The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/8/1991 - RegularO~ ¢OANO~~ t L 2 2 j ALL-AMBtICA CRY a~ ~~~Yi~ ~~ 7 .. ,~LT~.Yti1~ ~ ~e i i 18 'E5°;% 988 S~SQVICENTEN~~P~ A Beauu/ul8tginmrrg ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ROANOKE COUN'T'Y BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA OCTOBER 8, 1991 Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call ALL PRESENT AT: 3:14 P.M. 2. Invocation: The Reverend Kenneth Stofft Our Lady of Nazareth Catholic Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS BLJ ADDED ITEM D-3, RECONSIDERATION OF 301 GILMER ASSOCIATES REZONING REQUEST C. PROCIAMAI'IONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOG1vITIONS, AND i F AWARDS 1. Resolutions of Appreciation upon the Retirement of the following Roanoke County employees: a. Nedra W. Crockett R-10891-1.a BLJ TO ADOPT RESO UW - MS. CROCKETT WAS NOT PRESENT b. Iris S. Groff R-10891-1.b RWR TO ADOPT RESO UVV - MS. GROFF ALSO RECEIVED SAVINGS BOND AND PIAQUE c. Ronald R. Henderson R-10891-1.c LBE TO ADOPT RESO UW - MR. HENDERSON ALSO RECEIVED SAVINGS BOND AND PLAQUE d. Roger D. Huffman R-10891-1.d RWR TO ADOPT RESO UVV - MR- ' v WAS PRESENT 2. Resolution of Appreciation to Magnetic Bearings for locating in Roanoke County. R-10891-2 BLJ TO ADOPT RESO UW D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of Public-Private Partnership request by Magnetic Bearings, Inc. A-10891 3 2 BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE URC 2. Discussion of proposed 1991-92 Legislative Program PMM TO BRING BACK PRIORI'T'IZED LIST ON 10/22 BASED ON INPUT FROM BOARD MEMBERS. 3. Reconsideration of 301 Gilmer Associates Rezoning Request. BLJ MOTION TO RECONSIDER ON 10/22/91 WITH STAFF RECOMII~NDATION URC E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS ECH REQUESTED WORK SESSION ON 10/22/91 -PRESENTATION OF SPRING HOLLOW BIDS. ECH REQUESTED WORK SESSION ON 11/19/91 ON DESIGN AND OPERATION OF TREATMENT PIANT F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code by the addition of Article VIII "Fire and Security Alarms" to Chapter 16 "Police" to regulate the use and operation of security and fire alarm systems. RWR AMENDED MOTION TO APPROVE FIRST READING 3 uRc 2ND READING - 10/22/91 STAFF TO MEET WITH ALARM INDUSTRY AND SET WORK SESSION IF NECESSARY. HCN ASKED FOR LIST OF THOSE WHO WERE INFORMED ABOUT THE ORDINANCE. H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance accepting an offer for and authorizing the sale of 0.443 acre, more or less, known as the Old Bent Mountain Fire Station. 0-10891-4 LBE TO APPROVE AYES-LBE,RWR,BI~T,HCN ABSTAIN-SAM I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Grievance Panel 2. Health Department Board of Directors 3. Industrial Development Authority HCN NONIINATED WAYNE DLIIVMAN UPON REC011~Il1~NDATION OF VIlVTON TOWN COUNCIL 4. Planning Commission BLJ NOMINATED RON MASSEY TO ANOTHER 4-YFAR TERM J. CONSENT AGENDA 4 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-10891-5 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE WITH ITEM 4 REMOVED URC 1. Approval of Minutes - August 27, 1991 2. Donation of sanitary sewer easements in connection with improvements to Route 221 (Brambleton Avenue). A-10891-S.a 3. Acceptance of Vista Forest Drive, Winterwood Trail and Bayberry Court into the VDOT Secondary System. A-10891-S.b 4. Request from the Social Services Board for support in opposition to amendments to the Child Abuse and Neglect Law. LBE MOTION TO DEFER FOR FURTHER INFO INCLUDING INPUT FROM SCHOOLS AND STAFF - NO VOTE BL1 SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO BRING BACK ON 10/22/91 WITH INFO FROM SCHOOLS AND STAFF - URC K. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS SUPERVISOR EDDY: (1) ATTENDED CONG. OLIN'S SENIINAR 5 ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING. ASKED FOR REPORT FROM PLANNING STAFF ON ROANOKE COUNTY EFFORTS TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. BOARD SUGGESTED LBE MEET WITH TERRY I~fARRINGTON. (2) ASKED FOR MORE INFO ON SPRING HOLLOW BID TIlVIEFRAME. ECH WILL REPORT FOLLOWING WORK SESSION. SUPERVISOR TOHNSON• (1) ASKED FOR UPDATE ON FINAL AUDIT. ECH ADVISED HE WILL SCHEDULE MEETING WITH AUDIT COMMITTEE ON 10/22/91. (2) ASKED FOR RECOM1ViENDATION ON HOW FUNDS WILL BE SPENT WITH PRESENTATION OF AUDIT. SUPERVISOR MCGRAW: (1) VACO/VML TASK FORCE COMING TO CONCLUSION AND WILL MEET IN NOVEMBER TO DISCUSS ARFAS OF CONCERN. (2) ASKED STAFF TO DRAFT NOISE ORDINANCE. PMM PLANS TO BRING BACK REPORT ON 11/19/91 ON RESULTS OF NOISE ORDINANCE IN ROANOKE CITY. L,. CITIZENS' CONIlVIENTS AND COI~IlVIiJNICATIONS NONE M. REPORTS BLJ TO RECEIVE AND FILE AFTER DISCUSSION OF ITEM 5 UW 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 6 4. Report on Monthly Utility Billing 5. Report on request from Mecklenburg County to oppose certain requirements of the Department of Waste Management. 6. Information on Literary Fund Projects 7. Citizen Information Update N. WORK SESSION 1. Joint Work Session with Appalachian Power Officials - APCO Transmission Line SCC PUBLIC HEARINGS ON 4/2/92 IN NEW CASTLE, VIRGINIA AND 4/6/91 IN RICHMOND WITH DECISION IN 1992. ECH WILL CONTINUE TO MEET WITH APCO OFFICIALS BLJ -ASKED FOR IdVIPACT OF COUNTY SAM =ASKED FOR LIST OF RESIDENCES THAT WOULD BE IlVIPACTED OTHER BUSINESS ECH ASKED FOR MEETING ON 10/17/91 TO ACCEPT BINDS FOR BOND ISSUE. SAM ASKED FOR REPORT ON THE POSSIBLE IlVIPACT TO WATER RATES OF LOWER BIDS. BLJ ASKED FOR HISTORY OF BOND ACTIVITY SINCE 1985. O. EXECiJ1'IVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (7) for discussions with legal counsel and briefings by staff with respect to various agreements pertaining to the new landfill and discussion on Dixie Caverns Landfill. HCN MOTION AT 6:25 P.M. URC P. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-10891-6 BLJ TO APPROVE AYES-RWR,BI~T,HCN,SAM ABSENT-LBE Q. ADJOURNMENT TO OCTOBER 17, 1991 AT 3:00 P.M. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCEPTING BIDS FOR THE GENERAL OBLIGATION AND WATER REVENUE BONDS. BLJ MOTION AT 7:44 P.M. a O~ ROAN~j~~ ~ ,, Z ~ A 'O J a 18 '~ 988 SFSQUICEN7ENNIP~' A Bcauti~ul8cgirtmnq ~IIitn~l~ II~ ~II~iriII~iP i I ~•g •8.9 ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA OCTOBER 8, 1991 Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call ALL PRESENT AT: 3:14 P.M. 2. Irnocation: The Reverend Kenneth Stofft Our Lady of Nazareth Catholic Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS BLJ ADDED ITEM D-3, RECONSIDERATION OF 301 GILMER ASSOCIATES REZONING REQUEST C. PROCIAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND i r AWARDS 1. Resolutions of Appreciation upon the Retirement of the following Roanoke County employees: a. Nedra W. Crockett R-10891-1.a BLS TO ADOPT RESO UW - MS. CROCKETT WAS NOT PRESENT b. Iris S. Groff R-10891-1.b RWR TO ADOPT RESO UVV - MS. GROFF ALSO RECEIVED SAVINGS BOND AND PLAQUE c. Ronald R. Henderson R-10891-1.c LBE TO ADOPT RESO UW -MIL HENDERSON ALSO RECEIVED SAVINGS BOND AND PLAQUE d. Roger D. Huffman R-10891-1.d RWR TO ADOPT RESO UW - MR. ~ WAS PRESENT 2. Resolution of Appreciation to Magnetic Bearings for locating in Roanoke County. R-10891-2 BI{T TO ADOPT RESO UW D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of Public-Private Partnership request by Magnetic Bearings, Inc. A-10891-3 2 BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE URC 2. Discussion of proposed 1991-92 Legislative Program PMM TO BRING BACK PRIORITIZED LIST ON 10/22 BASED ON INPUT FROM BOARD MEMBERS. 3. Reconsideration of 301 Gilmer Associates Rezoning Request. BLJ MOTION TO RECONSIDER ON 10/22/91 WITH STAFF REC011~IlVIENDATION URC E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS ECH REQUESTED WORK SESSION ON 10/22/91 -PRESENTATION OF SPRING HOLLOW BIDS. ECH REQUESTED WORK SESSION ON 11/19/91 ON DESIGN AND OPERATION OF TREATMENT PIANT F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code by the addition of Article VIII "Fire and Security Alarms" to Chapter 16 "Police" to regulate the use and operation of security and fire alarm systems. RWR AMENDED MOTION TO APPROVE FIRST READING 3 URC 2ND READING - 10/22/91 STAFF TO MEET WITH ALARM INDUSTRY AND SET WORK SESSION IF NECESSARY. HCN ASKED FOR LIST OF THOSE WHO WERE INFORMED ABOUT THE ORDINANCE. H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance accepting an offer for and authorizing the sale of 0.443 acre, more or less, known as the Old Bent Mountain Fire Station. 0-10891-4 LBE TO APPROVE AYES-LBE,RWR,BL~,HCN ABSTAIN-SAM I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Grievance Panel 2. Health Department Board of Directors 3. Industrial Development Authority HCN N011~IINATED WAYNE DLJIVMAN UPON RECOMII~NDATION OF VINTON TOWN COUNCIL 4. Planning Commission BLJ NOMINATED RON MASSEY TO ANOTHER 4-YEAR TERM J. CONSENT AGENDA 4 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 WII.L BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. R-10891-5 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE WITH ITEM 4 REMOVED URC 1. Approval of Minutes - August 27, 1991 2. Donation of sanitary sewer easements in connection with improvements to Route 221 (Brambleton Avenue). A-10891-5.a 3. Acceptance of Vista Forest Drive, Wintetwood Trail and Bayberry Court into the VDOT Secondary System. A-10891-5.b 4. Request from the Social Services Board for support in opposition to amendments to the Child Abuse and Neglect Law. LBE MOTION TO DEFER FOR FURTHER INFO INCLUDING INPUT FROM SCHOOLS AND STAFF - NO VOTE BLJ SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO BRING BACK ON 10/22/91 WITH INFO FROM SCHOOLS AND STAFF - URC K. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS SUPERVISOR EDDY: (1) ATTENDED LONG. OLIN'S SEMINAR 5 ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING. ASKED FOR REPORT FROM PIANNING STAFF ON ROANOKE COUNTY EFFORTS TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. BOARD SUGGESTED LBE MEET WITH TERRY HARRINGTON. (2) ASKED FOR MORE INFO ON SPRING HOLLOW BID TIlVIEFRAME. ECH WILL REPORT FOLLOWING WORK SESSION. SUPERVISOR TOHNSON: (1) ASKED FOR UPDATE ON FINAL AUDIT. ECH ADVISED HE WILL SCHEDULE MEETING WITH AUDIT COMNIITTEE ON 10/22/91. (2) ASKED FOR RECOMII~NDATION ON HOW FUNDS WILL BE SPENT WITH PRESENTATION OF AUDIT. SUPERVISOR MCGRAW: (1) VACO/VML TASK FORCE COMING TO CONCLUSION AND WII,L MEET IN NOVEMBER TO DISCUSS ARFAS OF CONCERN. (2) ASKED STAFF TO DRAFT NOISE ORDINANCE. PMM PLANS TO BRING BACK REPORT ON 11/19/91 ON RESULTS OF NOISE ORDINANCE IN ROANOKE CITY. L. CITIZENS' COMII~NTS AND COMMUNICATIONS NONE M. REPORTS BLJ TO RECEIVE AND FILE AFTER DISCUSSION OF ITEM 5 UW 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 6 4. Report on Monthly Utility Billing 5. Report on request from Mecklenburg County to oppose certain requirements of the Department of Waste Management. 6. Information on Literary Fund Projects 7. Citizen Information Update N. WORK SESSION 1. Joint Work Session with Appalachian Power Officials - APCO Transmission Line SCC PUBLIC IIEARINGS ON 4/2/92 IN NEW CASTLE, VIRGINIA AND 4/6/91 IN RICHMOND WITH DECISION IN 1992. ECH WII.L CONTINUE TO MEET WITH APCO OFFICIALS BI,J -ASKED FOR IdVIPACT OF COUNTY SAM =ASKED FOR LIST OF RESIDENCES THAT WOULD BE IlViPACTED OTHER BUSINESS ECH ASKED FOR MEETING ON 10/17/91 TO ACCEPT BINDS FOR BOND ISSUE. SAM ASKED FOR REPORT ON THE POSSIBLE IlVIPACT TO WATER RATES OF LOWER BIDS. BLJ ASKED FOR HISTORY OF BOND ACTIVITY SINCE 1985. O. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (7) for discussions with legal counsel and briefings by staff with respect to various agreements pertaining to the new landfill and discussion on Dixie Caverns Landfill. HCN MOTION AT 6:25 P.M. URC P. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-10891-6 BLJ TO APPROVE AYES-RWR,BIJ,HCN,SAM ABSENT-LBE Q. ADJOiTI[tNMENT TO OCTOBER 17, 1991 AT 3:00 P.M. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCEPTING BIDS FOR THE GENERAL OBLIGATION AND WATER REVENUE BONDS. BLJ MOTION AT 7:44 P.M. e o~ p,OaNp~.~ ~~ Z p J aZ 1 V E50\ s8 SFSQUICENTENN~P~' A Beauti~ul8cgirtmng 1.9.8.9 ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA OCTOBER 8, 1991 Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call 2. Irnocation: The Reverend Kenneth Stofft Our Lady of Nazareth Catholic Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCIAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS i 'r 1. Resolutions of Appreciation upon the Retirement of the following Roanoke County employees: a. Nedra W. Crockett b. Iris S. Groff c. Ronald R. Henderson d. Roger D. Huffman 2. Resolution of Appreciation to Magnetic Bearings for locating in Roanoke County. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of Public-Private Partnership request by Magnetic Bearings, Inc. 2. Discussion of proposed 1991-92 Legislative Program E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code by the addition of Article VIII "Fire and Security Alarms" to Chapter 16 "Police" to regulate the use and operation of security and fire alarm systems. a H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance accepting an offer for and authorizing the sale of 0.443 acre, more or less, known as the Old Bent Mountain Fire Station. I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Grievance Panel 2. Industrial Development Authority 3. Health Department Board of Directors 4. Planning Commission J. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WII.L BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Approval of Minutes - August 27, 1991 2. Donation of sanitary sewer easements in connection with improvements to Route 221 (Brambleton Avenue). 3. Acceptance of Vista Forest Drive, Winten~vood Trail and 3 Bayberry Court into the VDOT Secondary System. 4. Request from the Social Services Board for support in opposition to amendments to the Child Abuse and Neglect Law. K. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS L. CITIZENS' CONIlVIENTS AND CONiMiJNICATIONS M. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Report on Monthly Utility Billing 5. Report on request from Mecklenburg County to oppose certain requirements of the Department of Waste Management. 6. Information on Literary Fund Projects 7. Citizen Information Update N. WORK SESSION 1. Joint Work Session with Appalachian Power Officials - APCO Transmission Line 4 O. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (7) for discussions with legal counsel and briefings by staff with respect to various agreements pertaining to the new landfill. P. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION Q. ADJOURNIVIENT 5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1991 RESOLUTION 10891-1.a EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO NEDRA W. CROCRETT FOR FOURTEEN YEARS OF SERVICES TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, Nedra W. Crockett was first employed in August, 1977, as an Account Clerk I in Utility Billing; and WHEREAS, Nedra W. Crockett has also served as Account Clerk II in Utility Billing; and WHEREAS, Nedra W. Crockett, 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 NEDRA W. CROCRETT for fourteen years 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: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources Resolutions of At~breciation F;iA AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1991 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO NEDRA W. CROCRETT FOR FOURTEEN YEARS OF SERVICES TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, Nedra W. Crockett was first employed in August, 1977, as an Account Clerk I in Utility Billing; and WHEREAS, Nedra W. Crockett has also served as Account Clerk II in Utility Billing; and WHEREAS, Nedra W. Crockett, 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 NEDRA W. CROCRETT for fourteen years 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. ^~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1991 RESOLUTION 10891-1.b EXPRE33ING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO IRIS S. GROFF FOR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF SERVICES TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, Iris S. Groff was first employed in July, 1966, as a Social Worker in the Department of Social Services; and WHEREAS, Iris S. Groff has also served as a Social Work Supervisor, beginning in 1970, and her primary responsibility has been Child Protective Services; and WHEREAS, Iris S. Groff, 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 IRIS S. GROFF for twenty-five years 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 Robers 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. lien, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources Resolutions of Abnreciatinn F;iA • e ~_~ h AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1991 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO IRIS S. GROFF FOR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF SERVICES TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, Iris S. Groff was first employed in July, 1966, as a Social Worker in the Department of Social Services; and WHEREAS, Iris S. Groff has also served as a Social Work Supervisor, beginning in 1970, and her primary responsibility has been Child Protective Services; and WHEREAS, Iris S. Groff, 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 IRIS S. GROFF for twenty-five years 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. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1991 RESOLUTION 10891-1.C EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO RONALD R. HENDERSON, SR. FOR THIRTY-TWO YEARS OF SERVICES TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, Ronald R. Henderson, Sr. was first employed in May, 1959 as a Deputy Sheriff in the Sheriff's Office; and WHEREAS, Ronald R. Henderson, Sr. has also served as Lieutenant and Captain in the Sheriff's Office; and WHEREAS, Ronald R. Henderson, Sr., through his 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 RONALD R. HENDERSON, SR. for thirty-two years 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 Eddy to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: c..1 Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources Resolutions of Appreciation File ~- /~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1991 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO RONALD R. HENDERSON, SR. FOR THIRTY-TWO YEARS OF SERVICES TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, Ronald R. Henderson, Sr. was first employed in May, 1959 as a Deputy Sheriff in the Sheriff's Office; and WHEREAS, Ronald R. Henderson, Sr. has also served as Lieutenant and Captain in the Sheriff's Office; and WHEREAS, Ronald R. Henderson, Sr., through his 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 RONALD R. HENDERSON, SR. for thirty-two years 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. r AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1991 RESOLUTION 10891-1.d ERPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO ROGER D. HUFFMAN FOR TWENTY THREE YEARS OF SERVICES TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, Roger D. Huffman was first employed in September, 1968, as a Firefighter in the Fire and Rescue Department; and WHEREAS, Roger D. Huffman served as an acting captain with the Fire and Rescue Department for a short period of time during the 1970's until a full time captain could be promoted; and WHEREAS, Roger D. Huffman served as a Volunteer Fire Chief for the Hollins Volunteer Fire and Rescue Inc., in north Roanoke County and was a member of both organizations; and WHEREAS, Roger D. Huffman, through his 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 ROGER D. HUFFMAN for twenty three years 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 Robers 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 D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources Resolutions of Appreciation File ~ - / aL AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1991 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO ROGER D. HUFFMAN FOR EIGHTEEN YEARS OF SERVICES TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, Roger D. Huffman was first employed in September, 1968, as a Firefighter in the Fire and Rescue Department; and WHEREAS, Roger D. Huffman served as an acting captain with the Fire and Rescue Department for a short period of time during the 1970's until a full time captain could be promoted; and WHEREAS, Roger D. Huffman served as a Volunteer Fire Chief for the Hollins Volunteer Fire and Rescue Inc., in north Roanoke County and was a member of both organizations; and WHEREAS, Roger D. Huffman, through his 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 ROGER D. HUFFMAN for eighteen years 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. ~ ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1991 RESOLUTION 10891-2 OF APPRECIATION TO MAGNETIC BEARINGS, INC. (MBI) FOR LOCATING IN ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, MBI conducted a search to relocate its 37 employees and expand its facilities in the Roanoke Valley from Radford; and WHEREAS, MBI is a high-tech small business that designs frictionless bearings for use in the natural gas, oil and machine tool industries; and WHEREAS, MBI was assisted in their search by the Roanoke County Department of Economic Development, Lingerfelt Development Corporation and other Roanoke Valley businesses and groups; and WHEREAS, MBI is constructing a 17,000 square foot engineering research and manufacturing facility in Valleypointe, in the Hollins Magisterial District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby on behalf of its members and all the citizens of the County, express its appreciation to MAGNETIC BEARINGS, INC. for choosing Roanoke County for its new corporate location; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors extends its best wishes to the company, its officers and employees for success in the future. