounds Description x List of Adjacent Owners of Property (Attach Exhibit A) x Vicinity Map x Application Fee x Written Proffers If Applicable) x Water and Sewer Application ( 12. Signature Of Pro erty Owner, Contract Purchaser, Or Owner's Age Date ~ ~ s ~ Signature . aroly C Bolton, Agent G- I BL 11_.1-~~ ~.: .. _ -. ~ ti. ,~ ~ -, . ~~~ i - -.tY :: -~~l July 26, 1991 Mr. Terry Harrington Roanoke County Planning and Zoning Department p. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 RE; Friendship Manor Apartment Village Rezoning of Tracts near Peters Creek Road Roanoke County, Virginia JOB NUMBER: 1234-1 Dear Terry, Enclosed please find the application package to rezone the above referenced project. The frontage on Peters Creek Road extending back 200 feet is zoned B-2 and will not change. The portions of the tracts behind the B-2 area are zoned R-3. We request a rezoning to B-2 of the 4.647 acres adjoining the existing B-2 zoning as shown on the accompanying Concept Plan. The property to be rezoned and the existing B-2 area is designated "Core" in the Comprehensive Development Plan for Roanoke County, therefore this request is consistent with the County development framework growth initiatives for this area. The typical expected development of these tracts is shown on the Concept Plan, although the final lot configurations and site plans will not be determined until the property is marketed. A letter of proffer with respect to this rezoning from the property owner is included in the application package. • p~_.vr~E^- • :-~c~~.r~tcrs Frv~ir~== ,s • s~~~~~~~~c~_ 1208 Corporate Circle • Roanoke, Virginia 24018 • (703) 7729580 FAX (703) 772 c=50 G- Mr. Terry Harrington Page 2 July 26, 1991 Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, BALZER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Caroly~C. Bolton Project Engineer Enclosures cc: Steve Rice Dennis Cronk G- ~ July 26, 1991 Mr. Terry Harrington Roanoke County Planning and Zoning Department P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 RE: Friendship Manor Apartment Village Corporation Rezoning of Tract near Peters Creek Road Dear Mr. Harrington: In consideration of approval of our request to rezone a 4.647 acre portion of Tax Map Numbers from the current R-3, Multi-family Residential zoning to B-2, General Commercial District we proffer the following conditions: i) Barrens Road shall be extended in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation Standards and Specifications to serve the area to be rezoned. 2) Car and bus entrances shall be provided on proposed Barrens Road to serve Burlington Elementary School as agreed with the Roanoke County School Board. 3) The architectural styles and materials of the proposed buildings will provide a unified, consistent effect for the development. Sincerely, FRIENDSHIP MANOR APARTMENT VILLAGE CORPORATION Steve Rice cc: Carolyn C. Bolton, Balzer and Associates, Inc. i ttlt~~ ~~~~~ jr~~ 5'13Jfdvd M. •.3SIY7 i g M O 8 z 0 N n ~~ Q D m Z . ; 1 l I ;~ 7'~ i 'I~~r+ „ .' I- t adt7f! 5~~3b,~St13~13d l3S I ~, ~T~~• 9 N .Q o ~ ~~ ~N d I ~; h II ij 7 1 l t ' l C Y ~ A i 1 ~ ~ 4 1 ~ O I i it I~ i~jsi Im I ~ ~ ~ ~ a •" yfii2r= :~ ~~ ~ ' I~~z i ~9 1 ~1 ~ \ ''~, . ~ ROAHOICE COUNTY UTILITY DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR WATER OR SEWER SERVICE TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Date _~-2h~ 1 q4 ~ Friendship Manor Apartment Name of Applicanty;llagP C'ornorations Phone 265-2100 Address of Applicant~~5 uPrshberQer Road Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Name of Developer camP.~ °/ Steve Rice Phone same Address of Developer sam Name of Design Engineer Carol n C. Bolton Phone Balzer an Assoc., nc. Address of Design Engineer 1208 Corporate Circle, Name of Contact Person Carolyn Bolton Name of Proposed Development Lakeview Tracts Type of Development and proposed number of units (Fe specific' General Commercial Development to be determined Location of proposed development ( Furnish copy of map) Peters Creek Road at Barrens Road Size of proposed development in acres: 4.647 Acres Acres Give minimum and maximum elevation (Use USGS Elevations) at w the individual water/sewer service connectioc~~0~ould be locat Minimum 1060 feet MSL. Maximum f eet MSL Is this application for a development that will be a part or section of a larger future development? No x Yes If yes, provide map of entire area if available. (OVER) 772-9580 Eoanoke 2401 4 S z na re of gcl ica t o ~ ~" ;' ~~ ..,, v Q ~ /^~` ~G ~p0 ~~ j ` ~ i---~~ i INTGn NAWGE_.. \ ~..` \ ~ H•Ii{n. ~~ '! ~, ~ r ~ _ "-~- ;~~\_. ~',.i rs9 .. ';.. ISO ^~P ~ '\ ~~ _'- `~r~ ~~ /._/ 'j;~ ~~ ~ ,K~ •/'•~ '~ ~ 'J ~-~~ ~\ ~ ~ ./rte ,/~ ~. ~' ,. ~ _ - >~~ `- I IBC f .~ '~ -~ r -- - ~ . _ . ~ ~~~ -~ ~~~ ti -~.~ =~ > Vii., I"' .;'~•.:. _ ~-~ `'goo - I, +w '~, ~• .~ .~ '~~ ,. _ >i~ ~---~ - _~ ~z ., ~ :~~" ~ ' ~ • •"~ ~ I - ~ ~ '~- Hollins i - -? / ~ --- ~~~ ! is Qa_ ~ ~\• - • ~i•~' -~~!~.. ^~ ~ J j ~ , _ -' ~ ~ I ~/_ = p ~ f - " ~~ .-x. - - __,-_f ~ e •` ' o~~ ~ ~~ `'- v/ ~ rn~~- ~ a wain r. /; `~ `moo ~~ \~J ~"\~ \ ~;• ~ ~ ~ _ ~ \ ~ f f`1 J-~ erde I '~~ ~h~ ~ - •, _ ~ "°-- ~~ -•~ -., --~'~f rs ` - ~ ~~~. au"'~ ~h~~-;romGS cn=~~j~', \.~_ ~= .~f :' ~ ~~~1 1028 ~, ~~ ~~ ~ ~~_ ,` L, ~- Pte- "_" \ \."~ •./ •' _ ~`J~ \ ~.~oa~ ~ ~/_ iy_ -cam, - FG97 .• i ;l ~i .~ - ~ - ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ -- /~r_ - ~"_~. X1294 ' ~_ i- . / ~~~~-, ~~,'~"' ~ ~! _~~ ~, O ~' ~ ~~ ...~-; \\ ~~" ~~ ~ ~ ~,'` rive-in^ :\~~ _ - ~~~ 1 ~ \ ~~\, • E c / ~ //' ~ ~ ~ ~ z'\~~. ~ .. . ~~r~ -: ~Z~ y1Q J T a ~~.~. • ~/. ~ ~^,-_ iii- ~_ --\\~, .~ \ ice" ~ r~) ~ , c^. / ~ ~~~ ,1163\( V 1-~ ~r - <> r,`-~~`\•^~ ` _ tip: / pE}CIPAL Fj RT ~~ ) ~ /~~'~'--~'i "t ~~~\ i ~ ` ~ :' i Oi~i~ ~~ Memor+a~ o a r ~ oo ~, c~ Li' 'C ~~ ~ \ °~ ~~ Shooo~nB Center '° .,~ ~~ r~= - ~~ -~ ~.- L_-- ~ ~Oi'~ ~ I \- ' ~' ,~ ` ~ ~ 'A' m Flrn nK _ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ••:~•`. ~l~i~H tin . rh ~ ~~ ~ _ ~ 1 :~ G9$/ .. ~`~. ~` \ ~ , ~, /I \\ ~~~ //201 / -.~ ~~`f= -_ '• .- ~ - 4 ~g ~~11 . r ; ~i ~- . i ~~ ~ ~~~` yin ~ 1. ff// ~"= *~' ~ ~ .i R ~t /_ ~ ~~ ~- ~ ~- TON ~~. - , . ~ ~~2rrsu~n [ arK • th -` .. ~ ~\ A r'~~'~ _ Ate) Sa~;~ v ~ ~~ Jr Hi$h'Sch o ~,' .%~~" .l~lj'' :.~v/ // W~~~. r ~o x . ,;_~ ~^ AvE /~ ' J 1-~-_ I_ _- ~" ~N_. ~_ ~ g~lo o ~; n ~T , ~ ~~ i~ _ ~ dr-- / I c '~\ ' \' J~'i ~J ~ ,~_ .// ~ ~ . _ - _ ~•ti . ~. "_,~ ~~ ~ VICINITY MAt -d ~~ ' _ / ~ Ow~a -. /v. y R.-.• C ~~ Mir y'\ ~.~ I~ NR OCII.rn ~ ' .. ~-i NORTH i9 O ~ ~ 2S ' ~ 3 • ~ 27 ~~,. .' ~~ +c . ~ / . , ;n.rn 4rono.~ ' e~r.',rr inurcn o,~b0 ~ ~•+~~ `~`~g ~ ze ~.c? ~ N~/ °-r ~ o .~ o,• ,.. ... G~ a .~ 2e.i ' ~., ' . ~~ \.,\, . ~- ~,M w /~4 ~\~ e. • \,3i~ ~~ 47 't \ 32~ s+ ~ i.65~c J1 \ 33'~ I rrOt 4i 2 S6 sc. C~ p~' ,,, s' ~'° i ,~ \ 34 \ ~,7~ ... p lnvM~r .rlil+a 3S ' ~ • ' - ~N vvapr \ ~ \ \ „K 42 i' !\ 43 - / 6 6 6E~c i\ ow e, v ~` ~ -- ~0~0'~~ / H~~\\n / / / \ \~ ~~ e y,~ ~~ 7o Cc t.1 ~'-~~ V I 1 I 'I -- 6y3! 9 Bw~..'rm !/~rn.arory Scnoar G 4D~c 2'7. ~ 7~ ~ \ _ _. COMMUNITYSERVICBS Friendship Manor Apartment Village Corp ANDDBVBLOPMBNT 27.13-5-47,48,49 27.17-4-13 27.14-2-8 ~ Y / P/0 27.17 -4 •i3 ITEM NUMBER '/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 27, 1991 SUBJECT: Adoption of 1990 Fire Prevention Code; Authorization of Police Powers for Fire Marshals. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: G~'~„z~ BACKGROUND' In 1988, Roanoke County enacted the Statewide Fire Prevention Code with the adoption of Ordinance 52388-13. This code is adopted by the Virginia Board of Housing and Community Development from the seventh edition of the BOCA National Fire Prevention Code, with amendments as the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Every three years the existing code is updated to reflect current needs. The Fire Prevention Division of the Fire and Rescue Department is currently enforcing the 1987 code. The existing conveyance of powers to the fire marshal and his designees is not specific as to the actual powers of trained inspectors and investigators. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Board of Housing and Community Development has now adopted the eighth edition of the BOCA National Fire Prevention Code, with amendments as the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code, effective April 15, 1991. In order to enforce the updated code, formal adoption of that code is required by the governing body. Action is further required to authorize the fire marshal and his designees to be sworn as officers with full police powers after completion of the courses required by the Department of Criminal Justice and the Virginia Department of Fire Programs. The police power statue will enhance the ability of the fire marshal and his assistants to issue tickets, and summons; furthermore, this change will grant the authorization to take the necessary actions during the investigation and prosecution of arson, fire bombings, bombings, and false alarms. Police Chief John Cease and members of the Public Safety Team are in agreement with the proposed changes to the Fire Prevention Code. FISCAL IMPACT' No fiscal impact r+- STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends that the board move forward with the adoption of the 1990 edition of the Statewide Fire Prevention Code, and authorize full police powers for the fire marshal and his designees. SUBMITTED BY: /1 Mark W. Light Deputy Chief ACTION Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To APPROVED: ~~~~ ~~ Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. County Administrator VOTE Motion by: No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers I `~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1991 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING ARTICLE II, VIRGINIA STATEWIDE FIRE PREVENTION CODE OF CHAPTER 9, FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION WHEREAS, by Ordinance 52388-13, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, repealed the then current Articles II and III of Chapter 9 of the Roanoke County Code, and enacted a new Article II "Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code" of Chapter 9 of the Roanoke County Code and further amended the said "Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code"; and WHEREAS the Virginia Board of Housing and Community Developments has adopted the eighth edition of the BOCA National Fire Prevention Code, with amendments as the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code, effective as of April 15, 1991; and WHEREAS, the State Fire Marshall is authorized to enforce the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code in those jurisdiction in which the local governing body does not enforce the current code. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Article II, "Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code," of Chapter 9 of the Roanoke County Code is hereby amended and re-enacted as follows: Sec. 9-16. Incorporation of statewide fire prevention code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 27-98 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Roanoke County shall enforce the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code as written with amendments. N•~ .~.:...: Y ::::::::::::. This Statewide Fire Prevention Code'~I'~'~~:~ciF; was adopted y ....:. .:............:::::. the State Board of Housing and Community Development iJ'xt<; ::::...:.::.:::::.:~:.:.:.a:.;::;.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.:~~.::.;::.;::;:.:>::>:>:::>~;:.<::.~::>::>::>: ~:;;.;::;:.;:::~::>:~:::<:::>::>:~ :: ~~:»::::>::::>::~~:::~::~::; ::::> ~ romul ated ::::<:::.~~ ~:...::::::::.: ~_::>::::> ate:::<;:~f::::<:::..::r:1:~::>::»>::~~-::t:»::>«~1:~:: and said Board p g c~ f:~ pct,.~.~:~::.>;:.;:~ .::::::::::::::::::::::::::....ate.................... certain regulations and procedures to accomplish the adoption and enforcement of this Code. The Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code is incorporated herein by reference as fully as if set out at length herein. The regulation set forth herein shall be known as the Fire Prevention Code of the County of Roanoke and shall be referred to as such or as this code. Sec. 9-21. Amendments. The Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code is hereby amended and changed pursuant to section 27-97 of the Code of Virginia in the following respects: (1) F-102.1 Enforcement officers. Add the following at thee end of the existing subsection F.102.1: "The provision of the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code and this code shall be enforced by the office of the fire µ- I (4) F-103 4 Investigation of fires. Add subsection F-103.4 as follows: nature or which involves the loss of life or causes injury to persons or causes destruction of or damage to property. Such investigation shall be made at the time of the fire or at a subsequent time, depending on the nature and circumstances of ............ >: as:s:l:san:~~:>:<s~::h~:~::b~ha; the f ire . The f ire marshall €'c~~1~ .::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:..:.......:...:......:...:...:....... shall take charge immediately of the physical evidence and, in order to preserve any physical evidence relating to the cause or origin of such fire or explosion, take means to prevent access by any person or persons to such building, structure, or premises until such evidence has been properly processed." 2. This ordinance shall be effective from and after September 1, 1991. ACTION # ITEM NUMBER H AT A REGGILARA HELDNAT THEHROANOKE OOUNTYEADMINISTRATIONNOCENTER COUNTY, VIR MEETING DATE: August 27, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: from H1 M t and Lear een D a Obenchai Sewer Easement COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : ~~''yw+~D BACKGROUND' The Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance 52891-8 for authorization to acquire necessary easements to construct the Roanoke River Sewer Interceptor Phase III Project. The ordinance authorized consideration for each easement acquisition not to exceed a value equal to 40% of the 1991 tax assessment for the permanent easement area to be acquired. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff has negotiated with H. M. and Learleen D. Obenchain to acquire the necessary easement on the parcel identified by Tax Map No. 55.03-2-12. The property owner has requested an amount of $2,000 as consideration for the easement. The land is currently in land use and the calculated value using the 40% value for the easement is $390. Staff has offered the owner $1,400 consideration for the permanent easement, temporary construction easement and crop damage for a two year period. The owner will not accept the offer and demands a consideration of $2,000. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: (1) The Board of Supervisors would adopt an ordinance authorizing acquisition of the easement at a consideration of $2,000. (2) The Board of Supervisors would authorize Staff to initiate Eminent Domain proceedings by which to acquire the easement. }~-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991 ORDINANCE FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE A SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT FROM H. M. AND LEARLEEN D. OBENCHAIN WHEREAS, a permanent sanitary sewer easement across a tract of land owned by H. M. Obenchain and Learleen D. Obenchain is required in connection with the Roanoke River Sewer Interceptor Phase III Project; and, WHEREAS, staff has negotiated with the property owners for the acquisition of said easement and the owners have declined any offer of consideration less than $2,000.00; 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 August 27, 1991, and the second reading was held on September 10, 1991. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows: 1. That the acquisition and acceptance of a permanent sanitary sewer easement from H. M. and Learleen D. Obenchain, for a sum not to exceed $2,000.00, is hereby authorized and approved; and 2. That the consideration of $2000.00 shall be paid from the funds previously appropriated by the Board of Supervisors to the Utility Department budget for the Roanoke River Sewer Interceptor Phase III Project; and, 3. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to jf-~ accomplish this acquisition, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. C:\WPSIWGENDA\BEAIFSI~OBENCHAIN .l AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991 ORDINANCE 82791-5 AMENDING THE ROANORE COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 1-10, CLASSIFICATION OF AND PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS• CONTINUING VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS BY INCREASING MISDEMEANOR PUNISHMENT WHEREAS, the 1990 session of the Virginia General Assembly amended Section 18.2-11, Punishment for conviction of misdemeanor, of the Code of Virginia by increasing the authorized punishments for conviction of a misdemeanor; and WHEREAS, the 1991 session of the Virginia General Assembly amended Section 15.1-505, Penalties for violation of ordinances, of the Code of Virginia by allowing the governing body of any county to prescribe fines and other punishment for violations of ordinances up to the amount provided for by State law; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 13, 1991; and the second reading and public hearing was held on August 27, 1991. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 1-10, Classification of and penalties for violations; continuing violations of Chapter 1, General Provisions of the Roanoke County Code be amended to read and provide as follows: Sec. 1-10. Classification of and penalties for violations; continuing violations. 1 (a) Whenever in this Code or any other ordinance of the county or any rule or regulation promulgated by any officer or agency of the county, under authority duly vested in such officer or agency, it is provided that a violation of any provision thereof shall constitute a Class 1, 2, 3, or 4 misdemeanor, such violation shall be punished as follows: (1) Class 1 misdemeanor: By a fine of not more than ''`"""""'a :,.:,:<' `: ~ ~ ~l. {~(~(~~~~, or by confinement in jail for not more than twelve (12) months , or by both such fine and confinement . (2) Class 2 misdemeanor: By a fine o f not more than ~ ' ~ `" ""''""" or ~' `~:: on .:........:.:::::::.................. by confinement in jail for not more than six (6) months, or by both such fine and confinement. (3) Class 3 misdemeanor: By a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00). (4) Class 4 misdemeanor: By a fine of not more than ~'""a'""`; :;:~.:~':::<>r~a' ~' ''are>.........~ ...............:.:. try>rti~~~~~.~ .:: .:::::::::.:~.:::::.:;;;:.;:.;:.:::::~.~~.:.:::::::::<::::::::.:~:. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw NAYS: None 2 A COPY TESTE: >~4.1 J~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Circuit Court G. O. Clemens, Judge Kenneth E. Trabue, Judge Elizabeth W. Stokes, Clerk Family Court Services Joseph M. Clark, II, Chief Judge Peggy H. Gray, Clerk 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 Magistrates Sherri Krantz/Betty Perry Main Library John H. Cease, Police Chief Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, S.W., Rke 24016 Roanoke County Code Book Michael F. Kavanaugh, Sheriff John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance O. Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Kenneth L. Hogan, Chief Animal Control Officer Michael Lazzuri, Court Services Alfred A. Anderson, Treasurer R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue 3 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~~ AT A R RGIN P, M HELD AT THE RO OKE OCOUNTY ADMINISTRATION OCENTER COUNTY, VI , MEETING DATE: August 27, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code by amending Section 1-10, Classification of and Penal- ties for violations; continuing violation of Chap- ter 1, General Provisions by increasing misdemeanor punishment COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : ~~,~.~,,,,,,.n,~..~ ~~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' This amendment is necessary in order to permit Roanoke County to receive fines from convictions of misdemeanor offenses which could be charged under either state law or local ordinance. BACKGROUND' In 1990 the General Assembly amended § 18.2-11 "punishment for conviction of misdemeanor" to increase the maximum fines for sthe convictions. However as a result of a legislative oversight, Assembly failed to amend §§ 15.1-505 & 15.1-901 which specifically limited the maximum fines which localities could impose for convictions of local misdemeanor ordinances to amounts identical to the old fines under § 18.2-11. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: By emergency legislation adopted in the 1991 session of the General Assembly, § 15.1-505 (as well as § 15.1-901) was amended to increase the maximum fines or other punishment which a judge may impose for violation of local ordinances up to the maximum which the Code of Virginia permits for violations of Class 1 misdemeanors under § 18.2-11 or under general law for like offenses. Therefore, the county has authority to increase its maximum fines as follows: a) for Class 1 misdemeanors to $2,500.00; b) for Class 2 misdemeanors to $1,000.00; and c) for Class 4 misdemeanors to $250.00. (The maximum fine for Class 3 misdemeanors was not changed from $500.00). Enactment of this amendment would once again permit county law enforcement officers to charge misdemeanors under county ordinance sections which parallel state code provisions and thereby allow the county to receive the proceeds of all such fines imposed and paid. FISCAL IMPACT' If this amendment is not adopted, the County of Roanoke could lose the benefit of local fines due to the necessity of charging violations and issuing citations under state code provisions rather than county code section numbers. ALTERNATIVES' 1. Adopt the proposed code amendments and enable county law enforcement officers to cite misdemeanor offenses under county code sections where the offense parallels a state law provision. 2. Reject the amendments and require county law enforcement officers to write all misdemeanor offenses under the appropriate Code of Virginia section. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the proposed amendments. Respectfully submitted, se h B. Obenshain 'enior Assistant County Attorney Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to /jbo Motion by Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers Vote No Yes Abs c:\wp5]\agenda\rnde\fineamnd.rpt ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 1-10, CLASSIFICATION OF AND PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS• CONTINUING VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS BY INCREASING MISDEMEANOR PUNISHMENT WHEREAS, the 1990 session of the Virginia General Assembly amended Section 18.2-11, Punishment for conviction of misdemeanor, of the Code of Virginia by increasing the authorized punishments for conviction of a misdemeanor; and WHEREAS, the 1991 session of the Virginia General Assembly amended Section 15.1-505, Penalties for violation of ordinances, of the Code of Virginia by allowing the governing body of any county to prescribe fines and other punishment for violations of ordinanc- es up to the amount provided for by State law; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 13, 1991; and the second reading and public hearing was held on August 27, 1991. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 1-10, Classification of and penalties for violations; continuing violations of Chapter 1, General Provisions of the Roanoke County Code be amended to read and provide as follows: Sec. 1-10. Classification of and penalties for violations; continuing violations. (a) Whenever in this Code or any other ordinance of the county or any rule or regulation promulgated~by any officer or 1 ~..' agency of the county, under authority duly vested in such officer or agency, it is provided that a violation of any provision thereof shall constitute a Class 1, 2, 3, or 4 misdemeanor, such violation shall be punished as follows: (1) Class 1 misdemeanor: By a f ine of not more than .: < :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. d:~~rl:::::>:::~ ~:: ,,.:o~~aEr~€fad::~tun.::::::::::.>::::< :::::.:::::::::.~.;:.;:::::;.;:. '~#~# or by confinement in jail for not more than twelve (12) months, or by both such fine and confinement. (2) Class 2 misdemeanor: By a f ine of not more than r ' `"'""''°°d b r o r... n ~ .L`~. Y a i i iCcnn ~ {...... confinement in jail for not more than six (6) months, or by both such fine and confinement. (3) Class 3 misdemeanor: By a f ine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00). t.,,,.., a..,_sa (4) Class 4 misdemeanor.• By a fine of not more than ,,.. irlnn nn~ ~.. . ~, ~ ~ ~'':':111't,::»::»»»::»»»»>:.;:<:.;:.;:.;;;:.~;;:.;:.;;::::.:::, :::;:<::::::;:;..:::< ::.::....:::::::::::........: 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. c:\ W p51 \agenda\eode\mf sdeinea 2 r- , AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991 ORDINANCE 82791-6 FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE A NEW WATER, SANITARY SEWER AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT FROM HUGH H. AND MARGARET H. WELLS WHEREAS, citizens in the Penn Forest area adjacent to Cave Spring High School have experienced low water pressure problems, requiring improvement through an alternate system; and, WHEREAS, in order to complete construction of a new feed line, a water line easement is required across property owned by Hugh H. and Margaret H. Wells; and, WHEREAS, staff is negotiating an agreement with the property owners for the acquisition of said easement and the payment of consideration is requested; and, WHEREAS, the proposed water line easement lies adjacent to existing sanitary sewer and drainage easements, and the property owners have requested that a new underground water, sanitary sewer, and drainage easement be acquired by Roanoke County, to encompass and supersede all easements for water, sanitary sewer, or drainage purposes previously granted to the County across the subject property by the property owners or their predecessors in title; 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 August 13, 1991, and the second reading was held on August 27, 1991. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows: r 1. That the acquisition and acceptance of a certain new underground water, sanitary sewer, and drainage easement of variable width from Hugh H. and Margaret H. Wells for a sum, not to exceed $500.00, is hereby authorized and approved; and 2. That said easement shall encompass and supersede all easements for water, sanitary sewer, or drainage purposes previously granted to the County across the subject property by the property owners or their predecessors in title; and, 2. That the consideration of $500.00 shall be paid from the funds previously appropriated by the Board of Supervisors to the Utility Department budget for utility improvements; and, 3. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish this acquisition, 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: m .~. Mary H. llen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Cliff Craig, Director, Utility Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Paul Mahoney, County Attorney 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: August 27, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Authorization to Acquire a New Water, Sanitary Sewer and Drainage Easement from Hugh H. and Margaret H. Wells COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: G~~~~...~ BACKGROUND' The area of Penn Forest adjacent to Cave Spring High School has been experiencing periods of low water pressure due to the location of the suction side of the Penguin Pump Station. When this pump station operates it drops the pressure on the suction side to less than 20 pounds per square inch resulting in poor service to many customers. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In order to correct the above low pressure problem, staff has designed an alternate feed line to the Penguin Pump Station that is served by a higher pressure system. In order to complete the construction of the need feed line, a water line easement is required across property of Hugh H. and Margaret H. Wells. The area in which the new water line easement will be currently has an existing sanitary sewer and drainage easement. The Wells have requested that one easement document be prepared to include all three easements. The first reading was held on August 13, 1991. FISCAL IMPACT' The cost of the new water easement will be paid from funds available in the Utility Department budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt an ordinance to acquire a new water line, sanitary sewer and drainage easement from Hugh H. and Margaret H. Wells at a cost not to exceed $500. -~ °~ SUBMITTED BY: Cliffor C aig, P.E. Utility rector APPROVED: Cs~~ a~ Elmer C. Hodg County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers : ~ T-a AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991 ORDINANCE FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE A NEW WATER, SANITARY SEWER AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT FROM HUGH H. AND MARGARET H. WELLS WHEREAS, citizens in the Penn Forest area adjacent to Cave Spring High School have experienced low water pressure problems, requiring improvement through an alternate system; and, WHEREAS, in order to complete construction of a new feed line, a water line easement is required across property owned by Hugh H. and Margaret H. Wells; and, WHEREAS, staff is negotiating an agreement with the property owners for the acquisition of said easement and the payment of consideration is requested; and, WHEREAS, the proposed water line easement lies adjacent to existing sanitary sewer and drainage easements, and the property owners have requested that a new underground water, sanitary sewer, and drainage easement be acquired by Roanoke County, to encompass and supersede all easements for water, sanitary sewer, or drainage purposes previously granted to the County across the subject property by the property owners or their predecessors in title; 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 August 13, 1991, and the second reading was held on August 27, 1991. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows: ~~ 1. That the acquisition and acceptance of a certain new underground water, sanitary sewer, and drainage easement of variable width from Hugh H. and Margaret H. Wells for a sum, not to exceed $500.00, is hereby authorized and approved; and 2. That said easement shall encompass and supersede all easements for water, sanitary sewer, or drainage purposes previously granted to the County across the subject property by the property owners or their predecessors in title; and, 2. That the consideration of $500.00 shall be paid from the funds previously appropriated by the Board of Supervisors to the Utility Department budget for utility improvements; and, 3. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish this acquisition, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. c:\wp5 ] \agenda\reales[\wells. ord 1 • ""'~ w~ w~ ," .~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991 ORDINANCE 82791-7 AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO GRANT THE RIGHT TO JOINT USE OF COUNTY WATER AND SEWER EASEMENT AREAS BY A PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANY WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, authorization to grant any right in property, including the right to use an easement, shall be by ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors; and, WHEREAS, first and second readings are required to pass all ordinances; and, WHEREAS, a more orderly and expeditious procedure is desired for reviewing, approving, and authorizing the County Administrator to grant the right to joint use of County water and sewer easement areas by a public utility company, in situations where the grant is routine and noncontroversial, and would not involve payment of consideration or significantly diminish the County's property interest; and, WHEREAS, a first reading of this ordinance was held on August 13, 1991; and a second reading was held on August 27, 1991. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the rights in the subject easement areas are hereby declared to be surplus and the form of the real estate interest renders it unacceptable and unavailable for other public uses; and, 2. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to grant the right to joint use of Roanoke County water and sewer easement areas by a public utility company, upon review and recommendation by the Director of the Roanoke County Department of Utilities, and upon concurrence of the Board of Supervisors by resolution; and, 3. That said joint use is conditioned upon, and subject to, the agreement of the public utility company to indemnify Roanoke County and hold it harmless from any loss or damage to its lines or other improvements caused by the public utility company or created by its joint use of the easement area, and that use, acceptance, and/or recordation of the joint easement shall constitute agreement by the public utility company to this condition; and, 4. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as may be necessary to accomplish the grant, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. The County Administrator may delegate this authority as he deems appropriate. 5. The effective date of this ordinance shall be August 27, 1991. On motion of Supervisor Nickens 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. A len, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Cliff Craig, Dirctor, Utility Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Paul Mahoney, County Attorney ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~-~_ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 27, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO GRANT THE RIGHT TO JOINT USE OF COUNTY WATER AND SEWER EASEMENT AREAS BY A PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' This is the first reading of the proposed ordinance to authorize the County Administrator to grant the right to joint use of Roanoke County water and sewer easement areas by a public utility company upon review and recommendation by the Director of the Roanoke County Department of Utilities, and upon concurrence of the Board of Supervisors by resolution. BACKGROUND' Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that, in authorizing the sale or granting of any right in property, including the right to use an easement, the board shall act only by ordinance. Two readings are required in order to adopt an ordinance. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County holds title to numerous water and sewer easements throughout the County. Similarly, the public utility companies acquire easements throughout the County for the installation of pipelines and other improvements related to the service they provide. In many cases, it is feasible and economical for the County and the public utility companies to share and jointly use the same easement area. In some previous situations, Roanoke County staff has pursued this option. Although the actual easement is acquired from the property owner, it is necessary to also secure the approval of the public utility company that has an easement in the same area. This avoids any later questions, or possible litigation, as to whether the company might have exclusive rights to the area. ~-3 Roanoke County has received several requests from a public utility company, specifically the Roanoke Gas Company, for authorization for concurrent use of a county water line easement. It is anticipated that the County will continue to periodically receive requests from the various public utility companies to jointly use a water and/or sewer easement area. Generally, such matters do not involve payment of consideration by either party, do not significantly diminish the County's property interest, and are basically routine and noncontroversial; provided, however, that Roanoke County is indemnified of and held harmless from any loss or damage to its lines or other improvements caused by the public utility company or created by its joint use of the easement area. Under the Charter provisions, each of such requests would involve two readings of the proposed ordinance, resulting in substantial delay. The purpose of this proposed ordinance is to provide for the orderly and expeditious agreement to the concurrent use of water and sewer easements, in noncontroversial situations, upon the review and recommendation of County staff and the concurrence of the Board by resolution. This ordinance satisfies the requirements of the Charter and streamlines the process. FISCAL IMPACTS• None. ALTERNATIVES• (1) Adopt an ordinance authorizing the County Administrator to grant the right to joint use of county water and sewer easement areas by a public utility company, upon the review and recommendation of the Director of the County Utility Department and the concurrence of the Board by resolution. (2) Decline to adopt the proposed ordinance and consider all requests for joint use of an easement with two readings of an ordinance for each authorization. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the proposed ordinance be adopted. Respectfully submitted, Vickie L. f man Assistant County Attorney ~3 Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers vote No Yes Abs c:\wp51\agenda\realest~jtesmt.rpt ~'~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO GRANT THE RIGHT TO JOINT USE OF COUNTY WATER AND SEWER EASEMENT AREAS BY A PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANY WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, authorization to grant any right in property, including the right to use an easement, shall be by ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors; and, WHEREAS, first and second readings are required to pass all ordinances; and, WHEREAS, a more orderly and expeditious procedure is desired for reviewing, approving, and authorizing the County Administrator to grant the right to joint use of County water and sewer easement areas by a public utility company, in situations where the grant is routine and noncontroversial, and would not involve payment of consideration or significantly diminish the County's property interest; and, WHEREAS, a first reading of this ordinance was held on August 13, 1991; and a second reading was held on August 27, 1991. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the rights in the subject easement areas are hereby declared to be surplus and the form of the real estate interest renders it unacceptable and unavailable for other public uses; and, ~~ 2. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to grant the right to joint use of Roanoke County water and sewer easement areas by a public utility company, upon review and recommendation by the Director of the Roanoke County Department of Utilities, and upon concurrence of the Board of Supervisors by resolution; and, 3. That said joint use is conditioned upon, and subject to, the agreement of the public utility company to indemnify Roanoke County and hold it harmless from any loss or damage to its lines or other improvements caused by the public utility company or created by its joint use of the easement area, and that use, acceptance, and/or recordation of the joint easement shall constitute agreement by the public utility company to this condition; and, 4. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as may be necessary to accomplish the grant, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. The County Administrator may delegate this authority as he deems appropriate. 5. The effective date of this ordinance shall be August 27, 1991. c:\wp51 \agenda\reakst\jtesmtord 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: August 27, 1991 SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1 Community Corrections Resources Board One-year term of Edmund J. Kielty, alternate will expire August 31, 1991. Mr. Kielty has been appointed as the regular member, vacating his appointment as alternate. 2. Grievance Panel Two-year term of Kim Owens will expire September 27, 1991. 3 Industrial Development Authority Four-year term of William Triplett will expire September 26, 1991. Mr. Triplett is a resident of Bedford County and is not eligible for reappointment according to residency requirements established by the Board of Supervisors on April 23, 1991. Attached is a copy of the current membership of the Industrial Development Authority. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: yY~ ~/ • ~~~ ~~~- Mary H. Allen Elmer C. Hodge Clerk to the Board ---- County Administrator ----------- ----------------------------- ACTION VOTE Motion b Approved ( ) y' No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Ref erred ( ) McGraw Nickens To ( ) Robers ~~ 1_1 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DISTRICT ~ TERM ~IItF~ Billy H. Branch Cave Spring 4 yrs 3604 Penn Forest Blvd. Roanoke, VA 24018 Home: 774-8047 Work: 989-5215 Charles R. Saul - CHAIRMAN Cave Spring 4 Yrs 4602 Hazel Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 Work: 985-2623 8521 Barrens Road, N.W. Roanoke, VA 24019 J. Richard Cranwell Catawba 4 yrs Home: 563-1881 Work: 703-552-9188 (Blacksburg) Bill Triplett Vinton 324 Washington Avenue Vinton, VA 24179 Home: 344-6353 Reappointed 5/10/88 J. Carson Quarles Hollins 7323 LaMarre Circle Roanoke, VA 24019 Home: 563-2659 Reappointed 8/28/90 W. Darnall Vinyard Vinton P. O. Box 295 Vinton, Va 24179 Home: 344-6353 Reappointed 12/19/89 Ronald M. Martin Windsor Hills 7578 Countrywood Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 Work: 989-9700 5007 Carriage Drive, 2401E Home: 989-5461 Secretary: Timothy R. Gubala, Director Economic Development Department P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 10/18/90 4 yrs 4 yrs 4 yrs 4 yrs 9/26/93 9/26/91 9/26/92 9/26/91 9/26/94 9/26/93 9/26/94 ~ .~ t .,~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991 RESOLUTION 82791-8 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM R - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. that the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for August 27, 1991 designated as Item K - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 5, inclusive, as follows: 1. Confirmation of appointment to the Clean Valley Council and the Industrial Development Authority. 2. Approval of a 50/50 Raffle Permit for the Northside Athletic Booster Club. 3. Resolution of Appreciation upon the Retirement of Gloria Z. Divers 4. Approval of Raffle Permit and one-day Bingo Game for Penn Forest Elementary School PTA. 5. Donation of sanitary sewer and drainage easements in connection with Mountain View Estates Subdivision. 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, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: `~~ ~ ~~~~~ic/ Mary H. llen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors CC: File Clifford Craig, Utility Director Arnold Covey, Engineering & Inspections Director A-82791-8.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: August 27, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Committee appointment to the Clean Valley Council and Industrial Development Authority COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The following nominations were made at the August 13, 1991 meeting. Clean Valley Council: Supervisor Nickens nominated Vince Reynolds to serve another two- year term which will expire June 30, 1993. Industrial Development Authority Supervisor Robers nominated Charles R. Saul to another four-year term which will expire September 26, 1995. RECOMMENDATION• It is recommended that these appointments be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, 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 Clean Valley Council File Industsrial Development Authority File ACTION NO. A-82791-8.b r ITEM NUMBER +' o AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 27, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Request for approval of a 50/50 Raffle Permit from the Northside Athletic Booster Club COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Northside Athletic Booster Club has requested a permit to hold 50/50 raffles in Roanoke County on the following dates: September 6, 1991 September 27, 1991 October 11, 1991 October 18, 1991 This application has been reviewed with the Commissioner of Revenue and he recommends that it be approved. The application is on file in the Clerk's Office. The organization has paid the $25.00 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the application of the Northside Athletic Booster Club for a Raffle Permit be approved. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ~d rnzs~. ~ . ~t-e-~~_ Mary H. Allen Elmer C. Hodge Clerk to the Board County Administrator -------------------------ACTION------- VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Rnb T Tnhn~nn No Yes Abs ( ) Eddy x Denied Johnson x Received ( ) McGraw x Referred ( ) Nickens x To ( ) Robers x - cc: File Bingo/Raffle File COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO CONDUCT RAFFLES OR BINGO Application is hereby made for a bingo game or raffle permit. This application is made subject to all County and State laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations now in force, or that may be enacted hereafter and which are hereby agreed to by the under- signed applicant and which shall be deemed a condition under which this permit is issued. All applicants should exercise extreme care to ensure the accura- cy of their responses to the following questions. Bingo games and raffles are strictly regulated by Title 18.2-340.1 et. seq. of the criminal statutes of the Virginia Code, and by Section 4-86 et. sec.. of the Roanoke County Code. These laws authorize the County Board of Supervisors to conduct a reasonable investiga- tion prior to granting a bingo or raffle permit. The Board has sixty days from the filing of an application to grant or deny the permit. The Boardnotytoebe~inustrict ~ompliancetwithe ounty and organization found state law. Any person violating cou:sty or state regulations concerr.irg these permits shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Any person who uses any part of the gross receipts from bingo or raffles for any purpose other than the lawful religious, charitable, community, or educational purposes for which the organization is specifi- cally organized, except for reasonable operating expenses, shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. THIS APPLICATION IS FOR: RAFFLE PERMIT X X50/50) (check one) BINGO GAMES Name of Organization h,Ot~THSID~ ~ ~'KLETIC BOOSTER CLUB _ Street Addressb '8 l~~orthside Hi fh School t-toad Mailing Address b758 Idorthside ~ii~h School B.oad _ City, State, Zip Code Purpose and Type of Organization To promote anal support all phases of athletics at Idarthside F~igh and I~Iorthside Junior High as approved When was the organization founded? 1 Roanoke County meeting place? IwORTHSID~, HIGH SC~i00L Has organization been in existence in Roanoke County for two con- tinuous years? YES X NO Is the organization non-profit? YES X NO Indicate Federal Identification Number # on file Attach copy of IRS Tax Exemption letter. Officers of the Organization: President: Linda Amick Vice-President SSE ATT~.CHED Address: 5312 ~^debster Drive Address: ~toanoke, Va. 2t~.019 Secretary: Treasurer: Address: Address: Member authorized to be responsible for Raffle or Bingo opera- tions: Name Sherry Penney Home Address 661_.8 ~rleadewood Drive Phone 366-9341 Bus. Phone A COMPLETE LIST OF THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF CURRENT MEMBER- SHIP MUST BE FURNISHED WITH THIS APPLICATION. Specific location where Raffle or Bingo Game is to be conducted. Northside High School 9/6,9/27,10~/11~ime of Drawin ~.ppro~• 10:00 P.M. RAFFLES: Date of Drawing g` 10 1 BINGO: Days of Week & Hours of Activity: Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday X Friday Saturday From_ From_ From_ From_ From Fr om~ From To To To To To OOP.M~o 10:OOP.I~. To 2 State specifically how the proceeds from the Bingo/Raffle will be used. List in detail the planned or intended use of the proceeds. Use estimates amounts if necessary. The proceeds from the 50/50 raffle will be used to promote and support the kthletic Pragr~~s~.s of I~Iarthside -~i~h School and iUorthside Junior jii~;h School. The `Nays and Tleans Cornmi-tee of the ~3ooster Club needs to r4~.ise fun800~00 ~2,900.OC to meet the 1991-1992 budgillobe~used solely (see attached budget). These funds for the young people of our cornrnunity. 3 BINGO: Complete the following: Legal owner(s) of the building where BINGO is to be conducted: Name: Address: County State Zip Is the building owned by a 501-C non-profit organization? Seating capacity for each location: Parking spaces for each location: ALL RAFFLE AND BINGO APPLICANTS MUST ANSWER QUESTIONS 1 - 19 1. Gross receipts from all sources related to the operation of Bingo games or Instant Bingo by calendar quarter for prior calen- dar year period. BINGO INSTANT BINGO 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Total 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter _ 4th Quarter Total 2. Does your organization understand that it is a violation of law to enter into a contract with any person or firm, associa- tion, organization, partnership, or corporation of any classifica- tion whatsoever, for the purpose of organizing, managing, or con- ducting Bingo Games or Raffles? ~°~~~; 3. Does your organization understand that it must maintain and file complete records of receipts and disbursements pertaining to Bingo games and Raffles, and that such records are subject to audit by the Commissioner of the Revenue? y4~ 4. Does your organization understand. that the Commissioner of the Revenue or his designee has the right to go upon the premises on which any organization is conducting a Bingo game or raffle, to perform unannounced audits, and to secure for audit all re- cord~sT crequired to be maintained for Bingo games or raffles? y _i1S 4 5. Does your organization understand that a Financial Report must be filed with the Commissioner of the Revenue on or before the first day of November of each calendar year for which a per- mit has been issued? YES 6. Does your organization understand that if gross receipts ex- ceed fifty thousand dollars during any calendar quarter, an addi- tional Financial Report must be filed for such quar~eYE~ later than sixty days following the last day of such quarter. 7. Does your organization understand that the failure to file financial reports when due shall cause automatic revocation of the permit, and no such organization shall conduct any Bingo game or raffle thereafter until such report is properly filed and a new permit is obtained? YES 8. Does your organization understand that each Financial Report must be accompanied by a Certificate, verified under oath by the Board of Directors, that the proceeds of any Bingo game or raffle have been used for these lawful, religious, charitable, commu- nity, or educational purposes for which the organization is spe- cifically chartered or organized, and that the operation of Bingo ames or raffles have been in accordance with the provisions of Article 1.1 of Chapter 8, Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia? YES 9. Does your organization understand that a Ewa percent audit fee of the gross receipts must be paid to the County of Roanoke upon submission of the annual financial report due on or before the first of November? YES 10. Does your organization understand that this permit is valid only in the County of Roanoke and only at such locations, and for such dates, as are designated in the permit application? YES 11. Does your organization understand that no person, except a bona fide member of any such organization who shall have been a member of such organization for at least ninety days prior to such participation, shall participate in the management, opera- tion, or conduct of any bingo game or raffle, and no person shall receive any remuneration for participating in management, operation, or conduct of any such game or raffle? YS 12. Has your organization attached a check for the annual permit fee in the amount of $25.00 payable to the County of Roanoke, Virginia? YES 13. Does your organization understand that any organization found in violation of the County Bingo and Raffle Ordinance or §18.2- 340.10 of the Code of Virginia authorizing this permit is subject to having such permit revoked and any person, shareholder, agent, member or employee of such organization who violates the above to having such permit revoked and any person, shareholder, agent, member or employee of such organization who violates the above referenced Codes may be guilty of a felony? YES 5 14. Has your organization attached a complete list of its member- ship to this application form? YES 15. Has your organization attached a copy of its bylaws to this application form? YES 16. Has the organization been declared tion under the Virginia Constitution or If yes, state whether exemption is for or both and identify exempt property.- 17. State the specific type and purpose of the organization. Rnnai•Ar r-tt~b `~o Promote anal su~,ort all phases of athletics a_t_ ivvr% hs i drY High School and T~3orthside Junior High School as _ g~rovP~ b;~ 1-he m mbership of the club 18. Is this organization incorporated in Virginia? TvTO If yes, name and address of Registered Agent: 19. Is the organization registered with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs pursuant to the Charitable Solicitations Act, Section 57-48 of the Virginia Code? NO (If so, attach copy of registration.) Has the organization been granted an exemption from registration by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs? h1U (If so, attach copy of exemption.) ALL RAFFLE APPLICANTS DESCRIBE THE ARTICLES TO BE RAFFLED, VALUE OF SUCH ARTICLES, AND PROCEED TO NOTARIZATION. Article Description X0/50 exempt from property taxa- statutes? l~/ real, personal property, Fair Market Value To He determined 6 ALL BINGO APPLICANTS MUST ANSWER QUESTIONS 20 - 27 BEFORE NOTARIZATION RAFFLE APPLICANTS, GO TO NOTARIZATION. 20. Does your organization understand that the bingo games shall not be conducted more frequently than two calendar days in any calendar week? 21. Does your organization understand that it is required to keep complete records of the bingo game. These records based on §18.2- 340.6 of the Code of Virginia and §4.98 of Roanoke County Code must include the following: a. A record of the date, quantity, and card value of instant bingo supplies purchased, as well as the name and address of the supplier of such instant bingo supplies, and written invoice or receipt is also required for each purchase of in- stant bingo supplies? b. A record in writing of the dates on which Bingo is played, the number of people in attendance on each date, and the amount of receipts and prizes on each day? (These records must be retained for three years.) c. A record of the name and address of each individual to whom a door prize, .regular or special Bingo game prize or jackpot from the playing of Bingo is awarded? d. A complete and itemized record of all receipts and disburse- ments which support, and that agree with, the quarterly and annual reports required to be filed, and that these records must be maintained in reasonable order to permit audit? 22. Does your organization be conducted at such time as and only at such locations this application? 23. Does your organization understand that the gross receipts in the course of a reporting year from the playing of instant Bingo may not exceed 33 1/3$ of the gross receipts of an organization's Bingo operation? 24. Does your organization understand it may not sell an instant Bingo card to an individual below sixteen years of age? 25. Does your organization understand that an organization whose gross receipts from all bingo operations that exceed or are ex- pected to exceed $75,000 in any calendar year shall have been granted tax-exempt status pursuant to Section 501 C of the United States Internal Revenue Service? (Certificate must be attached.) understand that instant Bingo may only regular Bingo game is in progress, and at such times as are specified in 7 26. Does your organization understand that a Certificate of Occu- pancy must be obtained or be on file which authorizes this use at the proposed location? 27. Does your organization understand that awards or prize money or merchandise valued in excess of the following amounts are illegal? a. No door prize shall exceed twenty-five dollars. b. No regular Bingo or special Bingo game shall exceed One Hund- red dollars. c. No jackpot of any nature whatsoever shall exceed One Thousand Dollars, nor shall the total amount of jackpot prizes awarded in any one calendar day exceed One Thousand Dollars. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NOTARIZATION: THE FOLLOWING OATH MUST BE TAKEN BY ALL APPLICANTS I hereby swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury as set forth in 518.2 of the Code of Virginia, that all of the above statements are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and beliefs. All questions have been answered. Signed by: ~~" i l G1IiLJ r~,/ .. ,~Oi~c`t,~t~zc.`~`~~Z~C~rC' ~de--~~~`3%cl ~C-rL,~c~o~E;~L~ !~`~fl. ;~~ het Subscribed and sworn before me, My commission expires: --=-k'~ ~ 19-~`-L~ this ~~day of~_19 C 1 't F' t, ,~ ~ ~; N ary Public RETURN THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION T0: COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE P.O. Box 20409 Roanoke, VA 24018-0513 8 NOT VALID. UNLESS COUNTERSIGNED The above application, having been found , and issued to the applicant to have effect this.calendar year. ~~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ '~'~' Date Comm, The above application is not approved. in due form, is approved until December 31st of 'ssioner of a Revenue Date Commissioner of the Revenue 9 ;n a:, AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991 RESOLUTION 82791-8.c EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO GLORIA Z. DIVERS FOR EIGHTEEN YEARS AND ELEVEN MONTHS OF SERVICES TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, Gloria Z. Divers was first employed in July, 1973, as a Clerk Typist I in the Finance Department; and WHEREAS, Gloria Z. Divers has also served as Clerk Typist I for Real Estate Assessment, Clerk Typist II for Development Review and a Permits Clerk for Engineering and Inspections; and WHEREAS, Gloria Z. Divers, through her employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses it deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to GLORIA Z. DIVERS for eighteen years and eleven months of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: . C.~..f~C.e~,~..J Mary H. llen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Resolutions of Appreciation File D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 27, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution of Appreciation upon the retirement of Gloria Divers COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS: ~G~`ce-rn••+~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Gloria Divers, a Permits Clerk for Engineering and Inspections, recently retired. She was unable to be present at the August 13 meeting to receive her Resolution of Appreciation from the Board of Supervisors and it is not anticipated that she will be able to attend a future meeting. The attached resolution recognizing her contribution to Roanoke County should be adopted, and a signed copy will be sent to her. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The attached resolution should be adopted and a special signed copy sent to Gloria Divers. Respectfully Submitted by: Approved by: ~, u,, Mary H. Allen Elmer C. Hodg Clerk to the Board County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson McGraw Referred ( ) Nickens To ( ) Robers ~` AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991 RESOLIITION EBPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO GLORIA Z. DIVERS FOR EIGHTEEN YEARS AND ELEVEN MONTHS OF SERVICES TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, Gloria Z. Divers was first employed in July, 1973, as a Clerk Typist I in the Finance Department; and WHEREAS, Gloria Z. Divers has also served as Clerk Typist I for Real Estate Assessment, Clerk Typist II for Development Review and a Permits Clerk for Engineering and Inspections; and WHEREAS, Gloria Z. Divers, through her employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses it deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to GLORIA Z. DIVERS for eighteen years and eleven months of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FIIRTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. A-82791-8.d 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: August 27, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Request for approval of a Raffle Permit and one- day Bingo Game from the Penn Forest Elementary School PTA COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Penn Forest Elementary School PTA has requested to hold a raffle and one-time only Bingo Game in Roanoke County on October 12, 1991. This application has been reviewed with the Commissioner of Revenue and he recommends that it be approved. The application is on file in the Clerk's Office. The organization has paid the $25.00 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the application of the Penn Forest Elementary School PTA for a Raffle Permit and one-time only Bingo Game be approved. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Mar~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 Bingo/Raffle File COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO CONDUCT RAFFLES OR BINGO Application is hereby made for a bingo game or raffle permit. This application is made su'oject to all County and State laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations now in force, or that may be enacted hereafter and which are hereby agreed to by the under- signed applicant and which shall be deemed a condition under which this permit is issued. All applicants should exercise extreme care to ensure the accura- cy of their responses to the following questions. Bingo games and raffles are strictly regulated by Title 18.2-340.1 et. sue. of the criminal statutes of the Virginia Code, and by Section 4-86 et. seg. of the Roanoke,County Code. These laws authorize the County Board of Supervisors to conduct a reasonable investiga- tion prior to granting a bingo or raffle permit. The Board has sixty days from the filing of an application to grant or deny the permit. The Board may deny, suspend, or revoke the permit of any organization found not to be in strict compliance with county and state law. Any person violating county or state regulations concerning these permits shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Any person who uses any part of the gross receipts from bingo or raffles for any purpose other than the lawful religious, charitable, community, or educational purposes for which the organization is specifi- cally organized, except for reasonable operating expenses, shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. THIS APPLICATION IS FOR: (check one) RAFFLE PERMIT ~ BINGO GAMES )C C't1 ~ ~C1~ Cil~1 I~ Name of Organization -~C"'y~Y, Fc+r-es~' L I ~_-~r~ r,~'"~~r~ ~~c~ hQ~ ! 1^'' T ,~ (,~.. Street Address (~~~j;~,Q ~"7~~--r'i h~lc'~rt I`~Gt ~ ~ Mailing Address [tf`r1E C~d 5 a~u~~ State, City Zip Code ~~~, ~1~ ~E? ~~ ~~~/ ~%~ , Purpose and Type of Organization~ ~~ ~~~,~~-~7C ~1CU ~ ~~ When was the organization founded? 19~)~. 1 Roanoke County meeting place?~~ ~n ~~r~~`f~ ~G~'~ao Has organization been in existence in Roanoke County for two con- tinuous years? YES~_ NO Is the organization non-profit? YES.-~,- NO Indicate Federal Identification Number # ~.~ ~ /:~~~'~y~ Attach copy of IRS Tax Exemption letter. Officers of the Organization: President: ~~ 11Cirov~ ~G~5~1(~~.r Address : `~/~~?~ ~urk~~ l-tol fc~~% /~c~`-/`.~ ~~c~neK~- b` A ~~1G1 ~ Secretary: -S"~~c~l / ~c';rd~ k.~G~ ~ ~_ Address : ~7~F~?~2 l~r~~,?, ~~ v~G S"C_ .`j.~._ Q,n~~~~~~ 111 ~~~fG/~ Vice-President ~--C~.~tY'i~ .~Cati~f'_ 'Address: ~~~~ ~0~~~~4~~C, L~6~1~ ~.~~~~ I`~oz~v~~l<~ U-~1 ~ ~f ~ 1~ Treasurer: Y~'1tx.ri~- ~~q~ Address: [~,C`3..~ f ~-~F~~~C7`~~-~.rf;~~~. ~o~xnc~C,~, VY~ ~~0/~' Member authorized to be responsible for Raffle or Bingo opera- tions: Name ~~L°-rl E' make ~ Home Address J~(~OCr~~Sbcc,a C.~r. ~C~ ~vu~~~Ic~ a~f~l`~ Phone ~ ~~~~- 0.75' Bus . Phone 3~f5~- C~ ~ } ~~ A COMPLETE LIST OF THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF CURRENT MEMBER- SHIP MUST BE FURNISHED WITH THIS APPLICATION. G%n ~;~~. ~-~ n~~C:~~'~ . Specifyi-c location wheree Raffle or Bingo Game is to be conducted. RAFFLES: Date of Drawing J~~/~~9/ Time of Drawing ; :Ot,~ ,~. BINGO: Days of Week & Hours of Activity: Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday ~_Saturday From To From To From To From To From To From To From ~~r To 3 /'r'te 2 State specifically how the proceeds from the Bingo/Raffle will be used. List in detail the planned or intended use of the proceeds. Use estimates amounts if necessary. tJ c~ ~` d .~~1~'1C~%71C~ _~~-1~-~ _~ ~~'.~(,tCCl~-~,L~;~ti--~ c'~ ~,~.~ C~~L~..~~2~'_~t'L.- . 3 BINGO: Complete the following: Legal owner(s) of the building where BINGO is to be conducted: rr , ~ + fr i ~_ ~fti~ ~ ~1-~~~ ~~ y r_~ ~~_ h c~~~ ~ Address: ~~%3~~ t~1e~~~"~,ti~~x~~ ~`:~c~. ~.4?. County ~~(XVIc~~ State L'/ Zip(1 Is the building owned by a 501-C non-profit organization? ~ S- Seating capacity for each location: ~~~ Parking spaces for each location: /('' ALL RAFFLE AND BINGO APPLICANTS MUST ANSWER QUESTIONS 1 - 19 1. Gross receipts from all sources related to the operation of Bingo games or Instant Bingo by calendar quarter for prior calen- dar year period. INSTANT BINGO BINGO 1st Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Total 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Total 2. Does your organization understand that it is a violation of law to enter into a contract with any person or firm, associa- tion, organization, partnership, or corporation of any classifica- tion whatsoever, for the purpose of organizing, managing, or con- ducting Bingo Games or Raffles? ~/".~~ 3. Does your organization understand that it must maintain and file complete records of receipts and disbursements pertaining to Bingo games and Raffles, and that such records are subject to audit by the Commissioner of the Revenue? ~' S 4. Does your organizationhas dthes righttto go uponothes premises the Revenue or his designee on which any organization is conducting a Bingo game or raffle, to perform unannounced audits, and to secure for audit all re- cords required to be maintained for Bingo games or raffles? ~~~ 4 5. Does your organization understand that a Financial Report must be filed with the Commissioner of the Revenue on or before the first day of November of each calendar year for which a per- mit has been issued?~ ~ S 6. Does your organization understand that if gross receipts ex- ceed fifty thousand dollars during any calendar quarter, an addi- tional Financial Report must be filed for such quarter no later than sixty days following the last day of such quarter? i 7. Does your organization understand that the failure to file financial reports when due shall cause automatic revocation of the permit, and no such organization shall conduct any Bingo game or raffle thereafter until such report is properly filed and a new permit is obtained? y ~_~ 8. Does your organization understand that each Financial Report must be accompanied by a Certificate, verified under oath by the Board of Directors, that the proceeds of any Bingo game or raffle have been used for these lawful, religious, charitable, commu- nity, or educational purposes for which the organization is spe- cifically chartered or organized, and that the operation of Bingo games or raffles have been in accordance with the provisions of Article 1.1 of Chapter 8, Title 18.2 of. the Code of Virginia?~ ~S 9. Does your organization understand that a two percent audit fee of the gross receipts must be paid to the County of Roanoke upon submission of the annual financial report due on or before the first of November? .~~ 10. Does your organization understand that this permit is valid only in the County of Roanoke and only at such locations, and for such dates, as are designated in the permit application? ~ ~ 5 11. Does your organization understand that no person, except a bona fide member of any such organization who shall have been a member of such organization for at least ninety days prior to such participation, shall participate in the management, opera- tion, or conduct of any bingo game or raffle, and no person shall receive any remuneration for participating in management, operation, or conduct of any such game or raffle? ~ ~~; 12. Has your organization attached a check for the annual permit fee in the amount of $25.00 payable to the County of Roanoke, Virginia?~~~ 13. Does your organization understand that any organization found in violation of the County Bingo and Raffle Ordinance or §18.2- 340.10 of the Code of Virginia authorizing this permit is subject to having such permit revoked and any person, shareholder, agent, member or employee of such organization who violates the above to having such permit revoked and any person, shareholder, agent, member or employee of such organization who violates the above referenced Codes may be guilty of a felony? ~ ~'.` 5 14. Has your organization attached a comple~e list o,~ its member- ship to this application form? -~C _ ors fi {~ ~ ne~c~N~~_ 15. Has your organization attached a copy of its bylaws to this application form?mac o~~ '~'~ ~~ 16. Has the organization been declared exempt from property taxa- tion under the Virginia Constitution or statutes? ~ ~~~ If yes, state whether exemption is for real, personal property, or both and identify exempt property. (~or~,~nkc' ~r;~.lv~'~"y PrahliC ~c-~1cx?~ 17. State the specific type and purpose of the organization. ?i~ - I~ctrnosc_ i_S ~~ durc.hcts~ S~~1ac~( Sc,.iGnli~`~ Ctv~c~ 18. Is this organization incorporated in Virginia? ~c~~ek~ ~C°c.~n'~~ If yes, name and address of Registered Agent: ~~~b~; ~ ac~b,co ( , 19. Is the organization registered with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs pursuant to the Charitable Solicitations Act, Section 57-48 of the Virginia Code? r~~ (If so, attach copy of registration.) Has the organization been granted an exemption from registration by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs? ~1C (If so, attach copy of exemption.) ALL RAFFLE APPLICANTS DESCRIBE THE ARTICLES TO BE RAFFLED, VALUE OF SUCH ARTICLES, AND PROCEED TO NOTARIZATION. Article Description `~ Tj' ,y < ~/ jri JctVin~`~ ~C'',Y:'~l~~C;F'1~I~Y11G'~'1 ~CX~1 S~~~ea c~l ~j i~ ~-~e1' She rc~-4'~~~ ~ ~`r~crt ~ ran f _ , ~ ~t i S Yf' ~"t ~ 6 Fair Market Value „2 ~a~ -# .~2 0 ~s~ ~1 d. ~ ~~c ALL BINGO APPLICANTS MUST ANSWER QUESTIONS 20 - 27 BEFORE NOTARIZATION RAFFLE APPLICANTS,' GO TO NOTARIZATION. 20. Does your organization understand that the bingo games shall not be conducted more frequently than two calendar days in any calendar week? `j ~.S 21. Does your organization understand that it is required to keep complete records of the bingo game. These records based on §18.2- 340.6 of the Code of Virginia and §4.98 of Roanoke County Code must include the following: a. A record of_ the date, quantity, and card value of instant bingo supplies purchased, as well as the name and address of the supplier of such instant bingo supplies, and written invoice or receipt is also required for each purchase of in- stant bingo supplies? b. A record in writing of the dates on which Bingo is played, the number of people in attendance on each date, and the amount of receipts and prizes on each day? ~I~ S (These records must be retained for three years.) c. A record of the name and address of each individual to whom a door prize, regular or special Bingo game prize or jackpot from the playing of Bingo is awarded? SIP S d. A complete and itemized record of all receipts and disburse- ments which support, and that agree with, the quarterly and annual reports required to be filed, and that these records must be maintained in reasonable order to permit audit?~i 22. Does your organization understand that instant Bingo may only be conducted at such time as regular Bingo game is in progress, and only at such locations and at such times as are specified in this application? ~ Z _ 23. Does your organization understand that the gross receipts in the course of a reporting year from the playing of instant Bingo may not exceed 33 1/3$ of the gross receipts of an organization's Bingo operation? ~/~ 24. Does your or-ganization understand it may not sell an instant Bingo card to an individual below sixteen years of age? ~~_ _ 25. Does your organization understand that an organization whose gross receipts from all bingo operations that exceed or are ex- pected to exceed $75,000 in any calendar year shall have been granted tax-exempt status pursuant to Section 501 C of the United States Internal Revenue Service? (Certificate must be attached.) 7 26. Does your organization understand that a Certificate of Occu- pancy must be obtained or be on file which authorizes this use at the proposed location?=~/~~ 27. Does your organization understand .that awards or prize money or merchandise valued in excess of the following amounts are illegal? ~~; a. No door prize shall exceed twenty-five dollars. b. No regular Bingo or special Bingo game shall exceed One Hund- red dollars. c. No jackpot of any nature whatsoever shall exceed One Thousand Dollars, nor shall the total amount of jackpot prizes awarded in any one calendar day exceed One Thousand Dollars. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NOTARIZATION: THE FOLLOWING OATH MUST BE TAKEN BY ALL APPLICANTS I hereby swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury as set forth in §18.2 of the Code of Virginia, that all of the above statements are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and beliefs. All questions have been answered. Signed bys F~ a= % ~ ~` Name ;~ _ T ' t le Subscribed and sworn before me, Home Address this day of 19 My commission expires: 19 Notary Public RETURN THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION T0: COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE P.O. Box ?.0409 Roanoke, VA 24018-0513 8 r NOT VALID UNLESS COUNTERSIGNED The above application, having been found in due form, is approved and issued to the applicant to have effect until December 31st of this calendar year. ~~1i ~ l ti ~1 ~ ~~, I~te Commis Toner of th Revenue The above application is not approved. Date Commissioner of the Revenue 9 C,1,u ~_ l ~~! 5 i i ,~`t, ~, . ~~ 1~ ~G~~ I~~, U~ ~~D ~ ~. ~4~~ ~1~u' 2,cL C~/C.~ 1~ `~)?QU.~-/Y~l Q2,~J I~c~l'c (;cyri~rr ~2, ACTION NO. A-82791-8.e ITEM NO. _!~- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: April 23, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Donation of sanitary sewer and drainage easements in connection with Mountain View Estates Subdivision to the County of Roanoke COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~,~.~+A~ SUNIlKARY OF INFORMATION This consent agenda item involves the donation of the following easements to the County of Roanoke for sanitary sewer and drainage purposes in relation to Mountain View Estates Subdivision, owned by C & M Associates, a Virginia general partnership, in the Vinton Magisterial District: a) Donation of a sanitary sewer easement, twenty feet (20') in width, from W. E. Cundiff Co., Inc., a Virginia corporation, (Deed Book 1307, page 245) (Tax Map No. 61.10-1-28) as shown on the plat entitled "Easement Plat for Greystoke Partnership", prepared by T. P. Parker & Son, dated May 16, 1991. b) Donation of a drainage easement, fifteen feet (15') in width, and a sanitary sewer easement, twenty feet (20') in width, from Greystoke Partnership, a Virginia general partnership, (Deed Book 1280, page 573) (Tax Map No. 61.01-1-1) as shown on the plat, and Detail "A" thereof, entitled "Easement Plat for Greystoke Partnership", prepared by T. P. Parker & Son, dated May 16, 1991. The location and dimensions of these properties have been reviewed and approved by the County's engineering staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of these properties. Respectfully submitted, Vi kie L. H m n Assistant County Attorney k-s Action Vote No Yes Abs Approved (x) Motion by Bob L. Johnson Eddy x Denied ( ) Johnson x Received ( ) McGraw x Referred Nickens x to Robers x cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Cliff Craig, Director, Utility •` COUNTY OF ROANORE~ VIRGINIA GENERAL FIIND IINAPPROPRIATED BALANCE ~ of General~l~ Amount Fund Expenditures Unaudited Balance at July 1, 1991 $4,269,399 6.10$ and Balance as of August 17 1991 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). N~ COIINTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY Beginning Balance at July 1, 1991 $ 50,000 July 9, 1991 Additional funds for Alleghany Health (8,000) District July 9, 1991 Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau (3,000) Balance as of August 27, 1991 $ 39.000 Submitted by ~J~:~.~ ~. ~~~.~,~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance "' COIINTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA CAPITAL FUND pNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE Beginning Balance at July 1, 1991 $ 6,097 August 15, 1991 Sale of Shnnrock Park (Board approved sale on March 26, 1991, Sale Finalized August 1, 1991} 34,914 Balance as of August 27, 1991 $ 41.011 Submitted by ~ ~ ~~~ • Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance 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: August 27, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid - July 1991 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Payments to Vendors: $3,850,211.05 Payroll: 7/3/91 $ 460,499.22 7/19/91 452,641.77 913,140.99 $4,763,352.04 A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. SUBMITTED BY: Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance APPROVED: f~~ ~~.~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Motion by: Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) McGraw To Nickens Robers ACTION NO. /~~ ITEM NUMBER 0 Y ""~~ AT A VIRGINIA HELDIAT THE ROANOKER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIONRC NTER COUNTY, MEETING DATE: August 27, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Summary of Literary Fund Loan Projects COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On July 23, 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved the request from the School Board to submit Literary Fund loan applications. At that time, the Board requested more information on the projects that would be funded by the Literary Fund Loan. School Superintendent Dr. Bayes Wilson has provided the attached list of the schools that will be renovated and the type of renovation that will be funded with the Literary Loan. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ------- ------------------------ACTION VOTE rrn VPG Abs Approved ( ) Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Ref erred ( ) To ( ) Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers N-5 Rugust 9, 1991 ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF LITERARY FUND LOAN PROJECTS GREEN VALLEY ELEMENTARY - Addition of kindergarten rooms, expansion of library, upgrading of electrical service, and general renovations to include air conditioning. CAVE SPRING JUNIOR - Upgrading of electrical service, building renovations to include air conditioning, and window modifications. CAVE SPRING HIGH - Construction of science rooms and laboratories, general renovations to building. GLENVAR HIGH - Construction of classrooms and facilities to accommodate middle school curriculum and general renovations to building. NORTHSIDE HIGH - Construction of classrooms and facilities to accommodate middle school curriculum, and general renovations to building. WILLIAM BYRD HIGH - Construction of science rooms and laboratories, general renovations to building. BACK CREEK ELEMENTARY - Construction of classrooms to accommodate increased enrollment. CAVE SPRING ELEMENTARY - Construction of library, electrical upgrade, asbestos abatement, general renovations to building including air conditioning. MASON'S COVE ELEMENTARY - Construction of classrooms to house increases enrollment and programs, electrical upgrade, general renovations to include air conditioning. k~ 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: August 27, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Roanoke County's Redistricting Plan COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~' SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the Attorney General of the United States shall pre-clear changes in voting practices and procedures. On May 30, 1991, the County Attorney submitted Ordinance 52891-12 which changed the boundaries of board of supervisor election districts, voting precincts, and the location of polling places. By letter dated July 16, 1991, which is attached, the Attorney General has indicated that it will not interpose any objection to these changes. The practical effect of this notice is that the County's redistricting plan has been approved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Please accept this report and correspondence and include them in the official records and minutes of this Board. Respectfully submitted, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Vote No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to c:\wp51\agenda\redis\appcoval.rpt Motion by Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers 1 JRD:SSC:HEW:rac DJ 166-012-3 91-1700 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division {bring Section P.O. Box 66128 Abshington, L!G 20035-6128 Paul M. Mahoney, Esq. Roanoke County Attorney P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke County, Virginia 24018-0798 Dear Mr. Mahoney: This refers to the redistricting of the board of supervisor districts, the realignment of voting precincts, including the elimination of the Read Mountain Voting Precinct and the polling place therefor, two polling place changes, the establishment of the Woodlands Voting Precinct and the polling place therefor for Roanoke County, Virginia, submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973c. We received your submission on June 4, 1991. The Attorney General does not interpose any objection to the specified changes. However, we note that the failure of the Attorney General to object does not bar subsequent litigation to enjoin the enforcement of the changes. In addition, as authorized by Section 5, we reserve the right to reexamine this submission if additional information that would otherwise require an objection comes to our attention during the remainder of the sixty-day review period. See the Procedures for the Administration of Section 5 (28 C.F.R. 51.41 and 51.43). Sir~c:~reiY- John R. Dunne Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division +~ , ~ \ ~ ; Bye- ~1:;%~ ~~'~;~j,~c.J:- ":L~=''~ ~-~.__ - ,~ ,i ~-~,..~,1 ~` Gerald W. J nes Chief, Voting ''on 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~~ AT A REGULA A M HELD AT THE ROANOKE OCOUNTY ADMINISTRATIONOCENTER COUNTY, VIRGINI , MEETING DATE: August 27, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Report on Variance Request of C & D Builders to the Board of Zoning Appeals. ~y c~ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : ~ ~rn.~/%y A-~~'.'~- '~yy BACKGROUND: ~. ~„~„ --~ ~''"O'~"'"' On June 27, 1991 Mr. James Davis of C & D Builders obtained a building permit to construct a single family residence at 3826 Cundiff Drive. A plot plan of the property was submitted which indicated a front yard setback of 37 feet. At that time Mr. Davis also signed a copy of the Certification of Setback Compliance. Although the location information on this compliance form was not filled out, it was attached to the building permit at that time. Copies of the plot plan and certification are attached for your information. On August 2, 1991 the Department received bn this ackagerwasca request from Mr. Davis for this property. P survey prepared July 2, 1991 by T. P. Parker & Son for the plabeled This survey, in question (see attached survey). "Foundation Survey indicated a front yard setback of 24.4 feet. The required setback in all residential districts is 30 feet. This seems to indicate that Mr. Davis was aware of the setback violation in early July. The first knowledge this department had of the violation was during the week of July 15th, when Mr. H ~ ardld snot discussed the matter generally with Claude Lee, disclose the location. Mr. Lee advised the BZA that this matter would be on their August agenda. Despite this knowledge, Mr. Davis continued construction of this house through the month of July and requested and received the framing, electrical and plumbing inspections from the Department of Engineering and Inspections. Although no inspections have been conducted since the variance request was received, work appears to be continuing and no stop work order has been issued. The staff recognizes the need to re- evaluate administrative policy to issue a stop work order when a variance is reque utri el to worklout the mechanics of an appropriate work with legal co procedure. ~-~ 2 HISTORY Variance requests associated with errors in new cthe BZA.ioPrior not unique to the range of requests considered by to December 1989, it was not uncommon for Innmo t cases these variances to be heard each month by the BZA. variances were granted after warnings to the applicant that such staking out the property in errors could be avoided by properly advance of building construction. In December 1989 the BZA denied a request of Eldenridge Developersealr the denial of this variance the setback requirements. Upon app roved. was reversed by the Circuit Court and the variance app According to Mr. Mahoney, Judge T the estatutedand theZlawo tocthis in a proper manner in applying variance. However, the court's decision was based on tosition in notice to the public that the BZA was changing its p orous enforcement of the zoning provisions and the support of rig a variance. In February 1990 the statutory criteria for granting which BZA denied a similar var to therCigrcuit Court gfor similar reasons. was reversed upon appeal To address the lack of notice cited by the Court, the staff worked with the Roanoke Valley Home Builders Association to develo osed acceptable and workable solutionto be e submi tedll due op the requiring a foundation survey osed to requiring additional cost ($300-$400). The staff was opp the Building Inspectors to meimited hinformationn in the field don to the liability, and the 1 line locations during construction. The method chosen, property was initiation of the with the support of the Home Builders, signed by Certification of S5t Cert ficat on eisSeissued cwithc all building Mr. Davis). Thi permits. The form is des s tbacks requ rements before proceeding check for compliance with inspections are conducted, beyond with construction. No building the footer inspection, until the Certification is signed and returned to the Department of Engineering and Inspections. Unfortunately, many builders elect to sign ermit orm Alt ough rthis at the time they obtain their build o g tion, it eliminates the serves as the notice of the BZA s p rocess was reminder originally intended when the Certification p instituted. SUMMARY The circumstances surrounding Mr. Davis' need for a variance are the statutory authority upon which the BZA unfortunate. However, s ecific and does not include a can grant a variance is very p hardship which is self imposed f the 1 Cert f cation of a Setback staff, through implementation ut the public on notice of these Compliance has attempted to p facts. If additional measurese a the st ff wi 11 work with vthe similar situations in the futur and refine a Roanoke Valley Ho ab Be solution sociation to develop workable and equit ~ v ~ / 3 Respectfully submitted, Approved, than Hartley f Deputy Zoning Administrator Action Approved ( ) Motion by Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ~~~, l~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Vote No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers :~: ~~ ;_. M#~ ~ketrh was drawn us/ng Intormatlon on the Roanoke County tax maps and Intormatlon vppiled by the person obtaining this bulid/ng permli. Roanoke County will not be held rresponslb/e for inaccurate dlsiances acquired trom the penult applicant. • ~', erm/t applicant's s/gnaiure i~Q/ '; t \ ~y r - • •/ t ~~~ }` / ......- -- ~~ i v ~,"' i'. BOILDI2~10 PERKIT 1: INSPECTOR: DATE I88080: CERTIFICATIODI OF BETBACIC COMPLIANCE /~(- 7 I, of a lot known as (owner/developer builder), (address/tax parcel number) DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the setbacks of thi project conform to all applicable standards contained within t s Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. he I understand that Roanoke County encourages all applicants for residential building permits to secure a survey as soon as possible to verify that the location of all structures complies with all setback and yard requirements of the zoning ordinance. I further understand, once the footer inspection is conducted b Roanoke County, no further County building inspections shall be conducted until such time that I complete and sign this certification to Roanoke County indicating ay verification of yards and setbacks includ inq overhangs, cantilevers, decks, porches, or an structure attached to the dwelling. Y other If subsequent to my completing this certification, the structure is found to be not in compliance with County setback and/or ar requirements, I understand that it shall be the Y d responsibility to make any such structural or legs pe subd~vners~ modifications requirements to bring the structure into compliance sloe Finally, I understand that the Board of Zoning Appeals of Roano County does not have the authority under the law to grant variances oe exceptions to correct setback or yard violations. I acknowledge that such a violation is a self imposed condition rather than an unnecessar hardship, since a survey or other actions within my control could h y avoided or ,alleviated this condition. ave t It3NED s ~' ~ ~-~-~- __ DATE : 6 ~- 7` Y ~ property which is the su lec o ° •- - .- ~,~~ - • • • -,-- •-~ i ~D GA N D SV~ FOU NDAT IOIJ n~~n~•e-v e-~r~ ACTION NO. f~/ ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOP,ER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION C LATER COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOR August 27, 1991 MEETING DATE• alachian Power Company's Report on App AGENDA ITEM: application for a 7 Cloverdale Linelon line known as the Wyoming- COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: alachian Power Company on County staff will be meeting with p'pp otential impact of the Monday, August 27 to discuss tL,andfill site. transmission line to the Smith Gap Staff will report to the Board the results of that meeting on Tuesday. ~~~ l ~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ------ ----------------- -------------- VOTE -- ACTION No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Motion by: Eddy Denied ( ) Johnson Received ( ) McGraw Referred ( ) Nickens To ( ) - Robers ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~ i AT A REGULAR MEETING HE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIONRCENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT T MEETING DATE: August 27, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Privatization Work Session COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ ~~ `~~~„~ the Board requested that staff BACKGROUND: On April 23, 1991, review the opportunities for privatization and automation of a suggested list of services. A reportofatherBoardd ofnSupervisors for the July 9, 1991 regular meeting at which time Supervisor Eddy requested a work session on this topic. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: During a meeting of the Strazeglc: Management Team it was agreed the Department Head Team should be given the opportunity to collectively evaluate current County services, brainstorm for new areas of possible privatization and submit a list of services which may be better served by the private sector for consideration by the Board. Since the time the original board report was submitted anotherTeam with wconcuarencelby the privatization by the Public Safety School Board administrsecurit servicea to provide schoolocrossing arranging for a private year. guards for the 1991-92 school y FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Department Heads tential d pr vatization services be thoroughly studied le alitp contract monitoring, addressing the issues of cost, g Y~ quality of service, equity of service, and future economic risks: •Grounds Maintenance •Fleet Management-Leasing with Maintenance •Recycling •Bulk and Yard Waste Refuse Collection •Janitorial Services •Garage Operations ` ~ ~ ~ 2t~ S ~~fi ~ a ~ ~ 4 ~, ~ (.~,w Workshop examines privatization of county programs, services By Beverly Schlotterbeck editor Whether they knew it or not, delegates [o the 56th Annual Conference were experiencing the impact of privatization even as they walked the corridors of the Salt Palace Convention Center. The Salt Palace, once run by the county, had passed into private management 10 months eazlier. This transfer was the latest in a series of public private partner- ships fashioned by the county over thepastdecade that saw $35 million and 500 employees go from the public to the private sideof govern- ment operations, according to Keay Steadman, Salt Lake County Commissionstaffmanager. Eighty employees in the case of the convention center. Another 300 m mental health/drug and alcohol abuse services. Some temporary, like the crew needed in 1984 to cope with the water that flooded State Street, Salt Lake's main thoroughfare. after an unusually heavy mountain snow pack melt inundated downtown Salt Lake. Others, permanent, like the constabulary service that serves legal notices. Steadman outlined Salt Lake Cotmty's experience in privati- zation at a Monday afternoon workshop on privatisation in publi works at the Annual Conference He was among four panelists wh shazed their experience in th growing azena of public/priva partnerships. In its experience with privatiz anon, Salt Lake County ha developed a set of standards again which every privatization propos is meastaed, Steadman said. There are six standards. Som obvious. Some not. Top on the list -cost an legality. Can we legally con out this service and will it be 1 expensive? At this stage, it critical fa a county to accurate identify all its costs and bilities in providing the service. don't go anywhere without a f person and an attotaey at my si Steadman advised. The issue of continuing co marks the next standard. Wh going to pay for the contra monitoring? More important resolving that issue, however, k eeping a person on the county to tracking the costs, Steer said. Next, the gtrality of service m c Steadman explained. o attorney and partner, with Loomis, e Ewer4 Ederer, Pazsley and Goofing to of Lansing, Mich., took a slightly st successful pazmership, as well as al detailing potential pitfalls in the tract "willing W act" and wise enough to ess choose only "Sterling-creden- 's baled, financially capable private ly contractors who must be able to respottsi- weather storms,' Lick declared. tscal to the table the best experts they can de," find in the legal, accounting, sts together, this team should perform o's a risk~benefit analysis. Another than the "triangle of apposition" which staff engittar and contractor on separate dtaan sides of a project. "Put everybody the equity of service. Quality speaks for itself, but equity is another matter, Steadman said. [n the county's negotiations for privatizing its mental health/drug and alcohol abuse services, it made certain that the contractor would not cream off the best clients, leaving tmserved those with more severe problems or limited financial resources, Steadman explained. Futtue economic risk is another factor that needs a hard look before privatizing. What's this really going to cost four to five yeazs down the road? An even more critical issue, What will it cost us, if we have to get back into that business? Steadman pointed out that gazbage collection is often a prime candidate for privatizing, but what would happen if your switch to private contractor means dumping county-owned equipment that may need to be replaced somewhere down the road. An appazently easier call to make when it comes to deciding to privatize wncems the demands of a situation. Is the service [needed] of such antugentor emergencynattue that we just have to go for privatization? That was clearly the case when the cotmty needed to go outside for help in controlling the 1984 flood. "Our county folks just couldn't keep up with it," Fellow panelist David Lick, different look at the issue of - privatization as he presented the s critical factors in assuring a relationship. e Essential to a happy marriage between the public and private d sector are public officials who are "I Cotmty officials must also bring financial and planning fields, and ct critical factor involves eliminating is typically finds owner, architect/ _x PRIVATIZATION on the same team,,' Lick advised. Ideally, coumy officials should also use an "integrated vendor" - a state-of-the'art temt meaning a company that is able to deliver all services entirely. Lick said. The pitfalls in privatization are marry, Lick admitted. The biggest is fear. "You must remember that both sides haven't been doing this very long. In many instances. the contractor doesn't know any more than you do:' insufficient or incomplete plan- ning is another pitfall that can be remedied by swell-defined request for proposal and an intensive See PRtVAT/ZATION, page I S ,. ~-- i from page 11 contract review. Legal bathers and public resistance ace two other obstacles that often need to be overcome. And finally. the Pere~°n that the county is losing control fcegttendy sideltnes~r~~ potentially successfidpatVte Ending his presentation. lack spoke of the had w bold new mo- dels for publiclprt~ won' and suggested that consensus building -overcoming public resistance to a prolect- would be cosier and more fnutfttl if both public and priv ~ P ~ 5e~ld new groups P Y~ academia. -citizen groups JULY/AUGUST 1991 National Institute of Governmental Purchasing, Inc. • 115 Hillwaod Ave., Falls Church, VA 22046 • (703) 533-7300 • FAX (703) 532-0915 CONTRACTING OUT Privatizing Without Tears It~sounded so easy. St. Louis could improve the food at its two prisons without additional expense simply by contracting out the meal service. What's more, the City would be out of the business of feeding inmates and could focus on the more substantive issues of running a big city. Well, not quite. What happens, for instance, when the prison's old freezers break down and food spoils? It's not our problem, says the contractor, Service America, noting that its bid wasn't premised on repairing the old kitchen equipment. Oh, yes, it is, says the City, insisting that the company was at fault for taking so long to decide which new freezers the City should buy. William Kuehling, the City's Public Safety Director sighs. "Just another irritation in the day-to-day running of a prison facility." The City ended up replacing some of the spoiled food while Service America repaired the old equipment and sped up the process to decide on new equipment. The problems continued. The City was taking so long to process Service America's monthly bills that the firm was being charged interest by its regional office. So an agreement was waked out to have the company 2 b submit its bills weekly and have the city respond to them more quickly. These and other hassles haven't dampened St. Louis' enthusiasm for privatization or for its contract with Service America. They simply underscore the need for communication in the process. "And," Kuehling says, "we have to do a better job of anticipating all the issues and fully understanding up front what are our responsibilities and what are the contractor's responsibilities. It's a learning experience." What St. Louis has learned could be called the first lesson of privatization: It's not necessarily a cure for whatever ails you. Successfully contracting with the private sector to deliver public services requires plenty of foresight and hard work on both sides. That's a good thing to keep in mind as financially strapped governments look for quick and easy ways to save a buck. For more .than a decade now, proponents of privatization have lived by the mantra that anything government can do, business can do better. Opponents fear the loss of government control over essential public services and express concern that cost cutting would come mainly from the pockets of public employees. While such ideological debates persist, many administrators, particularly on the local level, think of contracting with business as a perfectly acceptable alternative to in-house service delivery if the circumstances are right The current recession has nudged governmental officials to consider contracting out a wider scope of services. The Reason Foundation, a leading advocate of privatization, reports an increased interest in the process. "You're seeing privatization becoming abudget-saving tool that both Republicans and Democrats are turning to," says Kevin D. Teasley, the foundation's public affairs director. Privatization means many things to many people, from selling Amtrak and public housing units to subsidizing day care centers. But on the state and local level, most of the interest is in contracting out. The practice is particularly widespread among localities, where, at some time in some city or county, virtually every governmental function has been delegated to the private sector. Elevator inspections, petting zoos, golf courses and public arenas are among the services and entities now run by private enterprises. however, there also is a growing awareness of the hazards of simply handing over public services to the cheapest private contractor that comes courting. Governments that don't first consider all of the consequences increase the chances that they will be beset by corruption, poor service delivery and, contrary to their fondest hopes, even cost increases. "Most of the time, the political pressures aren't going to be much help and will be putting you in the wrong direction, says John D. Donahue, an assistant professor of government at Harvard University whose recent book, The Privatization Decision documented the mixed record of privatization. Contracting out is generally more successful when it involves services that are ripe for greater efficiency and that the private sector already performs on its own. Hauling garbage, servicing vehicles and cleaning offices are among the areas in which privatization is most likely to succeed, while services such as running prisons and police departments are more difficult to privatize successfully. Contracting out works best, Donahue says, when government can precisely analyze what it wants done, stimulate competition for the job, evaluate a contractor's performance, and penalize or replace bad contractors. Privatization grew up during the 1980's. The lessons of that decade left savvy public officials with a more sophisticated view of how it can be deployed with the best chance of success. Their experience can provide a set of guidelines for governments that are considering using this tool in the '90s. BE REALISTIC The cost of contracting out a service, compared with performing it in-house, must be accurately estimated. "Some of the greatest warfare in the history of privatization has been fought over whether and how privatization saves money," says Steven A. Steckler, a ~~ senior manager at Price Waterhouse. Much of that revolves around the way in which costs are compared." When considering the potential savings from contracting out, for instance, it isn't enough to merely consider the cost of the contract itself. The government will invariably spend money to prepare and monitor the contract, and may have to provide some of its own equipment. The cost of monitoring a contract is often undervalued because the complications, as in the St. Louis prison food service example, are hard to foresee. Figuring out how much in-house delivery of the service is really costing can be just as difficult. While the direct Along with the accelerated interest in privatization, 3 costs are fairly clear, it is harder to determine which overhead and administrative expenses can be saved. Contracting out a certain service may nominally reduce the work load in such departments as personnel, accounting and purchasing, but it isn't necessarily going to cut the work force. In Los Angeles County, "it was frequently difficult to determine what amount of overhead you could actually do away with," says Chris Goodman, a contracting coordinator with the chief administrative office. County board members were concerned that administrators weren't reducing overhead expenses enough when a service was contracted out. So for the past year, the county has been limiting the amoun~l oati ationeeffort assumes cannot be reduced in any p to 20 percent of the cost of the service. That's supposed to more accurately reflect the true cost of providing a service and prod administrators to reduce overhead when a service is contract out. KNOW THYSELF It's hard for governments to gauge what to expect from a private contractor without first thoroughly analyzing their own service delivery. technical or High costs may relate to management, capital problems that privatization alone would riot solve. John Good, a labor relations consultant who has worked with the City of Philadelphia, says governmental inefficiency often stems from having too many bureaucrats and too few actual workers - a problem that could continue even if the work is contracted out. "Privatization hardly ever deals with the fundamental system of how the work gets done," Good says. Pinpointing an agency's service delivery problems also gives the government a better understanding of what standards to set for a private provider. "If you don't know what you want and aren't able to implement that," says Peter Hames, assistant city manager of Tracy, California, "how are you going to get somebody else to do it?" d-~ the vehicles and the County had kept inadequate records of the size, age and condition of its fleet. The contrac ndahe County ontracted the work outto three years, a firms. BE FLEXIBLE While the service to be provided must be clearly defined, businesses should be given room to innovate. When Illinois was seeking proposals to develop lodges in its state parks, for example, interested contractors had to wade through several volumes of detailed specifications. The state's financial participation in a project was fixed at no more than 35 percent of the developers' costs. Besides attracting relatively few proposals, the state was mandating projects that didn`t necessarily fit market demand. The process has been drastically simplified in the past year, says Jim Taylor, senior project officer for the Illinois Department of Conservation. Now the state asks potential developers four general questions about the impending project: Who are you, what do you think ought to be built, what are th'e financial numbers supporting the project and, perhaps most important, what do you need from the State? The change in procedure has encouraged more developers to seek approval for a project and more original thinking about how a project ought to bedesigned. "Because the government is steering instead of rowing," Taylor says, "it has more control because it can choose from a far wider range of options." LOOK BEYOND COSTS A contractor's experience, performance record and internal controls are at least as important as the cost of its proposal. The price was right when Whittier, California, began a three-year contract with Community Transit Services to run its bus services. But the City had little interest in fired last One of the largest maintenance contracts every let between a local government and a private company failed largely because of insufficient preparation on both sides. Los Angeles County hired Holmes & Narver Services, Inc. to maintain its fleet of more than 5,000 vehicles at a cost of $12 million a year for five years. But serious problems developed because the contractor had underestimated the cost of maintaining continuing the affiliation when the contract exp year. Too many trips had been canceled because buses broke down or drivers were unavailable. Linda Creed, the City's transit director, thinks service was hurt by the high turnover and uneven quality of the company's local managers. Partly as a result of the experience, Whittier first looks at a potential contractor's qualifications before paying attention to the price. Whittier now contracts with ATE/Ryder for transit service. In New York State, officials were chagrined to read newspaper stories saying state agencies were doing business with companies that either had been linked to organized crime or indicted for violating environmental, labor or other laws. It was particularly embarrassing that a company could be disqualified by an agency for being unreliable or irresponsible but hired by other agencies unaware of the company's past. Two years ago, Governor Mario M. Cuomo directed the state's nine major contracting agencies to organize a special council to develop a uniform, detailed set of questions to be answered by contractors and large subcontractors before a contract could be signed. The agencies were also ordered to start sharing information about these businesses, particularly anything that could be construed as negative. This arrangement enabled two agencies to discover that LaCorte, one of its owners, pleaded guilty last year to charges of larceny and demanding kickbacks from employees while working in state and local government contracts. STAY IN THE RING To ensure that private business will have competition for a contract, allow a government agency to bid on it as well. Phoenix offers the most compelling example. In 1983, officials divided the City into five districts for collecting residential refuse and solicited bids. But they operated cautiously, deciding that no more than two of the districts could be serviced by private contractors. One of the districts was won by National Serv-all, which, just a few months into its five-year contract, became the subject of frequent complaints about poor service. The complaints were so widespread that the city council even held a special meeting on the garbage service. Phoenix ended up taking over some of the routes and brought the service up to standard, charging National Serv-All for the expense. Within the year, the company sold its Arizona corporation to Waste Management, which took over the Phoenix operation. "Nevertheless", says Ron Jensen, the city's public works director, "there was a lot of bad will regarding contractors." As a result, the city refined its own practices, reduced maintenance expenditures by 25 percent, cut operating costs and automated more of its trucks. These changes enabled Phoenix to prepare the lowest and winning bid for all of the ~i districts by 1989. The uncertainty of knowing which districts it will be serving in future years keeps the public works department nimble. Winning bids are determined a year in advance. If the city loses a district, it cancels orders for new trucks, freezes hiring for truck driving positions and transfers drivers to other city departments or to new routes elsewhere in the city. "We have learned how to compete, Jensen says. "There have been a lot of productivity improvements that have come out of this." A 1988 report by the budget director showed that sanitation was the only city service that had not become more expensive over the previous 10 years. TAKE CARE OF YOUR OWN Provisions should be made for government employees who could lose their jobs as a result of contracting out. The strongest obstacles to privatization are often placed by public employee unions. "The reason for privatization is cheap labor," says AI Bilik, president of AFL-CIO's public employee department. That might be just fine for taxpayers who don`t think public employees ought to be paid substantially more than private employees for comparable work. And, in some cases, administrators may be deliberately trying to cut the size of the governmental work force through privatization. That can set the stage for a classic management-labor confrontation that many managers try to avoid. Because of these kinds of concerns, says Irwin T. David, a partner with Deloitte & Touche, an international accounting and consulting firm, "It's a lot easier to start a new service than contract for ~~ something you're already providing. But even when contracting for an existing service, there are a number of steps governments can take to limit clashes with attrition." Find other government jobs for public employees or help place them in the private sector, and they can require contractors to give laid-off public employees preference when hiring," says Harry P. Hatry, a privatization specialist at the Urban Institute. Ulysses Ford, Houston's public works director, says it's important that municipal employees not lose their jobs for privatization, even though that reduces some of the savings from contracting out. "One of the ideas of working for a City is that as long as you do your job, you've got a job," Ford says, "If you destroy that, you 5 can also; hurt the morale and productivity of the rest of your work force." COMMIT FOR THE LONG HAUL A government shouldn't expect its role to end when it signs a contract with a private provider. Follow-through is important. The success of a privatization effort often depends on an agency's ability to make sure .the business adheres to the contract, properly delivers the service and handles customer complaints. Officials have learned the hard way that there needs to be accountability on both sides. Early troubleshooting can prevent minor problems from growing into disasters. "If the only time you see your contractor is when he's in trouble or when you have complaints," Steckler says, "then you're doing something wrong." Monitoring a contractor can be difficult without enough access to information. It's important to specify upfront what information is required from a contractor. Officials in Auburn, Alabama, have been frustrated that Waste Way, Inc., which operates a solid waste landfill for several area communities, refuses to share its financial information. Landfill fees have nearly doubled in the past five years, says city manager Doug Watson, and without insight into the firm's costs, "there is some feeling we are being treated unfairly." Auburn and other neighboring communities are now considering building their own landfill or negotiating jointly with Waste Way for more favorable terms. 