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: r 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 Tim Gubala, Director, Economic Development ~ - .2i AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1991 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO MAGNETIC BEARINGS, INC. (MBI) FOR LOCATING IN ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, MBI conducted a search to relocate its 37 employees and expand its facilities in the Roanoke Valley from Radford; and WHEREAS, MBI is a high-tech small business that designs frictionless bearings for use in the natural gas, oil and machine tool industries; and WHEREAS, MBI was assisted in their search by the Roanoke County Department of Economic Development, Lingerfelt Development Corporation and other Roanoke Valley businesses and groups; and WHEREAS, MBI is constructing a 17,000 square foot engineering research and manufacturing facility in Valleypointe, in the Hollins Magisterial District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby on behalf of its members and all the citizens of the County, express its appreciation to MAGNETIC BEARINGS, INC. for choosing Roanoke County for its new corporate location; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors extends its best wishes to the company, its officers and employees for success in the future. ACTION NO. A-10891-3 Item No. ~ _ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER IN ROANOKE, VA ON TUESDAY, MEETING DATE: October 8, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Public-Private Partnership request by Magnetic Bearings, Inc. (MBI) COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : `~/ " ~r~ ~./~_ f~~~-r~ EXECUTIVE SITl~II~IARY MBI is relocating their company from Radford to a site in Valleypointe. They are requesting Roanoke County to provide public-private partnership funds to offset water and sewer connection fees. BACKGROUND: MBI will occupy a 17,000 square foot engineering research and manufacturing building on 3.81 acres. The building and-real estate and machinery and tools are valued at $2,000,000. Thirty-seven employees will be employed at this. new facility. FISCAL IMPACT' Water and sewer connection fees total $17,030. The new investment in real estate (land and building) and machinery and tools would generate $21,370 in new taxes. Pay back for the County would be less than on year ( $21, 370 ) x one year for the $17, 030 of water and sewer fees funded. Funds in the amount of $100,000 are available in the Economic Development Fund for public-private partnerships. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Roanoke County fund water and sewer connection fees in the amount of $17,030 as a public-private partnership. ..~-/ Respectfully submitted: ~~ /~~1h~(,~ ~'V c~ Timot y W. Gubala, Director Economic Development Approved: ~' ,~ ~, ~..~- E mer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION No Yes Abs Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. ,To neon Eddy x Denied ( ) __to approve Johnson x Received ( ) McGraw x Referred Nickens x to Robers x Attachment cc: File Timothy W. Gubala, Director, Economic Development Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Cliff Craig, Director, Utility ' r~F ROANp,`,R ~. ; o z a 18 E50 88 ~FS~?UICENTENN~P~ A Beautifu/Beginning (~uunt~ of ~n~tn~kr UTILITY DEPARTMENT Invoice 4~ ED91-1 Roanoke County Enonomic Development Att: Tim Gubala, Director 3738 Brambleton Ave. S.W. Roanoke, Va. 24018 / iLL~AM ! ~~~~, 1979 1989 n~J~~~123Q ~~ S6, ,11~`, ~;' C,:;~ 1991 ~ ,h, '~~~•. ROAPJGr(E COUNTY ~v~ c-; , September 30, 1991 Re: Water & Sanitary Sewer Connection Fees- Medeco This invoice is for the public water and sanitary sewer connections installed for the Medeco facility on 3953 Daugherty Road. The total water connection fee for the 5/8" service is $1,536.00 and the sewer connection fee is $600.00. Please have the funds transferred into the following accounts: $1,036.00 Water off-site 000680-0485 500.00 Water basic 000650-0483 500.00 Sewer off-site 000690-0487 100.00 Sewer basic 000660-0483 $2,136.00 TOTAL Please return a copy of this invoice and budget transfer sheet along with Board Action number to Utility Department when complete. Sincerely, Clifford Craig C: Arnold Covey 2 1206 KESSLER MILL ROAD • SALEM. VIRGINIA 24153 (703) 387-6104 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: October 8, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION OF PROPOSALS FOR THE 1992 GENERAL ASSEMBLY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' This agenda item seeks Board discussion and decision concerning the various suggested topics for the Roanoke County's 1992 legislative program. Once the Board has considered these items, the County Attorney will prepare a formal resolution for adoption at the Board's next meeting. As reported to you on March 12, 1991, during the 1991 General Assembly Session the County was unsuccessful in securing legislation to extend the time for securing a qualifying industry for industrial access road funding, in securing funding for construction of the Regional Forensics Laboratory, and in securing changes in state funding for human services needs. The County supported legislation to provide equal taxing authority to counties; however, this legislation was defeated. Finally, the County sought legislation adding Roanoke County to the list of eight (8) localities authorizing the circuit court clerk to require tax map reference numbers or parcel identification numbers for every deed recorded. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The following is a list of legislative initiatives submitted to me since the last legislative session. These legislative initiatives are submitted to the Board for its consideration and discussion. 1. Increase the transient occupancy tax and dedicate the proceeds from this increase to promote tourism. Roanoke County's transient occupancy tax is 2~, Roanoke City and the City of Salem each tax at 4~. In 1990, the transient occupancy tax generated approximately $210,000; therefore, a 1~ increase in the tax could generate $105,000 in new revenue. To secure the support of the 1 """' .. business community for this tax increase it may be necessary to legislatively designate the increase in revenue to promoting tourism, or funding the Convention and Visitor's Bureau or perhaps to fund Explore or the renovation of the Hotel Roanoke. This proposal would require an amendment to the Roanoke County Charter. 2. Amend general law to authorize counties to impose a tax on tobacco products. The finance department estimates that a tobacco tax could generate $225,000 for the County annually. This proposal could also be authorized by an amendment to the Roanoke County Charter. 3. Secure a more permanent and stable basis for police department funding. Seek a statutory amendment for permanent police department funding (instead of a biennial appropriation). This amendment could be based upon Roanoke County's status as a chartered county and the results of the citizen referendum. H.B. 599 funding should be at least equal to funding as provided by the State Compensation Board. 4. The School Board is requesting an amendment to the Roanoke County charter to authorize the County to establish an earlier date for the opening of school, thereby relieving Roanoke County of the post-Labor Day opening requirement. Dr. Wilson has discussed this with Mr. Cranwell and Mr. Cranwell suggests an amendment to the County charter to accomplish this purpose. 5. In July the Board was requested to support a beverage container deposit bill introduced last year by Senator Gartland (The Virginia Beverage Container Recycling Act). 6. Accomack County requested the Board to support an amendment to general law authorizing the participation of members of boards of supervisors in the Virginia Retirement System. 7. Elizabeth Stokes has requested the County to seek an amendment to general law authorizing Roanoke County to require the tax map parcel number to be included on all deeds filed with the Circuit Court. 8. A citizen has requested Mr. Robers to seek an amendment to §56-414 of the State Code to allow the County to regulate the sounding of a train bell, whistle or horn at highway crossings. 9. The Employee Advisory Committee requests the Board to support an amendment to the Virginia Retirement System to allow pre-1981 employees to withdraw employee contributions. 10. The VACO/VML joint annexation task force is studying proposed legislation. This legislation is not yet final; however, the County Attorney's office will continue to monitor these developments and seek Board guidance for County action as these 2 1 ~~ proposals and seek Board guidance for County action as they become more concrete. 11. The 1992 session of the Virginia General Assembly could address a reallocation of state funding for education in order to achieve school funding equity. Based upon some of the proposals, Roanoke County could be a "loser" in the funding equity battles. Renewed calls for a teacher salary mandate could have a significant impact upon your local budget. The County Attorney's office will monitor these developments and seek Board guidance for County action as these proposals become more concrete. 12. On May 14, 1991, the Board adopted a Resolution urging the repeal of the Dillon Rule. The General Assembly has authorized the creation of twenty (20) Urban Enterprise Zones (Sec. 59.1-270, et sect.). The Director of Economic Development requests that the creation of an additional urban enterprise zone (for Roanoke County and perhaps jointly with Vinton or Botetourt County) should be included in the County's legislative program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board discuss and consider the above legislative proposals. Once the Board has finally determined its 1992 program, the County Attorney will prepare an appropriate resolution for Board adoption and for submission to the local legislative delegation. If the Board desires to amend the Roanoke County Charter, Section 15.1-835 provides that a public hearing be held with respect to the amendments following a ten (10) day public notice publication of the time and place of the public hearing and the text or an informative summary of the charter amendments. Respectfully submitted, G(~- Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Vote No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers 3 ~ 0 CT 7 1991 LAW OFFICES R GEE ~ ~~ Q ON OSTERHOl1DT, FERGl1SON, NATT, AHE CC , ~ A .,~-G~r A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ^ ^ ~ J(/ 1919 ELECTRIC ROAD, S. W. ~ ~' Q CHARLES H. OSTERHOUDT P. O. BOX 200G8 /'~\ ~ J ~' (/ TELEPHONE MICHAEL S. FERGUSON VIRGINIA ROANOKE ~ 703-774-1197 EDWARD A. NATT , MICHAEL J. AHERON 2[~QI$ FAX NO. G. STEVEN AGEE 703-774-0961 MARK D. KIDD October 7, 1991 HAND DELIVER The Board of Supervisors of Roanoka County County Administration Building Roanoke, VA RE: 301 Gilmer Associates Gentlemen: This letter is written to advise that our firm has been retained by 301 Gilmer Associates in the matter of the rezoning request which was denied by the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on August 27, 1991. We would respectfully request that the Board vote to reconsider this matter in an effort to enable the property owners to negotiate a set of proffers with the County's staff which would be acceptable to the Board of Supervisors. In conversations with representatives of the County's staff, I believe that this can be accomplished provided that one of the conditions is not that the building will never be torn down. Such a proffered condition would be unacceptable to the developer, and I think would not be appropriate under any circumstance. I;. any event, we :r~uld r~sL ~~*f~.:.lJ_y request that the Board of Supervisors vote to reconsider this matter, and that it be set for the October 22, 1991 Board of Supervisors Meeting. If the Board does vote to reconsider, we will meet with the staff prior to that time in an effort to come up with an agreed upon set of proffers. Very truly yours, OSTERHOUDT, FERGUSON, NATT, AHERON & AGEE, P.C. Edward A. Natt ~h,r tti EAN/sai c: Mr. Jim Johnston 301 Gilmer Associates P. O. Box 1138 Roanoke, VA 24006 Mr. Paul Mahoney County Attorney for Roanoke County P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ITEM NUMBER:- / AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 8, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance to regulate the use and. operation of security and firm alarm systems. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The Public Safety Agencies of Roanoke County respond to a large number of mechanical/electrical alarms annually. A disproportionately high number of these alarms are false; resulting from human error, poor maintenance or inferior product quality. Nearly every response requires vehicular operations under emergency conditions exposing public safety employees and others on the highway to a higher traffic safety risk. Public safety employees are historically lulled into a false sense of security when repeatedly conditioned to responding to alarms that are false and situations that pose no safety threat. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At present, nearly 100 alarms terminate in the Public Safety Center which results in a substantial drain on communication resources. One person, representing 25 to 30% of the on-duty work force must devote their time to monitoring, receiving, dispatching and resetting alarms. Further, alarm monitoring is a free service selectively provided to only those persons or firms that choose to install and terminate an alarm in the Public Safety Center. Alarm monitoring is a form of competition with the private sector. Considering the County's current interest in privatization the restriction of this service, which is also provide by private vendors, seems to be in the best interest of everyone involved. Public safety response to the large number of false alarms is typically made under emergency conditions with multiple police or fire units responding. Increased exposure to liability arises when both employees and the public traveler is exposed to quick response public safety vehicles. Perhaps, even worse is problem of employees being incorrectly conditioned to meet a threat that, based on experience, is usually found to be "false". A study made of alarms received and responded to reveals a disproportionately high number of false alarms occur in Roanoke County (see attachment). ~ -/ In most instances false alarms happen due to employee error, faulty installation, poor maintenance or inferior product quality. There is little or no private sector incentive, other than personal motivation, to insure employee training/discipline, correct faulty installation, provide quality maintenance or install high quality equipment matched to site requirements. In short, the public safety employee will continue to respond regardless of the number of false alarms transmitted. Alarm service monitoring is not made available to every tax paying person or firm. If alarms are being transmitted unregulated over phone lines terminating in the Public Safety Communications Center, false alarms may clog hose lines preventing reception of true emergency calls for assistance. A survey shows that most major municipalities and urban Counties in Virginia have ordinances that address both the termination of alarms in public safety facilities and the transmittal of false alarms to public safety responders. These ordinances typically control alarm termination in police/fire communications and provide for a graduated penalty in the instance multiple false alarms are received. The Public Safety Team was diligent in its review, debate and drafting of the proposed ordinance. A decision reached on this draft represents the unanimous opinion of the Public Safety Team. Passage of this ordinance should result in a safer highway/community environment and the desired effect that an alarm should have on public safety employees -the chances are such that they will be encountering a true emergency situation. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: Failure to regulate alarm quality and termination control will result in continued higher liability exposure to the public and employees. Growth in the number of alarms terminated in the public safety building results more competition with the private sector and increased drains on County resources for a selected number of residents. The negative impact of continuously responding to false alarms is detrimental to the public safety mission and its associated training. The ordinance is designed to encourage compliance. Recent records reviews would show several thousands of dollars in potential charges and fines. It is anticipated that this amount would decrease dramatically in the first year based upon other communities and their experience with similar legislation. C~ ~-/ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the unanimous recommendation of the Public Safety Team that the ordinance be passed as presented. SUBMITTED BY: n H. Cease Chief of Police ACTION APPROVED: .~~ ~: 9 Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. County Administrator VOTE Approved () Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To No Yes Abs Robers Johnson _ McGraw _ _ Nickens _ _ _ Eddy _ _ _ ~ -/ TO: Captain D. A. LaPrade FROM: Ramona P. Kern DATE: September 27, 1991 SUBJECT: False Alarm Calls Below is a table summary of false alarm calls for business and residential alarms since May, 1990. Date Range Alarm'Type Alarms Handled Handled Verified' False Received by by Alarms Alarms Roanoke other County 05-21-90 Daytime 150 142 8 7 135 to Business 12-31-90 Alarm Nighttime 717 674 43 9 665 Business Alarms Residential 411 383 28 6 377 Alarms 'COMBINED 1278 1199 79 22 1177 ALARMS 01-01-91 Daytime 147 140 7 10 130 to Business 09-15-91 Alarm Nighttime 432 412 20 6 406 Business Alarms Residentail 512 481 31 5 476 Alarms COMBINED 1091 1033 58 2'1 -1012 ''ALARMS ~ -/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1991 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY THE ADDITION OF ARTICLE VIII. "FIRE AND SECURITY ALARMS" TO CHAPTER 16 "POLICE" TO REGULATE THE USE AND OPERATION OF SECURITY AND FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS WHEREAS, the improper and illegal operation of fire and security alarms by property owners within the County of Roanoke threatens the safety and health of the citizens of this county through unnecessary responses by police and fire units as well as causing unnecessary expense to the public and inconvenience to the neighbors of such alarms; and WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance occurred on October 8, 1991; and the second reading and public hearing occurred on October 22, 1991. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, as follows: 1. That a new Article VIII, "Fire and Security Alarms" of Chapter 16, "POLICE" of the Roanoke County Code is adopted and enacted as follows: ARTICLE VIII. FIRE AND SECURITY ALARMS Sec 16-20. Purpose The purpose of this article is to regulate the use and operation of security and fire alarm systems in premises to which the police department or fire and rescue service are expected to respond in order to reduce the number of false alarms and protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the county. -~ Sec 16-21. Definitions For purposes of this article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed to them by this section: a. Alarm Board The facility located in the communications section of the Public Safety Center which is designed to receive direct signals from alarm systems authorized to be connected thereto. b. Automatic Dialing Device A device installed, operational and which is interconnected to a telephone line programmed to send a recorded message, code or signal from a protected premises to a telephone number assigned to the Public Safety Center. This term shall include a "telephone dialer" or a "tape dialer" or any other similar device or equipment. c. Alarm Any device which, when actuated by the occurrence of a criminal act or fire risk requiring police, fire or rescue response, transmits a signal to a central alarm system, a third party or directly to the Public Safety Center or produces an audible or visible signal designed to notify persons within audible or visual range of the signal. d. False Alarm Any security or fire alarm signal, communicated directly ~'-/ or indirectly to the Public Safety Center which is not in response to actual or threatened criminal activity or fire risk requiring immediate police, fire, or rescue response. False alarms include negligently or accidentally activated signals; signals which are the result of faulty, malfunctioning, or improperly installed or maintained equipment; signals which are purposely activated to summon the police department or fire and rescue service in non-emergency situations; and signals for which the actual cause is not determined. False alarms shall not include signals activated by unusually severe weather conditions or other causes which are identified and determined by the Chief of Police or designee to be beyond the control of the user. e. Person Any individual, firm, partnership, association, company, corporation, organization or other legal entity. f. Security or Fire Alarm System Any assembly of equipment or device designated to detect and signal the unauthorized intrusion into a premises or to signal an attempted burglary, robbery, other criminal activity, or fire at the protected premises, to which the police department or fire and rescue service are expected to respond. Such term, however, shall not include security alarm systems maintained by governmental agencies. g. Oser ~-/ Any person using a security or fire alarm system or having an insurable interest in any premises upon which is located such a system, regardless of whether the person owns the security or fire alarm system or the premises on which it is located. h. Higb Hazard Premises A facility requiring urgent attention to which the police, fire or rescue department is expected to respond for the protection of multiple persons as designated by the Chief of Police or the Chief of Fire and Rescue including but not limited to nursing homes, hospitals and homes for the elderly . i. Protected Premises The premises upon which a security alarm system has been placed for the purpose of detecting a hazard. j. Public Safety Center The Roanoke County Public Safety Center including the E- 911 Center and the dispatch communications center or their successors in title. Sec 16-22. False Alarms - Prohibited a. It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly and without just cause to activate a security or fire alarm to summon the police department or fire and rescue service in situations where there is no actual or threatened criminal or fire risk requiring immediate police, fire or rescue response. b. Violation of this section shall constitute a Class 1 Misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to Two Thousand Five ~ -/ Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) or not more than twelve (12) months in jail, or both. Sec 16-23. Alarm - Deactivation The police officer or fire and rescue official responding to a false alarm shall have the authority to deactivate said alarm system without liability when it is disturbing the peace and quiet of the community, if the user fails to deactivate the alarm system within a reasonable time. A reasonable time for purposes of this section shall be 30 minutes from the time that substantial efforts are first made to contact the User. Sec 16-24. New Alarm Connections a. The County of Roanoke shall only maintain alarm monitoring capability for those premises that are deemed to be a high hazard premises Such decision to issue permits for these alarms shall require the approval of the Chief of Police and Fire Chief of Roanoke County. b. New Users may connect, maintain and operate alarm systems that have their point of termination in the Public Safety Center only upon satisfaction of the following conditions: 1. Completion upon an annual basis of an application form to be provided by the Chief of Police, or if a fire alarm, the Fire Chief, containing the following information: (a). name and address of the protected premises; (b). name, address, telephone number or other locations whereby the person(s) maintaining the alarm can be located; G-i (c). name, address, telephone number or other means of locating a minimum of two persons who can be contacted on a 24 hour-a-day basis in case of alarm or malfunction. (d). any additional relevant information requested by the Chief of Police or Fire Chief of Roanoke County; (e). execution of a release of liability by an officer or authorized agent of the User. Any material misstatement of fact made by any applicant shall be sufficient cause for refusal to issue a permit or to revoke any permit previously issued. 2. Installation by a licensed alarm business or licensed electrician maintaining a valid business license within the Commonwealth of Virginia with the cost to be paid by the user. 3. Monthly inspection and testing of the system by the User and reporting, by the 10th day of the next month, of the results of said inspections to the Chief of Police , or, if for a fire alarm, to the Fire Chief on forms to be provided by said departments. 4. Implementation of a continuous training program for appropriate employees and others, who may have occasion to activate the alarm system, regarding the use and operation of the alarm system, which includes instruction on the setting, activation and ~-/ resetting of the alarm. c. Roanoke County assumes no liability for any omission or commission resulting from the security or fire alarm system terminating in the alarm boards in the Public Safety Center. d. No alarm permit issued under this Article can be transferred to another person. A permit holder shall inform the Chief of Police of any change that materially alters any information listed on the permit application within five business days of such occurrence. Sec 16-25. Deactivation of Existing Alarms - Prohibited Alarms a. Any User which has its alarm system connected to the Public Safety Center on the effective date of this ordinance shall, 30 days after receipt of written communication from the Chief of Police, disconnect any alarm terminating therein. Failure to disconnect will result in said alarm being disconnected by the County with no liability, at the owners expense. b. After the effective date of this ordinance, it shall be unlawful for any person to install, operate or maintain an automatic dialing device or service which is programmed to transmit a prerecorded message or code signal directly from a residence, premises or dwelling to any telephone number assigned to the Public Safety Center, Police, or Fire and Rescue Departments, or to install, operate or maintain an automatic dialing device or other security or fire alarm system in violation of the provision of this ordinance. c. Alarms may be connected to a termination board located in the Public Safety Center only with the express written approval of ~-l the Chief of Police and the Fire Chief of Roanoke County. d. Nothing contained herein will prohibit any person or User from installing an alarm system which terminates with a commercial or other alarm monitoring and answering service. e. A User of a local alarm shall adjust the mechanism of any alarm or cause such mechanism to be adjusted so that an alarm signal shall not sound for longer than 30 minutes after being activated. Sec 16-26. False Alarm Fees and Charges a. Users shall be allowed one false alarm, without fees or charges, in any single quarter (3 months) of the calendar year. For each false alarm beyond the one permitted by this section, there will be fees and charges levied against the User, except as follows: 1. No fee shall be charged for a false alarm if, prior to dispatch of vehicles or personnel of the police, fire or rescue departments to the scene of the alarm, the Public Safety Center is notified by the User or an authorized employee or agent of said User. 2. No fee shall be charged for a false alarm when the User demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police, or designee, that said false alarm was generated by adverse weather conditions, or electrical or telephonic power failures. b. The fees and charges under this section shall be charged as follows: 1. There will be a charge of $25.00 for each false alarm G-t which results in a police, fire or rescue response. 2. There will also be an additional service charge of $40.00 for each police, fire or rescue unit dispatched to the protected premises. 3. In no instance shall a fee exceeding $250.00 be charged to a User for a single false alarm incident. c. Telephonic requests received for police, fire or rescue response to a protected premises or dwelling, from a third party alarm monitoring service that meet the criteria for "false alarms" as defined by ordinance shall be subject to the false alarm fee schedule contained herein. The User shall be legally responsible for all fees or charges imposed thereunder. d. In the event of the occurrence of four false alarms from a single user at a single location in any six month period, the fee and charge for subsequent false alarms in the system shall double the normal fee and charge, until such time as the Chief of Police or designee, receives written certification from a qualified alarm technician that the cause of such false alarms has been removed. e. In no instance shall a fee exceeding $250.00 be charged to a User for a single false alarm incident. f. The Roanoke County Police Department will be responsible for maintaining records of false alarms for billing purposes and shall forward such information to the Roanoke County Treasurer's Office on a monthly basis. g. In the event that a User fails to pay a false alarm fee or charge, or both, levied under this Section within 30 days of the billing date used by the County Treasurer, the User shall be G -~ charged interest at the judgment rate from such billing date All such fees and charges shall be paid to the Roanoke County Treasurer. An appeal, as provided for below, shall suspend the running of such interest, but interest shall be due to Roanoke County as calculated from the date the fees or charges were originally billed in the event that such appeal is denied. h. Disputes over the number of false alarms or assessment of fees may be reviewed by a panel consisting of the Chief of Police or designee, an Assistant County Administrator and the Building Commissioner upon receipt of a written request from the petitioner within five business days of receiving the bill. Decisions of this appeal panel shall be consistent with the purposes and intent of this ordinance. A consensus of the panel shall constitute the final decision which shall be communicated to the petitioner and Roanoke County Treasurer in writing. i. Any fees or charges, or both, collected under this Section shall be deposited in a capital improvement account for the benefit of the Roanoke County Public Safety Communications Center. 2. This ordinance shall be in effect on and after October 24, 1991. c:\wp51\agenda\code\firealrm.ord illllliillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllllllilllllll AGENDA ITEM NO. ~'~ APPEARANCE REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING ~ ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS .. SUBJECT: ~ I ~~ I ~ L~ ,~ ~ ~ C ti~~:~~, '~ ~j, ~'~z s`~/'l ~ '~' ~i l ~ I'; ~ ~~,~ '/~~ 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 THE LECTERN, I WII.L GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY TIiI!,, 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 ~~ _,7____~, f~1 ~ ,= ~--~ ~~ illilllllllllllillllllllllllllll~illllllllilllllllllllllllllllillllillllllllll 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 AGENDA ITEM NO.~.7 - / APPE CE REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS SUBJECT: //~i~ ~ >~'~d~~i~V ,/~L/-!~/~f ~: 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'~IE 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 6e 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 '~ ~ rte ~~ -1 /-1j_~.: />4'~,~.•~ ~' < C `:,~j~ NAME _~rc.1 /~~.~-.~~1~~,,~~~ ADDRESS ~~'/.~' %, ~~~, -,.~i t~e~ f_' ,:~! ;, ~_". PHONE jc ~~ F~,t,r,~ ;cam ~ fa N y ~ r ~~ illllliillllllllllllllllllllllil~illlllllllllllllllllllllllllliillllllllillill 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 y AGENDA ITEM NO. -~ -- APPEARANCE REQUEST FOR -PUBLIC FIEARING -ORDINANCE -CITIZENS COMMENTS SUBJECT: ~-i k^~: /~~.,~~ ,S~'cc, K' ~ r y /I 1.,~~tL9 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 WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY TIC 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 ~ o ~~ ~ ,c ~j ,o %;~i~~.c~ ADDRESS ~ ~ z_ f''-.,~ kv,~«.~ ~~,~~ S~~ ~ ~~,, ~ r~ PHONE '~ ~ ~> - 7i ~~ 11111111111111111111111111111111~111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 AGENDA ITEM NO. ~L APPEARANCE REQUEST FOR -PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCE -CITIZENS COMMENTS SUBJECT: Fi 2 c ~ ti ~ ~ ~L v sz ; fi~ A ~ ~+ R i'1't. 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 presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may a 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 D. mQ 2T~ rv ~Tz ~~rZ a (~ ADDRESS _ ~ ~ y~ ~2 A~vKc. ~~ 2 , PHONE __ R n ~ -,,~ K ", ~~~- a ~o ~ <i ,~ 1111111111111111111111111111111~1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1~~~~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ AGENDA ITEM NO. ~- / APPE CE REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING ''ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS SUBJECT: ~//~ c ~ ~'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. WIZEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY TIC 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 6y 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 a 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 ~~<~~,~~ ~ i r~~ /~~'` ~ ~,~ . ~ ~~, ~- , ~~ / f ; ADDRESS ~ ; / ' PHONE ~~.,~.~,> ~~~,~~ ~ ?,' ~ ~. ~.~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1991 ORDINANCE 10891-4 ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR AND AIITHORIZING THE SALE OF 0.443 ACRE, MORE OR LESS, KNOWN A3 THE OLD BENT MOUNTAIN FIRE STATION BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject property has been declared to be surplus and is being made available for other public uses; and 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading was held on September 24, 1991; and a second reading was held on October 8, 1991, concerning the sale and disposition of 0.443 acre, more or less, known as the Old Bent Mountain Fire Station, Tax Map No. 111.00- 1-17; and 3. That an offer having been received for said property, the offer of Dennis L. Humston to purchase this property of Nine Thousand Dollars ($9,000.00) is hereby accepted; and 4. That all proceeds from the sale of this real estate are to be allocated to the Capital Projects Fund pursuant to Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County Charter; and 5. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Eddy to adopt the ordinance, and i carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor McGraw A COPY TESTE: ~.Q~~~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance T. C. Fuqua, Chief, Fire & Rescue ACTION NO. ITEM NO. r'7 ~'" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 8, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF A .433 ACRE PARCEL OF REAL ESTATE (TAX MAP NO. 111.00-1-17) KNOWN AS THE OLD BENT MOUNTAIN FIRE STATION LOCATED ON STATE ROUTE 221 IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT TO DENNIS L. HUMSTON COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' This is the second reading of a proposed ordinance to authorize the conveyance of a .433 acre parcel of real estate (Tax Map No. 111.00-1-17) located on Route 221 to Dennis L. Humston. BACKGROUND' The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has previously declared this property to be surplus property and available for sale to the public. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Mr. Dennis L. Humston has requested that the County convey the .433 acre parcel of real estate to him and has offered to pay the County $9,000. FISCAL IMPACTS' $9,000 to the Capital Projects Fund. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the acceptance of this offer, the conveyance of this property to Dennis L. Humston and crediting $9,000 to the Capital Projects Fund. Staff recommends that the Board approve the second reading of this ordinance and that the County Administrator be authorized to execute the necessary documents to consummate this transaction. y~/ Respectfully submitted, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Vote No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers ~-/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1991 ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR AND AUTHORIZ- ING THE SALE OF 0.443 ACRE, MORE OR LESS, KNOWN AS THE OLD BENT MOUNTAIN FIRE STATION BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject property has been declared to be surplus and is being made available for other public uses; and 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading was held on September 24, 1991; and a second reading was held on October 8, 1991, concerning the sale and disposition of 0.443 acre, more or less, known as the Old Bent Mountain Fire Station, Tax Map No. 111.00-1- 17; and 3. That an offer having been received for said property, the offer of Dennis L. Humston to purchase this property of Nine Thousand Dollars ($9,000.00) is hereby accepted; and 4. That all proceeds from the sale of this real estate are to be allocated to the Capital Projects Fund pursuant to Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County Charter; and 5. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. c:\wp51 \agenda\realesta\bnt. mtn ,% N-~ PROPERTY OF JAMES W. FRALIN ~ ti i ~ ~ pe ~ SOD `~O~ O. !y ~` ~~ 0 3 ~op~: 0.443 Ac. ~ N ~o ~ "' ~ . N 2 / S ~ ~9 y `~*' d0~, N 57• 00' E PROPERTY OF X04.5' CLI NTON D. BROWN PROPERTY OF GEORGE W. STONE AT ~~~L1~ ~~~-~-~~~ SA1'., 11R~AV 2I b9Y I:00 Py~ A1' I ROANOKE COUNTY ADM. CENTER i 3738 Brambleton Ave. i RT. 4 BOX 98 C~,L SALEM, VA 2<153 REAL ESTATE 703.384035 AUCTIONEERS RRf1KFRC REST MOUNTAIN FIRE STATION • LEGAL REFERENCE= DEED BOOK= 632 PAGE= 246 949 253 TAX MAP= 57-52B ZONING CLASS= A-I UTILITY SERVICESi WATER= NOT AVAILABLE SEWER= NOT AVAILABLE r GAS= NOT AVAILABLE ELECTRIC= AVAILABLE • # /-7~ / SPECIAL FEATURES BUILDING ON LOT SCALE ~ I== = 40= ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION NUMBER ITEM NIIMBER ~ ~ ' '7 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 8, 1991 SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. Grievance Panel Three-year term of alternate Cecil Hill will expire October 12, 1991. Mr. Hill has been appointed as a regular member of the panel. 2. Industrial Development Authority Four-year term of William Triplett expired 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. 3. Health Department Board of Directors Two-year term of Anne Renner will expire November 26, 1991. 4. Planning Commission Four-year terms of Ronald L. Massey, Hollins Magisterial District and Donald R. Witt, Cave Spring Magisterial District will expire December 31, 1991. SUBMITTED BY: APP VED BY,• Mary H. lien Elmer C. Hodge Clerk to the Board County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) McGraw To ( ) Nickens Robers ~"' S AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1991 RESOLUTION 10891-5 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. that the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for October 8, 1991, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 3 ~4, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of Minutes - August 27, 1991 2. Donation of sanitary sewer easements in connection with improvements to Route 221 (Brambleton Avenue). 3. Acceptance of Vista Forest Drive, Winterwood Trail and Bayberry Court into the VDOT Secondary System. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution with Item 4 removed, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None A COPY TESTS: y~I~.~. ~ Mary H. llen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Cliff Craig, Director, Utility Betty Lucas, Director, Social Services .~/-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1991 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. that the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for October 8, 1991, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 4, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of Minutes - August 27, 1991 2. Donation of sanitary sewer easements in connection with improvements to Route 221 (Brambleton Avenue). 3. Acceptance of Vista Forest Drive, Winterwood Trail and Bayberry Court into the VDOT Secondary System. 4. Request from the Social Services Board for support in opposition to amendments the Child Abuse and Neglect Law. 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. ~9~ August 27, 1991 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 3738 Brambleton Avenue S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 August 27, 1991 The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday, and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of August,, 1991. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman McGraw called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Steven A. McGraw, Vice Chairman Harry C. Nickens, Supervisors Lee B. Eddy, Bob L. Johnson, Richard W. Robers MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Mary H. Allen, Clerk to the Board; John R. Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator, John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator, Don M. Myers, Assistant County Administrator, Anne Marie Green, Information Officer IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by the Reverend Samuel Crews, Coopers Cove Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all ~ ~ U August 27, 1991 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, HE 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 HE 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 Auqust 27, 1991 tiO U No action was taken, and Supervisor Johnson asked Mr. Hodge to bring back a report to a future board meeting on using the surplus for mid-year employee raises. 2. Adoption of resolution authorizinq the issuance and sale of 515.000.000 General Obligation Water Spatem Bonds. R-82791-2 Finance Director Diane Hyatt reported that in 1968, a referendum was held for the issuance_of $15 million in General Obligation Bonds for the Spring Hollow Reservoir Water Supply and $1 million for acquisition of private water systems. The $1 million has been issued, and the remaining $15 million need to be issued for the water project. Debt service and closing costs will be paid from the revenues generated by the increase in the consumer tax. Ms. Hyatt advised that conditions are favorable for going to the bond market, and she estimated an interest rate of seven percent. The following citizens spoke in opposition to issuance of the bonds: 1. Don Terp, 5140 Apple Tree Drive, representing Concerned Citizens of the Roanoke Valley. He asked that the project be delayed for six months for additional study and reevaluation. 2. Jim Graves, 2121 Cantle Lane S. W., stated that the majority of the citizens he spoke to were opposed to the reservoir, and asked for a delay of six month to reassess the project. Auqust 27, 1991 ~~ 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 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. 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 August 27, 1991 fifi4 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. Abnointment of Bond Registrar and Pavina 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 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 Auqust 27, 1991 ~ Q 6 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 $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 August 27, 1991 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 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 August 27, 1991 fi1~ education. vote: AYES: NAYS: The motion was carried by the following recorded Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw. None 4. Adoption of Resolution supportinar improvements to Alternate Route 220. R-62791-4 Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the resolution. The motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw. NAYS: None RE8OLIITION 82791-4 REQIIEBTING THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION E%PEDITE IMPROVEMENTS TO ALTERNATE ROIITE 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 August 27, 1991 5?~ carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw. NAYS: None Supervisor Nickens asked County Attorney Paul Mahoney to study the possibility of separating the second reading and the public hearings for rezonings. IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES i. Ordinance amendinc the Roanoke County Code, Article II, Vircinia Statewide Fire Prevention Code of Chanter 9, Fire Prevention and Protection. THere was no discussion. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve first reading of the ordinance. The motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw. NAYS: None 2. Ordinance to authorize acquisition of a sanitary sewer easement from H. M. and Learleen D. Obenchain. Utility Director Clifford Craig reported that the staff has offered the owner $1,400 for the easement. The owner will not accept the offer and demands $2,000. Staff recommended authorization to acquire the easement at $2,000 in order to expedite the process and acquire the easement at the overall lowest cost. August 27, 1991 6 ~ (~, 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: continuingt 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 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) Gass 1 misdemeanor: By a fine of not more than ewe August 27, 1991 A L 4 There was no discussion. Supervisor Robers moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw. NAYS: None ORDINANCE 82791-6 FOR AIITHORIZATION TO ACQIIIRE A NEW WATER, SANITARY SEWER AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT FROM HIIGH 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 August 27, 1991 1 grant the right to ioint use of County water and sewer easement areas by a public utility company. 0-82791-7 There was no discussion. Supervisor Nickens moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw. NAYS: None ORDINANCE 82791-7 AIITHORIZING THE COIINTY ADMINISTRATOR TO GRANT THE RIGHT TO JOINT IISE OF COIINTY RATER AND SEWER EASEMENT AREAS BY A PIIBLIC IITILITY 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. August 27, 1991 6L 0 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 IN RES CONSENT AGENDA Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the consent agenda. The motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw. NAYS: None RESOLIITION 82791-8 APPROVING AND CONCIIRRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORB 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 August 27, 1991 s2~ 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 IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERB Supervisor Eddv: (1) Asked if there would be followup on the citizen survey. Mr. Hodge advised staff will investigate the meaning of responses on certain issues. (2) Expressed concern about vacuum leaf collection. Mr. Hodge reported that staff is attempting to involve volunteer organizations and the CDI Program with the understanding that the County will serve as a referral service only. He will bring back a report on September 10, 1991. Supervisor Nickens: Asked Assistant County Administrator John Hubbard about the Department of Waste Management ranking of Smith Gap site versus Area "A' at the current landfill. Mr. Hubbard responded that the Smith Gap site is ranked fourth. Supervisor Nickens asked that a letter be sent to the current Landfill Board asking that they request from the Department of Waste Management an exchange in the permit ranking of Smith Gap with the current landfill. i Auqust 27, 1991 ~ 1 j Supervisor Eddy asked for more detailed information and justification for the Literary Loan projects. Mr. Hodge responded he will meet with School Superintendent Bayes Wilson and bring back a report on September 10, 1991. 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 Zoninq Appeals Mr. Hodge reported that he will. bring back a report on the September 10, 1991 meeting. The Board members asked that specific criteria for variance requests be given to developers when their permits are issued. 8. Report on Appalachian Power Company's application for a 765 kV transmission line known as WyominQ- Cloverdale Line IN RE: WORK SESSION 1. Privatization This work session was continued to September 10, 1991) IN RE: EZECIITIVE SESSION At 5:10 p.m., Supervisor Nickens moved to go into Executive Session pursuant to the Code of Virginia 2.1-344 (a)(7) for consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff requiring provision of legal advice regarding the Dixie Caverns landfill. The motion was carried by the following recorded vote: August 27, 1991 b~ ~ and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw NAYS: None IN RE: RECESS At 5:46 p.m., Chairman McGraw declared a recess for a meeting of the Roanoke County Resource Authority. EVENING SESSION IN RE: PIIBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 891-1 Ordinance amendinc the Roanoke County Code. Section 21-73. General Prerequisites to Grant of Division 3. Exemption for Elderly and Disabled Persons of Cha ter 21 Tauation to increase t total combined income provision for real estate taz esemotion for the elderly and handicapped. 0-82791-10 Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the ordinance. Supervisor Nickens asked for the difference between the $4,000 and $6,500 income exclusion for relatives. Management and Budget Director Reta Busher responded that the change would August 27, 1991 ~2~ _ __ 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 brerecruisites to grant of Division 3. Exemption for elderly and disabled persons of Chapter 21, Taxation be amended to read and provide as follows; 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 thirty thousand ($30,000.00); provided, however, that the f first sixty-five August 27, 1991 C34 thanking the Board for dealing with the issue before it became a crisis: 1. Allen G. Trigger, 3519 Forester Road, Roanoke 2. Garnett Cox, 5016 Woodmont Drive, Roanoke The following citizens spoke in opposition citing the cost; encouraging the board to delay the project to look at other alternatives; to try again to make the project a joint project with other localities; and offering a different option at Craig Creek. 1. W. C. Waddell, 5719 Oakland Blvd, Roanoke 2. Lou Rossi, 3023 Tamarack Trail, Roanoke 3. Jim Graves, 2121 Cantle Lane, Roanoke 4. Don Terp, 5140 Apple Tree Drive, Roanoke 5. Charles Millican, 2615 Summit Ridge Road, Roanoke 6. Ruth Moseley, 3425 Greencliff Road, Roanoke 7. David S. Courey, 3419 Ashmeade Dr., Roanoke 8. Roy Ferguson, 7020 Buckeye Road, Roanoke 9. Lela Spitz, 1971 Oak Drive Ext., Salem Mr. Hodge responded to the Craig Creek option, reporting that this project would take 3 5 homes on Route 311 and f lood a portion of the road. John Bradshaw with Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern advised that the permitting process could take an additional ten years. Supervisor Eddy advised that he would not support the issuance of the $65 million revenue bonds because he felt the alternatives should be studied in greater detail. August 27, 1991 ~3~ 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 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 $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 634 August 27, 1991 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. 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 891-3 Ordinance amending Chanter 22, Water o!° the Roanoke County Code by the addition o! a- nan 8eatioa 22-6. "Reduction o! Rates" to authorise August 27, 1991 6 ~ U 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. (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 dwellinq~house of-a person (utility customer) holding title. or-partial:.,title thereto or a leasehold interest who is not less. than sixty-€ive (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 permanently and totally disabled. AuguBt 27, 1991 6 3 8 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 $30,000.00 under the authority of this ordinance. (i) An eligible person (utility customer) applying for a reduction on or before December 1, 1991, shall utilize the rate in effect June 30, 1991; for applications received after December 1, 1991, the rate utilized shall be the rate in effect at=.the.. time of application. 2. That this ordinance shall be effective with billings mailed on or after September 1, 1991. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt ordinance, and carried by the-following recorded vote: Auqust 27, 1991 6 application, based on a 1958 Attorney General's opinion.. The motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw. NAYS: Supervisor Eddy ORDINANCE 82791-13 AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 21-° 52, A~PLICATIONB FOR SPECIAL A88E88MENT• FEES, OB` DIVIBION 2. IISE VALIIE ASBEBSMENT OF CERTAIN REAL,.. ESTATE, OF CHAPTER 21, TABATION, OF THE ROANORE COIINTY CODE. WHEREAS, § 58.1-3231 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, authorizes counties to adopt ordinances to provide for the use value assessment and taxation of real estate which provided the legal basis for County Ordinances 84-191 and 32487- 18 establishing a procedure for such use valve assessment and taxation of certain qualifying real estate within the County of Roanoke; and WHEREAS, § 58.1-3234 of the 1950 Code of Virginia further authorizes the governing body of any county to provide for-=an application fee and a revalidation fee every six years for-the processing and approval of such applications for use value assessment and taxation of real estate; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 101089-4 deleted the former Division relative to the use value assessment of certain real estate.-:and enacted a new Division 2 which provides for a set- basic application and revalidation fee without regard to the acreaq~ot any parcel for which application is made; and WHEREAS, the previous policy of the_ County had.. beem°~ta.. .$ ,. _- August 27, 1991 6 4 2 thirty cents ($0.30) per acre or portion thereof contained in each parcel, 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 late filing fee of forty ~ dollars 2. That the effective date of this ordinance shall be 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 891-5 An ordinance to rezone ao~roz m tely 12 acres from M-i to B-2 and obtain a epeaial Exception Psrmit to operate a retirement community on 49.3 aarea located north side of Route 11/460. west o! Salem. Catawba Macisterial District. upon the petitfo of Richfield Retirement Comm unity 0-82791-14 Planning and Zoning Director Terry Harrington reportedw~that this request is to rezone the remainder of_property to B-2 and to obtain a Special Use Permit to bring the existing and planned future buildings into compliance with the_zoninq. The petitioner- August 27, 1991 64 4 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 Commercial District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of 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 Allegheny Drive (Va. Sec. Route 642) and the- northerly right-of-way of West Main Street (U:S. Route 11/460); thence leaving Allegheny 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 point being in the easterly property line::of~~ he: Commonwealth of Virginia (State Police Headquarters);-thence, August 27, 1991 ~ /. 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 Exceptioa_Perma,ts involvinq_only a portion of the site. August 27, 1991 S ~} 8 to the proffers. However, he was informed he could not add proffers at the public hearing. Supervisor Nickens moved to deny the request. Following discussion on the best way to ensure that the existing building would remain, but the petitioner would have an opportunity to develop his property, Supervisor Nickens withdrew his motion. Supervisor Johnson moved to refer the request back to the Planning Commission to allow the petitioner to add additional conditions if he desires. The motion was .carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw. NAYS: None IN RE: ADJOIIRNMENT Supervisor Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m. The motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw. NAYS: None Steven A. McGraw, Chairman ~ tM 1. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. A-10891-5.a ..7"- Z AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 8, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Donation of sanitary sewer easements to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County in connection the Virginia Department of Transportation's project for improvement of Route 221 (Brambleton Avenue) COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~ ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This consent agenda item involves the donation of easements for sanitary sewer purposes over and across properties located in the County of Roanoke in connection with the VDOT State Highway Project 0221-080-107, for improvement of Route 221, as follows: a) Donation of a sanitary sewer easement, varying in width from three feet (3') to twenty-one feet (21'), from Ivan Lloyd Atkinson and Janet W. Atkinson (Will Book 43, page 236) (Tax Map No. 86.12-2-12), shown as outlined in purple on plan Sheet lOD, State Highway Project 0221-080- 107, RW-201. b) Donation of a sanitary sewer easement, varying in width from three feet (3') to twenty-one feet (21'), from Philip Denver Atkinson and Judy Atkinson (Will Book 43, page 236) (Tax Map No. 86.12-2-12), shown as outlined in purple on plan Sheet lOD, State Highway Project 0221-080- 107, RW-201. c) Donation of a sanitary sewer easement over two tracts or parcels of land, varying in width from twenty-one feet (21') to twenty-seven feet (27'), from Cavitt K. Bartley and Elizabeth S. Bartley (Deed Book 706, page 32; Tax Map No. 86.12-2-11) (Deed Book 498, page 122; Tax Map No. 86.12-2-10), shown as outlined in purple on plan Sheet lOD, State Highway Project 0221-080-107, RW-201. The location and dimensions of these properties have been reviewed and approved by the County's utility engineering staff. A ~~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of these properties. Respectfully submitted, V c 'e L. man Assistant County Attorney Action Vote No Yes Abs Approved ~) Motion by xarry c'. Ni k_n~ Eddy x Denied ( ) Johnson x Received ( ) McGraw x Referred Nickens x to Robers x cc: Engineering Department c:\wp51\agenda\donation\221 cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Cliff Craig, Director, Utility ACTION NO. A-10891-5.b ITEM NUMBER ~'-.~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 8, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of Vista Forest Drive, Winterwood Trail and Bayberry Court into the Secondary System by the Virginia Department of Transportation COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County has received acknowledgement that the following roads have been accepted into the Secondary System by the Virginia Department of Transportation effective September 19, 1991. Vista Forest 0.45 miles of Vista Forest Drive (Route 2036) 0.21 miles of Winterwood Trail (Route 2037) 0.10 miles of Bayberry Court (Route 2038) SUBMITTED BY: m ~ G~~~ Mary H. Allen Clerk to the Board APPRO D BY:~ ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ~ Motion by: __ ua~, (~ _ N~ ~kanc No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred ( ) McGraw x To ( ) Nickens x Robers x cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections ,.. 