6y contract, Auburn has been pleased that Metcalf & Eddy Inc. is willing to give the City access to computerized information about awastewatertreatment ,~ plant it runs for the City. That's a major step to having openness between the public and private sector on a joint deal," Watson says. Perhaps the single most important point governments should remember is that they remain accountable for the quality and cost of public services even when those services are provided by outside contractors. Some officials have learned this the hard way. "Especially in the early days of privatization, says Irwin David, "governments said, It's yours. Don't darken our door again." f~_I managers to work together and iron out any additional kinks. Privatization works, Kuehling says. 'The key is to keep working at it." Editor's Note: The foregoing article, 'Privatizing Without Tears" written by Jeffrey L. Katz, is reprinted by permission from Governing Magazine 1414 22nd Street, Washington, D.C. 20037 These days, doors like William Kuehling's in St. Louis stay open to contractors. After the City and Service America resolved the conflicts over spoiled prison food and billing procedures, both sides designated account 6 ~~~ ACTION # ITEM NUMBER AT A REGL'Lr'1R MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGI'i 1IA 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 ~.J"."'" costs through that process. The attached material also identifies areas where various corms 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. Respecttully submitted, 11 //i Susan I. Hanley Procurement Director Approved by, ~~ Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. County Administrator ACTION Approved () Motion by: Denied () Eddy Received () Robers Referred Johnson To Nickens McGraw cc: File VOTE No Yes Abs r r ~~ /~" ~ REPORT ON PRIVATIZEITION AND AUTOMATION IN ROANOKE COUNTY OPERATIONS TREASURER The Treasurer's Office 7as 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 $.ZS 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 nas 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 equipmem 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 yir. 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 r""' J 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 - 3 308 Ivet savings $~,~ 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 privatizes 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 employeex. 2 tom- ~ 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 Sheriffs Office. The emrisioned 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 ,,~, P - a-~ 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 repa>is in- house at a lower cost. The private garage charged 80 percent more for the parts used in repairing the vehicle and 50 percent more in labor costs using the approved County rate of $ZS 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 imrestigations, vehicle preparation for surplus sales and other administratme-costs as requested would need to be backed out of the $40-45 per hour rate in order to make 4 F /~ F ~, T ~~ (~ -- proper comparisons with private rates.) Safetv 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 recemly 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. F ANCE 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 ~""~ J 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 conrlict. Examples of sub-contracted services are bond attorneys, landfill, reservoir and Diade 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 $S$ 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 privatisation, 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 Servicest 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 -- F T ._ .. w /•'~'r ~ 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. ': sae 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 3anuary 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. I.ow 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 ,~*,~ - ~_,.n,~,ii`,.,~ . ~ .._un :OANOKE `JALLEY GF V1RGiiv1A June 13, 1991 ?PPE?DIX Ms . .ue Hansev Director of Procurement Post Office Box 2.300 ~oanoice, Virginia 24010-0793 Dear :~s . Hansev ~~ In response to T'_m Gubala's letter of May 16, 1991, it is not feasible or in the best interest or 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. ,,7e 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 Part:,ership'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 b(L a~ Hic luc~ ~.Ivtuitccuu ~ti-IcUC's(L~ r ~.. F APDDT,DIX 1 a-~ ~~ 1 Partnership's o~fer =~ make un the cost difference and place one full page, ~clor ad in place of the t:~ro smaller ones was rejected b~~ P.oanoke City. The two ads, on the same page, not cnly confused readers outside the Valley, but implied waste, duplication, and in-fighting to local readers. 2. Marketing materials fir 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 ~:alley needs a strong, coordinated marketing effort. The Partnershit~ has the resources to develop quality materials. ~t makes no sense for jurisdictions to spend money cn 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 i~~ harder and more confusing on the prospects, and keeps the Malley from putting its best foot forward. ~t 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. ~~ .~*,~ ~~! J I atit_reciate Roanoke County's consistent support of The Partnership and its interest in merger. The issue, however, should not be how to serge local economic uevelopment programs. ~t should examine how to utilize ~r~hat is already in place to get t!:e 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 _ocality rust be involved heavily in this process. But, a facilitator is needed. The Partnership is the obvious choice. The Partnership should coordinate orivate efforts tc develop an on- going shell bull;:ina program for the Roanoke ?alley as a whole. Quality building cations are part of a success>:ul -.arketing 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 normalizing 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 ccunties is a factor prospects don't have to deal with in other states. We must do all we can to level t`.:e playing field in a game that already has too many participants, ~oo feca prospect, and not enough dollars. Since ely, CG~~~ Marie D . Heath , CED Executive Director MDH/fr cc: Tim Gubala Partnership Executive Committee *F *F ~1T -'~ ~~3i `~rY nRG~ni~ a+aarEaED X982 APPENDIX 2 Ms. Sue Hansev Director of Procurement County of Roanoke ?. 0. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Dear :^.s . Hansev 1 Office of Eccnom~c 0~~: a:coment June 3, 1991 am writi:.a in reference to Tim Gubala's letter of May 16, 1991 :oncerning Roanoke County's privit~zaticn study. As I understand it, Supervisor Robers has requested that the County explore the privatization zeasibilities includira combining the County's department of Economic Development, the City's Office of Economic Development and Regional Partnership. Z'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, ~ 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 100 privately funded. That might be something you want to recomatend 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 azound the state of Virginia. is very narrow in scope. Room 355 Municipa~ Building ~ F~1~ Church Avenue. S.IN. RQaooke. Virgi~is 24011 (703) 981.2715 APPS*IDIX ..~. ~.:e Haraev rune ~, 1Q41 _ ?acre 2 ~~ _~ Speci~iosiiy, i= you look at t::ese regiorai economic development :rganizaticns around the State, weir :~orit is limited tc business recra~t;nent a d the marketing t:.at Ices along with that recru:.tzent. In pact, the deli: ition of business recrc~t::ent (basic irdustrrl narrows t~.eir :pork e-; en further. .t would nct ~.,clude things like hotel, retail, restaurant, and institutional ~:pe activities. Urban cities in Virginia as well as sophisticated ccunties.around Virginia, c~ course, have much broader, diverse activities beyond just basic irdustr: recruitment. Those activities range frcm business retention to financing assistance to zcnina assistance to road and utility assistance to site acquisitior. and development, shell building constructicn, retail, restaurant and hotel recruitment, institutional recr,:zt^tent, developer recruit^ent, ~_.frastructural improvements in support e= development, tourism and su~perting activities, convention activities , cc~unit-~ development fro ~ ects , such as ir. Roanoke , the .;efferson i:_gh School redeveioo_ment, ~e redevelopment e= communities, to 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 i_s limitations and take advantage of its opportu.'~ities. 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. ~t is unrealistic to expect a regional organization tc develop a multitude of strategies to carry out a ;~ultitude of programs, in a position totally independent and senarate =rpm the local government and the general public. The other sound reason that sophisticated local governments in Virginia have senarate 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. ':he 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 r *,,F ~ . ~~ f APPENDIX 2 •,f~ /-J :~'-s . Sue Hansey June 3, 1991 Page 3 Administration is Roanoke as well as other communities around the state must ultimately :::ake a recommendation to-City Counci?, it is important that officials cf the cities be involved in the recruitment process and that might uita..^.ately 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 t::ey 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 unnecessazy 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 keening 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 ,w*rw r? PPENDI~{ Q4 POAHO~, V~~1'~~~~~ Y~ ~Y~~~~~~•~' ~ i t-~ 9 2 L7 x MANAGEMENT IfYFORMATION SYSTEMS 18 •.~5p~ 68 MEMORANDUM a~SaU1CEN7EN~~P`• A 8rauu'u/Bt~Inx~nR TO: Reta Busher, Director, Management an ~udget FROM: Oscar D. Bryant, Director of M.I.S. ~~ DATE: 2127!91 StJBJF.GT: M.LS. Supported Automated Systems ~- . •J / ~ +~ i`.~A 44 W(IIGgIT '~il~' 1979 1989 OSC'aR G- BRYANT DIRECTOR Per the zequest of Mr. Hodge, requested during the individual department budget meeting, I am submitting a "bricP' synopsis of computerized systems which are currently supported, those currently in production, and those which are requested by using departments. Of the thirty plus automated systems is current use by County and School offices, the following eleven are considered the major systems. • Adult Education: Used in resistering students in Roanoke County Adult- Education classes. Includes class information, student registration, posting and transferring funds, receipts, and checl~ generation. This system suppom a revenue generating project. • Business License: Tracks County $usiness i,icenses. Allows online computation of licenses from gross receipts. Maintains accounts receivable information. This system supports a revenue generating project. • County Personnel Budget: Tracks yearly personnel budget, has limited projection capabiiitics. • County Payroll and Personnel: Maintains Payroll and Personae! recxirds 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 BPREP. • Personal Property: Maintains records of all tangible personal property far Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton. The system allows for property pricing, proration of taxes, snatching of DMY information, online Sling of returns, decal processing and accounts receivable. This system supports. a revenue generating program. F w P _ ~ ~ ~ _~ ~ -~ i .~ ~ .r r ~! r~ ` i `. o r. r C 1 'f 1.r G N 1 C K Fr t> .} 4 `~ ~ .~ APPENDIX 3 Reta Busher February 27, 1991 Page 3 Real Estate BitIing and Collections Redesign: This is a major rewrite of the system in current service which was originally written in 1982 The norm for systems lifespan is six to eight yaars. Columbia Schools Package: M.LS. 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 B,'lling. This system supports a revenue generating program. The queue of user requests for major systems installation or redesign is quite lengthy. The ability to procure or develop, and install any now automated system is preempted by the need for additional computer hardware. M.LS. wiU concentrate during the nact budget year on existing users and the installation of microcomputer based systems. The twelve requested systems in the following list are considered major. • Vehicle Maintenance Tracking -General Services • Purchase Order Generation and Tracking - Procurement • parking TicYets Tracking - Treasurer/Police • Budding Maintenance -General Services • Applicant Tracking -Human Resources • Salary Research -Human Resources • Personal Property Name/Address Standardization -Comm. of RevJT'reasurer. • Business Personal Property Enhancements -Comm. of Rev. • NCR Cashiering System Replacement -Treasurer *Note: The cashiering system replacement will soon become a critical need. • Town of Vinton Personal Property Proration -Town of Vinton • Police Records Management - Pv1icG.- • F"u~elRescue Records Management • F'ue/Rescue c~: irlmer Hodge John Chambiiss Don Myers ~~ PPE*1DIX 3 Reta Busher February 27, 1992 Page 2 ,~ • Real Estate Billing: Iviaintains records of aII real estate owners for Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton. Supportu real estate billings, accounu receivables, property transfers, late notices, and land book generation. This system supporu a revenue generating progam. • School Board Inveato~v; Tracks fixed assets in each unique location withia the school Board's area of administrative responsibility. • School Board PayrolUPersonnel: Maintains payrolUpersonnel records for all school employee's. Includes leave accounting, check generation, and persottnek budgeting. • EMS Dispatch and Records: Supports the dispatching and tracking of emergence services uniu. Provides access to state DMV and warrant files, and links to E911 system. • Student Assignment System: Tracks student registration information, schedules students to classes. • Student Information System: Maintains records of studenu academic, demographic, and family information. Includes grading and attendance information. • Utility Billing: Maintains waterlsewerlrefuse utility records. Includes property and meter tracking and accounts receivable information. This system supports a revenue generating program. • Real Estate Assessmenu (Pasco); Computer assisted mass appraisal and propertyvaluation system. This system supports a revenue generating program. • Clerk of Couru indexing: indexing system for deeds, judgements, marriages, and finanang statements. The M.IS. department is currently working on the installation andlor redesign of the following systems. Building Permits: Supports the issuance and tracking of building, water, and sewer peratiu. Will allow for cross check of contractors licenses in the Business r.icense System. This system supports a revenue generating program. *~,,*,, APPENDIX 4 ~ `° (• ~~ ~i i~ i i -. MEMORANDU:1 ~•l~:; :,~~ ,.: ~~ r. •; T0: Sue Hansey FROM: Debbie Pitts, Assistant Director of Recreation ~ ~~ THRU: Steve Carpen irector, Parks and Recreation DATE: :Kay 22. 1991 SUBJECT: :ontractual Agreements with Private Businesses for Services Listed below are the businesses that we contract with for services: Roanoke Athletic Club(RAC) Adult AthleticsiLifetime Sports Section PEAK Aerobics--instruction only Countryside Golf Course Adult Athletics/Lifetime Sports Section Golf Lessons Lancerlot Adult AthleticsiLifetime Sports Section Ice Rink for ice Skating (includes ice time and instruction) y-DOR Tennis Adult AthleticsiLifetime Sports Section Tennis Instruction (They did not charge far 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 Por either and~we-~ do not wish to disrupt. this agreement. ,~ • ~:~~ ~! T ~ aPPE?`?D If, - ~:erapeutic Recreation 5lacksbur~ Rarxs anti Pecreation Cepartment Section ropes Course :f you nave any questions. let me know. F r r - _ w _k ~, MEETING OF THE BOARD OF LINTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER AT A REGULAR VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE C 1991 COUNTY, ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, LITTON 8271=9 CERTIFYINGOEEEOFTVIRGINIA NG WAS RESOL HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE visors of Roanoke County, the Board of Super WHEREAS, ursuant has convened an executive meeting on this date p Virginia accordance with the vote and in recorded to an affirmative and 'ons of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; provisi Code of Virginia WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the 'cation by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke requires a certif i that such executive meeting was conducted in County, Virginia. conformity with Virginia law. Board of that the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, oke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to Supervisors of Roan the best of each members knowledge'matters lawfully exempted from 1, Only public business 'rements by Virginia law were discussed in the open meeting regal lies, and 've meeting which this certification resolution appdentified execute 2, Only such public business matters as were were heard, discussed in the motion convening the executive meeting the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, or considered by Virginia. t resolution, and On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adop carried by the following recorded vote: ervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw AYES: Sup NAYS: None p~ COpy TESTE Mary H. Allen, Clerk Board of Supervisors Roanoke County cc: File Executive Session .,, , AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991 ORDINANCE 82791-10 AMENDING THE ROANORE COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 21-73, GENERAL PREREQUISITES TO GRANT OF DIVISION 3. EXEMPTION FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS OF CHAPTER 21, TAXATION TO INCREASE THE TOTAL COMBINED INCOME PROVISION FOR REAL ESTATE TAX EXEMPTION FOR THE ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED WHEREAS, Section 21-73 of the Roanoke County Code establishes a restriction upon the total combined income for the exemption from or deferral of real estate taxes for certain elderly or permanently and totally disabled persons; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 84-232 adopted on December 18, 1984, increased this financial restriction from $15,000 to $18,000 and Ordinance 22388-9 adopted on February 23, 1988, increased this financial restriction from $18,000 to $22,000; and WHEREAS, the 1990 General Assembly for the Commonwealth of Virginia amended Section 58.1-3211 of the 1950 Code of Virginia by increasing this financial restriction to $30,000; and WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on August 13, 1991; and the second reading and public hearing was held on August 27, 1991. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 21-73, General Arereauisites to grant of Division 3. Exemption for elderly and disabled per= of Chapter 21, Taxation be amended to read and provide as follows; 1 Sec. 21-73. General prerequisites to grant. Exemptions provided for in this division shall be granted only if the following conditions are met: (1) That the total combined income, during the immediately preceding calendar year, from all sources, of the owner of the dwelling and his relatives living therein did not shall not be included in such total. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect with the 1992 tax year. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw NAYS: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: ~~ Mary H. l~len, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Circuit Court Elizabeth W. Stokes, Clerk 2 r Family Court Services Joseph M. Clark, II, Chief Judge Peggy H. Gray, Clerk Intake Counsellor General District Court John L. Apostolou, Judge Theresa A. Childress, Clerk Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Magistrates Sherri Krantz/Betty Perry Main Library John H. Cease, Police Chief Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, S.W., Rke 24016 Roanoke County Code Book Michael F. Kavanaugh, Sheriff John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance O. Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Kenneth L. Hogan, Chief Animal Control Officer Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer R. Wayne Compton, Treasurer John D. Willey, Director, Real Estates Assessment 3 t 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: August 27, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: To increase the total combined income provision for the real estate tax exemption for the elderly and handicapped. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: 0~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The 1990 General Assembly amended Section 58.1-3211 of the 1950 Code of Virginia which establishes a financial restriction upon the total combined income for the exemption from or deferral of real estate taxes for elderly or permanently and totally disabled persons. The financial restriction was increased from $22,000 per year to $30,000 per year; and the exclusion of income of each relative, other than the spouse of the owner, who is living in the dwelling has been increased from $4, 000 to $6, 500. To bring Roanoke County code into compliance with the revised state code, the Board of Supervisors will need a first and second reading and a public hearing on this proposed ordinance change. The first reading was held on August 13, 1991 and the second reading and public hearing will be held on August 27, 1991. FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no fiscal impact in the FY 1991-92 budget year. This revision will, however, cause an increase in the amount budgeted for Tax Relief for the Elderly and Handicapped in FY 1992- 93. Currently, the County budgets $300,000 for the cost of this credit. ~9~-! STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed change to County Ordinance Section 21-73 to increase the financial restriction upon the total combined income for the exemption from or deferral of real estate taxes for elderly and handicapped persons from $22,000 to $30,000 and to increase the exclusion of income for relatives living in the household other than the spouse of the owner from $4,000 to $6,500. Staff also recommends approval of the second reading. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, Reta R. Busher ~ Elmer C. Hodge Director of Management County Administrator and Budget ---------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) McGraw To Nickens Robers r .i t~ ~q~-/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 21-73, GENERAL PREREQUISITES TO GRANT OF DIVISION 3. EXEMPTION FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS OF CHAPTER 21, TAXATION TO INCREASE THE TOTAL COMBINED INCOME PROVISION FOR REAL ESTATE TAX EXEMPTION FOR THE ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED WHEREAS, Section 21-73 of the Roanoke County Code establishes a restriction upon the total combined income for the exemption from or deferral of real estate taxes for certain elderly or permanently and totally disabled persons; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 84-232 adopted on December 18, 1984, increased this financial restriction from $15,000 to $18,000 and Ordinance 22388-9 adopted on February 23, 1988, increased this financial restriction from $18,000 to $22,000; and WHEREAS, the 1990 General Assembly for the Commonwealth of Virginia amended Section 58.1-3211 of the 1950 Code of Virginia by increasing this financial restriction to $30,000; and WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on August 13, 1991; and the second reading and public hearing was held on August 27, 1991. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 21-73, General prerequisites to arant of Division 3. Exemption for elderly and disabled persons of Chapter 21, Taxation be amended to read and provide as follows; 1 ~~~ Sec. 21-73. General prerequisites to grant. Exemptions provided for in this division shall be granted only if the following conditions are met: (1) That the total combined income, during the immediately preceding calendar year, from all sources, of the owner of the dwelling and his relatives living therein did not exceed :.:...:......:. : • ~?` ::........:..:....:... . ..........:...............;:<:»>~::~:<~<~::~:<~<~:~~ provided, however, that the first .......................::.;::.;:<~:;:::;>:;:~:<:>:.:.>::.>!~::~::: of income of each relative, other than the spouse of the owner, who is living in the dwelling shall not be included in such total. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect with the 1992 tax year. c:\wp57\agenda\code\taxrelie 2 J 11111111111iillillllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllll 11111111111111111111111111 AGENDA ITEM NO. APPEARANCE REQUEST FOR _PUBLIC HEARING _ORDINANCE _CITIZENS COMMENTS SUBJECT: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~` "~` ,~ ~. ~m ~~~ ` , 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. ^ Speakers 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 ADDRESS PHONE 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111 ., COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA RESOLUTION 82791-11 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Date: August 27, 1991 At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, held on the 27th day of August, 1991, the following persons were present or absent as shown: PRESENT' Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw ABSENT' None On motion of Supervisor Johnson, the following Resolution 82791- 11 was adopted by a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors by a roll call vote, the ayes and nays being recorded as follows: MEMBER Supervisor Eddy Nay Supervisor Robers Aye Aye Supervisor Johnson Aye Supervisor Nickens Supervisor McGraw Aye VOTE r r w AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COIINTY, VIRGINIA, HON TIIESDAY,R AU IISTC27~, T1991MINISTRATION CENTER RESOLIITION 82791-11 AIITHORIZING THE ISSIIANCE AND SALE OF THE COIINTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA $65,000,000 WATER SYSTEM REVENIIE BONDS, SERIES 1991 The Board of Supervisors ("Board") of the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") has determined that it is necessary for the County to acquire, construct, develop and equip a public water supply and related facilities, including a dam and resevoir, water treatment facilities and distribution, storage and transmission facilities ( "Project") , and it is necessary and expedient to borrow an estimated maximum amount of $65,000,000 and to issue revenue bonds ("Bonds") to provide funds to pay the costs of such facilities. The Board has held a public hearing on the issuance of the Bonds in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.1-227.8 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and to issue and sell the Bonds in an amount not to exceed $65,000,000. The issuance and sale of the Bonds is hereby authorized. The proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds shall be used to pay the costs of the Project. In accordance with Section 15.1- 227.2 of the Virginia Code, the Board elects to issue the Bonds 1 r r pursuant to the provisions of the Public Finance Act of 1991. 2. Financinct Documents. The County Administrator, the Director of Finance, and such officers and agents of the County as either of them may designate are authorized and directed to prepare such financing documents as they may deem necessary, including an indenture of trust between the County and a trustee to be selected by the County Administrator ("Indenture"). 3. Pledcte of Revenues. The Bonds shall be limited obligations of the County and principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be payable as provided in the Bonds and the Indenture solely from the revenues derived by the County from its water system, as set forth in the Indenture and from other funds that have been or may be pledged for such purpose under the terms and conditions of the Indenture. Nothing in this Resolution, the Bonds or the Indenture shall be deemed to pledge the full faith and credit of the County to the payment of the Bonds. 4. Details of Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution and as set forth in the Indenture. 5. Sale of Bonds. The Board authorizes the sale of the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $65,000,000 to Alex Brown & Sons Incorporated, as underwriter ("Underwriter"). The County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board, or either of them, are authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Bond Purchase Agreement with the Underwriter, providing for the sale and delivery of the Bonds upon terms and conditions to be approved by 2 such officers, provided that (i) the true interest cost of the Bonds shall not exceed 9%; (ii) the final maturity of the Bonds shall not be later than 40 years from their date. The approval of such officers shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery of the Bond Purchase Agreement. 6. Non-Arbitra e Certificate and Tax Covenants. The appropriate officers and agents of the County are authorized and directed to execute a Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to comply with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code"), including the provisions of Section 148 of the Code and applicable regulations relating to "arbitrage bonds." The Board covenants on behalf of the County that the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in the Indenture and the County's Non- Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants, to be delivered simultaneously with the issuance and delivery of the Bonds and that the County shall comply with the other covenants and representations contained therein. 7. Disclosure Documents. The County Administrator, and such officers and agents of the County as he may designate, are hereby authorized and directed to prepare, execute and deliver an appropriate preliminary official statement, official statement, and such other disclosure documents as may be necessary to expedite the sale of the Bonds. Such disclosure documents shall be published 3 in such publications and distributed in such manner and at such times as the County Administrator, or such officers or agents of the County as he may designate, shall determine. 8. Further Actions. The County Administrator, and such officers and agents of the County as he may designate, are authorized and directed to take such further action as they deem necessary regarding the issuance and sale of the Bonds and all actions taken by such officers and agents in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds are hereby ratified and confirmed. g. Filinct of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-227.9 of the Virginia Code. 10. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw NAYS: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Bond Counsel Circuit Court Judge Alfred C. Anderson, County Treasurer Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Cliff Craig, Director, Utility 4 The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true, complete and correct copy of the Resolution 82791-11 adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, held on August 27, 1991. Dated: August 27, 1991 ~• Mary H. lien, Clerk, Board of Supervisors County of Roanoke, Virginia [SEAL] 5 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: August 27, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Public hearing and adoption of resolution authorizing the issuance of not to exceed $65 million of water revenue bonds for the Spring Hollow Water Project. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:yy// ,~~ cam. ~-a,,,,, _'°.i, c~,ra•+u" ""~ ~-. ~,~r9-~'H- . BACKGROUND• In May 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved the Spring Hollow Water Project which has an estimated construction cost of $72,177,000. SUNIlKARY OF INFORMATION The Spring Hollow Water Project will be funded from $15 million in General Obligation Bonds and the balance of the project will be funded with Water Revenue Bonds. The attached sources and uses of funds show that the sizing of the revenue bond will be between $60 million and $65 million. These are preliminary figures, and the investment earnings, capitalized interest, and debt service reserve fund are all market driven, which means we need to allow flexibility in the amount to be financed. The attached resolution for an amount not the exceed $65 million will allow us the needed flexibility for variations in interest rates and any additional demands that the rating agencies may impose upon the County for rate coverage. The exact sizing of the issuance will be finalized close to the bond sale date, so that all of these factors may be taken into account. Also attached is a timetable for the sale of the revenue bonds. As currently scheduled the bonds will be sold on October 16, 1991 and brought to the Board for ratification on October 22, 1991. ~9~-a FISCAL IMPACT' Debt service on the Water Revenue Bonds will be paid from the revenues generated by the increase in water rates that were approved by the Board on June 25, 1991. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that following the public hearing for this matter, the Board d sal a of Water RevenueeBonds in an amount not to exceed issuance an $65 million. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, Diane D. Hyat Elmer C. Hodge Director of Finance County Administrator ------------ ------------------------ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved Denied Received Ref erred To ( ) Motion by: ( ) ( ) ( ) Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers g9~-a COIINTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA WATER REVENIIE BONDS ESTIMATED SOIIRCES AND IISES OF FIIND81 ESTIMATED SOURCES OF FUNDS Revenue Bond Proceeds G.O. Bond Proceeds Investment EarningsZ Total Estimated Sources of Funds ESTIMATED USES OF FUNDS Project Costs Interest Capitalized Debt Service Reserve Fund Financing Costs Revenue Bonds G.O. Bonds Total Estimated Uses of Funds $ 60,361,717.50 15,000,000.00 7 268,929.84 82,630,647.34 $ 72,177,000.00 4,152,683,45 5,205,735.00 903,978.89 191,250.00 $ 82,630,647.34 NOTES• 1 All the numbers depicted below are preliminary and are subject to Z market shifts and modifications in the Finance Plan. Investment earnings on the Debt Service Reserve Fund at 7$ and on 3 the Capitalized interest and Project Construction Funds at 6$. Includes legal, printing, underwriting and other fees and costs. / l "` COUNTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 1991 WATER SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1991 (SPRING HOLLOW WATER PROJECT) Timetable Closing Date: November 7, 1991 RESPONSIBLE DATE ACTIVITY PARTIES August 2 Distribute summary of business terms for U Trust Indenture August 9 ineeringrReport dPEn t ofsTr BC/UC,FFC g Indenture an ust August 13-14 Organization meeting in NYC-Alex Brown C,FA,BC/UC,U i on; office; first documents review sess introductory meeting with insurance agencies August 19 Distribute first draft of POS, second draftBC/UC,FFC t of Trust Indenture and Engineering Repor August 19 Distribute drafts of rating agency and information packets U insurance company August 23 Second documents review meeting in All Parties Richmond-McGuire Woods office August 27 Authorization of General Obligation and C,BC/UC Revenue Bond Resolutions August 28 Distribute second draft of POS and third and Engineering t BC/UC,FFC ure drafts of Trust Inden Report. August 30 Distribution of information packets to i U es ratings and insurance agenc September 6 Conference call to review all offering All Parties documents September 11 Preparation for rating Agency presentations September 12-13 Rating Presentations and site visits in All Parties Roanoke U September 25 Receipt of ratings and insurance bids BC/UC September 27 Printing of POS ~~~~~ RESPONSIBLE DATE ACTIVITY PARTIES September 30 Mailing of POS BC/UC October 14 Preliminary pricing conference call C,FA,U,BC/UC October 14-15 Bond marketing period U October 16 Verbal award and sale of bonds C,U October 17 Execution of Bond Purchase Agreement October 22 Board meeting to ratify award and approve final Official Statement November 6 Pre-closing-NYC November 7 Closing-NYC Notes• C = County of Roanoke BC/UC = Bond Counsel/Underwriters Counsel FA = Financial Advisor FFC = Financial Feasibility Consultant U = Underwriter C,BC/UC,FA,U C,BC/UC All Parties All Parties ~~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE COUNTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA $65,000,000 WATER SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1991 The Board of Supervisors ("Board") of the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") has determined that it is necessary for the County to acquire, construct, develop and equip a public water supply and related facilities, including a dam and resevoir, water treatment facilities and distribution, storage and transmission facilities ("Project"), and it is necessary and expedient to borrow an estimated maximum amount of $65,000,000 and to issue revenue bonds ("Bonds") to provide funds to pay the costs of such facilities. The Board has held a public hearing on the issuance of the Bonds in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.1-227.8 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and to issue and sell the Bonds in an amount not to exceed $65,000,000. The issuance and sale of the Bonds is hereby authorized. The proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds shall be used to pay the costs of the Project. In accordance with Section 15.1- 227.2 of the Virginia Code, the Board elects to issue the Bonds pursuant to the provisions of the Public Finance Act of 1991. 1 ~t~ 2. Financing Documents. The County Administrator, the Director of Finance, and such officers and agents of the County as either of them may designate are authorized and directed to prepare such financing documents as they may deem necessary, including an indenture of trust between the County and a trustee to be selected by the County Administrator ("Indenture"). 3. Pledge of Revenues. The Bonds shall be limited obligations of the County and principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be payable as provided in the Bonds and the Indenture solely from the revenues derived by the County from its water system, as set forth in the Indenture and from other funds that have been or may be pledged for such purpose under the terms and conditions of the Indenture. Nothing in this Resolution, the Bonds or the Indenture shall be deemed to pledge the full faith and credit of the County to the payment of the Bonds. 4. Details of Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution and as set forth in the Indenture. 5. Sale of Bonds. The Board authorizes the sale of the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $65,000,000 to Alex Brown & Sons Incorporated, as underwriter ("Underwriter"). The County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board, or either of them, are authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Bond Purchase Agreement with the Underwriter, providing for the sale and delivery of the Bonds upon terms and conditions to be approved by such officers, provided that (i) the true interest cost of the 2 / ~° OAS Bonds shall not exceed 9%; (ii) the final maturity of the Bonds shall not be later than 40 years from their date. The approval of such officers shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery of the Bond Purchase Agreement. 6. Non-Arbitra e Certificate and Tax Covenants. The appropriate officers and agents of the County are authorized and directed to execute a Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to comply with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code"), including the provisions of Section 148 of the Code and applicable regulations relating to "arbitrage bonds." The Board covenants on behalf of the County that the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in the Indenture and the County's Non- Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants, to be delivered simultaneously with the issuance and delivery of the Bonds and that the County shall comply with the other covenants and representations contained therein. 7. Disclosure Documents. The County Administrator, and such officers and agents of the County as he may designate, are hereby authorized and directed to prepare, execute and deliver an appropriate preliminary official statement, official statement, and such other disclosure documents as may be necessary to expedite the sale of the Bonds. Such disclosure documents shall be published in such publications and distributed in such manner and at such 3 ,.~ .~ z times as the County Administrator, or such officers or agents of the County as he may designate, shall determine. 8. Further Actions. The County Administrator, and such officers and agents of the County as he may designate, are authorized and directed to take such further action as they deem necessary regarding the issuance and sale of the Bonds and all actions taken by such officers and agents in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds are hereby ratified and confirmed. 9. Filing of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-227.9 of the Virginia Code. 10. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true, complete and correct copy of the Resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, held on August 27, 1991. Dated: August 1991 Clerk, Board of Supervisors County of Roanoke, Virginia [SEAL] 4 ~~~_a COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION Date: August 27, 1991 At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, held on the 27th day of August, 1991, the following persons were present or absent as shown: PRESENT: ABSENT: On motion of seconded by the following Resolution was adopted by a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors by a roll call vote, the ayes and nays being recorded as follows: MEMBER VOTE ~Rr 8 ~~- a A YIR6IRIA, CNARTEREO 1182 ~~ July 12, ll9~te Mr. Elmer C. Hodge Roanoke County Administrator P. 0. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Dear Elmer: E.BE Q- 3~J SAM HCN RW c`~ Thank you for the renewed invitation, shared with Botetourt County, Montgomery County, and Salem, to participate in the development of an estimated 24 MGD maximum Spring Hollow water system. City Council has just agreed to a $28,000,000 capital improvement program to our Carvins Cove system. This program is our first priority for expenditure of water derived revenue. The City's position is unchanged from that last formally communicated to you; namely, we respectfully decline to participate in the Spring Hollow development. Please do not construe this to mean that we in any way disagree with Roanoke County's plans to develop this water supply source. Sincerely, $/ W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRIT: afm cc: Mayor and Members, Roanoke City Council Director of Utilities & Operations Room 364 Municipal building 295 Church Avenue. S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2333 F I1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 AGENDA ITEM NO. ~~? ~- a APPEARANCE REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS ~~~~ p~~~ ~~ 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 and willeenforcet he r ule unlessuinstruct d lbyethe smajoritgy of the issue, Board to do otherwise. ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may pe 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 FIL OWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRE ENT THEM. THE GROUP ALL PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK NAME ADDRESS PHONE 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Iillllllllllllillllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllilll AGENDA ITEM NO. ~/_ APPE CE REQUEST FOR ~' PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS c + ~~ n SUBJECT: W ~-~.~ al 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. ^ Speakers 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 It N ~'' • ~ ~' G' ~ ADDRESS 3 5`! ~D ~ PHONE '~ o K-~- I11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 J 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ 9 / _o~ APPE CE REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS SUBJECT: .2 ~ ~, ~/~' `"°~,l 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. VVI~N CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WII,L GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will 6e 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. ^ Speakers 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 ADDRESS PHONE 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ~~7~) ~n 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 AGENDA ITEM NO.=~ 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 ,~. ~1 C1 / (®~S~ .~ ADDRESS 3DZ ~ r ?~ PHONE ,Cv 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Y~,l,;, AGENDA ITEM NO. APPE CE REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS . s, Y~ 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 WII.L GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR Z'I~ 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 ~ ADDRESS ~ I A~ ~ ~1.~ ~ ~ PHONE -~ ~ 1 `~ ~ ~(~~ ~-- 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Illllillllllllilllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllilillllllllllllllilllllllilll AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ `~ I Z- APPE CE REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE ~ITIZENS COMMENTS SUBJECT: <~`7 J ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~-r/ ~ ~-1......_~~-~ ~ 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. ^ Speakers 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 ~~ +~ ~./ ,~.~ / ~ ,,~.~ '~ ADDRESS ! ~ ~ `~ ~~~ ~. PHONE -- ~ I11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 J I11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 AGENDA ITEM NO. ~c_ APPEARANCE REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCE -CITIZENS COMMENTS ~_ SUBJECT: _ ~~Z~ - ~ J C~-c} ~; C d ~ r 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 WII,L GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR 1'I~ 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 presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may pe 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 ADDRESS PHONE 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 I11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 AGENDA ITEM NO. SSA//-dZ APPE CE REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE C7~IZENS 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. ^ Speakers 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 ADDRESS PHONE 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 II1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 AGENDA ITEM NO. ~~~ 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. WI~~N CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WII~L GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will 6e 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. ^ Speakers 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 C~'~'~F s .ll~~~~~ ADDRESS ~~~/ ~ ~'irnpaa ~ ~ ~ ~ • r~~ • - ~ ~ . ~ ~-c / Z PHONE ~ ~ 7 -- / ~' ~'~ Ilillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllilllllllllllllllllllilllllllllllill J I11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 AGENDA ITEM NO. l ~ ~-- APPEARANCE REQUEST FOR l PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS SUBJECT: ~ ~~~. `~'~ ~' s~ - ;~ ~-~ .~'~_ ;, 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 WII.L 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 ADDRESS PHONE ~. ~. 77y. ~ ~'~,~E:~ 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.11111 I11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 AGENDA ITEM NO. 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. ^ Speakers 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 r; it NAME , ~ ADDRESS ~ ~~ ~~ PHONE ~ ~ q -- ~ ~ J 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991 ORDINANCE 82791-12 AMENDING CHAPTER 22, WATER OF THE ROANORE COUNTY CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION NUMBERED 22-6, REDUCTION OF RATES TO AUTHORIZE THE REDUCTION OF WATER RATES IN HARDSHIP SITUATIONS FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, intends to provide financial relief for its elderly and disabled citizens in the provision of certain critical public services; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of this ordinance to provide for a reduction of water rates or charges for governmental services provided to economically-disadvantaged elderly or disabled citizens and their families; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 23, 1991, and the second reading and public hearing was held on August 27, 1991. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 22-6 of Chapter 22, Water of the Roanoke County Code is adopted and enacted as follows: Sec. 22-6. Reduction of rates. (a) The finance director is hereby authorized to develop, publish and implement rules and regulations to provide for the reduction of rates imposed by the county for the delivery of water service by the county. The reduction of rates shall be based upon demonstrable hardship and inability to pay and shall be consistent with this section. 1 (b) The finance director shall, upon application made and within the limits provided in this section, grant a reduction of the water rate for dwellings occupied as the sole dwelling house of a person (utility customer) holding title or partial title thereto or a leasehold interest who is not less than sixty-five (65) years of age or totally and permanently disabled. A dwelling unit jointly owned or leased by a husband and wife may qualify, if either spouse is over sixty-five (65) years of age or is permanent- ly and totally disabled. (c) Reductions provided for in this section shall be granted only if the following conditions are met: (1) That the total combined income, during the immediately preceding calendar year, from all sources, of the owner or lessee of the dwelling and his relatives living therein did not exceed the amounts provided in Section 21 73 of the Roanoke County Code. (2) That the owner and his spouse or lessee and spouse did not have a total combined net worth, including all equitable interests, exceeding the amount provided in Section 21 73 of the Roanoke County Code as of December 31 of the immediately preceding calendar year. The amount of net worth specified herein shall not include the value of the sole dwelling house and up to one acre of land. (3) That the amount of water used is less than 9,000 gallons per quarter. 2 (d) That any person granted an exemption from the tax on real property as provided for under Division 3 of Article III of Chapter 21 of the Roanoke County Code shall be granted a reduction in water rates. That any other person seeking a reduction of water rates under this section shall utilize the forms and follow the proce- dures under Division 3 of Article III of Chapter 21 of the Roanoke County Code, except as modified by the finance director. (e) The amount of the reduction provided for in this section is that portion of the water rate which represents an increase in rates since the fiscal year ending June 30, 1991, or the year the person reached age sixty-five (65) years or became disabled, whichever is later. (f) Changes in respect to income, financial worth, ownership or leasing of property or other factors occurring during the year for which an affidavit or application is filed pursuant to this section, and having the effect of exceeding or violating the limitations and conditions provided in this section, shall nullify any reduction for the then current year and the year immediately following. (g) A change in water usage exceeding the limitations of this section shall nullify any reduction for the then current quarterly billing cycle. (h) That the utility enterprise fund shall be reimbursed annually by the general fund for the amount of rate reduction in excess of $30,000.00 under the authority of this ordinance. 3 (i) An eligible person (utility customer) applying for a reduction on or before December 1, 1991, shall utilize the rate in effect June 30, 1991; for applications received after December 1, 1991, the rate utilized shall be the rate in effect at the time of application. 2. That this ordinance shall be effective with billings mailed on or after September 1, 1991. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt 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 Circuit Court Elizabeth W. Stokes, Clerk Family Court Services Joseph M. Clark, II, Chief Judge Peggy H. Gray, Clerk Intake Counsellor General District Court John L. Apostolou, Judge Theresa A. Childress, Clerk Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Magistrates Sherri Krantz/Betty Perry Main Library John H. Cease, Police Chief Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, S.W., Rke 24016 Roanoke County Code Book Michael F. Kavanaugh, Sheriff John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator 4 Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance O. Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Kenneth L. Hogan, Chief Animal Control Officer Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue Clifford D. Craig, Director, Utility John D. Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment 5 • i k ./ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991 ORDINANCE 82791-13 AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 21-52, APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT; FEES, OF DIVISION 2. USE VALUE ASSESSMENT OF CERTAIN REAL ESTATE, OF CHAPTER 21, TAXATION, OF THE ROANORE COUNTY CODE. WHEREAS, § 58.1-3231 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, authorizes counties to adopt ordinances to provide for the use value assessment and taxation of real estate which provided the legal basis for County Ordinances 84-191 and 32487-18 establishing a procedure for such use valve assessment and taxation of certain qualifying real estate within the County of Roanoke; and WHEREAS, § 58.1-3234 of the 1950 Code of Virginia further authorizes the governing body of any county to provide for an application fee and a revalidation fee every six years for the processing and approval of such applications for use value assessment and taxation of real estate; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 101089-4 deleted the former Division relative to the use value assessment of certain real estate and enacted a new Division 2 which provides for a set basic application and revalidation fee without regard to the acreage of any parcel for which application is made; and WHEREAS, the previous policy of the County had been to charge a fee based upon acreage in addition to a flat fee for any application or revalidation request. WHEREAS, legal notice of a public hearing concerning the adoption of an ordinance increasing these fees was provided as required by law, and the first reading on this ordinance was held on August 13, 1991; and the second reading and public hearing was held on August 27, 1991. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows. 1. That Sec. 21-52. Applications for special assessment; fees of Division 2. Use value assessment of certain real estate of (f) An application may be filed within no more than sixty (60) days after the filing deadline specified in subparagraph (b) above upon payment of a late filing fee in the sum of f ~~ dollars :~~~<~s.> ~}• (i) Such property owner must revalidate annually with the September 1, 1991, for original application and revalidations pertaining to the 1992 tax year and all subsequent years. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the ordinance at $30.00 per application and 30 cents per acre using application for fee, based on 1958 Attorney General opinion, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw NAYS: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: .~D . Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Circuit Court Elizabeth W. Stokes, Clerk Family Court Services Joseph M. Clark, II, Chief Judge Peggy H. Gray, Clerk Intake Counsellor General District Court John L. Apostolou, Judge Theresa A. Childress, Clerk Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Magistrates Sherri Krantz/Betty Perry Main Library John H. Cease, Police Chief Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, S.W., Rke 24016 Roanoke County Code Book Michael F. Kavanaugh, Sheriff John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance O. Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Kenneth L. Hogan, Chief Animal Control Officer Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer R. Wayne Compton, Treasurer John D. Willey, Director, Real Estates Assessment ., ACTION N0. ITEM NUMBER f ~""' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 27, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance amending and reenacting Section 21-52 of Chapter 21, Taxation of the Roanoke County Code to increase use value assessment revalidation fees. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: Land Use revalidation fees have not been altered since 1975 while the cost of program administration has grown. The proposed fee increase is to provide for the costs of processing and approval of such applications to be partially recovered. Land use revalidations occur annually and permit qualifying properties to continue in the program, but fees may only be charged every six years. 1975 fees were $10.00 per parcel plus $.10 per acre enrolled in the program. Proposed fees are $20.00 per parcel plus $.20 per eligible acre. Over 1,500 parcels are currently enrolled in the land use program and current direct cost of administration, including benefits, is estimated to be in excess of $15,000 per year. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACT: Alternative 1) - increase the proposed rate schedule - impact is variable by the amount of adjustment, but the fiscal impact is estimated to be between $35,000 - $40,000 at the proposed rate. Alternative 2) - leave present schedule in place - impact is estimated to be a loss of $17,500 - $20,000 cost not recovered. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends adoption of alternative 1 and the attached ordinance increasing the fees for land use revalidation every sixth year. Respectfully ubmitted, uC.J Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Motion by: Approved by, ~%~~ ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers ~~e` AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 21- 52, APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT; FEES, OF DIVISION 2. USE VALUE ASSESSMENT OF CERTAIN REAL ESTATE, OF CHAPTER 21, TAXATION, OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE. WHEREAS, § 58.1-3231 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, authorizes counties to adopt ordinances to provide for the use value assessment and taxation of real estate which provided the legal basis for County Ordinances 84-191 and 32487-18 establishing a procedure for such use valve assessment and taxation of certain qualifying real estate within the County of Roanoke; and WHEREAS, § 58.1-3234 of the 1950 Code of Virginia further authorizes the governing body of any county to provide for an application fee and a revalidation fee every six years for the processing and approval of such applications for use value assessment and taxation of real estate; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 101089-4 deleted the former Division relative to the use value assessment of certain real estate and enacted a new Division 2 which provides for a set basic application and revalidation fee without regard to the acreage of any parcel for which application is made; and WHEREAS, the previous policy of the County had been to charge a fee based upon acreage in addition to a flat fee for any application or revalidation request. WHEREAS, legal notice of a public hearing concerning the adoption of an ordinance increasing these fees was provided as required by law, and the first reading on this ordinance was held ~9~-~ on August 13, 1991; and the second reading and public hearing was held on August 27, 1991. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows. 1. That Sec. 21-52. Applications for special assessment; fees of Division 2. Use value assessment of certain real estate of Article III. Real estate taxes of Chapter 21, Taxation be amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 21-52. Applications for special assessment; fees. of ~"~~ ~ tern dollars `'(€~#li~ ~)'r (e) An application ,,,,:::::::' ~~ ~~ shall accompany each application. ~.... (f ) An application may be f filed within no more than sixty (60) days after the filing deadline specified in subparagraph (b) above upon payment of a late filing fee in the sum of E~ ~y dollars ~~E~~3~ {~}• (i) Such property owner must revalidate annually with the real estate assessor any application previously approved. A <::~', revalidation fee of ; ~t d <~:..~'~:.::::>::.;:.;;::.;;;;;;;:;.:;:.: >~ shall accompany each application for revalidation every sixth year. Late filing of a revalidation form must be made on or before the effective date of the assessment and accompanied with a dollars ~~~>~'° late f it ing fee of ~~` ~;;::,,:.:::;:.;:,..::;:::; ~:: ~~' 2. That the effective date of this ordinance shall be ~~~- y September 1, 1991, for original application and revalidations pertaining to the 1992 tax year and all subsequent years. c:\wp51\agenda\eode\ueevalue.ocd 4 J 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 AGENDA ITEM NO. ~~ f ~ APPEARANCE REQUEST FOR -PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCE 1% CITIZENS COMMENTS SUBJECT: 1~15~ ~~~-.C ~'J~~'is.m~yL~`- 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. WIN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WII,L 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. ^ Speakers 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 awl ADDRESS L ~~ 3 n,-*~ rr~ s^7'~7~_~7~ ~~ (~ k v'/.~. PHONE 77'~ ~7.-~ ~ ~ ~~~~' 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 f r .J' ._a~ Ana AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991 ORDINANCE 82791-14 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES (TAX MAP NO. 55.09-1-15, 18, 19 AND A PORTION OF TAX MAP NO. 55.13-1-2.1) OF A 49.3 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ROUTE 11/460 WEST OF SALEM AND APPROVING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT WITH CONDITIONS FOR THE OPERATION OF A RETIREMENT COMMUNITY ON THE 49.3 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE (TAX MAP NOS. 55.09-1-15, 17, 16, 16.1, 18, 19, and 55.13- 1-2.1) LOCATED IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF M- 1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF B-2 UPON THE APPLICATION OF RICHFIELD RETIREMENT COMMUNITY WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 23, 1991, and the second reading and public hearing was held August 27, 1991; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on August 6, 1991; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 12 acres, as described herein, and located on the north side of U.S. Route 11/460, west of Salem, (Tax Map Numbers 55.09-1-15, 18, 19 and a portion of Tax Map No. 55.13-1-2.1) in the Catawba Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of M-1, Light Industrial District, to the zoning classification of B-2, General Commerical District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of 1 Richfield Retirement Community. 3. That said real estate to be rezoned is more fully described as follows: SEE ATTACHMENT "A" 4. That a Special Exception is hereby granted to operate a retirement community on the property identified in paragraph 5 below in accordance with Section 21-24-2 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 6 of the Roanoke County Code. 5. That said real estate for which the Special Exception permit is granted is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at the intersection of the westerly right-of-way of Alleghany Drive (Va. Sec. Route 642) and the northerly right- of-way of West Main Street (U.S. Route 11/460); thence leaving Alleghany Drive and with the northerly right-of-way of West Main Street, the following courses: S. 63° 36' 00" W. 686.70 feet to a point; thence S. 32° 28' 07" E. 2.43 feet to a point; thence S. 63° 36' 00" W. 406.69 feet to a point, said oint being in the easterly property line of the Commonwealth of Virginia (State Police Headquarters); thence leaving the right-of-way of West Main Street and with the Commonwealth of Virginia N. 26° 21' 10" W. 319.98 feet to a point; thence with the property of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the property of the County of Roanoke (Glenvar Library), S. 60° 24' 10" W. approximately 650 feet; thence continuing with the property of the County of Roanoke, N. 15° 12' 30" W. approximately 250 feet to a point in a branch; thence continuing with the property of the County of Roanoke and running along the centerline of the branch for approximately 170 feet to a point in the branch, said point being the southeasterly corner of Lot 2, Shamrock Industrial Park (Plat Book 12, page 94); thence with said Lot 2 and along the center of said branch, N. 4 ° 46' 49" E. 33 .98 feet to a point; thence continuing with said branch, N. 38° 02' 29" E. 96.29 feet to a point; thence continuing with said branch, N. 58° 00' 24" E. 17.74 feet to a point; thence leaving the centerline of the branch and with the southerly line of the old County cemetery, N. 62° 32' S0" E. approximately 289 feet; thence continuing with the property of said cemetery, N. 28° 50' 50" W. 196.28 feet to a point; thence continuing with said cemetery S. 53° 52' 00" W. approximately 234 feet to a point in the centerline of a branch; thence leaving the cemetery and with the centerline of said branch and with the easterly line of Lot 1 and Lot 2, 2 Shamrock Industrial Park, the following: N. 7° 48' 28" W. 14.66 feet to a point; thence N. 50° 16' 03" E. 34.41 feet to a point; thence N. 67° 03' S6" E. 28.14 feet to a point; thence N. 16° 09' 48" E. 28.72 feet to a point; thence N. 43° 03' 49" E. 44.75 feet to a point; thence N. 29 ° 17' 19" E. 57.01 feet to a point; thence N. 20° 42' S9" E. 41.99 feet to a point; thence N. 24° 21' 17" W. 100.56 feet to a point; thence N. 24° 21' 17" W. 19.86 feet to a point; thence N. 2° 05' 14" E. 58.40 feet to a point; thence N. 45° 35' 11" W. 110.22 feet to a point; thence N. 28° 34' 19" W. 101.68 feet to a point; thence N. 36° 57' 12" W. 76.82 feet to a point; thence N. 44° 48' S5" W. 68.73 feet to the point of intersection of the centerline of the branch and the southerly right-of-way of Interstate 81; thence leaving said branch and with the southerly right-of-way of Interstate 81, N. 55° 29' 00" E. 151.50 feet to a point; thence continuing with said right-of-way N. 68° 12' 40" E. 229.52 feet to a point; thence continuing with said right-of-way N. 68° 12' 40" E. 229.52 feet to a point; thence continuing with said right-of-way N. 22° 06' 29" W. 51.77 feet to a point; thence continuing with said right-of-way N. 22 ° 06' 29" W. 51.77 feet to a point; thence continuing with said right-of-way N. 55° 29' 00" E. 752.00 feet to a point, said point being the intersection of the southerly right-of-way of Interstate 81 and the westerly right-of-way of Alleghany Drive (Va. Sec. Route 642); thence with the westerly right-of-way of Alleghany Drive, S. 34° 24' 26" E. 80.17 feet to a point; thence S. 36° 12' 03" E. 164.92 feet to a point; thence S. 42° 57' 30" E. 154.43 feet to a point; thence S. 36° 37' 43" E. 194.93 feet to a point; thence S. 26° 59' 00" E. 43.64 feet to a point; thence N. 63° 01' 00" E. 12.50 feet to a point; thence S. 26° 59' 00" E. 1126.63 feet to the Point of Beginning and containing approximately 49.3 acres and comprising all of the property owned by Richfield Retirement Community and encompassed by Tax Map Nos. 55.09-1-15; 55.09-1-16; 55.09-1-16.1; 55.09-1-17; 55.09-1- 18; 55.09-1-18.1; 55.09-1-19; and 55.13-1-2.1. 5. That the owner has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions on the special exception which the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts: a. The facilities in the retirement community shall be designed so as not to exceed 1,200 residents in the development. b. Development of the site shall be limited to full service retirement community to include any or all of the following services: a nursing center which provides skilled and intermediate care designed to meet all living as well as medical needs; a convalescent living center providing residents with 24-hour sheltered care; a variety of housing units which provide a full range of retirement housing options; all ancillary structures and utilities required to operate and maintain the facility; accessory commercial uses designed primarily to serve the community residents. These conditions would apply to the entire 49.3-acre site and would supersede conditions attached to earlier Special Exception Permits involving only a portion of the site. 6. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt ordinance and approve special exception permit, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor McGraw A COPY TESTE: YY~a~~ ~' Mary H.~Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 4 cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & lnspecLivnS Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul Mahoney, County Attorney 5 Syi-s ATTACHMENT "A" Description of approximately 2.6 acre tract to be Rezoned from M-1 to 8-2 owned by Richfield Retirement Community situate on the north side of U.S. Route 11 Roanoke County Virginia 23 August 1991 BEGINNING at the intersection of the westerly right-of-way of Alleghany Drive (Ya. Sec. Rte. 642) and the southerly right-of-way of: Interstate Route 81, said point being the northeasterly corner of_.Tax No. 55.09-1-15; thence leaving the right-of-way of Interstate 81. and with the westerly right-of-way of Alleghany Drive the following: S.` 34° 24' 26" E., 80.17 feet to a point; thence S. 36° 12' 03" E.~ 164.92 feet to a point; thence S. 42° 57' 30" E., 154.43 feet ~to a point; thence S. 36° 37'' 43" E., 3.13 feet to a point; thence leaving the right-of-way of Alleghany Drive and with the property of Richfield Retirement Community, Tax No. 55.09-1-16.1, N. 54. 55' 00" W., 25.75 feet to a point; thence N. 69° 51' 00" W., 212.00 feet to a point; thence S. 71° 06' 00" W., 53.00 feet to a point; thence 3. 68• 25' 00" Y7., 451.40 feet to a point; thence S. 68° 12' 40" W.. 172.26 feet to a point in the southerly right-of-way of Interstate.. 8ls thence leaving Tax No. 55.09-1-16 and with the southerly right~og.-ray, of Interstate 81 the following: N. 22° 06' 29" W., 51.77 fett~to..a point; thence. N. 55° 29' 00" E., 752.00 feet to the- Point= of~ BEGINNING and containing approximately 2r6 acres and befRg al].....of=.the property to be Rezoned f rom M-1 to H-2 and known se- T~z~ No-«- r ATTACHMENT "A" Description of approximately 2.6 acre tract to be Rezoned from M-1 to B-2 owned by Richfield Retirement Community situate on the north side of U.S. Route 11 Roanoke County, Yirginia 23 August 1991 Page 2 ~qi-5 55.09-1-15 and being as shown on a Composite Map from Records for Richfield Retirement Community prepared by T. P. Parker & Son dated June 5, 1991 and revised August 23, 1991. Note: This legal description was prepared from records and does not reflect a current boundary survey of the subject property. ... ,. - gq--5 ATTACHMENT "A" Description of a 10.7 acre tract to be Rezoned from M-1 to B-2 owned by Richfield Retirement Community situate on the north side of U.s. Route 11 Roanoke County, Virginia 23 August 1991 STARTING at a point in the northerly right-of-way of U.S. Route 11 and being the common corner between the property of .. the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia State Police Eleadquartera) and the property of Richfield Retirement Community, Tax No. 55.13-1-2.1: thence leaving the tight-of-way of U.S. Route 11 and with the property of the Commonwealth of Virginia. N. 26. 21' 10" W., 200.00 feet to the Point of BSGINNING~ said point being on the westerly line of Tax No. 55.13-1-2.1 add being the northerly limit of the existing boundary of B-1 Zoning along the noctherly~side of U.S. Route ll as shown on the County of Roanoke Zoning Mapa: thence with the property of the Commonwealth of Virginia, N. 26° 21' 10" W., 119.98 feet~to a point; thence leaving Tax No. 55.13-1-2.1 and with the common line between Tax No. 55.09-1-19 and the property of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the property of the County of Roanoke (Glenvat Library), S. 60. 24' 10" W., approximately 650 feet: thence continuing with_the property of the County of Roanoke, N. 15. 12' 30" W., approximately 250 feet to a point in a branch: thence continuing with the property of the County of Roanoke and running along the eenteeline~of.:the branch for approximately 170 feet to a point in the brancbr said ATTACHMENT "A" ~-~ Description of a 10.7 acre tract to be Rezoned from M-1 to B-2 owned by Richfield Retirement Community situate on the north side of U.S. Route 11 Roanoke County, Virginia 23 August 1991 Page 2 point being the southeasterly corner of Lot 2, Shamrock Industrial Park (Plat Book 12, Page 94); thence with said dot 2 and along the center of said branch, N. 4° 46' 49" E., 33.98 feet to a point: thence continuing with said branch, N. 38° 02' 29" E., 96.29 feet to a point: thence continuing with said branch, N. 58. 00' 24" E., 17.74 feet to a point: thence leaving the centerline of the branch and with the southerly line of the Old County Cemetery. N. 62° 32' S0" E., approximately 289 feet to a point; thence leaving Tax No. 55.09-1-19 and with the westerly line of Tax No. 55.09-1-18 and the property line of said cemetery, N. 28° 50' S0" W., 196.28 feet to a point; thence leaving said cemetery and with the line of Tax No. 55.09-1-18 the following: N. 80° 26'~ 50" E., 169.35 feet to a point; thence N. 73° 41' 40" E., 285.37 feet to a point in the westerly line of Knollridge Road; thence with the westerly line of Knollridge Road on a curve to the right whose radius is 188.62 feet, whose length is 50.28 feet and whose chord is N. 6° 58' 13" X., 50.13 feet to a point; thence continuing along the westerly line of Knollridge Road and Tax No. 55.09-1-18 and 55.09-1-19 with a curve to tha lest--whose radius is 230.00 feet, whose length is 132.47 feet and whose chord is N. 15. 50' W., 130.65 feet to a point; thence continuing with the westerly side of Knollridge Road, S.'32°'20' 00" E:, 325:00 feet to a point; thence continuing with the westerly line of Knollridge. Road M ATTACHMENT "A" ~'91-~ Description of a 10.7 acre tract A to be Rezoned from M-1 to B-2 owned by Richfield Retirement Community situate on the north side of U.S. Route 11 Roanoke County, Virginia 23 August 1991. Page 3 and the easterly line of Tax No. 55.09-1-19 and Tax No. 55.13-1-2.1 with a curve to the left whose radius is 185.00 feet. whose length ie 123.96 feet and whose chord is N. 51° 31' 45" W.• 121.65 feat to a point: thence continuing with the weetecly aide of Rnollridge Road and Tax No. 55.13-1-2.1, S. 32° 20' 00" E.• 12.49 feet to a point. said point being the northerly limits_ of the existing B-1 Zoning along U.S. Route 11; thence leaving Rnollridge Road and with a line through Tax No. 55.13-1-2.1 and being along the limits of the B-1 Zoning along U.S. Route 11, S. 63• 36' 00" W. 385.73 feet to the Point of• BEGINNING and containing approximately 10.7 acres and befog all of Tax No. 55.09-1'-18, Tax No. 55.09-1-19 and the northerly portion of Tax No. 55.13-1-2.1, which is not coveted under the existing B-1 Zoning, and1 being as shown on a Composite M•ap frota Records for Richfield Retirement Community prepared by T. P. Parker i Son dated June 5, 1991 and revised August 23, 1991. Note: This legal description was prepared from records and does not reflect a current boundary survey of the subject property. 89/- 5 PETITIONER: RICHFIELD RETIREMENT COMMUNITY CASE NUMBER: 18-8/91 Planning Commission Hearing Date: August 6, 1991 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: August 27, 1991 A. REQUEST Petition of Richfield Retirement Community to rezone approximately 12 acres from M-1 to B-2, located north side of Route 11/460, west of Salem, Catawba Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS None. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Ms. Chappelle stated that Richfield provides a very valuable service to the community. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS None. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Ms. Chappelle moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Chappelle, Witt, Gordon, Massey, Robinson NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: X Concept Plan X Staff Report X Vicinity Map _ Other Terrance Roanoke Commission 4~ ~! PETITIONER: RICHFIELD RETIREMENT COMMUNITY CASE NUMBER: 18-8/91 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: August 27, 1991 A. REQUEST Petition of Richfield Retirement Community to obtain a Special Exception Permit to operate a retirement community on approximately 49.3 acres, located north side of Route 11/460, west of Salem, Catawba Magisterial District. B. STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS (1) The facilities in the retirement community shall be designed so as not to exceed 1,200 residents in the development. (2) Development of the site shall be limited to a full service retirement community to include any or all of the following services: a nursing center which provides skilled and intermediate care designed to meet all living as well as medical needs; a convalescent living center providing residents with 24-hour sheltered care; a variety of housing units which provide a full range of retirement housing options; all ancillary structures and utilities required to operate and maintain the facility; accessory commercial uses designed primarily to serve the community residents. These conditions, if imposed by the Board, would apply to the entire site and would supersede conditions attached to earlier Special Exception Permits involving only a portion of the site. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Commission concurred with staffs recommendation to the Board that the above conditions be imposed on the Special Exception permit. Terrance H ngton, cretary Roanoke ounty Pl 'ng Commission BTAFF REPORT ~~~'°~ CASE NUMBER: 18-8/91 REVIEWED HTs LYNN DO9TIHS pgTITIONER: RICHFIELD RETIREMENT COMM. DATE: AUGQST 6, 1991 Petition of Richfield Retirement. Community to rezone approximately 12 acres from M-1 to B-2 and obtain a Special Use Permit in order to operate a retirement community on approximately 49.3 acres, located north side of Route 11/460 west of Salem, Catawba Magisterial District. NA?QRS OF REQUEST a. Conditional request to rezone remainder of property to B-2 and to obtain special use permit to bring existing and planned future buildings into compliance with the zoning. Petitioner envisions facilities for up to 1,000 residents, including the following: a nursing center providing skilled and intermediate care designed to meet all living as well as medical needs, with the exception of surgery; a convalescent living center providing residents with 24- hour sheltered care; a variety of housing units, including semi- detached private dwellings and apartments/condominiums; all ancillary structures and utilities required to operate and maintain the facility; and those commercial occupancies as required to provide supplemental support and services to the residents. b. Special Use Permit is also intended to allow additions or expansions to existing facilities, as well as miscellaneous utility and service buildings. c. Concept plan and vicinity map describe project further. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS a. B-2 zoning permits a variety of uses, including general retail, hospitals, clinics, hospital special care, and nursing homes. Homes for adults are permitted provided a Special Exception Permit is obtained. b. Commercial entrance permit will be required from VDOT if any new entrances/exits are proposed. c. Site plan review will be required to ensure compliance with County regulations. SITS CHARACTERISTICS TOPOGRAPHY: Site is fairly level. GROUND COVER: Cleared areas not currently in use. Landscaped lawns and two lakes throughout developed portion. Existing buildings and pavement. ARBA CHARACTERISTICS FIITURE GROWTH PRIORITY: Situated within the Glenvar Community Planning Area. Designated as an area in which growth should be stimulated, currently receiving urban services. GENERAL AREA is developed with industrial, commercial, residential, and institutional uses, interstate and primary highways. 2 2 3 Rating; C ~ `~LL ~ ~~ d, Use a scalete each facto of 1 throu r according to t 2 1 = positive im gh 5. he impact of t 4 = disruptive mPaot ? 5 n seVl9ible impact, 3 _ he proposed action. TIN $ ere impact, and N/AmannOg~able impact ~ applicable. --~-~$ 2 COMPRS iT8 MPA I- I--L this ~NBIVE py~: area within a Cores des preahe Develo m development of nsive high densit ntensive mixed- p ent and generalY multi-famil use urban develo C-1 encoura elaced densit retail Y residential, office anPdment (including Vethe Y residentialand Policy C_6 institutional ~ suitabilit desi encourages the PetitionerY of multi-f mil gnated core development uses, about 20 envisions Y housin areas and °f high •3 units 1000 reside g to Coexist with recognizes the as compatible per acre. The rats on aPproxim commercial uses. be served in the core Plan suggests atelY 49.3 is Served by an arterial or esignation. 12-24+ units acres, higher Policy suggests Per acre by US Route 11/460. grade street, core Polic Petit' areas Y C-5 encoura ioner~s site edge of core ges Separation intensive areas for the screeni residential.developfient purpose of reducin d bufferin locates Petitioner~spa~icularl g nuisa g along the semi-detached Y single races with less of the site. Privateon~ Plan and existimily detach These dwellings alon rag site single family dwellin °uld provide g the layout intensive gs across Separation and northeast corner uses of the site. Alle bufferin gheny Drive from the for the B~OQNDING ~D. higher south by op rat fell/460,e on the de red on the Wort (Medeco and on the west bid, and single Tamil by Route 642 lie-81• °n the Ingersoll Rand. Y the Glenvar Libra Y residential across gheny Drive ~'~ VA State Police Allegheny), ~IG88ORING AREA . Medeco land = Develo e ~ and uses. See also ~~Surrou with industrial SITE LAYOpT; nding Land.„ and general the co Petitioner has COmn°ercial irate mmunity indicatin S~mitted a rmediate care g the generalized waste private fac They, a areas to be developed northeastdwellings, partments r Plan for homes, area of the site private dwell~ndominiums~asemi~ercial, The designated closest to r1gS are located detached the existing pharmac commercial adjacent/nearb at the areas for y• Petitions rea remai Y Single Tamil locations ands different r has 11S °n the fronta footprints, types of housinglcrat general buildind ARC$ITgCTpRg her than n Existin Specific proposed buildings, g buildin gs• Renderings not submitted BCREEpING STD ~NDSCAPING. for Concept plan indicates will remain as landsc Per Screening and green aped fronta Buffering Ordina area . ge area ad ' race. Jacent to Rt 11/460 ~., t ~~~ 3 1 AMENITIES: Existing site layout and proposed concept plan include landscaped park areas, two lakes, and gardening area. Parking will be determined on a building-by-building basis as each is built. 1 NATURAL AMENITIES: See "Amenities." TRAFFIC 3 STREET CAPACITIES: 1990 ADT for Rt. 11/460 between west of county line of Salem and Rt. 647 (Dow Hollow Road) was 8,060. 1986 ADT for Allegheny Drive between Rt. 11/460 and Rt. 1109 (Givens Road) was 1607. 1988 Accident data reports two accidents at the intersection of Rt 11/460 and Allegheny Drive -- inattention was cause of both. 3 CIRCULATION: Engineering Department is concerned about the traffic impact on Allegheny Drive, but VDOT would prefer to see traffic routed to Allegheny Drive rather than onto Rt 11/460. IITILITIES 2 WATER: Adequate source and distribution. 2 SEWER: Adequate treatment and transmission. DRAINAGE 2 BASIN: Big Bear Rock Branch 3 FLOODPLAIN: Area has not been studied by flood insurance program. PUBLIC SERVICES 2 FIRE PROTECTION: Within established service standard 2 RESCUE: Within established service standard 2 PARRS AND RECREATION: N/A SCHOOLS: TA% BASE LAND AND IMPROVEMENT VALUE: $8-10,000,000.00 TABABLE GROSS SALES/YEAR: TOTAL EMPLOYEES: TOTAL REVENUE TO THE COUNTY/YEAR: Richfield currently makes a payment in lieu of taxes as a result of an out of court settlement. ENVIRONMENT 2 AIR: 2 WATER: 2 SOILS: 2 NOISE: 2 SIGNAGE: Per sign ordinance. ~y~-s This areacies CS1gnCt5a andCCr6~encouragingrveryehightdensitysresidential core poli , development in core areas. BTAFF BVALIIPiTION gTTtSNGTHB: (1) Request is consistent with Comprehensive Plan. RgA~B88S8: (1) Maximum number of units or residents has not been proffered. CONDITIONS SO(3aH8TED: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors impose certain conditions as part of the Special Use Permit. Since the rezoning request is only for a 12 acre portion of the 49.3 acre site, proffers would not extend to the entire site. (1) The facilities in the retirement co~nunity shall be designed so as not to exceed 1,200 residents in the development. (2) Development of the site shall be limited to a full service retirement community to include any or all of the following services: a. A nursing center which provides skilled and intermediate care designed to meet all living as well as medical needs. b. A convalescent living center providing residents with 24- hour sheltered care. c. A variety of housing units which provide a full range of retirement housing options. d. All ancillary structures and utilities required to operate and maintain the facility. e. Accessory commercial uses designed primarily to serve the community residents. It approved, the conditions attached to this request will supersede conditions attached to earlier requests involving only a portion of the property. ~ 9/-5 W ~ ~ 1 ~ M W Z x N - Q d a N ~ .. .~ N W N V 1 6 m 1A W Z k N - ~ d °Ga N Q W i- V NZ ac W 1- z W V C7 z N Q ZI Q a W ~- N! J J Q W O t/~ W N~ a pW~ ~ ~ Z as a O W W W ~"' ~ ~ Q W ~- ~ to O O tai. N W i a ~- ~ ~, Z ~ X Z p ac a N a v l~ W r ~ 1 Q m }~ ~~ N W ~ x z W Z o~c d ~- N Q .. (./ f ~"' 1 ,` N C'3 Z ~ J W "~ = 3 Q ~ ~ H I ~ ~ ~ a W ~ i- ~ Q J W LL w ~ W ¢w FW- ~ ~ v Z U NZ Q W F- z W U t7 z aC W V D ~" ~" J J J V N LL ZI a a W F- N J J Q W O . N N ~ I- ~ Z Z ~ O Q Z a U W } !- 1- p U Lal. ~ W W ~ ~- Q ? U N W Z Q ~ Z Z W Q ~ ~ ~ J Q U OC W O U ..--~ ,., ~~~~ NORTH _~1 sTU,~- -~ cExTEn IURSIN~ CENTER ~f U.S. 11 / 460 'OVERALL SITE PLAN COMMUNITY SERVICES ~ •-n ncVC-AD//C1UT !Richfield Retirement Center ;June 21, 1991 ~~ g9/-S NORTB RE \~ // ~ °• RE RE ~/ • ~ ~ • • a /// ~ ~..~. , ~wr awr / `~ / M ~~ 1 ~ /~ ` ~~ f RE / 'M1 / ~ ~tG. RE ,~„ / ~ ~ / .. \ \~ ~ ~` ~' / ~~~ ~ .- ~ .~ ~ RE ~ ~' / ~ ``~ O B2XC ~ 1 / f~ / B~ ~~` t /. ~ / / ~ r ,~ ~ rw .. ~ ~ \ t ~ ,` ~ MSC "" r ---' rr r \ M1 \, ~ \ O a wwr M7 B~ ... - -- -- ~\ ~ ,~ ~ y \ / F .t ~ a a // ~. ~ ' ~ - / /~„_ w- _w~ ,.t / r+ r ~~' / / ~ Wxt / / ~~~ ' / t / ~ i '•t / M1 ~~. . ~~ w r ~/ •~ a / ~ ~ ~P.ichfield Retirement !'ommunity CpMMUN]TYSBRVICBS 55.9-1-15,13,19 0/0 55.13-1-2.1 A1yDDByBLOPMBIVT ~~-1 to ~-2 4!/S°CCI ^-L ~xc~~TTn~i `~"~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES (TAX MAP NO. 55.09- 1-15, 18, 19 AND A PORTION OF TAX MAP NO. 55.13-1-2.1) OF A 49.3 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ROUTE 11/460 WEST OF SALEM AND APPROVING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT WITH CONDITIONS FOR THE OPERATION OF A RETIREMENT COMMUNITY ON THE 49.3 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE (TAX MAP NOS. 55.09-1-15, 17, 16, 16.1, 18, 19, and 55.13-1- 2.1) LOCATED IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF M-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF B-2 UPON THE APPLICATION OF RICHFIELD RETIREMENT COMMUNITY WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 23, 1991, and the second reading and public hearing was held August 27, 1991; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on August 6, 1991; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 12 acres, as described herein, and located on the north side of U.S. Route 11/460, west of Salem, (Tax Map Numbers 55.09-1-15, 18, 19 and a portion of Tax Map No. 55.13-1-2.1) in the Catawba Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of M-1, Light Industrial District, to the zoning classification of B-2, General Commerical District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of 1 g9,_ s Richfield Retirement Community. 3. That said real estate to be rezoned is more fully described as follows: SEE ATTACHMENT "A" 4. That a Special Exception is hereby granted to operate a retirement community on the property identified in paragraph 5 below in accordance with Section 21-24-2 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 6 of the Roanoke County Code. 5. That said real estate for which the Special Exception permit is granted is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at the intersection of the westerly right-of-way of Alleghany Drive (Va. Sec. Route 642) and the northerly right- of-way of West Main Street (U.S. Route 11/460) ; thence leaving Alleghany Drive and with the northerly right-of-way of West Main Street, the following courses: S. 63° 36' 00" W. 686.70 feet to a point; thence S. 32° 28' 07" E. 2.43 feet to a point; thence S. 63° 36' 00" W. 406.69 feet to a point, said oint being in the easterly property line of the Commonwealth of Virginia (State Police Headquarters); thence leaving the right-of-way of West Main Street and with the Commonwealth of Virginia N. 26° 21' 10" W. 319.98 feet to a point; thence with the property of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the property of the County of Roanoke (Glenvar Library), S. 60° 24' 10" W. approximately 650 feet; thence continuing with the property of the County of Roanoke, N. 15° 12' 30" W. approximately 250 feet to a point in a branch; thence continuing with the property of the County of Roanoke and running along the centerline of the branch for approximately 170 feet to a point in the branch, said point being the southeasterly ca re e94of Lot 2, Shamrock Industrial Park (Plat Book 12, p g )% thence with said Lot 2 and along the center of said branch, N. 4° 46' 49" E. 33.98 feet to a point; thence continuing with said branch, N. 38° 02' 29" E. 96.29 feet to a point; thence continuing with said branch, N. 58° 00' 24" E. 17.74 feet to a point; thence leaving the centerline of the branch and with the southerly line of the old County cemetery, N. 62° 32' S0" E. approximately 289 feet; thence continuing with the property of said cemetery, N. 28° 50' S0" W. 196.28 feet to a point; thence continuing with said cemetery S. 53° 52' 00" W. approximately 234 feet to a point in the centerline of a branch; thence leaving the cemetery and with the centerline of said branch and with the easterly line of Lot 1 and Lot 2, 2 Shamrock Industrial Park, the following: N. 7° 48' 28" W. 14.66 feet to a point; thence N. 50° 16' 03" E. 34.41 feet to a point; thence N. 67° 03' 56" E. 28.14 feet to a point; thence N. 16° 09' 48" E. 28.72 feet to a point; thence N. 43° 03' 49" E. 44.75 feet to a point; thence N. 29° 17' 19" E. 57.01 feet to a point; thence N. 20° 42' 59" E. 41.99 feet to a point; thence N. 24 ° 21' 17" W. 100.56 feet to a point; thence N. 24° 21' 17" W. 19.86 feet to a point; thence N. 2° 05' 14" E. 58.40 feet to a point; thence N. 45 ° 35' 11" W. 110.22 feet to a point; thence N. 28° 34' 19" W. 101.68 feet to a point; thence N. 36° 57' 12" W. 76.82 feet to a point; thence N. 44° 48' S5" W. 68.73 feet to the point of intersection of the centerline of the branch and the southerly right-of-way of Interstate 81; thence leaving said branch and with the southerly right-of-way of Interstate 81, N. 55° 29' 00" E. 151.50 feet to a point; thence continuing with said right-of-way N. 68° 12' 40" E. 229.52 feet to a point; thence continuing with said right-of-way N. 68° 12' 40" E. 229.52 feet to a point; thence continuing with said right-of-way N. 22° 06' 29" W. 51.77 feet to a point; thence continuing with said right-of-way N. 22 ° 06' 29" W. 51.77 feet to a point; thence continuing with said right-of-way N. 55° 29' 00" E. 752.00 feet to a point, said point being the intersection of the southerly right-of-way of Interstate 81 and the westerly right-of-way of Alleghany Drive (Va. Sec. Route 642); thence with the westerly right-of-way of Alleghany Drive, S. 34° 24' 26" E. 80.17 feet to a point; thence S. 36° 12' 03" E. 164.92 feet to a point; thence S. 42° 57' 30" E. 154.43 feet to a point; thence S. 36° 37' 43" E. 194.93 feet to a point; thence S. 26° 59' 00" E. 43.64 feet to a point; thence N. 63° 01' 00" E. 12.50 feet to a point; thence 5. 26° 59' 00" E. 1126.63 feet to the Point of Beginning and containing approximately 49.3 acres and comprising all of the property owned by Richfield Retirement Community and encompassed by Tax Map Nos. 55.09-1-15; 55.09-1-16; 55.09-1-16.1; 55.09-1-17; 55.09-1-18; 55.09-1-18.1; 55.09-1-19; and 55.13-1-2.1. 5. That the owner has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions on the special exemption which the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts: a. The facilities in the retirement community shall be designed so as not to exceed 1,200 residents in the development. b. Development of the site shall be limited to full service retirement community to include any or all of the 3 / ~~"° following services: a nursing center which provides skilled and intermediate care designed to meet all living as well as medical needs; a convalescent living center providing residents with 24-hour sheltered care; a variety of housing units which provide a full range of retirement housing options; all ancillary structures and utilities required to operate and maintain the facility; accessory commercial uses designed primarily to serve the community residents. These conditions would apply to the entire 49.3-acre site and would supersede conditions attached to earlier Special Exception Permits involving only a portion of the site. 6. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. c:\wp5]\agenda\wning\richfiel 4 g~i-s ATTACHMENT "A" Description of approximately 2.6 acre tract to be Rezoned from M-1 to B-2 owned by Richfield Retirement Community situate on the north side of U.S. Route 11 Roanoke County, Virginia 23 August 1991 BEGINNING at the intersection of the westerly right-of-way of Alleghany Drive (Ya. Sec. Rte. 642) and the southerly right-of-way of intecstate Route S1, said point being the northeasterly corner of Tax No. 55.09-1-15; thence leaving the right-of-way of Interstate 81 and with the westerly right-of-way of Alleghany Drive the following: S. 34° 24' 26" E., 80.17 feet to a point; thence S. 36° 12' 03" E., 164.92 feet to a point; thence S. 42° 57' 30" E., 154.43 feet to a point; thence S. 36° 37 '' 43" E., 3.13 feet to a point; thence leaving the right-of-way of Alleghany Drive and with the property of Richfield Retirement Community, Tax No. 55.09-1-16.1, N. 54° 55' 00" W., 25.75 feet to a point; thence N. 69° 51' 00" W., 212.00 feet to a point; thence~S. 71° 06' 00" W., 53.00 feet to a point; thence S. 68° 25' 00" W., 451.40 feet to a point; thence S. 68° 12' 40" W., 172.26 feet to a point in the southerly right-of-way of Interstate 81; thence leaving Tax No. 55.09-1-16 and with the southerly right-of-way of Interstate 81 the following: N. 22° 06' 29" W., 51.77 feet to a point; thence N. 55° 29' 00" E., 752.00 feet to the Point of BEGINNING and containing approximately 2.;6 acres and being all of the property to be Rezoned from M-1 to B-2 and known ae Tax No. ' ATTACHMENT "A" F Description of approximately 2.6 acre tract to be Rezoned from M-1 to B-2 owned by Richfield Retirement Community situate on the north side of U.S. Route 11 Roanoke County, Virginia 23 August 1991 Page 2 55.09-1-15 and being as shown on a Composite Map~from Records for Richfield Retirement Community prepared by T. P. Parker ~ Son dated June 5, 1991 and revised August 23, 1991. Note: This legal description was prepared from records and does not reflect a current boundary survey of the subject property. ~ ql -S ATTACHMENT ~~A~~ Description of a 10.7 acre tract to be Rezoned from M-1 to B-2 owned by Richfield Retirement Community situate on the north side of U.S. Route 11 Roanoke County, Virginia 23 August 1991 STARTING at a point in the northerly right-of-way of U.S. Route 11 and being the common corner between the property of the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia State Police Headquarters) and the property of Richfield Retirement Community, Tax No. 55.13-1-2.I; thence leaving the right-of-way of U.S. Route 11 and with the property of the Commonwealth of Virginia, N. 26° 21' 10" W., 200.00 feet to the Point of BEGINNING, said point being on the westerly line of Tax No. 55.13-1-2.1 add being the northerly limit of the existing boundary of B-1 Zoning along the northerly side of U.S. Route 11 as shown on the County of Roanoke Zoning Maps; thence with the property of the Commonwealth of Virginia, N. 26° 21' 10" W., 119.98 feet to a point; thence leaving Tax No. 55.13-1-2.1 and with the common line between Tax No. 55.09-1-19 and the property of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the property of the County of Roanoke (Glenvat Library), S. 60° 24' 10" W., approximately 650 feet; thence continuing with the property of the County of Roanoke, N. 15° 12' 30" W., approximately 250 feet to a point in a branch; thence continuing with the property of the County of Roanoke and running along the centerline of the branch for approximately 170 feet to a point in the branch, said ' ATTACHMENT "A" ~ ~ Description of a 10.7 acre tract to be Rezoned from M-1 to B-2 owned by Richfield Retirement Community situate on the north side of U.S. Route 11 Roanoke County- Virginia 23 August 1991. Page 3 13-1-2.1 and the easterly line of Tax No. 55.09-1-19 and Tax No. 55. with a curve to the left whose radius is 185.00 feet, whose length is 123.96 feet and whose chord is N. 51° 31' 45" W•, 121.65 feet to a oint: thence continuing with the westerly side of Knollridge Road p oint, and Tax No. 55.13-1-2.1, S. 32° 20' 00" E., 12.49 feet to a p oint being the northerl lia~ita of the existing B-1 Zoning said p y along U.S. Route 11: thence leaving Knollridge Road and with a line through Tax No. 55.13-1-2.1 and being along the limits of the B 1 Zoning along U.S. Route 11, S. 63° 36' 00" W• 385.73 feet to the Point of• BEGINNING and containing approximately 10.7 acres and being all of Tax No. 55.09-1'-18, Tax No. 55.09-1-19 and the northerly portion of Tax No. 55.13-1-2.1, which is not coveted under the as shown on a Composite Map fcoo existing B-1 Zoning, and being Records for Richfield Retirement Community prepared by T. P. Parker ~ Son dated June 5, 1991 and revised August 23, 1991. Note: This legal description was prepared from records and does not reflect a current boundary survey of the subject property- _: V J"T "1 V TPP&S ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS ~', P. Parker, P.E., L.S. (1919-1989) John T. Parker, P.E.. L.S. Frank B. Caldwell, III, P.E., L.S. 23 August 1991 Description of approximately 2.6 acre tract to be Rezoned from M-1 to B-2 owned by Richfield Retirement Community situate on the north side of U.S. Route 11 Roanoke County Virginia BEGINNING at the intersection of the westerly right-of-way of Alleghany Drive (Va. Sec. Rte. 642) and the southerly right-of-way of Intecstate Route 81, said point being the northeasterly cornet of Tax No. 55.09-1-15; thence leaving the right-of-way of Interstate 81 and with the westerly right-of-way of Alleghany Drive the following: S. 34° 24' 26" E.- 80.17 feet to a point; thence S. 36° 12' 03" E•, 164.92 feet to a point: thence S. 42° 57' 30" E., 154.43 feet to a point; thence S. 36° 37' 43" E•, 3.13 feet to a point; thence leaving the right-of-way of Alleghany Drive and with the property of Richfield Retirement Community- Tax No• 55.09-1-16.1, N. 54° 55' 00" W., 25.75 feet to a point; thence N. 69° 51' 00" W., 212.00 feet to a point: thence~S. 71° 06' 00" W•~ 53.00 feet to a point; thence S• 68° 25' 00" W., 451.40 feet to a point; thence S. 68° 12' 40" W.. 172.26 feet to a point in the southerly right-of-way of Interstate 81; thence leaving Tax No• 55.09-1-16 and with the southerly right-of-way of Interstate 81 the following: N. 22° 06' 29" W•. 51.77 feet to a point; thence N. 55° 29' 00" E., 752.00 feet to the Point of BEGINNING and containing approximately 2..6 acres and being all of the property to be Rezoned from M-1 to B-2 and known as Tax No. - T. P. Parker & Son - 816 Boulevard • Post Office Box 39 • Salem, Virginia 24153 • Telephone 703-387-1 l53 • FAX 703-389-5767 i Description of approximately 2.6 acre tract to be Rezoned from M-1 to B-2 owned by Richfield Retirement Community situate on the north side of U.S. Route 11 Roanoke County, Yfrginia 23 August 1991 Page 2 55.09-1-15 and being as shown on a Composite Map from Records for Richfield Retirement Community prepared by T. P. Parker & Son dated June 5, 1991 and revised August 23, 1991. Note: This legal description was prepared from records and does not reflect a current boundary survey of the subject property. TPP&S ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS T. P. Parka, P.E., L.S. (1919-1959) John T. Parker, P.E., L.S. frank B. Caldwell,11I, P.E.,1.-S. 23 August 1991 Description of a 10.7 acre tract to be Rezoned from M-1 to B-2 owned by Richfield Retirement Community situate on the north side of U.S. Route 11 Roanoke County. Yirginia STARTING at a point in the northerly right-of-way of U.S. Route 11 and being the common corner between the property of the Commonwealth of Yirginia (Yirginia State Police Headquarters) and the property of Richfield Retirement Community, Tax No. 55.13-1-2.1: thence leaving the right-of-way of U.S. Route 11 and with the property of the Commonwealth of Yirginia, N. 26° 21' 10" W., 200.00 feet to the Point of BEGINNING, said point being on the westerly line of Tax No. 55.13-1-2.1 add being the northerly limit of the existing boundary of B-1 zoning along the northerly side of U.S• Route 11 as shown on the County of Roanoke Zoning Maps: thence with the property of the Commonwealth of Virginia, N. 26° 21' 10" W., 119.98 feet to a point; thence leaving Tax No. 55.13-1-2.1 and with the common line between Tax No. 55.09-1-19 and the property of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the property of the County of Roanoke (Glenvar Library) S. 60° 24' 10" W., approximately 650 feet; thence continuing with the property of the County of Roanoke, N. 15° 12' 30" W., approximately 250 feet to a point in a branch; thence continuing with the property of the County of Roanoke and running along the centerline of the branch for approximately 170 feet to a point in the branch, said - T. P. Parker & Son - gig Boulevard • .Post Office Box 39 • Salem, Virginia 24153 • Telephone 703-387-1153 • FAX 703.389-5767 1. .. _ .~ Description of a 10.7 acre tract to be Rezoned from M-1 to B-2 owned by Richfield Retirement Community situate on the north side of U.S. Route 11 Roanoke County, Virginia 23 August 1991 Page 2 oint being the southeasterly corner of Lot 2, Shamrock Industrial P Park (Plat Book 12, Page 94): thence with said Lot 2 and along the oint: center of said branch, N. 4° 46' 49" E., 33.68 feet to a p thence continuing with said branch, N. 38° 02' 23' E., 96.29 feet to 24" E., 17.74 a point; thence continuing with said branch, N. 58° 00' feet to a point: thence leaving the centerline of the branch and11with the southerly line of the Old County Cemetery, N. 62° 32' S0 E., a roxirnately 289 feet to a point; thence leaving Tax No. 55.09-1-19 pp ro erty and with the westerly line of Tax No. 55.09-1-18 and the p p oint; line of said cemetery. N. 28° 50' 50" W., 196.28 feet to a p 09-1-18 thence leaving said cemetery and with the line of Tax No. 55. oint; thence N. the following: N. 80° 26'~ 50" E., 169.35 feet to a p 73° 41' 40" E., 285.37 feet to a point in the westerly line of Knollridge Road; thence with the westerly line of Knollridge Road on a curve to the right whose radius is 188.62 feet, whose length is 50.28 feet and whose chord is N. 6° 58' 13" K., 50.13 feet to a oint; thence continuing along the westerly line of Knollridge Road P and Tax No. 55.09-1-18 and 55.09-1-19 with a curve to the left whose adius is 230.00 feet, whose length is 132.47 feet and whose chord is r with the N, 15° 50' W., 130.65 feet to a point: thence continuing westerly side of Knollridge Road, S.~32°'20' 00" E:, 325:00 feet to a 'nt• thence continuing with the westerly line of Knollridge Road poi , _ ..._.. _._.. _-.....nom. ..,~.:..,...•~.,.,,. . Y Description of a 10.7 acre tract to be Rezoned from M-1 to B-2 owned by Richfield Retirement Community situate on the north side of U.S. Route 11 Roanoke County, Virginia 23 August 1991, Page 3 and the easterly line of Tax No. 55.09-1-19 and Tax No. 55.13-1-2.1 with a curve to the left whose radius is 185.00 feet, whose length is 123.96 feet and whose chord is N. 51° 31' 45" W., 121.65 feet to a point; thence continuing with the westerly side of Knollridge Road and Tax No. 55.13-1-2.1, S. 32° 20' 00" E., 12.49 feet to a point. said point being the northerly limits of the existing B-1 Zoning along U.S. Route 11; thence leaving Knollridge Road and with a line through Tax No. 55.13-1-2.1 and being along the limits of the B-1 Zoning along U.S. Route 11, S. 63° 36' 00" W. 385.73 feet to the Point of~ BEGINNING and containing approximately 10.7 acres and being all of Tax No. 55.09-1'-18, Tax No. 55.09-1-19 and the northerly portion of Tax No. 55.13-1-2.1, which is not covered under the existing B-1 Zoning, and being as shown on a Composite Map from Records for Richfield Retirement Community prepared by T. P. Parker ~ Son dated June 5, 1991 and revised August 23, 1991. Note: This legal description was prepared from records and does not reflect a current boundary survey of the subject property. ~~` ~ . , PETITIONER: 301 GILMER ASSOCIATES CASE NUMBER: 19-8/91 Planning Commission Hearing Date: August 6, 1991 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: August 27, 1991 A. REQUEST Petition of 301 Gilmer Associates to rezone .71 acre from R-1 to M-1 to allow aself-storage facility, located at 6426 Merriman Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Crawford Godsey, representing a neighboring church, expressed concern with added traffic on Merriman Road and asked if traffic could be routed onto Commonwealth Drive. Petitioners replied that VDOT has recommended access onto Merriman Road. Mr. Godsey stated that he has no objection to the proposed use of the property. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION In answer to questions from the Commission, the following responses were given: Mr. Beard said that outside storage is allowed in an M-1 district; however, an automobile graveyard would require an M-2 zoning and a special use permit. The petitioners said that the roll up doors at the rear of the building will be 2 to 3 feet off the ground; no dock is planned as they do not anticipate any tractor trailers or large trucks; a second entrance off of Merriman Road is not envisioned; VDOT approval would be required for a second entrance. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS 1) Pine trees, S feet tall, will be planted every 10 feet at the rear and school side yard of the property. 2) The exterior of the existing building will remain brick. There will be approximately five garage (roll-up) doors at the rear of the building. Door colors will be of earth tone color. 3) The facility will not be utilized for the following: automobile painting, upholstering, repairing, rebuilding, reconditioning, body and fender work, truck repairing or overhauling; private off-street parking lots; and indoor flea markets; no outside boat or recreational vehicle storage. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Witt moved to recommend approval of the petition with proffered conditions. The motion carved with the following roll call vote: AYES: Chappelle, Witt, Gordon, Massey, Robinson NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: X Concept Plan X Vicinity Map X Staff Report X Proffers Terrance H 'ngton, ecretary Roanoke ounty Planning Commission } 301 GILMER ASSOCIATES Post Office Box 1138 Roanoke, Virginia 24006 (703) 982-1210 (703) 982-2829 PROFFERED CONDITIONS Petitioner: 301 Gilmer Associates Property: 6426 Merriman Road, S.W. ~- 1. Pine Trees, 5 feet tall, will be planted every ten feet at the rear and (school) side yard of the property. 2. The exterior of the existing building will remain brick. There will be approximately five garage (roll-up) doors at the rear of the building. Door colors will be of "earth tone" color. 3. The facility will not be utilized for the following: automobile painting, upholstering, repairing, rebuilding, reconditioning, body and fender work, truck repairing or overhauling; private off-street parking lots; and indoor flea markets; no outside boat or recreational vehicle storage. 30 ~ ff9-r ~hc ~C /tSSoc~~tS s : c~~ y ~~ ~! r"~A 8?AFF REPORT CAGE NIIMBER: 19-8/91 REVIEWED BY: TI?I BEARD PETITIONERS 301 GILMER ASSOCIATES DATE: AOGIIST 6, 1991 Petition of 301 Gilmer Associates to rezone .71 acre from R-1 to M-1 to allow a self-storage facility, located at 6426 Merriman Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. NATIIRB OF REOIIES? a. Conditional request to improve an existing 4,000 sq.ft. building in order to construct five to nine self storage mini-warehouse units within the current building footprint. b. Concept plan and zoning vicinity map describe project further. APPLICABLE REGOLA?IONS a. The M-1 , Light Industrial District permits a variety of light industrial uses. The owner has proffered to plant five-foot tall pine trees every 10 feet at the rear (east) and side (north) property lines. Petitioner has also proffered to retain the brick exterior of the building and to apply earth tone colors to the rear roll-up garage doors. b. Site plan review will be required to ensure compliance with County regulations. c. VDOT commercial entrance permit required. BITE CHARACTERISTICS TOPOGRAPHY: Predominantly flat; very gentle rise toward center of site. GROIIND COVER: Grass; existing, centrally-located brick building. AREA CHARACTERISTICS FIITIIRE GROWTH PRIORITY: Situated within the Cave Spring Community Planning Area. This area has been designated for stable growth. Urban services are available. GENERAL AREA is developed with residential, institutional, and industrial uses. LAND OSE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Rating: Rate each factor according to the impact of the proposed action. Use a scale of 1 through 5. 1 = positive impact, 2 = negligible impact, 3 = manageable impact, 4 = disruptive impact, 5 = severe impact, and N/A = not applicable. 2 RATING ACTOR COMMENTS i`" LAND OSE COMPATIBILITY ~, COMPREHEN8IV8 PLAN: 1985 Comprehensive Development Plan has placed this area within a Core land use category. Warehousing land uses are normally discouraged with low compatibility in Core designated areas. The proposal is not consistent with policy C-2 (provide arterial or higher grade street service to each Core area). Proposed use is consistent with policies C-4 (coordinate site design creating a minimum of public street/vehicular access points and building size, shape, height, and materials to complement adjacent buildings) and C-5 (provide separation, screening and buffering along Core boundaries to reduce nuisances with less intensive development. Self-storage or mini-warehouse uses are not mentioned under Core land use applications of mixed use development referred to by policy C-1. 3 SIIRROIINDING LAND: Adjacent uses include institutional; heavily traveled major collector highway and an industrial access road; immediately south and east of the two roads, single family residential, office commercial, and general industrial uses occur. 2 NEIGHBORING AREA: Single family residential; service commercial; parks and open space; woodland. 3 SITE LAYOIIT: Sharply constrained by small size of property and existing building (approximately 4,000 sq.ft.). Single access encircling building will begin and end with Merriman Road at northwest corner of site. Customers will park outside rear units to load/unload vehicles. These storage units will average approximately 600 sq.ft. each. Customers renting units without individual access will park north of loop road and use front door. These storage units are estimated at a maximum of 100 sq.ft. each. ~ ARCHITBCTIIRE: This building has been recognized by Frazier Associates as an historic resource. Its exact significance has not yet been determined. Existing brick exterior to remain by proffer. A maximum of five roll-up garage doors at the rear of the building will bear earth tone paint to match brick effect. 3 SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING: The petitioner has proffered to plant five foot tall pine trees, ten feet apart along the property~s north and east boundaries (also see suggested proffers). Per the ordinance land use intensity matrix, no plantings, screen, or buffer yard are required. Petitioner intends to plant evergreen shrubs between the building front and Merriman Road. Existing hardwood south of proposed entrance will remain. 4 AMENITIES: Concept plan indicates no parking spaces. Ordinance requires one space due to building size and one per 1-1/2 employees (no employees anticipated). Ample space remains north of access road to construct parking stalls for 4-5 customers who will not have drive-up access to individual storage units (see site layout) . ~~`~~3 Those customers who will have drive-up access to rear units must park parallel to the building to provide emergency equipment adequate room to pass. Fire & Rescue Dept. will require the installation of fire lane signs to ensure a minimum width travel aisle. 3 NATIIRAL AMENITIES: Site rests within a naturally low basin and includes well-defined drainage ditches on south and west borders. See Drainage Floodplain. TRAFFIC ~ STREET CAPACITIES: 1986 ADT: 2,841 (.9 mi. segment of Merriman Road from Commonwealth Drive to Crystal Creek Road. 1986 ADT: 242 (.3 mi. segment of Commonwealth Drive from Merriman Road to Corrugated Container site. 1987: 2 accidents on Merriman Road between Starkey Road and approximate intersection with Meadowlark Road; none on Commonwealth Drive. Proposed use is expected to generate fewer than 20 vehicle trip-ends per day. 3 CIRCULATION: Proposed access from Merriman Road; no connection to Commonwealth Drive is planned. Unless traffic generated exceeds expectations, no need for "one-way" flow is anticipated. Customers using rear storage units will be parking in a portion of the travel aisle. See site layout and amenities for further discussion. UTILITIES 2 WATER: Existing well; 12" Starkey water line expected to be in place along Merriman Road by mid-1992. 2 SEWER: Existing 8" line available along Merriman Road. DRAINAGE ~ BASIN: Back Creek sub-basin. No stormwater detention required if interior loop access road is graveled rather than paved. 4 FLOODPLAIN: Engineering staff reports that building was surrounded by floodwaters in 1985 and that a detailed study of the 100 year flood level is needed. Engineering also recommends floodproofing foundation and basement areas (possibly raising or sealing ground-level walls). PUBLIC SERVICES 3 FIRE PROTECTION: Currently lacks hydrant service (see utilities, water). Tanker truck service available (marginal 4-5 minute estimated response time). 3 RESCUE: Marginal with regard to established service standard (4- 5 minute estimated response time). PARRS AND RECREATION: SCHOOLS: w~~fa TA]C BASE LAND AND IMPROVEMENT VALUB: $150,000 TAXABLE GROSS SALES/YEAR: Unknown TOTAL EMPLOYEES: 0 TOTAL REVENIIE TO THE COUNTY/YEAR: real estate only Approximately $1,695 improved ENVIRONMENT 2 AIR: ~ WATER: 2 SOILS: 2 NOISE: 3 SIGNAGE: Not specified. Industrial district regulations call for 1-1/2 sq.ft. of signage per frontage foot and not more than one freestanding sign on site. PLAN CONSISTENCY This area is designated as Core. Mini-warehouse/self storage is consistent with policy C-4 due to minimum number of access points onto Merriman Road and the complementary aspects of the existing building and with C-5 when separation, screening and buffering are provided to reduce nuisances with less intensive development. The proposal is inconsistent with policy C-2 due to the lack of an arterial highway or higher grade street network. STAFF EVALUATION STRENGTHS: 1) Consistency with Core Policies C-4 and C-5. 2} Infill nature of proposal. 3) Petitioner has proffered to plant evergreen trees along north and east borders of subject site. 4) Petitioner has proffered to retain building's existing exterior and to apply earth tone colors to garage doors at the rear. WEAKNESSES: 1) Proposal is inconsistent with Core Policy C-2. 2) Subject site has suffered from flooding in the past. 3) Wide variety of possible future M-1 district uses poses the threat of incompatibility with nearby land uses. 4) Proposal would convert a building recognized as an historic resource into a storage operation. PROFFERS SUGGESTED: 1) On-site uses will be limited to the following: wholesale business, storage warehouses; public utilities; silk screen material processing and similar operations. 2) Ko outside boat or recreational vehicle storage shall be permitted. :~ N ~~ia ~1 i ~G.~t ~ IJ fi• i~'c -• _ X5.71' ~~ ~w ~~~ ~~ ~ Q ~ v ~ ~~ ~/ ~Q ~ ^ .' ' ~ °' ~ ~ ~ ~y~ . ~~ . ~ s D. y ~. l~ arE 'A' ~~~' ~~ I~ i ~~ ~N ~'~~ ~, ~~ x.71 ~. ~ ,~ ,.' ~i~~`~ ~ ~ .~ t I~ ~• ~-: S~r.o~ i .. .. ... 3 _ ... ~~~~ ~, ~~ •w •~ I.P. .~ . ;, ~ ;~, .~ ,,, 'w ~ . a ~~ ... ~ . . V y ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~~ r~; ~ '' _ n ~~ ~pp~J ~~~ • F v ~~,•• ~~~ 1 ~, • ~, , .t ~,.~„ ~ ~ n,.„ ~~ . ~ ~ ~ '~b I ~~ ,~° tr + ' -'' ~i ~ •~~ M . ,,, ~ - d!`~. ,~ ~ K ~ ~~ ~~-- ••~STARijE,l'~ _ / P. ~ -~'' ~ ~ /.~ ~~ .. / ''' T ~iQe Ao~ ~oo• ~~ ..~J~~+•M..w .. ..... ~r .,~ . ~ ,. •t •. ~R~ksy t?i-,vw` 6w//,,;~ rut SNaINi olvlsla =1:..~,../~ :... .. j ~ _~ t >.. .. . 30/ 6ilwSR. e4ss•~:~Y,.,s a no-ENTt (o.~l K.1 ca ~ ::~.:, T1f COIHTr SCHOOL 81?ARO '`` ~-. w~ ~ ~- ~' ROAr:O(t COWTr. YIkGI4IA ~"~.u,.•~`. i1TWTED N 1ME E1iT il~E vA. sEt. IOYTE Dili •• ., tArE iM1111 NliIiTERIEI iliT11CT i0~~ COIMTT. IINiINIi M.. •. •~~.~• ~.w. .~ .....__ '~~i f ~. NORTB COMMUNITY SERVICES 3~1 Gilr~er^P,ssociates g~/-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A .71 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 6426 MERRIMAN ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 97.06-1-6) IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF M-1 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF 301 GILMER ASSOCIATES WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 23, 1991, and the second reading and public hearing was held August 27, 1991; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on August 6, 1991; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing .71 acre, as described herein, and located at 6426 Merriman Road, (Tax Map Number 97.06-1-6) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R-1, Single Family Residential District, to the zoning classification of M-1, Light Industrial District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of 301 Gilmer Assocites. 3. That the owner has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts: a. Pine trees (5 feet tall) will be planted every 10 feet at the rear and school side yard of ~~r. c~ the property. b. The exterior of the existing building will remain brick. There will be approximately five garage (roll up) doors at the rear of the building. Door colors will be of earth tone color. c. The facility will not be utilized for the following: automobile painting, upholstering, repairing, rebuilding, reconditioning, body and fender work, truck repairing, or overhauling; private off-street parking lots; and indoor flea markets; no outside boat or recretional vehicle storage. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at corner 1, an iron pin set, being in the easterly right-of-way of Virginia Secondary Route 613 (Merriman Road) and also being the southwesterly corner of Corrugated Containter Corp.; thence, leaving Corrugated Container Corp. and with Virginia Secondary Route 613 with a curve to the left which curve is defined by a delta angle of 1° 52' 45", a radius of 7927.87 feet, an arc of 260.02 feet, a chord of 260.00 feet and chord bearing N. 24° 46' 08" W. to corner 2, an iron pin set; thence, leaving Virginia Secondary Route 613 and with the following two new division lines through property of the County School Board of Roanoke County, Virginia, N. 64° 30' 00" E. 125.71 feet to corner 3, an iron pin set; thence, S. 27° 08' 30" E. 218.17 feet to corner 4, an iron pin set, said corner being on the westerly property line of Corrugated Containter Corp. S. 47° 17' W. 141.62 feet to corner 1, the place of BEGINNING, and containing 0.71 acres as more particularly shown on plat prepred by Buford T. Lumsden & Associates, P.C., Engineers-Surveyors, Roanoke, Virginia, dated 16 June 1983. k~~~ 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. c:\wp51\agenda\zoning\gilmer OF ROANp~~ ~ ,A Z A ~..: a ~$ E50 8$ SFSQVICENTENNIP~' A Beautiful Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE August 28, 1991 Mr. B. W. Sumpter District Administrator Virginia Department of Transportation P. O. Box 3071 Salem, VA 24153 Dear Mr. Sumpter: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STEVEN A. MCGRAW, CHAIRMAN CATAWEIA MAGISTERAL DLSTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS. VICE-CHAIRMAN VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HIL1S MAGISTERALL. DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 82791-4 requesting that the Virginia Department of Transportation expedite improvements to Alternate Route 220. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, August 27, 1991. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~• Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Attachment cc: Steve Musselwhite, Transportation Board Fred C. Altizer, Jr., Resident Engineer /,~~~~~ ~~ A ~ iL'AMENIG~T' 1979 1989 P.O. BOX 29800 ROANdKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004 pF ~oAND~F ~ •~ ~ Z A ~>'.. ; a2 1838 '~ 988 CSQUICENTENN~p -1 BeautifulBe~inning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE Reverend Samuel W. Crews Coopers Cove Baptist Church 5521 Lamplighter Drive, N.W. Roanoke, VA 24019 Dear Reverend Crews: August 28, 1991 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STEVEN A. MCGRAW, CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS. VICE-CHAIRMAN VINTON MAGISTERALL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, 1 would like to take this opportunity to let you know of our appreciation for your attending the meeting on Tuesday, August 27, 1991, to offer the invocation. We feel it is most important to ask God's blessing on these meetings so that all is done according fo His will and for the good of all citizens. Thank you for sharing your Time wifh us. Sincerely, Steven A. McGraw, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ~' ALLALL-AM ~~~n~ ~~ ~ .~~~n~~~ 1979 1989 P.O. BOX 29800 ROANL7KE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004 OF ¢pAND~F ti ~~ z ~ ~ ~ J + ? b ~s~a~ $$ S~S~(IICENTENN~P~ A Beauti~ul Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE August 28, 1991 Mrs. Sherry Penney Northside Athletic Booster Club 6618 Meadewood Drive Roanoke, VA 24019 Dear Ms. Penney: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STEVEN A. MCGRAW. CHAIRMAN csrnwEU- M.~GISrE:RI,LL [NSTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS. VICE-CHAIRMAN VINTON MAGISTERUIL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINCISOR HILLS MAGISZERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERUIL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS CAVE SPRING MAGISTERI/1L DISTRICT At their regular meeting on Tuesday, August 27, 1991, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the request of the Northside Athletic Booster Club for a 50/50 raffle permit. The raffles will be conducted on the following dates: September 6, September 27, October 11, and October 18, 1991 The fee has been paid and your receipt is enclosed. You may consider this letter to be your permit, and I suggest it be displayed on the premises where the raffle is to be conducted. The State Code provides that raffle and bingo permits be issued on a calendar-year basis and such permits issued will expire on December 31, 1991. This permit, however, is only valid on the date specified in your application. PLEASE READ YOUR APPLICATION CAREFULLY. YOU HAVE AGREED TO COMPLY WITH STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND REVOKING OF YOUR PERMIT. YOU MUST FILE A FINANCIAL REPORT BY NOVEMBER 1 OF EACH CALENDAR YEAR. PLEASE SUBMIT A NEW APPLICATION AT LEAST 60 DAYS PRIOR TO DATE OR DATES YOUR ORGANIZATION PLANS TO HOLD BINGO OR RAFFLES. PERMITS EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 31 OF EACH CALENDAR YEAR. If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 772-2003. Sincerely, .7N G~.,c.cc,~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisor bjh Enclosures cc: Commissioner of the Revenue Commonwealth Attorney County Treasurer ~~~~~ ~~ ~' AIL~AMERICA CITY 7,~~r~rt~r~ ' I I' ~ ~ 1979 1989 P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANbKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 • (703) 772-2004 ~F ROANp~-~ ~ •~ ~ Z A ~ O J `.L 18 Aso 88 SFSQVICENTENN~P~ ,1 Beauti~ulBeginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE Mrs. Sherie Oakey 5260 Crossbow Circle, 9E Roanoke, VA 24014 Dear Mrs. Oakey: August 28, 1991 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STEVEN A. MCGRAW, CHAIRMAN CATAWEIA MAGISTERALL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS. VICE-CHAIRMAN VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS CAVE SPRING MAGISTERAL DISTRICT At their regular meeting on Tuesday, August 27, 1991, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the request of the Penn Forest Elementary School PTA for a raffle permit and one-day Bingo Game. The raffle and Bingo game will be conducted on October 12, 1991. The fee has been paid and your receipt is enclosed. You may consider this letter to be your permit, and I be displayed on the premises where the raffle is to be The State Code provides that raffle and bingo permits b a calendar-year basis and such permits issued will December 31, 1991. This permit, however, is only valid specified in your application. suggest it conducted. e issued on expire on on the date PLEASE READ YOUR APPLICATION CAREFULLY. YOU HAVE AGREED TO COMPLY WITH STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND REVOKING OF YOUR PERMIT. YOU MUST FILE A FINANCIAL REPORT BY NOVEMBER 1 OF EACH CALENDAR YEAR. PLEASE SUBMIT A NEW APPLICATION AT LEAST 60 DAYS PRIOR TO DATE OR DATES YOUR ORGANIZATION PLANS TO HOLD BINGO OR RAFFLES. PERMITS EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 31 OF EACH CALENDAR YEAR, If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 772-2003. Sincerely, .''d . Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisor bjh Enclosures cc: Commissioner of the Revenue Commonwealth Attorney County Treasurer ~~~~~ ~~ ~ All-AMERICA CITY ,.~~r~Ytu.~~ ' 1 I' I 1979 1989 P.O. BOX 29800 ROANbKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 • (703) 772-2004 O~ ROANp~.~ ~ ,A L 2 ~ 7 ~ J .' 2 'a 18 150, 88 SFSQVICENTENN~P~ 1 Benutiju/Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE Mr. Vince Reynolds 4429 Toddsbury Drive Vinton, VA 24179 Dear Mr. Reynolds: August 28, 1991 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STEVEN A. MCGRAW. CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL D4STRN:T HARRY C. NICKENS. VICE-CHAIRMAN VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLWS MAGISTERAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT The Board of Supervisors have asked me to express on their behalf their sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Clean Valley Council. Citizens so responsive to the needs of their community and willing to give of themselves and their time are indeed all too scarce. This is to advise that at their meeting held on Tuesday, August 27, 1991, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint you as a member of the Clean Valley Council for a two-year term. Your term will expire on June 30, 1993. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed to any body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act; your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflict 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. Sincerely, Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors MHA/bjh Enclosures cc: Ms. Ellen Aiken, Executive Director Clean Valley Council P. O. Box 3320 Roanoke Valley, VA 24015-1320 ~~~~~ ~~ /~' All-AMERICA CITY ~ ~ 1979 1989 P.O. BOX 29800 ROANbKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 • <703) 772-2004 ~F ROANp~-~ ~ ,A J - ,,~2 18 ,150 188 ~SQUICENTENN~p -l BeautifulBeginnin~ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE Mr. Charles R. Saul 4602 Hazel Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Mr. Saul: August 28, 1991 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STEVEN A. MCGRAW, CHAIRMAN CATAWEIA MAGLSTERUIL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS. VICE-CHAIRMAN VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS CAVE SPRING MAGISTERAL DISTRICT The Board of Supervisors have asked me to express on their behalf their sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Industrial Development Authority. Citizens so responsive to the needs of their community and willing to give of themselves and their time are indeed all too scarce. This is to advise that at their meeting held on Tuesday, August 27, 1991, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint you as a member of the Industrial Development Authority for a four- year term. Your term will expire on September 26, 1995. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed to any body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act; your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflict of Interest Act. It is necessary that you take an oath of office before the Clerk of the Roanoke County Circuit Court. This oath must be administered rior to your participation on this Committee. Please telephone Mrs. Elizabeth Stokes, Clerk, at 387-6208, as soon as possible and arrange to have the oath administered. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely, `~~~'^ ~, Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors MHA/bj h Enclosures cc: Timothy R. Gubala, Secretary, IDA Mrs. Elizabeth Stokes, Clerk, Roanoke County Circuit Court /,/ I~,' ~~~~ ~~ ~!KA~ ~ ~ i l'AMEflIG~Tj ~~1 ~', ~ 1979 1989 P.O. BOX 29800 ROANbKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004 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 terra of Murry K. White will expire 03/31/91. APRIL TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY 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 COONCIL 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 COIINTY 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 COMMIINITY COLLEGE BOARD Four year terms of Stephen A. Musselwhite and Jean Glontz will expire 06/30/91. JIILY ROANORE VALLEY REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD Four year term of John Hubbard, will expire 07/31/91. AIIGIIST COMMIINITY CORRECTIONS RESOIIRCES 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. INDIISTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY 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 COMMISBION 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 APPOINTMENTS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Five year term of M. E. Maxey, Chairman, Vinton District, expired 06/30/90. BIIILDING CODE BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT3 AND APPEALS Four year term of Wilmore T. Leffell expired 12/12/90. ROANORE PLANNING COMMISSION Four year term of A. Kyle Robinson, Vinton District, expired 12/31/90. APPOINTMENTS/VACANCIES TO BE FILLED FOR 1991 DISTRICT TERM ERPIRES ROANORE COIINTY RESOIIRCE 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 BIIILDING CODE BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT3 AND APPEALS Wilmore T. Leffell 4 yrs 12/12/90 CLEAN VALLEY COIINCIL Vince Reynolds 2 yrs 06/30/91 Richard W. Robers, Advisory 2 yrs 06/30/91 COMMIINITY CORRECTIONS RESOIIRCES BOARD Bernard Hairston 1 yr 08/13/91 Edmund J. Kielty, Alternate 1 yr 08/13/91 COIIRT SERVICE UNIT ADVISORY COIINCIL/YOIITH AND FAMILY SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD (INACTIVE IINTIL FIIRTHER 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 Vinton 4 yrs 12/31/90 REGIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION Richard W. Robers 3 yrs 02/10/91 ROANORE COIINTY SCHOOL BOARD - APPOINTED BY SCHOOL BOARD SELECTION COMMITTEE Frank E. Thomas Barbara Chewning Catawba 4 yrs 06/30/91 Vinton 4 yrs 06/30/91 ROANORE VALLEY REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD John Hubbard 4 yrs 07/31/91 TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY COMMISSION Lt. Art LaPrade, County Police 4 yrs Fred C. Altizer, Jr., VDOT, Cave Spring 4 yrs H. Rodney Smith, Sen.Citizen, Windsor Hills 4 yrs Harry C. Nickens, Board Liaison Vinton 4 yrs VIRGINIA WESTERN COMMIINITY COLLEGE BOARD 04/01/91 04/01/91 04/01/91 04/01/91 Stephen A. Musselwhite 4 yrs 06/30/91 Jean Glontz 4 yrs 06/30/91 3 Glenvar High 1 yr Northside High 1 yr COIIRT-COMMIINITY CORRECTIONS POLICY BOARD Harry C. Nickens 3 yrs 12/31/91 Betty Pullen 3 yrs 12/31/91 FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION Charles Steve Garrett 3 yrs 06/30/91 GRIEVANCE PANEL Kim Owens 2 yrs 09/27/91 Cecil Hill, Alternate 3 yrs 10/12/91 HEALTH DEPARTMENT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Anne Renner 2 yrs 11/26/91 INDIISTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY Charles R. Saul 4 yrs 09/26/91 Bill Triplett 4 yrs 09/26/91 LEAGIIE OF OLDER AMERICANS-ADVISORY COIINCIL Frances R. Holsinger 1 yr 03/31/91 LEAGIIE 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 COMMIINITY SERVICES BOARD Rita J. Gliniecki 3 yrs 12/31/91 Dr. Joseph Duetsch, Member at Large 3 yrs 12/31/91 2 AUGUST 27 REPORT ON CITIZEN SURVEY REPORT FROM SB ON LITERARY LOANS YEAR-END FINANCE REPORT PRIORITIZATION OF SCHOOL AND COUNTY MAINTENANCE PROJECTS RESO - BERN EWART RESO - HOLLINS COLLEGE SESQUI RESO - ROANOKE COLLEGE RECOG - PAUL GRICE REPORT ON BZA REPORT ON LOW FLOW TOILETS WORK SESSION - PRIVATIZATION ACCEPTANCE OF FEDERAL ENTITLEMENT FUNDS FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH RESOURCE AUTHORITY PUB HEARING WATER BONDS FREEZE WATER RATES FREEZE TAX RATES - ELDERLY USE VALUE ASSESSMENT R-1 TO M-1, MERRIMAN ROAD M-1 TO B-2, SPEC EXCEPT. RICHFIELD 1ST READING - FIRE PREVENTION CODE 2ND READING - EASEMENT ACQ - WELLS AUTHORIZE CO. ADM TO GRANT JOINT USE OF EASEMENTS INCREASING MISDEMEANOR FINES ~~ ~ / ~~~ i ice' ,~ a ,~ ,3'. ~ . " ~ra~ .~. P 6 ,,~~~ ~ 'ter`=~ ~;~; _ ,~° r ~J,~~vP $q ,, ~, g '~a»w.w> c ~ ~~ ,~ .. a • ~' ,,~ . ~ ` . ~~ a ~ r ~. ~„ ..;t~ !~~ i f „~„ pnr~ ir~. COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION Date: August 27, 1991 At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, held on the 27th day of August, 1991 the following persons were present or absent as shown: PRESENT: ABSENT: the following Resolution was adopted by a majority of the members On motion of seconded by of the Board of Supervisors by a roll call vote, the ayes and nays being recorded as follows: MEMBER VOTE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA $15,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION WATER SYSTEM BONDS, SERIES 1991 The issuance of the $16,000,000 general obligation bonds of the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") was authorized by resolution of the Board of Supervisors ("Board") adopted on July 22, 1986, and approved at an election held in the County on November 4, 1986 ("Election") for the purpose of paying all or a portion of the cost of acquiring, constructing, developing and equipping a public water supply and related facilities, including a dam and reservoir ("Project") of which $1,000,000 in bonds have been issued. The Board has determined that it is advisable to issue the remaining authorized bonds in an aggregate principal amount of $15,000,000 ("Bonds"). The Circuit Court of the County entered an order on November 19, 1986, authorizing the Board to carry out the wishes of the voters as expressed at the Election. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and to issue and sell the Bonds in the amount of $15,000,000 pursuant to the Election. The issuance and sale of the Bonds is hereby authorized. The proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds shall be used to pay the costs of the Project. In accordance with Sections 15.1-227.2 and 15.1-227.65 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code") the Board elects to issue the Bonds pursuant to the provisions of the Public Finance Act of 1991. 2. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. The full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds as the same become due and payable. The Board shall levy an annual ad valorem tax upon all property in the County, subject to local taxation, sufficient to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due for payment unless other funds are lawfully available and appropriated for the timely payment thereof. 3. Sale of Bonds. The Board authorizes the sale of the Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $15,000,000 to Alex Brown & Sons Incorporated, as underwriter ("Underwriter"). The County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board, or either of them, are authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Bond Purchase Agreement with the Underwriter, providing for the sale and delivery of the Bonds upon terms and conditions to be approved by such officers, provided that (i) the true interest cost of the Bonds shall not exceed 9%; (ii) the final maturity of the Bonds shall not be later than 30 years from their date; and (iii) the sale price of the Bonds to the Underwriter shall not be less than 97$ of the aggregate principal amount thereof. The approval of such officers shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery of the Bond Purchase Agreement. -2- 4. Details of Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution and the Bond Sale Agreement or such other terms as may be set forth by subsequent resolution of the Board. The Bonds shall be issued in fully registered form, shall be dated October 1, 1991, shall mature serially in the years and amounts set forth in the Bond Sale Agreement, shall bear interest payable semi-annually at the rates set forth in the Bond Sale Agreement, shall be in the denominations of $5,000 each or whole multiples thereof and shall be numbered from R-1 upwards consecutively. The Bonds shall be subject to optional redemption on the terms set forth in the Bond Sale Agreement. 5. Form of Bonds. The Bonds shall be in substantially the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, with such appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as are permitted or required by this Resolution or subsequent resolution of the Board of Supervisors. There may be endorsed on the Bonds such legend or text as may be necessary or appropriate to conform to any applicable rules and regulations of any governmental authority or any usage or requirement of law with respect thereto. 6. Appointment of Bond Registrar and Paying Agent. The Treasurer of the County is appointed Bond Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds. -3- The Board may appoint a subsequent registrar and/or one or more paying agents for the Bonds by subsequent resolution and upon giving written notice to the owners of the Bonds specifying the name and location of the principal office of any such registrar or paying agent. 7. Book-Entry-Only Form. The Bonds shall be issued in fully registered form and registered in the name of Cede & Co., a nominee of The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC") as registered owner of the Bonds, as immobilized in the custody of DTC. One fully registered Bond in typewritten or printed form for the principal amount of each maturity shall be registered to Cede & Co. Beneficial owners of Bonds shall not receive physical delivery of the Bonds. Principal, premium, if any, and interest payments on the Bonds shall be made to DTC or its nominee as registered owner of the Bonds on the applicable payment date. Transfer of ownership interest in the Bonds shall be made by DTC and its participants ("Participants"), acting as nominees of the beneficial owners of the Bonds, in accordance with rules specified by DTC and its Participants. The County shall notify DTC of any notice required to be given pursuant to this Resolution or the Bonds not less than fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the date upon which such notice is required to be given. The County shall also comply with the agreements set forth in the County's letter of representations to DTC. -4- Replacement Bonds (the "Replacement Bonds") shall be issued directly to beneficial owners of Bonds rather than to DTC, or its nominee, but only in the event that: (i) DTC determines not to continue to act as securities depository for the Bonds; or (ii) The County has advised DTC of its determination that DTC is incapable of discharging its duties; or (iii) The County has determined that it is in the best interest of the beneficial owners of the Bonds not to continue the book-entry system of transfer. Upon occurrence of the event described in (i) or (ii) above, the County shall attempt to locate another qualified securities depository. If the County fails to locate another qualified securities depository to replace DTC, the County shall execute and deliver Replacement Bonds substantially in the form set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto to the Participants. In the event the Board, in its discretion, makes the determination noted in (ii) or (iii) above and has made provisions to notify the beneficial owners of Bonds by mailing an appropriate notice to DTC, the appropriate officers and agents of the County shall execute and deliver Replacement Bonds substantially in the form set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto to any Participants requesting such Bonds. Principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Replacement Bonds shall be payable as provided in the Bonds and such Replacement Bonds will be transferable in -5- accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 10 and 11 of this Resolution and the Bonds. 8. Execution of Bonds. The Chairman .of the Board and the Clerk of the Board are hereby authorized and directed to execute appropriate negotiable Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $15,000,000, and to affix the seal of the County thereto. The manner of execution and affixation of the seal may be by facsimile, provided, however, that if the signatures of the Chairman and Clerk are both by facsimile, the Bonds shall not be valid until signed at the foot thereof by the manual signature of the Bond Registrar. 9. CUSIP Numbers. The Bonds shall have CUSIP identification numbers printed thereon. No such number shall constitute a part of the contract evidenced by the Bond on which it is imprinted and no liability shall attach to the County, or any of its officers or agents by reason of such numbers or any use made of such numbers, including any use by the County and any officer or agent of the County, by reason of any inaccuracy, error or omission with respect to such numbers. 10. Registration, Transfer and Exchange. Upon surrender for transfer or exchange of any Bond at the principal corporate trust office of the Bond Registrar, the County shall execute and deliver and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate in the name of the transferee or transferees a new Bond or Bonds of any authorized denomination in an aggregate principal amount equal to -6- the Bond surrendered and of the same form and maturity and bearing interest at the same rate as the Bond surrendered, subject in each case to such reasonable regulations as the County and the Bond Registrar may prescribe. All Bonds presented for transfer or exchange shall be accompanied by a written instrument or instruments of transfer or authorization for exchange, in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the County and the Bond Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner or by his or her duly authorized attorney-in-fact or legal representative. No Bond may be registered to bearer. New Bonds delivered upon any transfer or exchange shall be valid obligations of the County, evidencing the same debt as the Bonds surrendered, shall be secured by this Resolution and entitled to all of the security and benefits hereof to the same extent as the Bonds surrendered. 11. Charges for Exchange or Transfer. No charge shall be made for any exchange or transfer of Bonds, but the County may require payment by the registered owner of any Bond of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or other governmental charge which may be imposed with respect to the transfer or exchange of such Bond. 12. Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants. The appropriate officers and agents of the County are authorized and directed to execute a Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of -7- the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to comply with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code"), including the provisions of Section 148 of the Code and applicable regulations relating to "arbitrage bonds." The Board covenants on behalf of the County that the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in the County's Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants, to be delivered simultaneously with the issuance and delivery of the Bonds and that the County shall comply with the other covenants and representations contained therein. 13. Disclosure Documents. The County Administrator, and such officers and agents of the County as he may designate, are hereby authorized and directed to prepare, execute and deliver, as appropriate, a preliminary official statement, an official statement and such other disclosure documents as may be necessary to expedite the sale of the Bonds. The preliminary official statement, the official statement or other disclosure documents shall be published in such publications and distributed in such manner and at such times as the County Administrator, or such officers or agents of the County as he may designate, shall determine. 14. Further Actions. The County Administrator and such officers and agents of the County as he may designate, are authorized and directed to take such further action as they deem -8- necessary regarding the issuance and sale of the Bonds and all actions taken by such officers and agents in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds are hereby ratified and confirmed. 15. Filing of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke, Virginia pursuant to Sections 15.1-227.9 and 15.1-227.42 of the Virginia Code. 16. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true, complete and correct copy of the Resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, held on August 27, 1991. Dated: August _, 1991. Clerk, Board of Supervisors [SEAL] County of Roanoke, Virginia -9- ~~~ COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION Date: August 27, 1991 At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, held on the 27th day of August, 1991 the following persons were present or absent as shown: PRESENT: ABSENT: On motion of seconded by the following Resolution was adopted by a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors by a role ~ote, the ayes and nays being recorded as f~' - ~r ~~ MEME CC ~ ~ L~ ~~- a VOTE M~ ~ / „ S ~ ~ N'~1 ~R rah ~~ s ~~ a ~ Nb~~c ~~ ~,'"s -~p r ~ ~ s ,~ ~~ M $~~7'Q~, ~T°"~ C~a~~SN1. ~; RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA $70,000,000 WATER SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1991 The Board e County of Roanoke, Virginia ("Coup necessary for the County to acqui ip a public water supply and rela~ water treatment transmission fac expedient to boz and to issue re` costs of such fa le funds to pay the The Board has held a public hearing on the issuance of the Bonds in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.1-227.8 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and to issue and sell the Bonds in an amount not to exceed $70,000,000. The issuance and sale of the Bonds is hereby authorized. The proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds shall be used to pay the costs of the Project. In accordance with Section 15.1- 227.2 of the Virginia Code, the Board elects to issue the Bonds pursuant to the provisions of the Public Finance Act of 1991. 2. Financing Documents. The County Administrator, the "~ `S, 0 P0, a Qo m and reservoir, storage and a necessary and ----- ~i it of $70, 000, 000 Director of Finance, and such officers and agents of the County as either of them may designate are authorized and directed to prepare such financing documents as they may deem necessary, including an indenture of trust between the County and a trustee to be selected by the County Administrator ("Indenture"). 3. Pledae of Revenues. The Bonds shall be limited obligations of the County and principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be payable as provided in the Bonds and the Indenture solely from the revenues derived by the County from its water system, as set forth in the Indenture and from other funds that have been or may be pledged for such purpose under the terms and conditions of the Indenture. Nothing in this Resolution, the Bonds or the Indenture shall be deemed to pledge the full faith and credit of the County to the payment of the Bonds. 4. Details of Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution and as set forth in the Indenture. 5. Sale of Bonds. The Board authorizes the sale of the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $70,000,000 to Alex Brown & Sons Incorporated, as underwriter ("Underwriter"). The County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board, or either of them, are authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Bond Purchase Agreement with the Underwriter, providing for the sale and delivery of the Bonds upon terms and conditions to be approved by such officers, -2- provided that (i) the true interest cost of the Bonds shall not exceed 9~; (ii) the final maturity of the Bonds shall not be later than 40 years from their date; and (iii) the sale price of the Bonds to the Underwriter shall not be less than 97~ of the aggregate principal amount thereof. The approval of such officers shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery of the Bond Purchase Agreement. 6. Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants. The appropriate officers and agents of the County are authorized and directed to execute a Non-Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to comply with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code"), including the provisions of Section 148 of the Code and applicable regulations relating to "arbitrage bonds." The Board covenants on behalf of the County that the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in the Indenture and the County's Non- Arbitrage Certificate and Tax Covenants, to be delivered simultaneously with the issuance and delivery of the Bonds and that the County shall comply with the other covenants and representations contained therein. 7. Disclosure Documents. The County Administrator, and such officers and agents of the County as he may designate, are hereby authorized and directed to prepare, execute and deliver an -3- appropriate preliminary official statement, official statement, and such other disclosure documents as may be necessary to expedite the sale of the Bonds. Such disclosure documents shall be published in such publications and distributed in such manner and at such times as the County Administrator, or such officers or agents of the County as he may designate, shall determine. 8. Further Actions. The County Administrator, and such officers and agents of the County as he may designate, are authorized and directed to take such further action as they deem necessary regarding the issuance and sale of the Bonds and all actions taken by such officers and agents in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds are hereby ratified and confirmed. 9. Filing of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-227.9 of the Virginia Code. 10. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true, complete and correct copy of the Resolution -4- adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, held on August 27, 1991. Dated: August _, 1991. [SEAL] Clerk, Board of Supervisors County of Roanoke, Virginia -5- G' PUBLIC F.[EARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA BI;T MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND AND PUBLIC HEARINGS 8/27/91 URC WITH SAM ABSENT 1. An ordinance to rezone 0.20 acre from B-1 to B-2 to allow retail uses, located west side of US 220, Red Hill area, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Maxey Homes Incorporated. 2. An ordinance to rezone approximately 12 acres from M- 1 to B-2 and obtain a Special Exception Permit to operate a retirement community, located north side of Route 11/460, west of Salem, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Richfield Retirement Community. 3. An ordinance to rezone .71 acre from R-1 to M-1 to allow aself-storage facility, located at 6426 Merriman Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of 301 Gilmer Associates. 2• Ordinance amending Chapter 22, Water of t County Code by the addition of a new Sectione22 6 Hoke "Reduction of Rates" to authorize the reduction of ~ rates in hardship situations for elderly and disabled ater persons. a 11 j y.,~ iJRC Wj~ SAM ABSEIV'I' LEGAL NOTICE ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p . m. on Tuesday, August 27 , 1991, in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of 301 Gilmer Associates to rezone .71 acre from R-1 to M-1 to allow a self-storage facility, located at 6426 Merriman Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, VA. Dated: August 8, 1991 mQ~- ~. Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times & World-News Tuesday, August 13, 1991 Tuesday, August 20, 1991. Direct the bill for publication to: 301 Gilmer Associates PO Box 1138 Roanoke, VA 24006 (703) 982-1210 SEND AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANORE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANORE~ VA 24018 F LEGAL NOTICE ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, August 27, 1991, in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Richfield Retirement Community to rezone approximately 12 acres from M-1 to B-2 and obtain a Special Exception Permit to operate a retirement community on approximately 49.3 acres, located north side of Route 11/460, west of Salem, Catawba Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, VA. Dated: August 8, 1991 Mary H. A len, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times & World-News Tuesday, August 13, 1991 Tuesday, August 20, 1991 Direct the bill for publication to: Richfield Retirement Community c/o Martin & Associates PO Box 20038 Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 989-9700 SEND AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANORE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANORE, VA 24018 ~cut~-- PUBLIC NOTICE Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, at its meeting on August 27, 1991, at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia, at the evening session beginning at 7:00 p.m. will hold a public hearing on the following: ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 21-73, GENERAL PREREQUISITES TO GRANT OF DIVISION 3. EXEMPTION FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS OF CHAPTER 21, TAXATION TO INCREASE THE TOTAL COMBINED INCOME PROVISION All members of the public interested in the matter set forth above may appear and be heard at the time and place aforesaid. -~ l ~ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Roanoke County, Virginia Publish on the following dates: August 13, 1991 August 20, 1991 Send invoice to: Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 ATTENTION: MRS. MARY ALLEN ,.~ Cif, r., ,-~- PUBLIC NOTICE Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, at its meeting on August 27, 1991, at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia, at the evening session beginning at 7:00 p.m. will hold a public hearing on the following: ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 21-73, GENERAL PREREQUISITES TO GRANT OF DIVISION 3. EXEMPTION FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS OF CHAPTER 21, TAXATION TO INCREASE THE TOTAL COMBINED INCOME PROVISION All members of the public interested in the matter set forth above may appear and be heard at the time and place aforesaid. ~n , Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Roanoke County, Virginia Publish on the following dates: August 13, 1991 ~ August 20, 1991 `~~~ ~~~ Ems'"=~ ~ ;~ Send invoice to: Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 ATTENTION: MRS. MARY ALLEN r ~..~~ ,J ~ _. =~ 'f=~ ,g -- ~/ - '=:.b G~ ` . ~~, w AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1991 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 21-73, GENERAL PREREQUISITES TO GRANT OF DIVISION 3. EXEMPTION FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS OF CHAPTER 21, TAXATION TO INCREASE THE TOTAL COMBINED INCOME PROVISION WHEREAS, Section 21-73 of the Roanoke County Code establishes a restriction upon the total combined income for the exemption from or deferral of real estate taxes for certain elderly or permanently and totally disabled persons; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 84-232 adopted on December 18, 1984, increased this financial restriction from $15,000 to $18,000 and Ordinance 22388-9 adopted on February 23, 1988, increased this financial restriction from $18,000 to $22,000; and WHEREAS, the 1990 General Assembly for the Commonwealth of Virginia amended Section 58.1-3211 of the 1950 Code of Virginia by increasing this financial restriction to $30,000; and WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on August 13, 1991; and the second reading and public hearing was held on August 27, 1991. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 21-73, General prerecLuisites to grant of Division 3. Exemption for elderly and disabled persons of Chapter 21, Taxation be amended to read and provide as follows; 1 OF ROANp,Y~ ~ , /~ i 2 ~ z o. J e: `a i$ E50 $8 SFSQUICENTENN~P~ A Beauti~ul Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE TO: FROM DATE: SUBJECT: i l~/~ L -~ ~.i _.~`~ Z ~ ~~ ~~~~~ MEMORANDUM AII~AM~ '~il~' 1979 1989 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STEVEN A. MCGRAW. CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS. VICE•CHAIRMAN VINTON MAGISTERLAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERALL. DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Steve McGraw ~~~ZS~ Harry C. Nickens / •~~~ July 29, 1991 APPROPRIATENESS OF A RESOLUTION COMMENDING BERN EWERT Steve, as you know, Bern Ewert will be leaving the Explore Project efforts at the end of July. My question is do you feel it is appropriate that the Board might in some way recognize his contribution by resolution at our August 13th meeting? Please give it some thought. ~4 HCN/bjh t ,` P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0796 <703) 772-2004 PUBLIC NOTICE Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, at its meeting on August 27, 1991, at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia, at the evening session beginning at 7:00 p.m. will hold a public hearing on the following: ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 21-52. APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT' FEES OF DIVISION 2. USE VALUE ASSESSMENT OF CERTAIN REAL ESTATE OF CHAPTER 21. TAXA`T'ION OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE All members of the public interested in the matter set forth above may appear and be heard at the time and place aforesaid. J Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Roanoke County, Virginia Publish on the following dates: AUGUST 13, 1991 AUGUST 20, 1991 Send invoice to: Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 ATTENTION: MRS. MARY ALLEN _~_~ ~_~D ~-: ~i ~m ~~ ~ c~,~-'~~ ~~- ~1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1991 ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 22, WATER OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION NUMBERED 22- 6, REDUCTION OF RATES TO AUTHORIZE THE REDUCTION OF WATER RATES IN HARDSHIP SITUATIONS FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, intends to provide financial relief for its elderly and disabled citizens in the provision of certain critical public services; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of this ordinance to provide for a reduction of water rates or charges for governmental services provided to economically-disadvantaged elderly or disabled citizens and their families; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 23, 1991, and the second reading and public hearing was held on August 27, 1991. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 22-6 of Chapter 22, Water of the Roanoke County Code is adopted and enacted as follows: Sec. 22-6. Reduction of rates. (a) The finance director is hereby authorized to develop, publish and implement rules and regulations to provide for the reduction of rates imposed by the county for the delivery of water service by the county. The reduction of rates shall be based upon demonstrable hardship and inability to pay and shall be consistent with this section. 1 PUBLIC NOTICE Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, at its meeting on August 27, 1991, at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia, at the evening session beginning at 7:00 p.m. will hold a public hearing on the following: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 22, WATER OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION NUMBERED 22- 6, REDUCTION OF RATES TO AUTHORIZE THE REDUCTION OF WATER RATES IN HARDSHIP SITUATIONS FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS All members of the public interested in the matter set forth above may appear and be heard at the time and place aforesaid. ~~ . ~~. Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Roanoke County, Virginia Publish on the following dates: August 13, 1991 August 20, 1991 , ~ ~, r1, ~'2 -G'~--- ~~ Send invoice to: ~ '. i ~ n-'n Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 ATTENTION: MRS. MARY ALLEN 5 ~ A ~~ >, t` A z ~? ,, OFFICE OF DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS 526 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE SALEM, VIRGINIA 241 53 August 9, 1991 Mary, Enclosed is an agenda item for the August 27 meeting. Please advise if anything further is needed. Mr. Garland Kidd, director of vocational education, will be present at the meeting to answer questions. Thanks. Ruth AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, 1991 v2 '~ ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING ARTICLE. II, VIRGINIA STATEWIDE FIRE PREVENTION CODE OF CHAPTER 9, FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION WHEREAS, by Ordinance 52388-13, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, repealed the then current Articles II and III of Chapter 9 of the Roanoke County Code, and enacted a new Article II "Virginia Statewide F~rP Prevention Code" of Chapter 9 of the Roanoke County Code and f~ Statewide Fire Prevention Code"; WHEREAS the Virginia Bo Developments has adopted the eil Fire Prevention Code, with amei Fire Prevention Code, effective WHEREAS, the State Fire Mai reni ~- ~,(,(C~ ~~-~. aid "Virginia ~ ~ ~ nd Community To: ~ ~) ~ BOCA National .nia Statewide From: 1; and Return ^ Keep or toss Q~ to enforce the urisdiction in Post~it° F.Y.1. pad 7668 dy aoe~ .~..~ ____ current code. ~~oard of Supervisors of the County of >: "Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention ~anoke County Code is hereby amended statewide fire prevention code. ns of Section 27-98 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Roanoke County shall enforce the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code as written with amendments. ~~. ~~ ~3 ~' ~~ ~~ \ ~ ~.l ~' ~~ , ~ 3° ;~ O O ~ ~ Il ~~ ~-z7 ~~~ l ~--rx- ~--e~Y~~" ~~ ~~~ ~2 C ~~~~ . ~~, ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~J -~'.~ NONE G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code, Section 21-73, General Prerequisites to Grant of Division 3, Exemption for Elderly and Disabled Persons of Chapter 21, Taxation to increase the total combined income provision for real estate tax exemption for the elderly and handicapped. LBE SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING CHANGING INCOME PROVISION FROM $30,000 TO $25,000. DEFEATED AYES-LBE NAYS-RWR,BLJ,HCN, SAM BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 8/27/91 AYES-RWR,BLJ,HCN,SAM NAYS-LBE HCN ASKED FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN $6500 EXEMPTION AND $4,000 EXEMPTION. 2. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code, Section 21-52 Applications for Special Assessment; Fees, of Division 2, Use Value Assessment of Certain Real Estate, of Chapter 21 Taxation. HCN MOTION TO ADOPT 1ST READING AMENDING ORDINANCE TO $30.00 PER APPLICATION AND 30 CENTS PER ACRE URC 2ND - 8/27/91 LBE ASKED THAT ORDINANCE BE AMENDED CHANGING PARCEL TO APPLICATION. 4 3• Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code, Section 1-10, Classification of and Penalties for violations• Continuin violations of Chapter 1, General Provisions by increasing misdemeanor punishment. HCN MOTION TO ApPRO~ 1ST READING 2ND - 8/27/91 4• Ordinance authorizing acquisition of a new water, sanitary sewer and drainage easement from Hugh H. and R~f'R MOTION TOaAPPROVE ells. 2ND - 8/27/91 1ST READING URC 5• Ordinance authorizing the County Administrator to grant the right to joint use of County water and sewer easement areas by a public utility company. HCN MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING AMENDING EFFE DATE TO 8/27/91 CTIVE 2ND - 8/27/91 URC ~ci,1.. , C:~.(,C (v~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED •~-~- = BOND FINANCING BY THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Notice is hereby give that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virgi a (the "Board") will hold a public hearing in accordance w'th Section 15.1-227.8 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as ended, on the issuance of revenue bonds (the "Bonds") of e aunty of Roanoke, Virginia in the estimated maximum amount of $F0~0,000 to finance certain costs of acquiring, constru Ong, developing and equipping a public water supply and related facilities including a dam and reservoir, water treatment facilities and distribution, storage and transmission facilities. A resolution authorizing the issuance of the Bonds will be considered by the Board at its meeting on August 27, 1991. The public hearing, which may be continued or adjourned, will be held at 7:00 o'clock p.m. on August 27, 1991, before the Board, in the Board of Supervisors Chambers, in the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia. Paul M. Mahoney Roanoke County Attorney Please publish on the following dates: ~~ ~ _ C.J ,'~ ~V7 r` ~ ,1 `y. `~i, I August 6, 1991 August 13, 1991 ~~-`~~~`~ -~~ - L~! ----- 3;~~~m Please send bill to: ~ ;-. Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County c..~% ~~ `~ ' ` ~-'. P. O. Box 29800 r7{'`//_•~~-~1_~.' Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 L/-:--O'Sr7 ~~, ATTENTION: Mrs. Mary H. Allen \ ROANK \ ROJINx 10.1t'I'C Post-It"" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 # of pages - From .~ .{ ~ + Co. r , Co. Dept. Phone #n y~ ~ _~~% Fax # Fax # ~~~s t ~-I ~ I J AYES-LBE,RWR,BLJ,SAM NAYS-HCN RWR MOTION THAT STAFF CONDUCT IN-HOUSE STUDY FOR POSSIBILITY OF PRIVATIZATION OF SERVICES WITH l[NPUT FROM BOARD MEMBERS AND REPORT BACK TO BOARD ON 8/27/91 MOTION AMENDED BY SAM TO CONTACT OTHER LOCALITIES TO REQUEST INVOLVEMENT IN VALLEY WIDE STUDY - URC 2. Approval of amendment to Resolution 91290-5 adopting a policy establishing residency requirements for appointment to citizen boards and commissions. R-42391-4 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT RESO - URC 3. Resolution concerning Virginia Housing Development Authority financing of amulti-family residential development located in Roanoke County. R-42391-5 BLJ MOTION TO ADOPT CERTIFICATION OF DISAPPROVAL AND RESOLUTION EXPRESSING DISAPPROVAL - URC ONE CITIZEN SPOKE IN OPPOSITION 4. Pay Supplement for County Employees called to Active Reserve Duty During the Persian Gulf War A-42391-6 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT URC E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS NONE 4 M. CITIZENS' COMIVIENTS AND C011~IlVIUNICATIONS N. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Board Contingency Fund 3. Report from School Board on Literary Loan Applications ~/ ~ ~ ~ 4. Report on Prioritization of maintenance projects from b County and School Board. 5. Report on joint maintenance of school property and parks and recreation property. O. WORK SESSIONS 1. Explore Advisory Committee 2. Privatization P. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A Q. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R ADJOtirRNMENT 6 NORTHSIDE ATHLETIC BOOSTER CLUB 1990-91 Membership Allen, Linda & Jim. 6211 Buckland Mill Road 362-9102 Anderson, Marjorie .• 5122 Craun Lane 562-1417 Arthur, Jimmy, Sr. P.O. Box 7769, Hollins 362-4619 Bailey, Ellen 5811 Thornrose 366-5795 Bixby, Linda D. 3747 Red Fox Drive 345-2628 Bostic, Mrs. Earl 8141 Running Deer Lane 362-0696 Bowen, Ken & Susan~~ 3161 Bradshaw, Salem 384-6738 Briscoe, Charlie 319 Clubhouse Drive 362-4436 ~~ Brookman, Mike 6255 Nell Circle 563-1065 J Buck, Billy 5440 Endicott Street 366-5651 ,~J`~~ ~Bussey, Marilyn'~-lcAC41~1~ 3020 Crockett Ave. 563-4668 ~,,~Q Byrd, Dickie r•^. 525 Water Oak Road 366-8284 Cheatum, David & Sharron 6742 McKinney St. 563-9177 Close, Dennis & JudY3)~, 5948 Buckland Mill Rd. 362-5308 burn, M/M Bane- 1926 Montclair Drive 562-2453 Conner, Larry 6012 Cove Rd. ~t~r~~~;~.'LCunningham, Mike&Shirley~ 6022 Buckland Mill Road 362-5532 •~~~~ fl~P,Dampeer, Kelly ~` 7402 Estes St. pet I Davis, Larry & Erin 5528 Deer Park Dr. 562-1731 a~Dlq Derey, Bud & Jessie 8233 Olde Tavern Rd. 563-2251 Dillon, Johns 6728 Northway Dr. 563-2713 ~-Donahue, Pat & Danny 5552 Lamplighter Dr. 562-1938 ~/ ~S~,OI}Emick, Mark & Linda 8312 Webster Dr. 366-6668 ~f~' Farrar, Jerry & Sherr 1 121 Return Road 362-8249 ~~2 '~ Ferrell, Barry 7247 Twin Forks 366-9049 a 5l. Fisher, Dane 302 Polk Ave., Vinton ~~~= Fisher, Mary & Randall 5620 Halcun Dr. 362-9603 Francisco, Joan & Gary 8227 Sundance Cir. 362-3278 Freeland, George A.~"1?- 5119 Winter Park 562-2163 Hale, Tom & Hope 921 Starmount Ave. 366-3083 Hall, Pam 6536 Greenway Dr., Apt. 122 Hatcher, Butch & Pat 632 Magnolia 563-9413 Hayes, Dot & Joey 6530 Bryant Cir. 366-0297 ~,~enderson, Donna F'r~~~~(~~~) Rt. 2, Box 180, Troutville 992-5333 ,1~~~ Hickam, James V.~p 3023 Embassy Dr. 562-1620 ~ ~ Hill, James A.~ 6327 Greenway Dr. 366-6419 e/ ~ Hill, Tim & Jackie ~~ P.O. Box 9586, Hollins College ~ ~ Honaker, Joyce 1~ 7409 Barrens Rd. 366-5848 ~ ~ 1 ~~ James, Charles & Patsy 7232 Old Mountain Rd. 362-4170 ~~ ~C~ Jarels, Eugene & Margie 2844 Tully Drive ?a~10s„ Jarrard, Rick & Di ~~ 5531 Heather Hill Dr. 562-0470 r ' Jarrett, Danny & Renee ~tf 6429 Ridgeview Drive 362-8626 Keffer, R. L. ?~ 8182 Hunter Trail 563-5010 Kincer, Nice 6704 Trevilian Rd. 362-0473 King, Pats 6519 Garman Dr. 362-0282 ~.,~" N~ ~~ E'^ c~ r,w~^" Leftwick, Monna~~OQ~ ~'~d~ 5783 Littleton Rd. 563-4687 Light, f;nda'.Tnir~,.l`~ 8261 Filly Ct. , Catawba 384-7032 Likens, Karen ~~~{/~ra-~(y- 906 Starmount ~ 366-0010 Loar, Sharon & Gratton 5776 Oakland Blvd. Loope, Jim & Linda 7328 Acorn Trl. 362-9509 McCrady, Terry & Joyce 6534 Trevilian Rd. 563-2635 McMillian, Wes & Linda;fr~- 515 Magnolia 362-5757 ~1~+ Manning, Bill & Brenda' e ' ~ 214 Plymouth Dr. 362-8253 ;; vi Ianning, Steve&Charlotte'8117 ~ ~ Hunters Trail 366-8939 ~~ ~ Mays, Tony M. 8207 Enon Dr. 366-8453 ~ ,~~Iiley, Dick ~'~~'~~~~ ~-~~ P.O. Box 20715 362-0524 ~y~rr%~~ Mundy, Jack & Sue 7051 Irondale Cirl. 362-1524 ~~, ~p~~ Naff, Joani & Gary 6827 Tinkerdale Rd. (Shane Shepherd) 3'' ~L-lZ Nichols, R.A. 2848 Tully Dr. 562-1085 Oliver, Mike & Loretta T`= 5604 Daytona Rd. 362-1438 Osborne, Larry & Bev 6702 Oleander Cir. 362-9699 Painter, Lynn ~r~ 7027 Irondale Cir. 362-3001 Parsons, Ed 1073 Northway Pendleton, Judy 1909 Governor Dr. 562-1949 Penney, George & Sherry 6618 Meadewood Dr. 366-9341 Richardson,Charles & Shirleen Riddleberger, Carolyn•~j° 6165 Buckland Mill Rd. 563-2267 Ronk, Deanie£~c~c~~r'r- '~: -'5152 Norseman Dr. 562-0103 ~ Sarver, Bill & Linda:G" 5940 Buckland Mill Rd. 366-1744 Sheets, Stephen & Sue~'a~~r35225 Foxtail Lan 562-2895 Shields, Randy~~. '`~r" 1902 Governor Dr. 562-2179 Shriver, Bud Rt. 2, Box 659, Troutville Sink, Larry & Jean Smith, Mrs. Linda 6701 Wood Haven Rd. 362-7293 Stewart, Lynn & Sandra 6708 Garman Dr. 362-4118 Swisher, Charlotte 5441 Cove Road Thomas, Gary 3K". 520 Santee Rd. 366-8680 Tillman,. T.L. 182 Tampa Drive '~aughan, Bethany 6311 Greenway Drive 362-1703 Vess, Monty & Betty Jo 5123 Wipledale, Ave. 562-1410 Walden, Judy 5333 Dearbark Dr. 562-2628 Ward, Roger+ 3855 Apple Tree Rd. 992-4520 Wertz, Lewis & Sue 4365 Murray Street. Wilhelm, Carolyn 5524 Wipledale Ave. 562-2729 (Quynh V. Nguyen) Wooldridge, Bonnie & Russ ell' 1004 Groves Lane 563-0287 Zimmerman, Gale~& Ann+ 6839 Quail Place 362-4337 ~~ l I 1~ ~ ~,?i '~ ,~.: ~~t ~ ,, 1~ ~ ~. L' J ~ OFFICE: NORTHSIDE ATHLETIC BOOSTER CLUB OFFICERS 1991-1992 ~~~ Co-Presidents Executive Vice-President Concessions: Assistants: First Vice-President Memberships: Assistants: Second Vice-President Programs: Assistants: Third Vice-President Ways & Means: Recording Secretaries: Corresponding Secretary: Treasurers: Directors: Linda Emi~ck Jessie Derey Karen Likens Dic~Cie Byrd Judy Ferrerl Ann Pace Gilbert ~ Faye Yopp Linda D~mpeer Shirleen Richardson Linda ~7ickstrom Judy Mays Butch Sc Pat Hatcher Sandra Stewart Sherry Penney David & Sharron Cheatba,m Mike ~ Shirley Cunnirngham L.E. & Sue Wertz George ~ Billie Howell. Judy Pendleton Tin & Jackie Hill Donna Henderson Dick Miley Jim Hickam Carolyn Riddleberger (h) (o) (h) (o) (h) (o) (h) (o) 366-6668 563-2251 366-0010 366-8284 366-9049 384-6741 362-8993 366-1410 362-9181 366-6113 563-4165 563-9413 362-4118 366-9341 563-9177 362-5532 992-4634 366-6576 562-1949 362-6454 992-5333 561-8155 562-2162 561-8145 562-1620 561-8145 563-2267 265-3020 NORTHSIDE ATHLETIC BOOSTER CLUB SUBI+IITTED BUDGET FOR 1991-1992 INCOME: Concessions Program Sales Memberships Program Advertisements Special Projects TOTAL INCOME EXPENDITURES: . Program Printing Administrative Expense Junior High School Requests Senior High School Requests Total CAPITAL IMPROV'S: (i) Senior High School (2) Junior High School Total TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 4,000.00 900.00 1,000.00 6,000.00_ 2.900.00 $ 14,800.00 $ 1,800.00 546.60 1,858.10 8,095.30 $ 12,300.00 1,500.00 1,000.00 2,500.00 $ 14,800.00 SPORT Golf Cross Country Girls Basketball Volleyball Tennis Girls Track Boys Track Boys Basketball Wrestling Baseball Football Soccer Cheerleading TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL NORTHSIDE HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC BOOSTERS PROPOSED BUDGBT FOR 1991-1992 ~~ APP ROXIMATE VALUE Golf Balls $ 460.40 Entry fees, trip, trophies 580.00 Taping of vi deo games & trophies 400.00 Knee pads 251.30 Tennis balls (3 cases) 180.00 Entry fees 150.00 Pole vault, pole tape measures & videos 330.00 Tapes, water bottles, medical kit, rims, trunk, basketballs Video, video case, uniform bags & travel bags Pitching pro screen, practice sweats 2 man gauntlet sledd Warm-ups Uniforms 510.00 650 00 740.00 1,440.00 1,656.00 $ 8,097.30 1,500.00 $ 9,597.30 acceptance of the necessary easements from the Valleypointe Phase II Sanitary Sewer Project. 0-81391-5 RWR MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC I. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE 1. Ordinance authorizing the assessment of fees taxed as costs in certain cases filed in Courts of the County for construction, renovation or maintenance of courthouse, jail or court-related facilities. 0-81391-6 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC J• APPOINTMENTS 1. Clean Valley Council HCN NOMINATED VINCE REYNOLDS TO ANOTHER TWO-YEAR TERM EXPIRING 6/30/1993 ,~p Pmt ~ ~` 2. Community Corrections Resources Board W 3. Grievance Panel 4. Industrial Development Authority RWR NOMINATED CHARLES R. SAUL TO ANOTHER FOUR-YEAR TERM EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 26, 1995. MHA TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON IDA MEMBERSHIP IN 8/27/91 PACKET 6 1. Recognition of the following Roanoke County citizens who were honored by the National Association of Counties for their volunteer activities a. Thomas Eugene Wagner PRESENTED BY SAM b. Charles and Thelma Jennings c. Carolyn Rector PRESENTED BY TREASURER FRED ANDERSON 2. Resolutions of Appreciation to the following Roanoke ~, I ~ ,.j County employees upon their retirement: a. Gloria Z. Divers NOT PRESENT b. Mildred B. Daugherty R-81391-1.a LBE MOTION TO ADOPT RESO UW c. Woodrow W. Obenchain R-81391-1.b BLS MOTION TO ADOPT RESO UW d. Margaret G. Whitescarver R-81391-1.c LBE MOTION TO ADOPT RESO UW D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Acceptance of a grant by the Roanoke County Library for VLJ/TEXT Online Database Service. s RESOLUTION WHEREAS, H. Bern Ewert has made significant contributions to the Roanoke Valley, including the beautification of Downtown Roanoke, the renovation of the City Market Building, the creation of the Explore Park and the Roanoke River Greenway Master Plan; and WHEREAS, Mr. Ewert has received a number of awards for his work as a City Manager and civic leader, including the Innovative Manager of the Year Award from the International City Managers' Association and the Man of the Decade Award from the Roanoke Jaycees; and WHEREAS, Mr. Ewert was an important part of the Roanoke County team during the 1989 All America City presentation, and his contribution was instrumental in helping the County win that Award; and WHEREAS, the people of the Roanoke Valley will remain indebted forever to Mr. Ewert for his foresight and his dedication to the preservation of the scenic beauty of the area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, on its own behalf, and on behalf of the citizens of Roanoke County, does hereby extend its deepest appreciation and gratitude to Bern Ewert for the gifts he has given to the Roanoke Valley; and further BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors extends its best wishes for the continued success of Mr. Ewert in all his future endeavors. ~ AN ~, F a. z 2 a OFFICE OF DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS 526 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE SALEM, VIRGINIA 24153 August 8, 1991 TO: Mr. Elmer Hodge, County Administrator FROMes.E. Wilson, Superintendent In response to your memo of July 24, I am enclosing a brief description of the Literary Fund projects for your board members. As we discussed, I will be out of town next week and will be in contact with you when I return about when. to review roof. needs. On the maintenance of grounds, I would suggest that your county personnel meet with Homer Duff, Phil Argabright, and the principal at each school to review the needs and services at each location for the most effective procedures. As I recall from the analysis made two or three years ago, your resources and ours are pretty well stretched to the limit. I will give you a call when I return, and we can discuss these matters in more detail. BEW:rcw c: Mr. Homer Duff Mr. Phil Argabright Enclosure ECH: RE 27th Agenda Items: (1) Report on Year-end Finances. You told Diane Hyatt you wanted it under REPORTS, you told me to put it first under NEW Business. Which do you want? (2) According to Ruth Wade, you already have the list of literary loan projects and what will be done. It was sent to you with a memo on August 8. Do you have the memo and list? (3) Ruth Wade also told me that you and Dr. Wilson had discussed roof replacement and the subject is also in the August 8 memo. Evidently, Dr. Wilson does not plan to do anything else. (4) APCO Transmission Lines = Who is going to do that report. I read APCO's report as you instructed. Mary Allen 8/19/91