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: October 8, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Request from Social Services Board for support in opposing changes to the Child Abuse and Neglect Law COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : t ,t„i .,~~ a-w s<~ ~~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On August 8, 1991, the Roanoke County Board of Social Services adopted a resolution opposing amendments to the Child Abuse and Neglect Law. These amendments would exclude local school personnel from being investigated by Social Services agencies for allegations of child abuse and neglect. The Social Services Board has asked for support from the Board of Supervisors in expressing opposition to the proposed amendments. Attached is a copy of the Social Services resolution and correspondence from the Social Services Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If the Board of Supervisors wishes to oppose these amendments, staff recommends that this be included in the Roanoke County 1991- 92 legislative program. ~~~ /f~ ~~ Elmer C. Hodge` County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) McGraw To ( ) Nickens Robers t ~F ROANp~~ ~. Z .p L7 v a2 18 '~° 88 sFS~U1CENT.ENN~P~ A Beautiful Beginning ~~- ~D~I1T~L~ t1f ~II~IYiA~2P DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Steven A. McGraw, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors FROM: William P. Broderick, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Social Services DATE: September 24, 1991 ~°c i~- ~' ~" c~a ALL-AMERICA CITY ~- ~.1:' I ~'' 1979 1989 MRS. BETTY M. LUCAS DIRECTOR We have recently learned that the Virginia Department of Social Services is proposing amendments to the Child Abuse and Neglect Law which would exclude local school personnel from being investigated by Social Services agencies for allegations of child abuse and neglect. Rather, school officials would investigate their own staff in these matters. The attached resolution presents the concerns of our Board and staff regarding the recommended changes. We hope you will join us in expressing opposition to the proposed amendments to the Code so that children in all situations involving a caretaker will have the benefit of full child protective services. Attachment P.O. BOX 1127 SALEM. VIRGINIA 24153-1127 <703) 387-6087 FAX: (703) 387-6?_10 J _~ ~' RESOLUTION ROANOKE COUNTY ~ .~ BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Social Services is proposing legislation to amend Section 63.1-248.2 and 63.1-248.6 of the State Code of Virginia related to child abuse and neglect by excluding employees of local school boards as persons responsible for children's care; and WHEREAS, this proposal would eliminate local Social Service agencies from investigating alleged abuse and neglect by school personnel; and WHEREAS, local school officials would investigate their own employees for allegations of child neglect and abuse; and WHEREAS, such proposed changes in the Code would lead to fragmentation of child protective services and limit interventions on behalf of children; and WHEREAS, these recommended changes would cause an erosion of the law designed to protect children from abuse and neglect from those who care for them; and WHEREAS, legislation which authorizes school officials to investigate their personnel gives the impression to the public of complaints being evaluated which lack impartiality and objectivity; and WHEREAS, such proposed Code amendments, by singling out one group of employees for internal investigation, would lead to other public and private facilities requesting similar legislative exemptions. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Department of Social Services voices its strong opposition to the proposed amendments to the child abuse and neglect law; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to advise appropriate local officials, State Board of Social Services, Commissioner of Social Services, and General Assembly members of the far-reaching implications and dangerous precedent it sets. Adopted by Roanoke County Board of Social Services August 8, 1991 William P. Broderick, Chairman M- ~ COUNTY OF ROANOKE~ VIRGINIA GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE ~ of General~i~ Amount Fund Expenditures Unaudited Balance at July 1, 1991 $4,269,399 6.10$ and Balance as of October 8, 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). ~-j- 2 COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE Beginning Balance at July 1, 1991 $ 6,097 August 15, 1991 Sale of Shamrock Park (Board approved sale on March 26, 1991, Sale Finalized August 1, 1991) 34,914 Balance as of October 8, 1991 $ 41,011 Submitted by Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance /vl°~ COUNTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY Beginning Balance at July 1, 1991 $ 50,000 July 9, 1991 Additional funds for Alleghany Health District (8,000) July 9, 1991 Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau (3,000) Balance as of October 8, 1991 ~ 39,000 Submitted by Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance i r 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: October 8, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Status of Monthly Utility Billing COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : ~ ~ ,~,~ ~ ~G ~r~-, ~ -r ~ ~ ~ G BACKGROUND• The Board of Supervisors has asked the staff to return to the Board with a recommendation for or against monthly utility billing. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In keeping with the County's new approach to team management, the staff has selected a team to work on the Utility Billing Project. This team is composed of individuals from Finance, Utility Billing and Management Information Services. We will be meeting over the next month to discuss options of implementing monthly billing, researching what other localities are doing and trying to determine the most cost efficient way of providing this service. We would like to return to the Board at its November meeting with a work session outlining the pros and cons of monthly billing. If you have any comments which you would like addressed by the team, please direct them to my attention in the next few weeks. Respectfully submitted, Diane D. Hyat Director of Finance Approved by, ~,~i .~..~- Elmer C. Hodg County Administrator 1, Approved Denied Received Referred To ACTION Motion by: VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~--~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 8, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Report on a request from Mecklenburg County to oppose certain requirements of the Department of Waste Management COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The County has received a request from Mecklenburg County to support their efforts to seek legislation to (1) eliminate the requirement by the Department of Waste Management (DWM) to charge fees for the review of permits for waste management facilities and (2) amend the Waste Management Regulations to permit closure under the old regulations of landfills opened between December 18, 1988, and January 1, 1994. The staff believes that both requirements are beneficial to the approval process for new facilities and the protection of the environment against poorly-operated existing facilities. Roanoke County has taken the necessary action to comply with all requirements for new and existing facilities. The County would have benefited from a permit fee structure that provided adequate staff to process the Smith Gap application. Staff feels that these are statewide issues that affect all localities and should be addressed in a unified effort through VACO and VML. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: ~`.~ ohn R. u ard, P.E. Elmer C. Hodge Assistant County Administrator County Administrator ~ T / '-,~ Approved Denied Received Referred to Motion by: ACTION VOTE Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers No Yes Abs J~pG1N~~ 7 .~. R '~,~ ~`~ t1~1.enlnzr~ C~uurrtt~ ~attr~ IIf ~S~rErfris~rs 0 '~~~ err ~nst (®fEitP 'i~ux 3Q7 • ~atrDtan, ~irgir~itt 23917 ~rr[6 1~+ _ August 19, 1991 ~harleea,~+. i~"alaalx ~~~F ~Lme~otrrtm L'mertyncegeberbiaa ~irsda, The Hon. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Roanoke County P. 0. Box 3800 Roanoke, VA 24015 Dear Mr. Hodge: Sd~ 1804) 739-6191 (8041 738-6192 The Commonwealth cf Virginia, Department of ;Taste Management has levied some very heavy and totally unfunded mandates on all counties, cities and towns to comply with regulations on Sanitary Landfills. Our Board of Supervisors believes that two (2) of these requirements are unnecessary. If you agree and we work together, we can be successful in changing the governing statute with the result that each of our governing bodies can save some very heavy dollars and still protect the environment. That first requirement deals with Permit Application Fees which DWM estimates will cost between $29,000 and $36,000 at time of initial permitting and thereafter every five years un_on the occasion of permit renewal. The DWM justification for this fee is that they need to spend between 1385 and 1610 m~rr-hours to review the permit application prior to approval and the funds generated by the fee schedule will permit the Department to employ enough engineers and geologists to perform the task. The regulations necessitate each of our governing bodies to employ, at great expense, certified engineers and eeologists, to design and build landfill cells to.DW?rt specifications. It is ridiculous to think that it takes DWM engineers up to 1610 hours to review the work of these certified, professional engineers, and make us pay for it, when other remedies are available. Each engineering firm carries malpractice insurance and if they fail to perform as required, both DWM and the local governing body have legal remedies available. The first resolution attached requests the General Assembly to exempt counties, cities, and towns from permit application fees. This position will very likely be supported by VACO in their proposed Legislative package for the 1991 session of the General Assembly. The second issue requires each county, city, and town to close Sanitary Landfill Cells, opened between December 18, 1988 and January 1, 1994, under the new regulations. Most engineering firms estimate that to cost about $75,000 per acre. 41e all want to protect the environment and agree that the double liner conceor will protect the groundwater from contamination. However, the requirement to place an impervious cap on unlined cells defies logic. August 12, 1991 Page 2 ~-5 Leachate flows downward, not upward. If the groundwater in those cells is contaminated by leachate, we are already required to correct that problem and to do so immediately. So the required impervious cap accomplishes nothing except huge sums of money. Our engineers estimate that the closing of 8 acres at the Mecklenburg County Landfill will cost $500,000.00. For many of you the cost will be in the millions of dollars. The second resolution attached urges the General Assembly to amend the Waste Management Regulations to permit closure under the old rules the subject cells opened between December 18, 1988 and January 1, 1994. For these reasons, we urge you to join with us to seek legislative relief from the two (2) aforementioned requirements. The time for action is now so that appropriate Bills will be introduced in both houses of the Legislature and passed early in 1992. We hope that your governing body will join with us to change these two regulations to our mutual benefit. Sincerely yours, f~ W. E. Blalock Chairman Board of Supervisors Mecklenburg County ~~ac~N~~ 1 0 '~ ,t~I~[~ T'~~a• rharlea~_ ®7iiuale _ ~~a L-'~eegnap eber6ias ~nMOr ivt 5 ~+~ (i09) 738-6191 (9W) 735-6192 t~rrbxzr~ C~aurtt~ ~uttr~ of ~~Erfi~isIIrs (®ffitP i~nx 3II7 • ~u~r~tan. 3Jirginizc 23917 At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors County of Mecklenburg on July 8, 1991, the Board, by a the following resolution: RESOLUTION held in and for the unanimous vote, adopted WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Waste Management Regulations VR 672-20-10 requires that all Sanitary Landfill cells opened under existing permits after December 18, 1988 to be closed under the new regulations; and WHEREAS, while the Department of Waste Management's concern relates to leachate generated in these cells entering and contaminating the environment, and groundwater in particular; and WHEREAS, requiring the placement of a two foot cap atop these closed cells essentially does nothing to protect the environment in that leachate flows down and not up; and WHEREAS, the affected cells do not have any protective lining beneath to collect such leachate and prevent same from entering the environment; and WHEREAS, the closure procedure is very costly, estimated to cost in or about $75,000.00 per acre; and WHEREAS, all Counties, Cities and Towns who currently operate Sanitary Landfills are subject to these regulations which offer practically no environmental protection, but are extremely expensive; and NOW THEREFORE~BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Mecklenburg, Virginia strongly urges the General Assembly to amend the Virginia Waste Management Regulations to permit closure under the old rules those cells opened in landfills operating under existing permits between December 18, 1988 and January 1, 1994; and -~ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all other Counties, Cities and Towns be invited to submit similar resolutions and that Delegates and Senators representing all of the Counties, Cities and Towns be asked to co-sponsor bills in the 1992 session of the legislature to effect this change. ~ ~. . E. Blalock, Chairman Mecklenburg County Board of Supervisors Teste: ~ ~%'~^~ . S. O'Toole County Administrator r M ~depl~as (B69) 73B-6191 (604)736-6192 At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors, held in and for the County of Mecklenburg on July 8, 1991, the Board, by a unanimous vote, adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Counties, Cities and Towns became aware that the Department of Waste Management intends to assess Permit Application Fees associated with treatment, storage and disposal of nonhazardous solid wastes; and WHEREAS, these Permit Application Fees will not be a one time fee but will be recurring fees; and WHEREAS, it was not the intent of the Department of Waste Management to assess such fees when the new solid waste management regulations were adopted since a change to the statute was made in the 1990 session of the Virginia Legislature; and WHEREAS, non-hazardous landfill design and applications must be prepared by registered professional engineering companies to specifications determined by the Department of Waste Management; and WHEREAS, the Department of Waste Management justification for assessing Permit Application Fees is to cover costs incurred in performing specific administrative functions such as issuance of permits, permit modifications, or certifications to applicants; and WHEREAS, the Department of Waste Management estimates that it will require a total of 1385.6 or 1610.6 man-hours at a cost of $29,257.21 or $36,081.72 to have their engineers, geologists and others review work submitted by registered professional engineers, geologists and others employed by the Counties, Cities and Towns; and WHEREAS, Permit Application processing is a normal part of a regulatory agency's business which should be funded as a normal part of their budget paid from the general fund and not from special funds as proposed; and WHEREAS, the imposition of Permit Application Fees exacerbate an already heave, unfunded, mandate thrust upon the Counties, Cities and Towns by the Department of Waste Management to meet their new regulations; and /~ -.5 ~1RG1 Mfg ii ~ ~ ,~I.e~~l.extbxzr~ Cn~aurrtt~ ~IIrxr~ of ~u~xPrfzisurs ;~ 0 ~,. ~0 1"~"• (®ffit2 i~ux 3U7 • 1~uv~tun. ~irztatizi 23417 ~~Illil~M .~. y1 ~l1CDIE 77~:~~SaiWq Apm~e, _"""U""4 e'~es ~v,~or _J!'- WHEREAS, it appears that the Department of Waste Management, by and through the Permit Application Fee process is intent on building a bureaucratic autonomous empire which is not dependent upon the Commonwealth for funding, but still costs. the taxpayers money; and WHEREAS, it appears ludicrous that the Department of Waste Management needs to spend 1385.6 or 1610.6 man-hours reviewing the work of registered professional engineers and geologists all of whom are insured for malpractice, which provides alternative remedies for the Department should their work fail to meet required specifications; and NOW TSEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Mecklenburg, Virginia, strongly urges the General Assembly to amend the Virginia Waste Management Act, Sec. 10.1-1402(16), Code of Virginia to exempt the Counties, Cities and Towns from the burden of Permit Application Fees; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all other Counties, Cities and Towns be invited to submit similar resolutions and that the Delegates and Senators representing all of the Cities, Counties and 'Towns be asked to co-sponsor Bills in the •1992 session of the legislature to effect this change. W. E. Blalock, Chairman Mecklenburg County Board of Supervisors Teste: ~ s~ . S. O'Toole County Administrator ., 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: October 8, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Report from Roanoke County Schools regarding Literary Fund Projects COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At the September 24, 1991 meeting, Dr. Bayes Wilson presented the Board of Supervisors with additional information regarding the Literary Fund Projects. At that time, Supervisor Eddy requested that the report be included on the agenda for the October 8 meeting. Attached is the information. C~ /~ ,~~' / ~ Elmer C. Hodg County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers ~ aoAN ~. F ~. F- ~p 2 Cf a s OFFICE OF DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS 526 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE SALEM, VIRGINIA 24153 T0: Roanoke County Board of Supervisors FROM: Bayes E. Wilson, Superi:~tendent~-~" .''-- SUBJECT: Information on Literary Fund Projects DATE: September 20, 1991 "` As requested at a recent meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the following additional information is provided on the Literary Fund requests: Green Valley Elementary The addition is needed to provide kindergarten rooms that will meet state standards. The present kindergarten rooms were not built for kindergarten classes. Provision would be made to relocate the library to the present kindergarten area. The present library is too small. The electrical system would be upgraded, asbestos removed, air conditioning installed, and general building improvements made. Cave Spring Junior High Renovation of the buildings would include upgraded electrical system, air conditioning, asbestos removal, some window and other energy efficiency modifications, and general improvements. Cave Sprinq Hiq_h This addition is needed in order to upgrade science education (science, biology, chemistry, physics) needs for adequate and up- to-date classrooms and laboratories. General renovations would be made to other portions of the building as needed. Glenvar Hiqh An addition is needed to accommodate the middle grades. With relief from this addition, Glenvar Elementary could absorb students from Fort Lewis Elementary. Fort Lewis, which is an old school, could be closed. Northside High A classroom addition will enable the ninth grade to become part of Northside High School. All sixth graders from North County elementary schools (Glen Cove, Mason's Cove, Burlington, and Mountain View) could then attend Northside Junior, which would become Northside Middle School. ~ '/-~ -2- William Byrd High An addition would relieve the overcrowded conditions of this school. All science laboratories would be renovated. Back Creek Elementary Projected increase in enrollment will require additional classrooms. Since the conclusion of the 1989-90 school year the enrollment has increased a total of 56 students. Cave Spring Elementary The library needs to be expanded. The electrical system would be improved, asbestos removed, air conditioning installed, and general improvements made to the older portion of the building. Mason's Cove Elementary Additional classrooms are needed to replace two mobile units. Improvements would be made to the older portion of the building to include electrical upgrade, air conditioning, and general improvements. BEW:rcw c: Mr. Elmer Hodge ACTION # ITEM NUMBER M - ~f AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 8, 1991 SUBJECT: Report on Citizen Participation in Roanoke County Government COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At the September 24 meeting of the Board, Supervisor Eddy requested that the memorandum on Citizen Par- ticipation in Roanoke County Government be received and filed as on the Board Agenda. The Memorandum is attached. ~~ NE MARIE GREEN ELMER C. HODGE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ------------------------------------------------ ACTION VOTE Approved ( )Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Robers Referred Johnson To Nickens McGraw cc: File ~-7 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 23, 1991 TO: Roanoke County Board of Supervisors FROM: Anne Marie Green, Public Information Officer RE: Citizens and Government At the meeting of September 10, I was asked to review Supervisor Eddy's memorandum on citizen involvement, and to provide an analysis of the suggestions. Mr. Eddy is correct - most people are interested only in actions that directly affect them, their families or their property. Additionally, our recent survey showed that the vast majority of County residents are satisfied with the actions of the Board and the staff, which means that few people see a need to become involved. I have the following comments on his suggestions: 1. Mary Allen is going to change the automated message for the Board of Supervisors' telephone number, and will include information on the public hearings and pending actions of general interest. 2. A display ad in the Roanoke Times and World News is expensive, and I believe we can achieve the same effect with the list of recent and upcoming Board actions in Roanoke County Today. On the response cards which we recently received, many citizens indicated that they like this feature of the newsletter and read it regularly. 3. I will contact Norma Jean Peters, who oversees the Social Studies curriculum for the County schools, and remind her that the 1 f~ Supervisors and staff are always available for appearances at the schools. Classroom visits should start below the junior and senior high school level. Last school year, a student at Radford University arranged visits of this type as part of a course project. The Sheriff, the County Administrator, the Animal Control Officer and Dick Robers each spoke to students at Cave Spring Elementary School, and their visits were very well received. Additionally, Student Government Day continues to be popular with the schools, and our program is one of the oldest in the Country. 4. Mr. Hodge has started meeting with civic league presidents on a quarterly basis, and at the next meeting, we will remind them that the Supervisors and staff are always available for speaking engagements. 5. If the Board wishes, I can explore interview programs with local TV and radio stations. I will need to know who is available to be interviewed and the topics you would be willing to speak about. The stations do occasionally contact Mr. Hodge and other staff members for interviews, and we do everything possible to accommodate the requests. 6. Once the government access channels become available, the County will have the opportunity to use Cable TV regularly. I am a representative to the Cable TV Committee, and the first meeting is this week. I will report back as to the possibility of televised Board meetings, interviews, etc. 7. We can make copies of controversial or important agenda items to be placed on the back table along with copies of the agenda itself. Obviously, there is a cost to this, but if the Board wishes, it can be done on an experimental basis. Currently, a variety of civic leagues, citizens and news media agencies receive a copy of the agenda in the mail prior to the meetings. They send us a written request at the beginning of the year, and the clerk's office mails the agenda to them. Staff frequently receive calls from the press asking for more information on certain items after they receive the agenda, and we generally fax them the Board Reports. The press also has the media packet available to them beginning at 3:00 p.m. on Friday before the meeting, as well as during the meeting itself, and some of the reporters do come into the office to review the agenda. 8. The County could advertise vacancies on committees, commissions and boards. This does require application forms, however, and then the individual Board member would have to choose who to recommend. 2 rn- 9. The local media has been enduring budget cuts, and they are finding it difficult to cover everything in the Roanoke Valley. Press conferences should be kept for important issues and events, and I believe we will receive better coverage that way. We do send press releases to all the news media on a regular basis, and also receives periodic telephone calls from them asking for "news". As a member of the Virginia Municipal League's Public Affairs Network and the National Association of County Public Information Officers, I regularly receive newsletters containing suggestions on communicating with citizens. Many of these have associated costs, but I will watch for any which we can do inexpensively. cc: Elmer Hodge County Administrator 3 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER N AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 8, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session with Appalachian Power Company on Proposed Wyoming-Cloverdale Transmission Line COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : ~ `/Te~s*'~` ~ p BACKGROUND' At the Board meeting on September 10, 1991, the staff was instructed to schedule a work session with representatives from Appalachian Power Company (APCO) to discuss the proposed transmission line through Roanoke County and its potential impact on the proposed Smith Gap landfill site. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The staff has worked with representatives from APCO in preparation for this work session. AGENDA 1. Need for line: Charles A. Simmons, Vice President Construction and Maintenance A. Overview of APCO and AEP study B. Other alternatives considered 2. 3. Steps taken to date: Charles A. Simmons Description of siting methodology/determination of corridors: Dr. Leonard J. Simutis, Study Team Consultant 4. Remaining steps: Charles A. Simmons 5. Discussion: Attached is information from the Application for Approval and Certification of Electrical Transmission Lines regarding Roanoke County. ~-/ SUBMITTED BY: D. C. Myers Assistant County Administrator Approved Denied Received Referred to Motion by: ACTION APPROVED: ~~ Elmer C. Hodg County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers /// j U O \ 1 ~ ~ . ~ - ~ ~~. ~ ; ~ JII III ~ 111 ` fBYll Igllll ~1 ~ _ ~_ ~~i~- _ >_- ...; \ A \\ c ~ _ _m '~~ U J il-: i o °' ~~ ` a 6' vim" `~ '' ' t .~ r~ ;" m ~ q m ~,,, `, , J .. _ ~ _ v ` o`er / ~ ~o ~" • ' ~ w'. ~ Y ~ c, " , P~4t dN ~ Z: ~ ~ oN.~ I ~ ~ A ~~ N,I _~ ~~ : 6 •,•`~ ~ q \ III ~-~, ~ "a Q ~ - ~ ~ _ v ~~ E v ~ m ' `v L Y \ ~ /G ~O D - ~\ 'rte G7p ~ = U w \~\\~1111''~~~~gQgq' ~ r 3 m U c '1~\ ~'`~ d' .~ E J .U N • tl A A ~ ~ tl ~ W • ~ ? N J ~ U` U y h G~ n Y ~~ yy / i W ~ r < c ` _~ ° =- W ~~~Y, .. oD t =° ~•`]~ a N Y ~ =Y m= T O Y L ~O I~ ~ ~ n ; m ~ a g° ~ o o~ a ' ~ l my m- vim` a n ~. ~ c C a T ~ m i ~. = a m m ~ o n q= ~-1] t s •~ (~ ~ u ~ ~Lr~ ~ oa8 8 ~ m _ n m a~ m ~ ~ , tJ ~ _ . d ~' f~ n 3 ~ B~ W - m 'ry : m~ i k ~ ~~. `n m v = ~ E ' ~- ~ „b o ° ,~ ~ ° ~u 1r c c I li a ~ A _ ~ Y~ - z ~ °v w `~ W _ \/\\ - _ ~ Ecm Wa ~ m~~ ~ X01-_ O ~I c`_ ,rte! k., _ '" - w = ~ =r ~ ei m ~ ~ r, z° ~j -~ x1L ^ ----~ - 00 ~s'~'~~a.-,.. E e ~ ~ x vi f \1 l ~ 1n l~~~ q E _~ ~ ~~ ` II ~y /` L ~ rte` to m ~° o V ~c~..,: > Z ~ ~(, c ,~ 1 2 w y y " ~ V , c __ n ~ asma ai ro ~ r ~L`d • ~~/~~ e Y O m _ F ~ 9 m r t~~E o o~ I~II~ _ IIIIIf: a ~ V / '- o .. a ..:' c r r ; apt o +A N ~r~_ ° 4P U ° X O ,.o .. m~ ~ ~ W..e...-~ -.R. ~oGV~ ~~ ~ - \ \ /~ m O N V' Nti f ~ `' 4 d rn t ~ = ., a C a m °i~ E<' u an d m t n ~ ~ E v ` 7 F and _ v d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ r '~ • _ ~ a1 N ' w u V J IY _ \ ° Tl / ~~ N ~J.((l~ am Jam" c ~v~ ~ o ms m ~ u c ~, ~ ;` e U ~55~RN !o ° ~o U ~ a ~~~ccc""" c _ ~jy ° " a ~ y~~ ~_ O M 9 N S _ O V~ T T ~ ,, Q~ W O p ° 'v ~ ~ ` A M ~ .~ _ ': a m n ~ ~~~ f ~ J ~ ... ~ m ~ ~ ~. _. m N3 ~ eA o - _ ~ ~ w` m ~ ~ ~ ~ .• a c a •- /\/ r / Section III. IMPACT OF LINE ON SCENIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND HISTORIC FEATURES A. Describe the character of the area which will be traversed by this line, including, land use, wetlands, etc. Provide the number of dwellings within 500 feet of the line for each route considered. The Virginia portion of the Wyoming-Cloverdale 765 kV line crosses the landscape in an area commonly known as the Ridge and Valley Province, which consists of parallel ridges and stream valleys, with sandstones and shales in upper slope positions, and less resistant limestones and shales in lower slope positions and valleys. The ridges are typically wooded in deciduous and mixed evergreen forests. The valleys have been mostly cleared for pasture and rural settlements. There are no large population concentrations in areas to be traversed by the line in Virginia except for the extreme eastern portion of the line as it enters the Cloverdale station near Roanoke. Most of the line will be located in areas where residences and farms are distributed in a generally dispersed settlement pattern. ~ The preferred corridor has 17 residences in Virginia within 500 feet of the centerline. The alternative corridor incorporating segments PC 6, PC 7, AC 19, and PC 10 has 10 residences in Virginia within 500 feet of the centerline. (All "PC" and "AC" references are to segments of the alternative and preferred corridors identified on Map A and Exhibit 4.) The alternative corridor incorporating segments AC 15, PC 7, PC 8, and PC 10 has 19 residences in Virginia within 500 feet of centerline. The alternative corridor incorporating segments AC 15, PC 7, AC 19, and PC 10 has 12 residences in Virginia within 500 feet of the centerline. Alternative segment AC 11 has no residences in Virginia within 500 feet of the centerline. B. Advise of any public meetings the Company has had with neighborhood associations and officials of local, state or federal governments who would have an interest or responsibility with respect to affected area or areas. Two sets of public workshops have been held during the course of this project. The first workshops, held in November of 1990, were held in Hinton, Union and Pineville, West Virginia and Catawba, Virginia. The second set of workshops was held in late May and early June of 1991. These workshops were held in Hinton, Pineville, Union and Princeton, West Virginia and Catawba, Pearisburg and New Castle, Virginia. Several other non-public meetings have been held with officials of local, state and federal governments and are listed below: 19 ~-I Federal Agencies Jefferson National Forest National Park Service West Virginia Greenbrier County Commission Summers County Commission Mayor of Hinton Mercer County Administrator Monroe County Commission Monroe County Clerk Wyoming County Commission Wyoming County Clerk Raleigh County Commission Raleigh County Administrator Mayor of Beckley McDowell County Court McDowell County Administrator Union Rotary Club Princeton Rotary Club Common Ground State Representative Bill Wooton State Representative Billy Wayne Bailey State Senator Leonard Anderson State Delegate Pat Reid State Delegate Robert Kiss State Delegate Perry Mann State Delegate Gilbert Bailey State Delegate William Carper, Jr. West Virginia Public Service Commission Staff Mercer County Commission Bluefield Rotary Club Virginia Allegheny County Administrator Tazewell County Board of Supervisors Tazewell County Administrator Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administrator Roanoke County Attorney Mayor of Roanoke City Manager of Roanoke Giles County Board of Supervisors Giles County Administrator Bland County Board of Supervisors Bland County Administrator Botetourt County Board of Supervisors 20 ~~;; T. :~, ~- ~ Botetourt County Administrator Montgomery County Board of Supervisors Montgomery County Administrator State Delegate Malfourd W. (Bo) Trumbo State Delegate C. Richard Cranwell State Delegate G. Steve Agee State Delegate Dudley L. (Buzz) Emick, Jr. State Delegate Joan Munford State Delegate Jackie Stump State Delegate Barbara M. Stafford State Delegate A. Victor Thomas State Delegate A. H. Smith, Jr. Bluefield Rotary Club Craig County Board of Supervisors Craig County Administrator Citizens for the Preservation of Craig County Appalachian Trail Club - Roanoke State Corporation Commission Staff C. Detail the nature, location, and ownership of all buildings which would have to be demolished or relocated if the project is built as proposed. This information will not be available until the final right- of-way is determined and surveyed. At this point, it is anticipated that a maximum of one building will need to be demolished or relocated. D. What existing physical facilities will the line parallel, if any, such as existing transmission lines, railroad tracks, highways, pipelines, etc.? Describe the current use and physical appearance and characteristics of the existing right- of-way that would be paralleled. How long has the right-of- way been in use. The preferred corridor generally parallels existing 345 kV and 765 kV lines in segments PC 8, PC 9 and PC 10. The rights-of- way are in active use for transmission lines, and the segments to be paralleled generally run through forested areas. A portion of the 765 kV transmission line to be paralleled crosses through two short segments, totalling .75 miles, of ~~ the Havens Wildlife Management Area north of Salem. These corridor segments will be described in detail in the Environmental Assessment to be provided to the Commission in a supplemental filing. The existing 345 kV right-of-way has been in use since 1969 and the existing 765 kV right-of-way has been in use since 1973. E. Has the Company investigated land use plans in the areas of the proposed route? How would the building of the proposed line effect future land use of the areas affected? 21 °"' The Company has investigated land use plans in the areas of the proposed route. While paralleling an existing 345 kV line in Roanoke County, the preferred corridor is adjacent to the eastern boundary of the proposed landfill site at Smith Gap south of Bradshaw, Virginia. The proposed route should not, however, affect the use of this site as a landfill. The preferred corridor will traverse certain lots in the western portion of the Equestrian Hills subdivision on Route ~~ 624 in Roanoke County while paralleling an existing 345 kV line. No houses have been built in this portion of the subdivision. Alternative corridor segment AC 19 will be adjacent to the Wood subdivision in Craig County. No houses have been built in this subdivision. This alternative corridor segment will also cross Route 621 in Craig County, which has been designated as a growth corridor by Craig County. 1. Has the Company determined from the governing bodies of each county, city and town in which the proposed facilities will be located whether those bodies have designated the important farmlands within their jurisdictions, as required by Virginia Code Section 3.1- 18.5.3? The Company has determined from the governing bodies of each county, city and town in which the proposed facilities will be located that those bodies have not designated important farmlands within their jurisdictions, as required by Virginia Code Section 3.1-18.5.3. 2. If so, and if any portion of the proposed facilities will be located on any such important farmland, please: a. Include maps and other evidence showing the nature and extent of the impact on such farmlands. b. Describe what alternatives exist to locating the proposed facilities on the affected farmlands, and why those alternatives are not suitable. c. Describe the applicant's proposals to minimize the impact of the facilities on the affected farmland. Not applicable. F. Identify the following that lie within or adjacent to the proposed right-of-way: 1. Any district, site, building, structure, or other object 22 N -- included in the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior; No district, site, building, structure, or other object included in the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the U. S. Secretary of the Interior is located in the preferred or any alternative corridor in Virginia. 2. Any historic landmark, site, building, structure, district or object included in the Virginia Landmarks Register maintained by the Virginia Board of Historic Resources; No historic landmark, site, building, structure, district or object included in the Virginia Landmarks Register maintained by the Virginia Board of Historic Resources is located in the preferred or any alternative corridor in ,~ Virginia. The preferred corridor does, however, cross the '~7~ proposed Catawba Rural Historic District in Roanoke County. 3. Any historic district designated by the governing body of any city or county; No historic district designated by the governing body of any city or county is located in the preferred or any alternative corridor in Virginia. 4. Any state archaeological site or zone designated by the Director of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, or his predecessor, and any site designated by a local archaeological commission, or similar body; No state archaeological site or zone designated by the Director of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, or his predecessor, and no site designated by a local archaeological commission, or similar body is located in the preferred or any alternative corridor in Virginia. 5. Any underwater historic property designated by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, or predecessor agency or board; No underwater historic property designated by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, or predecessor agency or board is located in the preferred or any alternative corridor in Virginia. 6. Any National Natural Landmark designated by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior; 23 "' , paralleling an existing 765 kV line. All appropriate efforts have been undertaken to mitigate the impact on these scenic and recreational resources for the preferred and alternative corridors. G. List any airports where the proposed route would place a structure or conductor within the glide path of the airport. Advise of contacts and results of contacts made with appropriate officials regarding the effect on the airport's operations. The preferred and alternative corridors are not located within the glide path of any airports. H. Advise of any scenic byways that are in close proximity to or will be crossed by the proposed transmission line and describe what steps will be taken to mitigate any visual impacts on such byways. Describe typical mitigation techniques for other highway's crossings. The preferred corridor crosses Route 785 in Roanoke County in a parallel corridor to an existing 345 kV line. The line should span the entire valley with two towers at remote ridges deep in the forest on either side of the road. Since the valley land is used for agriculture, only vegetation in the vicinity of the tower locations will require removal. The towers are likely to be screened by forest growth except at the crossing point of the road, where screening vegetation may need to be planted. Since the line should pass over the road approximately 200 feet above the pavement, there will be ample room for vegetation to be planted to screen the view adjacent to the roadway. The preferred corridor will also cross Route 42 in Craig County. Route 42 is crossed in a visually complex segment of the Sinking Creek Valley approximately three-quarters of a mile east of Bethel Church in a long turn between two hills in the valley. The two hills will provide the opportunity to partially screen the towers from roadway views. Westbound traffic should have only limited views of the crossing point, but eastbound traffic will have longer views of the towers across the valley. Visual simulations have been used to identify the most appropriate points for screening vegetation to be planted. The preferred corridor also crosses Route 311 north of Hanging Rock, Virginia paralleling an existing 765 kV line. The line should cross the roadway at an elevation of 200 feet in a densely vegetated area. Because of vegetation providing a canopy cover, visibility of the line from the roadway will be limited. No towers will be visible from the roadway. 25 -~ Alternative corridor segment AC 19 crosses Route 311 between Catawba and New Castle approximately .5 miles south of the intersection with State Route 621 and Craig Creek. The line should pass over the road at an elevation of 200 feet, minimizing the need to remove vegetation that lies adjacent to the roadway. Northbound traffic in all likelihood will not see the line or any towers. Southbound traffic will see the line and towers silhouetted against background views of Cove and North Mountains. The right-of-way will not be visible from the roadway. For all crossings of scenic byways, final route selection will be assisted by the use of digital video simulation techniques, visual analysis of viewsheds using computer simulations, and detailed field investigations. Typical mitigation techniques for other highway crossings will be addressed in the Environmental Assessment to be provided to the Commission in a supplemental filing. 26 N-l Section V. NOTICE A. Furnish a proposed route description to be used for public notice purposes. Provide a map of suitable scale showing the route of the proposed project. Beginning in West Virginia, the preferred corridor exits the Wyoming station to the southeast, crossing Route 971 approximately 1.5 miles north of Clear Fork, and then continues to the south-southeast, crossing the Guyandotte River and Route 97_between Baileysville and Brenton. The corridor then continues southeast to cross Route 16 approximately 1.1 miles north of Wolf Pen, and Route 10 between Covel and Garewood. The corridor enters Mercer County approximately .4 miles north of Arista, continuing on a line approximately .3 miles north of Wenonah. Continuing to the southeast, the corridor crosses US 19 approximately .9 miles southeast of Spanishburg. The route then heads east- northeast, crossing Interstate 77 approximately 2.4 miles south of Eads Mill, then on. to Route 20 at a crossing approximately 1.5 miles northeast of Athens. The preferred corridor then heads northeast, crossing into Summers County .8 miles south of the town of Lick Creek, and continues to the New River crossing approximately 1.1 miles north of the Shanklins Ferry Boy Scout Camp. The corridor then crosses into Monroe County just south of Mandeville, crosses Route 12 approximately 1.2 miles north of Ballard, then crosses Route 27 approximately .3 miles north of Orchard. The corridor then proceeds east-southeast crossing US 219 approximately 1.1 miles northeast of Lindside. The corridor then heads east-northeast along the northern slope of Peters Mountain, then crosses Peters Mountain approximately 1.9 miles southeast of Zenith. The corridor then proceeds to the southeast and crosses into Virginia approximately 1.4 miles southeast of Waiteville, West Virginia. The corridor then proceeds southeast to Johns Creek and Route 632 at a crossing just south of Tucker Hollow. The corridor then crosses Johns Creek Mountain and proceeds to cross Route 42 approximately 1 mile south of Sinking Creek. Continuing southeast, the preferred corridor crosses Sinking Creek Mountain, then proceeds south-southeast, crossing Route 621 and Craig Creek approximately 2.5 miles north of the Craig County-Montgomery County border. Thn corridor continues to the..south-southeast into Roanoke County, crossing Route 624 approximately 1.5 miles west of the intersection of Routes 624 and 697. The. corridor crosses Route 785 approximately .25 miles west of the intersection of Route 785 with Route 697. Continuing to the south-southeast, the corridor crosses Route 622. approximately .6 miles northeast of Bradshaw., crosses Fort Lewis Mountain, generally paralleling an- existing 345. kV 29 ~- / transmission line to a point approximately 2.5 miles north of the Dixie Caverns interchange on Interstate 81. The corridor then turns to the northeast, generally paralleling an existing 765 kV transmission line, crosses Route 311 approximately .7 miles north of Hanging Rock, and continues to parallel existing transmission lines on Brushy Mountain until it reaches Carvin Cove, staying to the west of the reservoir. The corridor then heads east across the Carvin Cove Reservoir ,just north of Botetourt-Roanoke County line to an intersection with the Company's Jacksons Ferry-Cloverdale 765 kV line approximately 1.3 miles west of the Cloverdale Station. The Jacksons Ferry-Cloverdale line will be severed at that point, and the new line will be connected to the remaining section of the Jacksons Ferry-Cloverdale line running into Cloverdale. Anew section of 765 kV line will be constructed to connect the western portion of the Jacksons Ferry- Cloverdale line with the Cloverdale Station. The new section will travel due west out of the Cloverdale Station parallel to the existing Jacksons Ferry-Cloverdale 765 kV line for approximately .4 miles and then will turn northwest and cross Interstate 81. The line then continues across the northeast side of Tinker Mountain to connect with the existing Jacksons Ferry-Cloverdale 765 kV line at a point approximately 1.7 miles west of Cloverdale. Approximately .4 miles of the Jacksons Ferry-Cloverdale line, which lies between the two cut-in points, would be removed from service. Alternative corridor AC 19 departs from the preferred corridor at a point east of Route 42 approximately 1.3 miles south of Sinking Creek. The corridor then proceeds north-northeast, crossing Route 621 approximately .8 miles northeast of Webbs Mill, and then crosses Route 311 approximately 1.7 miles south of Abbott. The line continues northeast, paralleling Broad Run and Route 618, then heads southeast approximately 3.8 miles southeast of New Castle where the line crosses into Botetourt County. The corridor crosses North Mountain and Route 779 just north of the intersection with Route 600. At a point approximately .7 miles south of Lone Star, the corridor then turns south-southeast, staying to the west of Tinker Mountain, and then southeast to an intersection with the Company's Jacksons Ferry-Cloverdale 765 kV transmission line approximately 1.3 miles west of Cloverdale. At that point, the Jacksons Ferry-Cloverdale line will be severed and the proposed Wyoming-Cloverdale line will be connected to the remaining portion of the Jacksons Ferry-Cloverdale line running into Cloverdale. A new section of line will be constructed to connect the Cloverdale Station to the western portion of the Jacksons Ferry-Cloverdale line along the following route. The new line will travel due west out of the Cloverdale Station parallel to the existing 765 kV line for approximately .4 miles then turn northwest and cross 30 N -- Interstate 81.' The line then continues across the northeast side of Tinker Mountain to connect with the existing Jacksons Ferry-Cloverdale 765 kV line at a point approximately 1.7 miles west of the Cloverdale Station. Approximately 0.4 miles of the Jacksons Ferry-Cloverdale line, which lies between the two cut-in points, would be removed from service. In West Virginia, the alternative segment AC 11 diverges from the preferred corridor approximately 1.5 miles northeast of Athens at the crossing of Route 20. The corridor then heads southeast to a point approximately .6 miles south of Pettry, then east to a point approximately .3 miles south of Lovern, then southeast to cross the New River approximately 2 miles south of the border between Summers and Mercer County. The corridor crosses the New River into Virginia and passes through a small section of Giles County in a southeast direction for approximately 3700 feet just east of Bluestone Lake, then heads northeast into Monroe County, West Virginia passing through a point approximately .7 miles south of Cloverdale, West Virginia. The corridor then heads east to cross Route 12 approximately .6 miles south of Cashmere. At this point, two alternatives are presented. The northern alternative AC 12 continues northeast, crossing Route 27 approximately .5 miles east of the junction of Route 27 and Route 27/2, then continues northeast for approximately 2.0 miles where it connects with the preferred corridor northeast of Lindside. The southern alternative AC 13 proceeds southeast from the crossing of Route 12 at Cashmere, crossing US 219 approximately .6 miles north of Crooked Creek, then heads northeast following the south slope of Little Mountain where it connects with the preferred corridor approximately 1.5 miles southwest of Schoolhouse Ridge. Alternative corridor AC 14 in West Virginia departs from the preferred corridor approximately 1.1 miles northeast of Lindside after crossing US 219. The corridor heads northeast staying to the north of Schoolhouse Ridge to a point approximately 1.2 miles south of Rock Camp. The corridor continues to the northeast, crossing Dropping Lick Creek and Route 29 approximately 1.5 miles west of Zenith and continues to a point approximately .6 miles north-northwest of Zenith. From this point, two alternative corridors are developed. The northern segment AC 15 heads to the northeast for. approximately 2 miles, then heads east to cross Route 15 at a point approximately 2.3 miles southwest of Gap Mills. The corridor then heads southeast, crossing Peters Mountain, Potts Creek, and then Route 17 at a point approximately 2.6 miles northeast of Waiteville. 31 ~ v The corridor then proceeds into Virginia, crossing Potts Mountain into Craig County approximately 1.3 miles west of Arnolds Knob, then crosses Route 658 approximately .9 miles northeast of Blue Healing Springs. The corridor continues to the southeast, crossing Johns Creek and Route 632 approximately 2.9 miles northeast of Maggie. This corridor connects with the preferred corridor at Johns Creek Mountain near the crossing of Route 624. The other alternative (AC 16 and AC 18) proceeds in a southeasterly direction from the point .6 miles north of Zenith to cross Route 29 approximately 1.4 miles east of Zenith, then connects with the preferred corridor approximately 2.0 miles west of Waiteville. The final alternative corridor segment in West Virginia (AC 17) diverges from the preferred corridor 1.3 miles southeast of Zenith and heads northeast for approximately 1.8 miles where it joins with alternative corrid referred8~ corridor southeast to reconnect with the p approximately 2.0 miles west of Waiteville. A map of the proposed preferred and alternative corridors is included as Exhibit 4. B. List Company offices at which members of the public may inspect the application. Vir n a (application and topographic maps) Appalachian Power Company - Roanoke, Virginia Appalachian Power Company - John Vaughan Center, Roanoke, VA Appalachian Power Company - Pearisburg, Virginia Craig-Botetourt Electric Coop - New Castle, Virginia Botetourt County Courthouse - Fincastle, Virginia Craig County Administrative Building - New Castle, Virginia West Virginia (topographic maps only) Appalachian Power Company - Pineville, West Virginia Appalachian Power Company - Bluefield, West Virginia Appalachian Power Company - Princeton, West Virginia Appalachian Power Company - Beckley, West Virginia Summers County Courthouse - Hinton, West Virginia Monroe County Courthouse - Union, West Virginia C. List all federal, state, and local agencies and/or officials who may reasonably be expected to have an interest in the proposed construction and to whom the Company has or will furnish a copy of the application. 32 '_. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1991 RESOLUTION 10891-6 CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Robers, Johnson, Nickens, McGraw NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: ~')a~~ ~• Mary H. Allen, Clerk CC: File Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Executive Session ~ ~ y ,~ ,i AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1991 RESOLUTION CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. OF ROANp~~ ~ ~ ti p Z ~ 2 ~ ,: ~~ 18 E50 ~ 8$ SFSQUICENTENN~P~ A Beautiful Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE Al4AA1ERICA CITY C~~~~~ ~~ ~~~n~~~ ~~~ ~~, 1979 1989 October 15, 1991 Mrs. Nedra W. Crockett 229 Union Street Salem, VA 24153 Dear Mrs. Crockett: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STEVEN A. MCGRAW. CHAIRMAN CATAWBA AU1G45T'ERIAL DSSTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS, VICE-CHAIRMAN VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERUJ. DLSTRIGT BOB L JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Attached is a Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors to you for fourteen years of services to Roanoke County. This resolution was unanimously adopted by the Board of Supervisors at our meeting on October 8, 1991. 1 am sorry That you were unable fo attend the board meeting so that you could be personally thanked for your valuable contributions to Roanoke County. On behalf of each member of the board, please accept our best wishes for success in your future endeavors. Sincerely, Steven A. McGraw, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Catawba Magisterial District SAM/bjh Enclosure P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANbKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 <703) 772-2004 O~ POANp~-~ ti . 2 p {,) J - '`.b? 18 E50 88 s~s(?UICENT£NN\P\' A Beautiful Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE ~Altri~l~ D~ ~A~inII~iP ALL~AMERICtI CITY '~II~' 1979 1989 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STEVEN A. MCGRAW. CHAIRMAN CATAWFlA MAGISTERAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS. VICE-CHAIRMAN VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGWrTER1AL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOWNS MAGIS?ERU1L DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS CAVE SPRING MAGISTERAL. DISTRICT October 9, 1991 Father Kenneth Stofft Our Lady of Nazareth 2505 Electric Road, S. W. Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Father Stofft: On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, 1 would like to thank you for attending the meeting on Tuesday, October 8, 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 to His will and for the good of all citizens. Thank you for sharing your time with us. Sincerely, /1 jcJ ~ -6lr'yl' -../ Steven A. McGraw, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 • (703) 772-2004 %~~ ~ d '~ ~--""'.~" r 9/25/91 Messaae for your eyes only from John Willey• Said to tell you that Dr. Nickens called him today and directed him to engage a real estate appraiser and surveyor to acquire the Vinyard property. When John suggested funds needed to come from some place, Dr. Nickens told him to call Elmer and it was coming from the Board Contingency Fund. Brenda 7~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~; l~~p~~. ~~ `. BOARD MEETING CHECK UST MEETING DATE: Minister: Reminder: Public Hearings Advertised: • Draft Agenda Prepared: Reminder to Outside Participants: Prepare any "fancy" resolutions: BOARD MEETING DAY: Board Reading File Done: "Fancy" Resolutions Signed and ready: Tapes Prepared: Sound System Ready: Room Set up: Media Packet ready: Double Spaced Agenda: Chairman told of anything different: • Extra Agenda Copies: Dinner Plans: # People for Dinner: AGENDA FOLLOWUP Action Agenda Prepared and sent: Thank you letter -Minister: Resolutions and Ordinances Completed: _ Board Report Action completed: Appointment Letters: Bingo/Raffle Letters: Other letters prepared: Meeting Board filed in: ' Followup memos to staff: Other: SEWER STANDARDS. PMM ADVISED COUNTY IS WORKING WITH THE CITY'S TIMETABLE ON THIS (5 INQUIRED ABOUT STATUS SUPERVISOR NICKENS (1) COMMENTED ON THE POSITIVE ASPECTS OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY TODAY SURVEY REPORT AND FELT RTC SHOULD BE COMPLIMENTED BECAUSE ROANOKE CITY HAS BEGUN CI1'YSCENE NEWSLETTER (2) OFFERED THE SUGGESTION THAT PLASTIC BOTTLES COULD BE FILLED WITH WATER AND PUT INTO TOILETS TO CONSERVE WATER THIS WOULD ELIMINATE THE NECESSITY AND EXPENSE OF LOW- MEETING. (2) HAS RECEIVED COMPLAINTS ABOUT LOW WATER PRESSURE AT TREVILLIAN AND QUAIL PLACE. REOUESTED COUN'T'Y STAFF BRING BACK PLAN TO HELP CITIZENS ON PUBLIC WATER WHO HAVE LOW WATER PRESSURE. (3) TIRED OF DENIGRATION OF ROANOKE COUNTY AND STAFF. SUPERVISOR ROBERS (1) ADVISED THAT GENERAL MOTORS AND VOLVO MET AT TECH YESTERDAY TO DISCUSS TECHNICAL PROPOSALS FOR SMART HIGHWAY. VDOT WILL BE MEETING SOON AT TECH TO DETERMINE THE FINAL ROUTE FOR THE ROAD. f2) COMII~NTED THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO LOOK AT AREAS WHERE WE COULD PRIVATIZE. SUPERVISOR MCGRAW (1) MET WITH BLUE RIDGE STUDY CO1I~IlVIISSION AT BLACKSBURG TODAY. (2) MET WITH VACO/VML ANNEXATION TASK FORCE IN CHARLOTTESVILLE. (3~ COMMENTED THAT GOVERNMENTS MAY NEED TO PUBLICIZE s BE READY BY 10/8/91 MEETING. 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Accounts Paid -August 1991 5. Statement of Expenditures and Revenues as of August 31, 1991. 6. Report on policy regarding RADAR transportation into the County. N. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A. (3) to discuss the disposition of publicly- held real estate, the old Bent Mountain Fire Station. BL.T MOTION AT 4:40 P.M. FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION TO BE HELD FOLLOWING THE RESOURCE AUTHORITY MEETING URC EXECUTIVE SESSION HELD AT 5:55 P.M. RECESS AT 6:00 P.M. EVENTING SESSION X7:00 P.M.~ ALL PRESENT O. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 1. Ordinanc ccepting an offer for and authorizing the sale of 0.443 acre, or or less, known as the Old Bent Mountain Fire S on. ADDED BY PAUL MAHONEY FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION io LBE M~1VEH-~ TREADING - URC 2ND READING - 1 O. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-92491-7 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT RESO -URC P. PROCLAMATION, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS . 1. Resolutions of Congratulations to Vinton Sluggers, Ponytail Division, Softball Team for winning the State Championship. R-92491-8 LBE MOTION TO ADOPT RESO -URC COACHES AND PLAYERS WERE PRESENT Q. PUBLIC HEARINGS 991-1 Special Exception Request of Shelva Walker to operate a beauty shop located at 6961 LaMarre Drive, Hollins Magisterial District. 0-92491-9 ii ~~~~~ ~~ IV ~~~~~~~ ' ~.rc~ra ' 'I 1979 DEPARTMEN T OF HUMAN RESOURCES 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: - FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Betty Lucas Social Services ~ r ~~ Melinda C. Vaughan -~~; Personnel Assistant September 23, 1991 Retirement Resolution - Iris S. Groff Attached is a draft Board Resolution for Iris S. Groff. Ms. Groff is to be recognized for her years of service at a regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting on October 8, 1991. Please review the attached Board Resolution and make any additions or changes. Return the resolution to Mary Allan, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors by Friday, September 27, 1991. mcv c: Mary Allen A Burti~/Begimring AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON OCTOBER 8, 1991. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO IRIS S. GROFF FOR 25 YEARS AND 1 MONTH OF SERVICE TO ROANOKE COUNTY. WHEREAS, IRIS S. GROFF was first employed in Ju1v of 1966 as Social Work-Supervisor in the Department of Social Services; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to Iris S. Groff for 2 years and 1 month 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. 'r C~~aun~ ~f ; ~ ~~ ; ~u ~u ~ ~~ ~~~~ 1979 18 ~ ~ DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES gag +EaOV~CENTENN\'~ A Bcmai~/Btginning MEMORANDUM TO: ~ Wayne Williams Utility Billing ;" FROM: Melinda C. Vaughan ~`;~ Personnel Assistant DATE: September 23, 1991 SUBJECT: Retirement Resolution - Nedra W. Crockett Attached is a draft Board Resolution for Nedra W. Crockett. Ms. Crockett is to be recognized for her years of service at a regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting on October 8, 1991. Please review the attached Board Resolution and make any additions or changes. Return the resolution to Mary Allan, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors by Friday, September 27, 1991. mcv c: Mary Allen .F ., AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON OCTOBER 8. 1991. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO NEDRA W. CROCKETT FOR 14 YEARS AND 1 MONTH OF SERVICE TO ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, NEDRA W. CROCKETT was first employed in August of 1977 as an Account Clerk I in Utility Billing; and WHEREAS, Nedra W. Crockett has also served as Account Clerk II in Utility Billing; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to Nedra W. Crockett for 14 years and 1 month 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. ' '"~' C~~un~ ~f ~R~~n~~ ~~.~~ ; ~ ~ III 1979 18 ~Sp ~ DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES ~ggg +~agVICENTEMN~~~ A Bmuti~ulBcginning MEMORANDUM TO: - Michael F. Kavanaugh Sheriff FROM: Melinda C. Vaughan -,°~~` ~ Personnel Assistant~'~ DATE: September 23, 1991 SUBJECT: Retirement Resolution - Ronald R. Henderson Sr. Attached is a draft Board Resolution for Ronald R. Henderson, Sr. Captain Henderson is to be recognized for his years of service at a regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting on October 8, 1991. Please review the attached Board Resolution and make any additions or changes. Return the resolution to Mary Allan, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors by Friday, September 27, 1991. mcv c: Mary Allen AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON OCTOBER 8, 1991. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO RONALD R. HENDERSON. SR. FOR 32 YEARS AND 6 MONTHS OF SERVICE TO ROANOKE COUNTY. WHEREAS, RONALD R. HENDERSON, SR. was first employed in M_y of 1959 as a Deputy Sheriff in the Sheriff's Department; and WHEREAS, Ronald_ R. Henderson, Sr. has also served as Lieutenant and Captain in the Sheriff's Department; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to Ronald R. Henderson, Sr. for 32 years and 6 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. y ~ i C~~un~ ~f ~u nor ; ~ ~~ ; ~ ~~ I~ ~I 1979 ' ~ ~ DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES ~ggg a~sa~~~ENN~~-`~ MEMORANDUM TO: ~ Mark Light Deputy Chief - Fire and Rescue FROM: Melinda C. Vaughan ~~~~~~"~ Personnel Assistant DATE: September 23, 1991 SUBJECT: Retirement Resolution - Roger D Huffman Attached is a draft Board Resolution for Roger D. Huffman. I~ir. Huffman is to be recognized for his years of service at a regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting on October 8, 1991. Please review the attached Board Resolution and make any additions or changes. Return the resolution to Mary Allan, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors by Friday, September 27, 1991. mcv c: Mary Allen ...~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON OCTOBER 8, 1991. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO ROGER D. HUFFMAN FOR 18 YEARS 2 MONTHS OF SERVICE TO ROANOKE COUNTY. WHEREAS, Roger D. Huffman was first employed September of 968 as Firefighter in the Fire and Rescue Department; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to Roger D. Huffman for rears and 2 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. 0-92491-4 RWR MOTION TO ADOPT ORD WITH WORD "AVAILABLE" INSERTED IN AGREEMENT, 6.D - URC 2 An ordinance authorizing the acquisition of a 13.88 acre parcel of land to construct a Water Pump Station for the Spring Hollow Water Project. 0-92491-5 BI{T MOTION TO ADOPT ORD AYES: RWR, BL.T, HCN, SAM NAYS- LBE ONE CITIZEN SPOKE I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Grievance Panel. LBE ADVISED THAT HE WILL MAKE A NOMINATION AT THE NEXT MEETING 2. Industrial Development Authority. HCN ADVISED THAT A NOMINATION FROM VINTON SHOULD BE RECEIVED BEFORE THE 10/8/91 MEETING J. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA s MEMORANDUM ~4 l TO: Diane Hyatt R,~ h~ FROM Mary Allen ~ DATE: September 12, 1991 SUB.)ECT: Monthly Utility Billing Mr. Hodge asked that I remind you that the Board of Supervisors would like a report on monthly utility billing. This report was originally scheduled for September 10, but was continued to September 24. O~ ROANp~~ ~ w z ~ 18 E50 $$ sFSQU1CENTENN~p~ ,-1 Beauti~ulBeginning PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: September 23, 1991 TO: Roanoke County Board of Supervisors FROM: Anne Marie Green, Public Information Officer RE: Citizens and Governme~at At the meeting of September 10, I was asked to review Supervisor Eddy's memorandum on citizen involvement, and to provide an analysis of the suggestions. Mr. Eddy is correct - most people are interested only in actions that directly affect them, their families or their property. Additionally, our recent survey showed that the vast majority of County residents are satisfied with the actions of the Board and the staff, which means that few people see a need to become involved. I have the following comments on his suggestions: 1. Mary Allen is going to change the automated message for the Board of Supervisors' telephone number, and will include information on the public hearings and pending actions of general interest. 2. A display ad in the Roanoke Times and World News is expensive, and I believe we can achieve the same effect with the list of recent and upcoming Board actions in Roanoke County Today. On the response cards which we recently received, many citizens indicated that they like this feature of the newsletter and read it regularly. 3. I will contact Norma Jean Peters, who oversees the Social Studies curriculum for the County schools, and remind her that the 1 P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2010 Supervisors and staff are always available for appearances at the schools. Classroom visits should start below the junior and senior high school level. Last school year, a student at Radford University arranged visits of this type as part of a course project. The Sheriff, the County Administrator, the Animal Control Officer and Dick Robers each spoke to students at Cave Spring Elementary School, and their visits were very well received. Additionally, Student Government Day continues to be popular with the schools, and our program is one of the oldest in the Country. 4. Mr. Hodge has started meeting with civic league presidents on a quarterly basis, and at the next meeting, we will remind them that the Supervisors and staff are always available for speaking engagements. 5. If the Board wishes, I can explore interview programs with local TV and radio stations. I will need to know who is available to be interviewed and the topics you would be willing to speak about. The stations do occasionally contact Mr. Hodge and other staff members for interviews, and. we do everything possible to accommodate the requests. 6. Once the government access channels become available, the County will have the opportunity to use Cable TV regularly. I am a representative to the Cable TV Committee, and the first meeting is this week. I will report back as to the possibility of televised Board meetings, interviews, etc. 7. We can make copies of controversial or important agenda items to be placed on the back table along with copies of the agenda itself. Obviously, there is a cost to this, but if the Board wishes, it can be done on an experimental basis. Currently, a variety of civic leagues, citizens and news media agencies receive a copy of the agenda in the mail prior to the meetings. They send us a written request at the beginning of the year, and the clerk's office mails the agenda to them. Staff frequently receive calls from the press asking for more information on certain items after they receive the agenda, and we generally fax them the Board Reports. The press also has the media packet available to them beginning at 3:00 p.m. on Friday before the meeting, as well as during the meeting itself, and some of the reporters do come into the office to review the agenda. 8. The County could advertise vacancies on committees, commissions and boards. This does require application forms, however, and then the individual Board member would have to choose who to recommend. 2 9. The local media has been enduring budget cuts, and they are finding it difficult to cover everything in the Roanoke Valley. Press conferences should be kept for important issues and events, and I believe we will receive better coverage that way. We do send press releases to all the news media on a regular basis, and also receives periodic telephone calls from them asking for "news". As a member of the Virginia Municipal League's Public Affairs Network and the National Association of County Public Information Officers, I regularly receive newsletters containing suggestions on communicating with citizens. Many of these have associated costs, but I will watch for any which we can do inexpensively. cc: Elmer Hodge County Administrator 3 MEMO - 9/4/91 To: Supervisors From: Lee B. Eddy ~- Subject: Citizens and Government As mentioned at a recent Board meeting, I am very interested in exploring what can be done to improve citizen involvement in Roanoke County's government. There appears to be a general lack of interest and information on the part of most residents regarding the ongoing activities of County government. In my experience, a significant number of citizens become interested only in cases of controversial zoning changes, proposed pet control ordinances, changes in youth athletic programs, or a substantial increase in taxes or service fees. There are many other actions that should be of interest and concern to citizens. I have attempted to address this problem through the Windsor Hills District REPORTER (the feedback to date has been positive), but that newsletter has a circulation of only 150. This concern of mine is not related to partisan politics, but rather is a perceived need for more public interest and involvement. Some initial specific suggestions for addressing this need are as follows: - 1. Change the automated message for the Board of Supervisors' telephone number (772-8949) each Friday before a Board meeting to include information on all public hearings and other pending action of general interest. 2. Run a display ad in the RTWN on the Monday before each Board meeting, with information on pending public hearings and other actions of general interest. 3. Promote supervisor/staff appearances at high school and junior high school government classes. 4. Promote supervisor/staff appearances at meetings of civic leagues and other community organizations. 5. Propose one or more interview programs with local TV and radio stations. One scenario might include the Board Chairman and County Administrator to outline pending matters on a progam run the weekend before a Board meeting, and selected Supervisors to analyze Board actions on the following weekend. 6. When public/government-access cable TV is operative, consider televising Board meetings and/or interviews with Supervisors/Staff. 7. At Board meetings have the Chairman or Staff provide more introductory or background information for all Board resolutions and ordinances, so the audience and news media will have a better idea of what action is being considered. Alternately, provide some additional information in the printed agenda copies that are available to those attending Board meetings. 8. Promote more citizen participation in committees, task forces, ?tC. 9. Hold more news conferences, with participation by the Board Chairman and County Administrator. There are undoubtedly other approaches that should be considered. Your response would be greatly appreciated. cc: Elmer Hodge, Anne Marie Green, LBE FOI File THEMSELVES SUCH AS IS BEING DONE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY TODAY AND CITYSCENE, ROANOKE CITY NEWSLETTER (41 REQUESTED THAT HCN BE AVAILABLE TO MEET WITH A STUDY CONIlVQITEE OF THE ROANOKE VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP, INC. TO DISCUSS FEASIBILITY OF COMBINING CITY AND COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS. (5) ADVISED THAT CITY AND COUNTY ARE DISCUSSING PLACES WHERE TEENAGERS COULD GATHER FOR ALCOHOL FREE FUN. L. CITIZENS' CONIlVIENTS AND CO1bIlVIU1VICATIONS RAY SCHER SUGGESTED A MEDIATION BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND FRALIN & WALDRON TO RESOLVE THE TOO-TALL BUILDING CONFLICT WITHOUT FURTHER COURT ACTION M. REPORTS BL.T MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE - UW LBE REQUESTED THAT (1) LIST OF SCHOOL PROTECTS RECEIVED FROM DR WILSON AND (2) MEMO CONCERNING CITIZENS IN GOVERNMENT FROM ANNE MARIE GREEN BE RECEIVED AND FILED AS-PART OF THE REPORTS SAM DIRECTED THAT THESE TWO REPORTS BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR 10/8/91 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance ~ (iOANp~ O F •~ ~ ~ o a ~8~$ E50 ~$$ CSgVICENTENN~p a BeautifulBe~inning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE ~ AIldME81CA CITT C~~~trt~ u~ ~u~.~t~~~ 'I I' I I 1979 1989 Father Kenneth Stofft Our Lady of Nazareth 2505 Electric Road, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Father Stofft: June 6, 1991 ~; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STEVEN A. MCGRAW. CHAIRMAN CATAWEIA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKIENS. VICE-CHAIRMAN VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT On behalf of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, I would like to thank you for giving the invocation at the Board Meetings in the past. We would again like to call on you to present the invocation on Tuesday, October 8, 1991, at 3:00 p.m. For your information, I am attaching a list of the board meeting dates for 1991. These meetings are held the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month and the invocation is always given at 3 p.m. If the date requested above is not convenient, please call me at 772-2005. I will be calling you soon to see if this time is acceptable to you or if you would prefer another date. The Board members are aware of how busy your schedule is, and they appreciate your volunteering your time to offer God's blessing at their meetings. Sincerely, Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P.O. BOX 29800 ROAN~KE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 <703) 772-2004 OF FtOANp~.~ ~ L ti A 2 ~ 7 o J ._ -' ,a 18 E50 8$ sFSQU1CENTENN~P~' A Beautiful Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE September 12, 1991 Mr. Robert D. Webster, Division Manager Appalachian Power Company P. O. Box 2021 Roanoke, Virginia 24022-2121 Dear Bob: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STEVEN A. MCGRAW. CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS. VICE-CHAIRMAN VINTON MAGISTERLAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS CAVE SPRING MAGISTERAL DISTRICT The County Board of Supervisors has asked for a work session with APCo representatives on the Cloverdale-Wyoming power line project. The work session has been scheduled for 5 p.m. on Tuesday, October 8, 1991, in the Community Room at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S. W. I anticipate that this briefing will last about half an hour, and APCo's presentation could be similar to those you have done on the project at various community meetings. I have asked Don Myers (772-2017) and Anne Marie Green (772-2010) to work with you or your representatives in preparation for the work session. At this point, the Board seems ready to work with you, but they do have questions and there are some issues to be resolved. If you have any questions or if I can be of help to you, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator meh cc - Mr. Donnie C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator Ms. Anne Marie Green, Public Information Officer Ms. Mary H. Allen, Clerk, Board of Supervisors All-AMERICA CITY 1979 1989 P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004 BIJ MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE AFTER DISCUSSION OF ITEMS 4 AND 5. URC 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Report on Appalachian Power Company's application for a Transmission Line WORK SESSION SET FOR 10/8/91 WITH APCO OFFICIALS LBE ASKED FOR IlVIPACT TO AREAS BESIDE IANDFII.L 5. Report on school and county maintenance projects RECESS AT 5:03 FOR RESOURCE AUTHORITY MEETING RECONVENE AT 6:45 P.M. N. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (7) to consult with legal counsel regarding an offer to purchase publicly held real estate: Bent Mountain Fire Station, (7) to consult with legal counsel regarding Too- Tall Building court ruling and Dixie Caverns Landfill LBE MOTION TO APPROVE AT 6:46 P.M. UW O. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION s ~ A ~ ,. Z a 18 ~~ 88 $FSQUICENTEMN~~~ A Bwuri ful Bcginnirtg ' ~r ~ II I I 1979 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOUR~'ES 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: - FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Betty Lucas Social Services l Melinda C. Vaughan ~11-~~~`" Personnel Assistant September 23, 1991 Retirement Resolution - Iris S. Groff Attached is a draft Board Resolution for Iris S. Groff. Ms. Groff is to be recognized for her years of service at a regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting on October 8, 1991. Please review the attached Board Resolution and make any additions or changes. Return the resolution to Mary Allan, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors by Friday, September 27, 1991. mcv c: Mary Allen .f~ , ~ ~~~'~ ~~, ~,: d / f ~~~d. f ;~ 7c'> _~ ~`~ f Y AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON OCTOBER 8, 1991. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO IRIS S. GROFF FOR 25 YEARS AND 1 MONTH OF SERVICE TO ROANOKE COUNTY. WHEREAS, IRIS S. GROFF was first employed in July of 1966 as Social Work-Supervisor in the Department of Social Services; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to Iris S. Groff for 2years and 1 month 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. ~ A ~ ' ` ~ /- ~^ I ~~~~' ~~ ~~~~~ N ~ iIL~AMEI11CA tlTi ,~'' ~ K Z ~ ~ I ~ a 1979 1B ~~ $$ rues DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES iggg s~SQUlCENTENN~p~ A BcautifulBcginning MEMORANDUM TO: - Wayne Williams Utility Billing FROM: Melinda C. Vaughan -~~:'`~ , Personnel Assistant` DATE: September 23, 1991 SUBJECT: Retirement Resolution - Nedra W. Crockett Attached is a draft Board Resolution for Nedra W. Crockett. Ms. Crockett is to be recognized for her years of service at a regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting on October 8, 1991. Please review the attached Board Resolution and make any additions or changes. Return the resolution to Mary Allan, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors by Friday, Septembe"~7, -1991. mcv c: Mary Allen I A ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON OCTOBER 8, 1991. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO NEDRA W. CROCKETT FOR 14 YEARS AND 1 MONTH OF SERVICE TO ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, NEDRA W. CROCKETT was first employed in August of 1977 as an Account Clerk I in Utility Billing; and WHEREAS, Nedra W. Crockett has also served as Account Clerk II in Utility Billina; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to Nedra W. Crockett for 14 years and 1 month 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. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON OCTOBER 8, 1991. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO RONALD R. HENDERSON. SR. FOR 32 YEARS AND 6 MONTHS OF SERVICE TO ROANOKE COUNTY. WHEREAS, RONALD R. HENDERSON. SR. was first employed in M~1 ~~ t=.~ t' ;yw of 1959 as a Deputy Sheriff in the Sheriff's ?'~r~r*-~-_--1; and WHEREAS, Ronald R. Henderson. Sr has also served as Lieutenant and Captain in the Sheriff's ~~; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to Ronald R. Henderson, Sr. for 32 years and 6 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. 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 COMMISSION Four year terms of Ronald L. Massey, Hollins District and Donald R. Witt, Cave Spring District, will expire 12/31/91. 3 1990 UNFILLED COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Five year term of M. E. Maxey, Chairman, Vinton District, expired 06/30/90. BUILDING CODE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS 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 COUNTY RESOURCE AUTHORITY Steven A. McGraw Catawba 4 yrs 12/31/91 Richard W. Robers Cave Spring 4 yrs 12/31/91 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Eldon L. Karr Windsor Hills 5 yrs 06/30/91 M. E. Maxey, Chairman Vinton 5 yrs 06/30/90 BUILDING CODE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Wilmore T. Leffell 4 yrs 12/12/90 CLEAN VALLEY COIINCIL Vince Reynolds 2 yrs 06/30/91 Richard W. Robers, Advisory 2 yrs 06/30/91 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS RESOIIRCE3 BOARD Bernard Hairston 1 yr 08/13/91 Edmund J. Kielty, Alternate 1 yr 08/13/91 COURT SERVICE UNIT ADVISORY COUNCIL/YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD (INACTIVE UNTIL 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 Frank E. Thomas Barbara Chewning Catawba 4 yrs Vinton 4 yrs 06/30/91 06/30/91 ROANORE VALLEY REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD John Hubbard 4 yrs TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY COMMISSION 07/31/91 Lt. Art LaPrade, County Police 4 yrs 04/01/91 Fred C. Altizer, Jr., VDOT, Cave Spring 4 yrs 04/01/91 H. Rodney Smith, Sen.Citizen, Windsor Hills 4 yrs 04/01/91 Harry C. Nickens, Board Liaison Vinton ~ 4 yrs 04/01/91 VIRGINIA WESTERN COMMIINITY COLLEGE BOARD Stephen A. Musselwhite 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 )~ ~" ~~ ~~ a ~~ DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RAY D. PETHTEL RICHMOND, 23219 CGMMISSIONER September 19, 1991 Secondary System Additions Roanoke County Board of Supervisors County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: As requested in your resolution dated August 13, 1991, the following additions to the Secondary System of Roanoke County are hereby approved, effective September 19, 1991. ADDITIONS VISTA FOREST Route 2036 (Vista Forest Drive) - From Route 2035 to 0.45 mile Northeast Route 2035 Route 2037 (Winterwood Trail) - From Route 2036 to 0.21 mile Northeast Route 2036 Route 2038 (Bayberry Court) - From Route 2037 to 0.10 mile Southwest Route 2037 Sincerely, ~~ D. Pethtel ommissioner LENGTH 0.45 Mi 0.21 Mi 0.10 Mi TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY