The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5/26/1992 - Regular~ POAN ,~. F ti 9 Z ~ 2 0 a 1838 ,~~~.~~ C~~ixz~~~ a~ ~.a~~~~Q ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA MAY 26, 1992 Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. AT 3:00 P.M. HCN ARRIVED AT 310 P.M. 2. Invocation: John C. Chambliss, Jr. Assistant County Administrator 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS LBE ADDED ITEM D.11 -DESIGNATION OF AGENT FOR COUNTY TO OBTAIN FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR DAMAGES DURING THE 1992 FLOOD. LBE MOVED ITEM D.10 TO EXECUTIVE SESSION C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND i ® Recyded Paper AWARDS 1. Resolution of Appreciation an Roanoke Appalachian Trail Anniversary. R-52692-1 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE URC HAL CA-NTRILI~ PRESIDENT ACCEPTED d Congratulations to the Club upon their 60th 2. Recognition of County Employees for their Customer Service Efforts. (Anita Hammerstrom, Training Coordinator) AIVITA B. ~iAMNiERSTROM PRESENTED REPORT AND INTRODUCED MEMBERS OF THE EXTRA MILE CLUB D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Adoption of a Resolution Supporting the Inclusion of Roanoke County ~ in the Appalachian Regional Commission. (Tim Gubala, Economic Development Director) R-52692-2 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE URC 2. Request for Acceptance of Grant from Virginia Department of Fire Programs for Repairs to Training Center. (Mark Light, Deputy Fire and Rescue Chief) A-52692-3 EGK MOTION TO ACCEPT GRANT URC 3. Request from City of Roanoke for Settlement of Claim Regarding Purchase of Bulk Water. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) A-52692-4 a B ~T MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO REINSTATE NEGOTIATIONS WITH ROANOKE CITY URC STAFF TO DECIDE WHETHER TO INCLUDE ELECTED OFFICIALS 4 Request for Approval of Industrial Revenue Bond Financing for Richfield Retirement Community. (Tim Gubala, Economic Development Director) R-52692-5 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE URC 5. Authorization to Write Off Utility Bad Debts. (Diane Hyatt, Director of Finance) A-52692-6 HCN MOTION TO AUTHORIZE URC 6. Request from Dennis Kafura to Use Spring Hollow Access Road for Access to his Property. (Clifford Craig, Utility Director) A-52692-7 FM MOTION TO APPROVE URC 7. Request from School Board for Appropriation for Regional Special Education Board 1992-93 Budget. (Dr. Eddie Kolb, Roanoke County Schools) A-52692-8 B T MOTION TO APPROVE URC 8. Request for Approval of Regional Cable TV Committee 3 Agreement. (Joseph Obenshain, Sr. Assistant County Attorney) A-52692-9 LBE MOTION TO APPROVE AGREEMENT AYES-B T,EGK„FM,LBE NAYS-HCN HCN STATED THAT EVEN THOUGH HE IS OPPOSED HE WILL REPORT THE WISHES OF THE BOARD AS A MEMBER OF THE COMiVIITri'EE 9. Request for Acceptance of Environmental Protection Agency 106 Ground Water Protection Grant. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) A-52692-10 HCN MOTION TO ACCEPT GRANT URC 10. Ratification of Agreements and Acknowledgement of the Issuance of Solid Waste System Bonds for the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (Diane Hyatt, Director of Finance) DEFERRED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION - NO ACTION TAKEN FOLLOWING EXECUTIVE SESSION 11. Designation of Agent for County to Obtain Federal and State Financial Assistance for Damages During the 1992 Flood. A-52692-11 HCN MOTION TO DESIGNATE CHIEF ACCOUNTANT VINCENT COPENHAVER AND BUDGET ANALYST BRENT ROBERTSON URC F. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS 4 NONE G. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE H, REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIItST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA EGK MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING AND SET PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR 6/23/92 URC 1. An ordinance to rezone approximately 1.615 acres from B-1 and R-1 to B-2 to operate a new car dealership located at the corner of Peters Creek Road and Deer Branch Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Valley Motorsport. 2. An ordinance to rezone 0.893 acre from B-1 and B-2 to B-2 to operate a convenience store with gas dispenser, located at 3202 Peters Creek Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Workman Oil Company. 3. An ordinance to rezone 24.090 acres from M-2 to M-3 to construct and operate an asphalt batch mix plant, located on the south side of Buck Mountain Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Virginia Asphalt Paving Company. I. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance Authorizing Acquisition of a Sanitary Sewer Easement from George Hughes and Gertrude Hughes. (Clifford Craig, Utility Director) EGK MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 6/9/92 5 URC J. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance Appropriating the Funds for the 1992-93 Fiscal Year Budget for Roanoke County. (Reta Busher, Director of Management and Budget) 0-52692-12 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE ORD AYES-EGK~FM,HCN NAYS-BL,,T,LBE 2. Ordinance Authorizing the Reconveyance of a 0.470 Acre Tract of Real Estate, More or Less, Located in the Southwest Industrial Park. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) 0-52692-13 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE ORD URC K. APPOINTMENTS 1. Board of Zoning Appeals 2. Fifth Planning District Commission LBE NOMINATED ALFRED C. ANDERSON, ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE TO ANOTHER THREE-YEAR TERM WHICH WILL EXPIRE TUNE 30, 1995. HCN APPOINTED MRS PAT DEAN, CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVE, TO ANOTHER THREE-YEAR TERM WHICH WILL EXPIRE TUNE 30, 1995. 3. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission FM NOMINATED TACK W. Gam, CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT; B T NOMINATED RITA WATSON, HOLLINS 6 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT• HCN NOMINATED BOBBY SEMONES VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT• FOR THREE-YEAR TERMS WHICH WILL EXPIRES TUNE 30, 1995. 4. Roanoke Valley Regional Cable TV Committee LBE NOMINATED THOMAS E. PINYON MEMBER AT LARGE FOR A THREE YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE TUNE 11, 1995. L. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. R-52692-14 B T MOTION TO APPROVE URC 1. Acceptance of Sanitary Sewer Facilities Serving Double "C" Subdivision. A-52692-14.a 2. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Fifth Planning District Commission and Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors. A-52692-14.b 3. Request for Acceptance Road into the Virginia Secondary System. of the Extension of Edgebrook Department of Transportation R-52692-14.c 4. Acceptance of portions of Cavalier Drive, Sulgrave Road, Trinity Court and Wimbledon Court into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. A-52692-14.d 5. Acceptance of portions of Crossbow Circle, Chukar Drive, Archer Drive, Red Stag Road and Elk Hill Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. A-52692-14.e 6. Adoption of Resolution of Abandonment of Route 634, Hardy Road, in the Town of Vinton. R-52692-14.f M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS SUPERVISOR OHNSON - ROANOKE CITY HAS NOT YET THURSDAY. SUPERVISOR EDDY -ASKED FOR COM1~~D w O~TH~ER env mrar,. MTINTY SIGNAL. BhT ASKS ISSUES OF THE COUNTY SIGNAL. N. CITIZENS' COMII~NTS AND C011iIlVIUNICATIONS NONE O. REPORTS BIT MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE UW 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance s 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Accounts Paid -April 1992 5. Statement of Revenues and Expenditures as of April 30, 1992. RECESS AT 4:20 P.M. P. WORK SESSION ,4:30 P.M.) 1. Proposed Bond Referendum BOARD CONSENSUS TO INCLUDE BOND MONEY FOR VDOT REVENUE SHARING. BOARD CONSENSUS THAT SCHOOLS GET BETTER STUDY FROM PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT ON COSTS OF RENOVATIONS SUCH AS AIR CONDITIONING. BW TO GET RFP'S AND BRING BACK TO BOARD. DISCUSSION ON DECREASING FUNDS FROM SOME PROTECTS IN ORDER TO INCREASE FUNDS FOR PARKS AND RECREATION. MEETING SET FOR TUESDAY, 6/2/92 AT 8 AM FOLLOWED BY TOUR OF •PROPOSED PROTECTS. Q. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (7) for consultation with legal counsel pertaining to potential or actual litigation: Grumman Emergency Products, Inc; specific legal matters requiring legal advice concerning amendments to the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Members Use Agreement. B T MOTION AT 6:25 P.M. URC 9 R. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-52692-15 B ~T MOTION TO APPROVE AT 7:03 P.M. URC EVENING SESSION S. pUB~C HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. An Ordinance to Rezone Approximately 3 Acres from A- 1 to M-2 to Operate a Machine Shop, Located at 6095 Newport Road, Catawba Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Bobby L. Hodges. 0-52692-16 EGK MOTION TO APPROVE REZONING AND ORD URC 2. An Ordinance to Rezone 7.864 Acres from A-1 and M-2 to R-E to Allow the Continued Use and New Use of These Tracts for Residential Purposes, Located on Carlos Drive, Hollins Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of James S. Bolling. 0-52692-17 LBE MOTION TO APPROVE REZONING AND ORD AYES-EGK,HOM,HCN,LBE PRESENT-BI.J B ASKED STAFF TO INFORM OWNERS OF " 1Vi" ZONED PROPERTY OF POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE REZONING TO THEM. 3. An Ordinance to Rezone 0.83 Acres from B-2 and B-3 to B-2 to Operate a Dental Clinic and Permit General Business Uses, Located in the 6100 Block of Peters Creek Road, Catawba Magisterial District, Upon the io Petition of Steve Waldrop. 0-52692-18 B MOTION TO APPROVE REZONING AND ORD AYES-B T,EGK.HOM HCN_ NAYS-LBE 4. An Ordinance to Increase the Salaries of the Members of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County pursuant to Section 3.07 of the Roanoke County Charter and Section 14.1-46.01:1 of the Code of Virginia. 0-52692-19 BLOT MOTION TO APPROVE ORD AYES-EGK,B TIC HCN NAYS-B T,LBE LBE DONATING INCREASE TO CHIP PROGRAM B DONATING I1~TCRFASE TO TWO FIRE DEPTS T. CITIZEN COMII~NTS AND COIbIlVIUNICATIONS NONE OTHER BUSINESS 1. Authorization to pay Legal Fees for legal action against Grumman Emergency Products. A-52692-20 BLOT MOTION TO PAY LEGAL FEES FROM BOARD CONTINGENCY FUND. URC U. ADJOUR1vMENT 7:35 P AUTHORITY MEMBER USE AGREEMENT- UW ii 12 ~ f~OAN ~.~ ~` A Z ai 1838 (~~ix~tg ~~ ~.~~x~~~~ ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MAY 26, 1992 FffA2T 6 Tiff fflE RmGf Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. 2. Invocation: The Reverend Charles W. Easley St. Mark's Lutheran 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 1. Resolution of Appreciation and Congratulations to the Roanoke Appalachian Trail Club upon their 60th Anniversary. i ® Recycled Paper 2. Recognition of County Employees for their Customer Service Efforts. (Anita Hammerstrom, Training Coordinator) D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Adoption of a Resolution Supporting the Inclusion of Roanoke County in the Appalachian Regional Commission. (Tim Gubala, Economic Development Director) 2. Request for Acceptance of Grant from Virginia Department of Fire Programs for Repairs to Training Center. (Mark Light, Deputy Fire and Rescue Chief) 3. Request from City of Roanoke for Settlement of Claim Regarding Purchase of Bulk Water. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) 4 Request for Approval of Industrial Revenue Bond Financing for Richfield Retirement Community. (Tim Gubala, Economic Development Director) 5. Authorization to Write Off Utility Bad Debts. (Diane Hyatt, Director of Finance) 6. Request from Dennis Kafura to Use Spring Hollow Access Road for Access to his Property. (Clifford Craig, Utility Director) 7. Request from School Board for Appropriation for Regional Special Education Board 1992-93 Budget. (Dr. Eddie Kolb, Roanoke County Schools) 8. Request for Approval of Regional Cable TV Committee Agreement. (Joseph Obenshain, Sr. Assistant County 2 Attorney) 9. Request for Acceptance of Environmental Protection Agency 106 Ground Water Protection Grant. (Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning Director) 10. Ratification of Agreements and Acknowledgement of the Issuance of Solid Waste System Bonds for the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (Diane Hyatt, Director of Finance. F. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS G. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS H. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA 1. An ordinance to rezone approximately 1.615 acres from B-1 and R-1 to B-2 to operate a new car dealership located at the corner of Peters Creek Road and Deer Branch Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Valley Motorsport. 2. An ordinance to rezone 0.893 acre from B-1 and B-2 to B-2 to operate a convenience store with gas dispenser, located at 3202 Peters Creek Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Workman Oil Company. 3. An ordinance to rezone 24.090 acres from M-2 to M-3 to construct and operate an asphalt batch mix plant, located on the south side of Buck Mountain Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Virginia Asphalt Paving Company. 3 I. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance Authorizing Acquisition of a Sanitary Sewer Easement from George Hughes and Gertrude Hughes. (Clifford Craig, Utility Director) J. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance Appropriating the Funds for the 1992-93 Fiscal Year Budget for Roanoke County. (Reta Busher, Director of Management and Budget) 2. Ordinance Authorizing the Reconveyance of a 0.470 Acre Tract of Real Estate, More or Less, Located in the Southwest Industrial Park. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) K. APPOINTMENTS 1. Board of Zoning Appeals 2. Fifth Planning District Commission 3. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 4. Roanoke Valley Regional Cable TV Committee L. 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. 4 1. Acceptance of Sanitary Sewer Facilities Serving Double "C" Subdivision. 2. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Fifth Planning District Commission and Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors. 3. Request for Acceptance of the Extension of Edgebrook Road into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 4. Acceptance of portions of Cavalier Drive, Sulgrave Road, Trinity Court and Wimbledon Court into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 5. Acceptance of portions of Crossbow Circle, Chukar Drive, Archer Drive, Red Stag Road and Elk Hill Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 6. Adoption of Resolution of Abandonment of Route 634, Hardy Road, in the Town of Vinton. M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS N. CITIZENS' COIVIlVIENTS AND CO1NIlViUNICATIONS O. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund s 4. Accounts Paid -April 1992 5. Statement of Revenues and Expenditures as of April 30, 1992. P. WORK SESSION 1. Proposed Bond Referendum Q. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (7) for consultation with legal counsel pertaining to potential or actual litigation: Grumman Emergency Products, Inc. R CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION EVENING SESSION S. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. An Ordinance to Rezone Approximately 3 Acres from A- 1 to M-2 to Operate a Machine Shop, Located at 6095 Newport Road, Catawba Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Bobby L. Hodges. 2. An Ordinance to Rezone 7.864 Acres from A-1 and M-2 to R-E to Allow the Continued Use and New Use of These Tracts for Residential Purposes, Located on Carlos Drive, Hollins Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of James S. Bolling. 3. An Ordinance to Rezone 0.83 Acres from B-2 and B-3 to B-2 to Operate a Dental Clinic and Permit General Business Uses, Located in the 6100 Block of Peters 6 Creek Road, Catawba Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Steve Waldrop. 4. An Ordinance to Increase the Salaries of the Members of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County pursuant to Section 3.07 of the Roanoke County Charter and Section 14.1-46.01:1 of the Code of Virginia. T. CITIZEN COMII~NTS AND CO1bIlVIU1vICATIONS U. ADJOURNMENT ti ~.a. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1992 RESOLUTION 52692-1 OF APPRECIATION AND CONGRATULATIONS TO ROANORE APPALACHIAN TRAIL CLUB UPON ITS 60TH ANNIVERSARY WHEREAS, the Appalachian Trail is a 2,100 mile long National Scenic Trail, which runs from Georgia to Maine; and WHEREAS, 20 miles of the Appalachian Trail passes through Roanoke County, from Cove Mountain to Tinker Mountain, and this section contains two of the top attractions along the trail, Dragon's Tooth and McAfee's Knob; and WHEREAS, the upkeep, maintenance and improvement of the Trail is almost entirely provided by private clubs under the guidance of the Appalachian Trail Conference; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke Appalachian Trail Club is responsible for caring for a 113 mile section of the Appalachian Trail, from Bland County in the south, to Botetourt County in the north, and has added a variety of improvements to the trail, including shelters, foot bridges, and the McAfee's Knob parking area on Virginia 311; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke Appalachian Trail Club was founded in 1932, and is celebrating its 60th Anniversary, with a membership of over 200 people. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on its own behalf and on behalf of the people from around the world who hike the Appalachian Trail each year, does hereby extend its appreciation to the ROANORE APPALACHIAN TRAIL CLUB for its care and concern for this national w 1 treasure since 1932; and further BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does hereby extend congratulations to the Club on the occasion of its 60th Anniversary. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy, NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Resolutions of Appreciation File Director, Parks & Recreation Department .,- .• C- / AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1992 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION AND CONGRATULATIONS TO ROANORE APPALACHIAN TRAIL CLUB UPON ITS 60TH ANNIVERSARY WHEREAS, the Appalachian Trail is a 2,100 mile long National Scenic Trail, which runs from Georgia to Maine; and WHEREAS, 20 miles of the Appalachian Trail passes through Roanoke County, from Cove Mountain to Tinker Mountain, and this section contains two of the top attractions along the trail, Dragon's Tooth and McAfee's Knob; and WHEREAS, the upkeep, maintenance and improvement of the Trail is almost entirely provided by private clubs under the guidance of the Appalachian Trail Conference; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke Appalachian Trail Club is responsible for caring for a 113 mile section of the Appalachian Trail, from Bland County in the south, to Botetourt County in the north, and has added a variety of improvements to the trail, including shelters, foot bridges, and the McAfee's Knob parking area on Virginia 311; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke Appalachian Trail Club was founded in 1932, and is celebrating its 60th Anniversary, with a membership of over 200 people. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on its own behalf and on behalf of the people from around the world who hike the Appalachian Trail each year, does hereby extend its appreciation to the ROANORE APPALACHIAN TRAIL CLUB for its care and concern for this national y1 _ a treasure since 1932; and further G/ BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does hereby extend congratulations to the Club on the occasion of its 60th Anniversary. t T r ..,~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1992 RESOLUTION 52692-2 IN SUPPORT OF THE INCLUSION OF ROANORE COUNTY IN THE APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION. WHEREAS, the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) was formed in 1965 to enhance the economic development and the quality of life of the of the people in the Appalachian area of the United States; and WHEREAS, ARC, through its federal, state and local partnership, has pursued its mission in a very effective manner by supporting local economic development projects and could be of great assistance to Roanoke County in its economic development efforts; and WHEREAS, the ARC region currently includes three counties adjacent to Roanoke County and these communities have close economic and social ties with Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County has significant economic linkages with the counties and cities in the ARC region of western/southwestern Virginia and southeastern West Virginia; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County's ability to promote industrial growth within this region of the Commonwealth of Virginia could be greatly enhanced by participation in the ARC; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County recognizes the need to approach economic development from a regional perspective. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Roanoke County, Virginia, requests Congressman Jim Olin and Congressman Rick Boucher to I t pursue the inclusion of Roanoke County as a member of the Appalachian Regional Commission. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy, NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Timothy W. Gubala, Director, Economic Development Wayne Strickland, Executive Director, Fifth Planning District Commission The Honorable Jim Olin, U.S. Representative The Honorable Rick Boucher, U.S. Representative Action No. Item Number ~- v~ At A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE,COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 26,1992 AGENDA ITEM: Recognition of the "Extra Mile" Club Nominees for Efforts in Providing Good Customer Service. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND• The Customer Service Resource Committee was established in the Spring of 1990 with staff from all levels of Roanoke County government. This committee has met on a regular basis, with the goal of the committee being to improve customer service for Roanoke County citizens. The members of the committee have developed and implemented programs that have either enhanced what employees were already doing or encouraged employees to be more aware of the service levels provided for county citizens. The County received an award from the National Association of Counties in 1991 for the Customer Service Program. It has also been spotlighted in the Virgina Chapter Newsline newsletter of International Personnel Management Association (IPMA), as well as the national newsletter for IPMA. One of the projects of the Committee is the "Extra Mile" Club, an employee recognition program where citizens or employees can nominate an employee for providing good customer service. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The "Extra Mile" Club, sponsored by the Roanoke County Customer Service Committee, began on April 1, 1992. County employees have recognized their peers for going the "extra mile" to provide good customer service to both Roanoke County citizens and to fellow employees. Nominees are individuals or departments that fit into one of the following categories: * An employee who has been praised by a citizen. * An employee who has been especially helpful to citizens, co-workers or to another department. * A department which has been noticeably helpful to another department. * A department which has made a significant effort to improve customer service through training or procedural changes. c- ~ Members receive a certificate of appreciation from the Customer Service Resource Committee as well as recognition in the County newsletter, The County Signal. The Committee is requesting that the Board of Supervisors recognize those employees who have become members of the "Extra Mile" Club twice a year. Attached is the list of new members of the "Extra Mile" Club. Also attached is a copy of the Special Edition of The County Signal describing the employees' efforts at going the "Extra Mile". RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Customer Service Resource Committee that the Board of Supervisors recognize the listed employees for their customer service efforts with the citizens and their co- workers. SUBMITTED B An to Hamme trom Tra 'ng Coordinator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Motion by: ACTION APPROVED BY• 1~,,~ Elmer C. Hodg County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens "EXTRA MILE" CLUB MEMBERS FOOD STAMP UNIT-SOCIAL SERVICES Becky Cramer Vicki Dillard Barbara Bangura Barbara Cosgrove Beverly Webber Tina Greene Robert Puig ROANORE COUNTY HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY Jane Conner Becky Woodhouse FIRE AND RESCUE Jo Smith ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS Junior Stover PARRS AND RECREATION-THERAPEUTICS DIVISION Eric Williams FORT LEWIS FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING Anita McMillan ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS Alicia Foliaco Todd Booth SHERIFF'S OFFICE Sgt. Leighton Rogers MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SERVICES Diana Wilson PARRS AND RECREATION - THERAPEUTICS SECTION Wendy Anderson C-~ ~-a GLENVAR LIBRARY Katrina Keith Lois Spigle Pat Carter ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS Jeff Bailey UTILITY DEPARTMENT - SANITARY SEWER EVALUATION/REHABILITATION DIVISION Richard Adkins Charlie Altice Steve Carper Curtis Carroll Richard Dulaney John Frank Harry Karnes George Madagan Eli Puckett Berkley Robertson Paul Smith Frederick Sisson Danny Spangler Douglas Weeks COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE - PERSONAL PROPERTY DIVISION Laura Wilson Deena Woods Teresa Dixon Clyde Necessary Kathy Garrett UTILITY DEPARTMENT - SANITARY SEWER EVALUATION/REHABILITATION DIVISION Carl Johnson Jeffrey Scot Roanoke County -Heart of the Blue Ridge Special Edition EXTRA! May 1992 EXTRA MILE CLUB NOMINATIONS COME FROM FAR AND WIDE ACROSS THE COUNTY! The "Extra Mile Club", sponsored by the Roanoke County Customer Service Resource Committee, has started off with a Bang! Begun on April 1, 1992, the Committee has received 45 nominations for this recognition. County employees have recognized their peers for going the "Extra Mile" to provide good customer service to both Roanoke County citizens and fellow employees. What you will read in the following pages demonstrates how dedicated County employees are to doing a competent, efficient, and caring job for those they serve. Descriptions are taken from the nominations. County Administrator Elmer Hodge said, "I'm pleased that so many employees think so much of their co-workers to nominate them for the Extra Mile Club. This proves to me what I knew all along -County employees are among the best, even in times of adversity." The April nominees will be recognized at the May 26, 1992 Board of Supervisors meeting. Nominees are individuals or departments that fit into one of the following categories: An employee who has been praised by a citizen. An employee who has been especially helpful to co workers or to another department. C- ~ A department which has been noticeably helpful to another department. A department which has made a significant effort to improve customer service through training, procedural changes, etc. The Customer Service Resource Committee will, on a monthly basis, continue to recognize employees who have been nominated for the "Extra Mile Club" in the County Sid al. Because there were so many nominations this month, a special edition needed to be published. Please continue to use your nomination forms and send them to the Human Resources Department to the attention of Anita Hammerstrom. Nominees are as follows: BECKY CRAMER, VICKI DILLARD, BARBARA BANGURA, BARBARA COSGROVE, BEVERLY WEBBER, TINA GREENS, ROBERT PUIG, SOCIAL SERVICES FOOD STAMP UNIT: Nominated by Kay Atkins In June, 1991, a class action suit was filed against the Virginia Department of Social Services on behalf of clients whose food stamp applications were not completed within federally 1 G~ established time frames. At this time, the state percentage rate of processing food stamp cases timely was at 78.2%. The state was ordered by the court to bring the percentage rate to 97% by January 1992, which was met by the Roanoke County Social Services Food Stamp Unit. Their efforts and conscientious hard work in obtaining this goal has been accomplished by working together as a team and supporting each other. With increased workloads and pressures involved in complying with federal guidelines, this Unit has gone that "extra mile" in making service to the citizens their number one priority Jo never seems to be bothered with our petty questions, and has always jumped in to help us when we needed her. She teaches us short-cuts and tips that make our jobs easier. She also donates her time to setting up and teaching many of our Wordperfect User Group meetings, and we appreciate all the time and effort that she spends on this also. *s********** JUNIOR STOVER: Nominated by Jim Jones *************#s* JANE CONNER AND BECKY WOODHOUSE: Nominated by Ruth Lipnik Jane Conner and Becky Woodhouse with the Roanoke County Main Library are nominated for the continuous effort they make to assist patrons of the library. They frequently bring materials from home to lend to patrons, and both photocopy and send material to people unable to get to the library. Citizens and fellow employees continually comment on how helpful Jane and Becky are at all times. They are described as being patient, friendly, caring, good problem-solvers, and dedicated to the ethics of public library service. ***#**~**s** JO SMITH: Nominated Iry Pat Chockley Jo Smith, Fire and Rescue Department, has been very helpful to the Police Department in many ways, especially with computer problems. She has a vast knowledge of personal computers and the software used, and has, on many occasions, helped us with both. Junior Stover, Engineering Department, has been most helpful to the Parks and Recreation Department in the past several weeks, making engineering equipment available to the P&R Dept. when not in use by the Drainage Division. This action makes for wise use of County resources, and workloads are lighter when goodwill and equipment are available to get the job done. **s*******#* ERIC WILLIAMS: Nominated Iry Donna Ould Eric Williams of the Therapeutic Section of the Parks and Recreation Department is nominated for his magnificent portrayal of "Sophisticated Sam" for two 1992 Valentine Dinner Dances for participants with visual impairments and developmental disabilities. Eric eagerly donned the hot and hairy costume for both events, and danced his way into the hearts of the participants! He is also recognized for his quick ability to grasp the concept and leadership of the Mental Health program for participants with psychiatric disabilities. Since coming to the County in January, 1992 he has assumed leadership of the program and is well liked by all the participants as well as their families. 2 C- ~ FORT LEWIS FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT: Nominated lry Pat Carter The Fort Lewis Fire and Rescue Department is recognized for their helpfulness to the Glenvar Library staff when they do tour groups with their story hour children. This usually includes groups of up to 40 children. 'They bring their job duties to a level that the 4-7 year olds can really understand. They are also helpful when the library staff has programs that require setting up the canopies and moving the heavy picnic tables. They are friendly and always seem to have positive attitudes. For the Glenvar Library, they go the "extra mile". ALICIiA FOLIACO AND TODD BOOTH: Nominated by Melinda Rector Alicia Foliaco and Todd Booth of the Engineering and Inspections Department were nominated for assisting in sign making for County Government Day. When difficulties arose for Melinda in making the signs, Alicia made them on very short notice. Also, at the end of the day when she realized that one department had been omitted, Todd came through and printed the extra sign for her. Melinda considered this assistance as going the "extra mile". ****s******s **s********* ANITA McMILLAN: Nominated lry Denise Sowder Anita McMillan of the Planning and Zoning Department, although a part-time temporary employee, exemplifies what every employee should be like. Anna's readiness and ability to learn new tasks in the different departments has helped the drafting and records area of the Engineering Department numerous times. She takes complete charge of drafting while we have staff meetings, and rarely leaves a customer with an unanswered question or request. Planning and Zoning relies on her abilities as well. Even in the face of angry customers, she always keeps a stiff upper lip and smile on her face. Due to budget constraints, the department may lose her great abilities and friendliness. If so, both departments would lose a tremendous employee and a wonderful friend. s***s*ss**ss SGT. LEIGHTON ROGERS: Nominated lry Lee McIlwraith Sgt. Leighton Rogers of the Sheriff's Department, has an exceptional attitude towards his fellow deputies and to his work as well. According to Deputy McIlwraith, Sgt. Rogers has never appeared moody or unfriendly to anyone. Deputy McIlwraith said, "It is a pleasure working with this caliber of person, I wish there were more like him." DIANA WILSON: Nominated b3' Edna Lawson Diana Wilson is the Lead Programmer Analyst in the MIS Department responsible for managing the activities of six staff member. She was . nominated for her representation on the Employee Advisory Committee. She has been a member of the EAC for two years, currently holding the position of chairperson, and also as acting recording secretary. Diana has brought much credibility to this committee in her 3 C-~ dedication and support of all Roanoke County employees. Diana has definitely gone the "extra mile", especially the past few months since the EAC has addressed several pertinent long- standing issues which has required her to spend many extra hours in addition to her already over- loaded normal work schedule. They began referring to themselves as his secretaries and they certainly were! They even offered coffee or hot chocolate on cold bitter mornings. Perhaps most importantly, they provided friendship which Malvin will always treasure. Her willingness to take on this additional responsibility, and considering the fact that Diana's work ethic is "always give your best" regardless of time constraints, make her a prime candidate for this honor. ************ WENDY ANDERSON: Nominated by Grace Kent Wendy Anderson of the Therapeutic Section in the Parks and Recreation Department has worked consistently for many years. She continues to remain dedicated to the work she does and is willing to do extra when needed. KATRINA KEITH, LOIS SPIGLE, AND PAT CARTER: Nominated by Marvin Goin In July, 1991, Marvin Goin of Engineering & Inspections was assigned to the Roanoke River Interceptor Project and needed to make use of the facilities at the Glenvar Library. When requested, the staff at the Glenvar Library was glad to be of assistance and made him feel welcome from day one. On a project of that size, there was quite a bit of communication needed, and the staff at the hbrary never complained of the phone messages left there for hun. The staff allowed him use of their phone, helped him in receiving and sending mail, made copies, and even assisted in writing reports. They demonstrated how departments can cooperate and work together in the best interest of the County and its citizens. Malvin also had a chance to observe how the library staff serve their patrons. Never did he see a patron enter this library without receiving a warm welcome and smile. The citizens who came into the library seemed to feel at home, and many of them are on a first name basis. They certainly exhibit the friendly, courteous service that each department in the County strives for. ************ JEFF BAILEY: Nominated by Tim Beard Although many acts of kindness and extra effort were put forth by a host of County Departments, Jeff Bailey, Engineering and Inspections, is nominated for going beyond the call of duty during the recent flood. Jeff arrived at the home of Mildred McClanahan to find a mudslide beside the house and flooding around the dwelling. Under adverse conditions, he re-routed a large volume of stormwater away from the house using handtools. Although substantial, Mrs. McClanahan's losses would have been greater if not for Jeffs efforts. ~s********** RICHARD ADKINS, CHARLIE ALTICE, STEVE CARPER, CURTIS CARROLL, RICHARD DULANEY, JOHN FRANK, HARRY KARNES, GEORGE MADAGAN, ELI PUCKETT, BERKLEY ROBERTSON, 4 C-~ FREDERICK SISSON, DANNY SPANGLER, DOUGLAS WEEKS: Nominated by Larry Boone and based on citizen compliments Employees of the Sanitary Sewer Evaluatior~/Rehabilitation Division of the Utility Department are being nominated by Larry Boone for demonstrating continuous professional and competent work efforts in their dealings with the citizens. He enclosed many letters from citizens who have written in commending these men for going the "extra mile". These citizens felt that their problem was always top priority with the staff. The employees handling the problem would stay until it was solved and the citizen was satisfied. The citizens also mentioned how the staff always left the area in -as neat a condition as possible, and showed a concern for the citizen's well-being during the process. The citizens also noticed the dedication to a "job well done" that these men had in accomplishing their tasks. It was frequently noted that if all Roanoke County employees were like the employees in the SSFJR Division of the Utility Department, then the citizens of Roanoke County were indeed fortunate! **ss*s*ss*s* FRED SISSON: Nominated by Richard Dulaney Fred Sisson of the Utility Department is nominated for doing extra good work, and showing great courtesy to the citizens. #*#*ss***#s* of the Revenue's Office were nominated for their "above and beyond" efforts to assist both the citizens who come into their office and their own co-workers. Linda noted that when times are particularly busy, these employees demonstrate that "kind and considerate" behavior that helps them all get through the day. They are willing to work overtime to get the job done even when they learn they must do this at the last minute. They regularly provide the taxpayers with explanations about other departments, and give directions to them when asked. Linda has also heard them call ahead to the department just to make sure that the citizen was headed in the right direction. She is continually impressed that they take time away from their regular duties to assist a citizen, and do it with a smile on their face. She said, "it was the best bunch to work with," and is most appreciative of their efforts. ************ CARL JOHNSON AND JEFFREY SCOTT: Nominated by Larry Boone Carl Johnson and Jeffrey Scott of the Utility Department are being nominated for their assistance to the Sanitary Sewer Evaluatiort/Rehabilitation Division of the Utility Department. Their continuous efforts for this division have been extremely helpful and has resulted in the excellent reputation of providing good customer service that this department has established over the last few years. LAURA WILSON, DEENA WOODS, TERESA DIXON, CLYDE NECESSARY, AND KATHY GARRETT: Nominated by Linda Powell Laura Wilson, Deena Woods, Teresa Dixon, Clyde Necessary, and Kathy Garrett in the Personal Property Division of the Commissioner S HEART OF THE BLUE RIDGE .. 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: May 26, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Inclusion of Roanoke County within Appalachian Regional Commission COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS: ~ ``~~""~ ,~N~`m~~ ~~~ BACKGROUND: The Fifth Planning District Commission is serving as coordinator between local area governments and congressional representatives to have the Roanoke Valley included within the boundaries of the Appalachian Regional Commission. This federal agency has a variety of programs that may be potential sources of funds for water and sewer, vocational training, and planning and economic development projects. Montgomery County is requesting inclusion in the Appalachian Regional Commission through Congressman Boucher. Congressman Olin has requested the Roanoke Valley Governments to support him in his request for the Valley to be included. Staff recommends that Roanoke County be included within the boundaries of the Appalachian Regional Commission. FISCAL IMPACT' There are no fees for inclusion. After next year, Roanoke County may have to increase its contribution to the Fifth Planning District Commission to provide non-federal funds for the Planning District Commission to match for ARC planning funds. The Planning District Commission estimates that this additional cost would be less than $5,000 per year for the County. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the attached resolution in support of the inclusion of Roanoke County in the Appalachian Regional Commission. i ~i Respectfully submitted: Approved: ~ ~ '" ,~ Timothy Gubala Director Elmer C. Hodge Economic Development County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to ACTION Motion by: Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens No Yes Abs Attachment t ~-i AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1992 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE INCLUSION OF ROANOKE COUNTY IN THE APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION. WHEREAS, the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) was formed in 1965 to enhance the economic development and the quality of life of the of the people in the Appalachian area of the United States; and WHEREAS, ARC, through its federal, state and local partnership, has pursued its mission in a very effective manner by supporting local economic development projects and could be of great assistance to Roanoke County in its economic development efforts; and WHEREAS, the ARC region currently includes three counties adjacent to Roanoke County and these communities have close economic and social ties with Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County has significant economic linkages with the counties and cities in the ARC region of western/southwestern Virginia and southeastern West Virginia; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County's ability to promote industrial growth within this region of the Commonwealth of Virginia could be greatly enhanced by participation in the ARC; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County recognizes the need to approach economic development from a regional perspective. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Roanoke County, Virginia, requests Congressman Jim Olin and Congressman Rick Boucher to pursue the inclusion of Roanoke County as a member of the Appalachian Regional Commission. ACTION NUMBER A-52692-3 ITEM NUMBER iG/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 26, 1992 SUBJECT: Request for Acceptance of Grant for Repair to Fire Training Center COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS: ~ .-r+-~'~'( BACKGROUND' In 1986, Roanoke County constructed a three story building to use for firefighter training. At that time the County was designated as a regional training site for fire and rescue services and the building was constructed utilizing state funds and grants. Other localities have contributed various services and components for other parts of the training center due to the regional designation. Since 1986, the building has been used to train firefighters in fire attack procedures and techniques. This requires that fires be started on all levels to simulate actual fire conditions in buildings. Due to high heat and flame contact, the concrete floor and ceilings of some rooms have deteriorated and need to be repaired. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Fire and Rescue Department has developed a plan to repair the existing damage, and a method to reduce future damage to the building. A grant request was submitted to the Virginia Department of Fire Programs for funding for the repairs. A presentation was made to the Virginia Fire Services Board on February 21, 1992 to request funding for the building repairs. The board approved $5,000 to be awarded to Roanoke County for the project. Contracts have been executed to receive the funding for the sole purpose of training center repairs. Staff requests authorization to move forward with the building repairs using the $5,000 grant from the state. FISCAL IMPACT' No fiscal impact is expected for these repairs. The department budget will absorb minor alterations to the building to enhance the repairs, at an estimated cost of $1,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval to move forward with repairs using funds granted by the Department of Fire Programs. ~_~ SUBMITTED BY: ~~ ~~ .~ Mark W. Light Deputy Chief APPROVED: ~' Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. County Administrator ------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Edward G.Kohinke No Yes Abs Denied ( ) to accept Grant Eddy x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred Kohinke x To Minnix x Nickens x cc: File Thomas C.Fuqua, Chief, Fire & Rescue Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget ACTION NO . A-'5~}2~6 9 2 - 4 ITEM NO. ..!J' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 26, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Claim by the City of Roanoke for Unpaid Charges from the Purchase of Bulk Water /~ COUNTY ADMINIS RATOR' S COMMENTS : (,z,.c v~~`~-~~~~'~' Q~~~~` °~`~'~~~ EXECUTIV SUNIIKARY • .~~~ .,,,~,~ ~, ~9~ 7` By letter dated April 30, 1992, the City Attorney submitted a claim on behalf of the City of Roanoke in the amount of $320,353.39 for unpaid charges from the purchase by the County of bulk water from the City for fiscal year 1991 pursuant to the contract dated August 13, 1979. BACKGROUND• Sections 15.1-550 through 15.1-554 of the Code of Virginia describes the procedure for submitting claims to boards of supervisors. No legal action against the county upon any claim or demand may be maintained unless and until such claim has been presented to the board of supervisors. A determination by the board disallowing a claim shall be final and a perpetual bar to any action in any court on such claim, unless the decision of the board is appealed to the circuit court within 30 days from the date of decision. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The City's claim is attached to this report and includes several exhibits: a copy of the contract and an affidavit of the City Director of Finance. By letter from the County Administrator to the City Manager dated December 17, 1991, the County listed its objections to these additional charges. For the period in question the County has paid $1, 260, 734.00 for FY 1991 and is objecting only to additional, adjusted billing. The County's objections are summarized as follows: 1) the inclusion of capital costs that are of a specific benefit only to particular city neighborhoods, that neither serve ~' nor benefit the County, and that are not necessary to meet the City's obligations under the contract or to meet water quality or treatment standards; 2) the inclusion of capital costs to expand the City system to serve new customers in the city; 3) the inclusion of capital costs for significant long term expansions or upgrades of the City water system, (since the City unilaterally defined "surplus water" and the City retains the opportunity to cancel the contract); 4) the inclusion of capital costs for new services already paid for by new users (charging the County for expenditures for expansions or extensions previously paid by new users); and 5) charging the County for "capital outlay from revenue" from current or prior years' retained earnings, since a portion of these retained earnings were previously provided by the County (City expends funds from retained earnings for "capital outlay from revenue," then adds this expenditure to other costs to calculate the actual bulk water rate: in effect charging the County twice). FISCAL IMPACTS• If the Board allows the claim, the County would be required to pay an additional $320,353.39 plus interest. ALTERNATIVES• i) Disallow the claim based upon the objections set forth above. 2) Allow the claim and pay the additional, adjusted amount billed by the City for FY 1991. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board disallow the claim, and thereby permit the City to proceed with a judicial remedy. Respectfully submitted, ~•c ` ~ ~ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney ~-3 Action Vote No Yes Abs Approved (x) Motion by Bob L. Johnson to Eddy x Denied ( ) direct sta to reinstate Johnson x Received ( ) nego cations with Roanoke City Kohinke x Referred Nickens x to Minnix x c:\wp51 \age~a\1it\warer.clm cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney WILBURN C. DIBLING, JR. CfTY ATTORNEY Hand Delivered The Honorable Chairman and Members Roanoke County Board of Supervisors c/o Mary Allen, Clerk Paul M. Mahoney, Esquire Roanoke County Attorney Gentlemen: Re: NOTICE OF CLAIM WILLUIM X PARSONS MARK ALLAN WILLIAMS STEVEN J. TALEVI KATHLEEN MARIE KRONAU ASSISTANT CRY ATTORNEYS Pursuant to sections 15.1-550 through 15.1-554 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, a claim is hereby submitted on behalf of the City of Roanoke against the County of Roanoke in the amount of $320,353.39 for unpaid charges from the purchase by the County of Roanoke of surplus bulk water from the City of Roanoke for fiscal year 1991 pursuant to the August 13, 1979, contract between Roanoke County and Roanoke City. A copy of the contract is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference. By letter dated October 14, 1991, the City notified the County of this charge. A copy of the letter as well as the billing notice and an itemized statement of the calculation of the charges verified by affidavit by the Roanoke City Director of Finance is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by reference. The City of Roanoke respectfully requests that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors consider this claim and pay to the City of Roanoke the sum of $320,353.39 to which the City is rightfully entitled under contract. Please respond directly to me with regard to this matter. Thank you for your consideration of the City's claim. Respe tf 1 it ed, i Wilburn C. ibling, Jr. City Attorney attachments CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING ROANOKE,VIRGINIA 24011-1595 TELEPHONE: 70}oSt-2131 T E LE CO P I E R: 70308 t -2710 April 30, 1992 i l11` i :`f v t'il.~L ~ ~ ..11~~ I~ i LT~~u cc: The Honorable Mayor and Members, Roanoke City Council W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance $zhibit 1 THIS COPJTRACT, made and entered into this 13th day of August 1979, by and between the CITY OF ROANOKE, herein- after referred to as "City", party of the first part, and the COUNTY OF ROAIlOKE and/or the ROA:JOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY, as their interests may appear, hereinafter referred to as "County", parties of the second part; W I T N E S S E T H: 4TiE~:AS, the City owns certain water artd sewer lines in the County which it is willing to sell and convey to the County upon certain terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, the County owns certain water and sewer lines in the City which it is willing to sell and convey to the City upon cer- tain terms and conditions; and LdHEREAS, the City is authorized by § 2(9) of its Charter to sell to persons, firms,.or industries residing outside of the City limits any surplus water it may have over and above the amount required to supply its inhabitants; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto deem it mutually advantageous that the City sell such surplus water as may be available at the rates provided for herein. THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATIOP7 of the mutual covenants, agreements and obligations herein contained, the parties hereto do covenant and agree, one with the other, as follows: I . OWPIERSHIP AI7D SALE OF WATER AND SEWER LINES . 1. 1. The County hereby grants, conveys, and quitclaims all of its right, title and interest in all sewer and water lines situate, lying and being within the boundaries of the city to the City ex- cept such sewer lines as are specifically shown on Exhibit "C", attached hereto and made a part hereof and initialed by the parties ~ hereto for purposes of identification, as being retained b•y the Coun- ty subject to the express allocation of joint use rights to the City ~3 as shown on Exhibit "C" and further subject to the express condi- tion that owners of property situate in the City who connect to such joint use lines shall be City customers at Citq connection fees and service charges. The County further grants and conveys unto the City with General Warranty of title all its right, title and interest in and to the wells and well lots described and identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof and initialed by the parties hereto for identification. 1.2. (a) The City. grants, conveys, and quitclaims unto the County all of its right, title and interest in all sewer and water lines within the County; less and except, however, the water transmission mains and joint-use rights in sewer lines located in the County which are retained by the City, and set forth and identified in Exhibits "B" and "C", respectively, attached hereto and made a part hereof and initialed by the parties hereto for identification. (b) Customers within the County receiving .water through lines retained by the City shall be County customers. The City shall, however, read the individual water meter of any County customer not separated from the City system by a bulk water meter and the water consumed by such customer shall be deemed to be a bulk water sale to the County and shall be included in the bulk water bill submitted to the County as set out in this contract. (c) Customers within the City receiving water from the County shall be City customers. The County shall, however, read the individual water meter of any City customer not separated from the County system by a bulk water meter and the water con- sumed by such customer shall be deemed to be a bulk sale to the City and shall be included as a credit to the County in the bulk water bill submitted to the County as set out in'this contract. The City shall have the right to extend water lines and develop water resources within the City to serve customers within the City boundaries. -2-• ~-3 1.3. The sale and conveyance of lines as set out in sections 1. 1, and 1.2, includes all easements, rights-of-way,. or other legal interest or rights in real estate of the parties hereto with the exception of such property herein expressly retained as s.et out in sections 1.1. and 1.2. above. 1.4. The joint-use allocations in sewer interceptors and trunk lines located within the City have been calculated on the basis of the percentage of the natural drainage area served through such line by the respective parties subsequent to trans- fer of lines as set out in this contract except as otherwise set forth in Exhibit "C" and are set forth and identified in Exhibit "C" attached hereto. New joint-use sewers that are hereafter determined to be necessary to be constructed shall be constructed pursuant to the provisions of the 1972 sewage treatment contract bet~oeen the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County. 1.5. In addition to the grants, conveyances, and quitclaims herein made to the County by the City, the City shall pay unto the County as further consideration for the grant, conveyance, and quitclaim of the County's right, title and interest in and to sewer interceptor and main trunk lines built by Roanoke County Public Service Authority or under contract to the Public Service Authority and water lines situate, lying, and being in the territory annexed to the City as of midnight, December 31, 1975, the sum of $946,833.00. Payment shall be due on the closing and transfer of lines; provided, however, such closing shall not take place less than thirty (30) days from the date of this contract. Payments shall be made to the County of Roanoke and mailed to the chief financial officer of the County. - 3 - ~-3 1.6. The conveyance of all lines, both water and sewer granted, transferred, and quitclaimed hereby, shall be deemed to include all right, title, and interest held by the grantor to all real estate utilized in the system and shall further be deemed to include all appurtenances to the system, including but not limited to hydrants, meters other than meters through which bulk sales are made, valves, and other tangible personal property. 1. 7. Except as may be othercaise provided in this contract, the parties agree that the City shall have the responsibility for servicing water and sewer customers in the City and the County shall have the responsibility for servicing water and sewer customers in the County. 1.8. In addition to the sum set out in Paragraph 1.6., above, the City agrees to pay unto the County a sum equal to 29.3% of a:.;• prepayment penalty actually paid by the County/Public Service Authority~in retiring all outstanding Public Service Authority bonds, which penalty shall be predicated upon the amount of such bonds outstanding on the date of execution of this agreement, but at no time shall such amount outstanding for the purpose of computing penalty be deemed to exceed $3,250,000.00, said 29.3% penalty to be paid by the City within ten (10) days of receipt by the City of documented evidence that such full penalty has been paid by the County. I I : BULI: WATER . 2. 1. The. City agrees to sell and the County agrees to buy surplus water at bulk rates as hereinafter set out and the rate shall be calculated in accordance with the following formula - 4 - • ~ .: ~~ which has been mutually agreed upon by the parties: rZat0 per ~ f x (0.3•Haebt service+Interest+Capital Outlav from Revenue) 100 cu.ft. ter were in cu.tt. units 2.2. The parties hereto agree that the words,•terms, and- abbreviations used in the foregoing formula shall have the follow- ink definitions: (a) f - a factor having a value of 1.25. (b) QSa`~I - Actual. cost of operating and maintaining the City's entire looter system, but Ooa~f shall not include payment in lieu of ta.Yes, depreciation, reserve for replacement, refunds for debts or rebates other than reftmds ceder a bona fide water extension agreemer-t to a developer or individual for t'~e construction of anew water line, and the cost to the City of billings and collection from the City's retail water customers. Administrative er~cpenses, which shall not e.YCeed 7.02 percent, being the percentage of adminis- trative erYOenses set forth in the City's 1977-1973 Water Fund Budget, shall be included in operation and maintenance. (c) Interest - Annual interest cost to the City for outstanding debt on the City's water system. The County shall be creaited with revenue received frcffi tre investment of une.~cpended bond funds. Said credit shall reduce the annual interest cost for purposes of the rate calculation. (d) Debt Service - Annual cost to the City for debt retirement of the water system, less developer contributions and Federal and State grants designated for or actually applied to debt retirement. (e) Capital Outlay from Revenue - Actual expenditures in any fiscal year for capital outlay from that cisrent fiscal year's earnings or any previous fiscal year's retained earninJs, provided, however, that not rmre than twenty percent (20`/,) of the retained earnings existing on June 30, K 1977, which retained earnings were $4,550,000.00, may be 'I~a spent in any one fiscal year without the county having the option of deferring payment on said excess aver the t<oenty percent (20%) to a subsequent fiscal year by agreeing to pay interest annually at the average weighted discount rate charged member banks in the Fifth Federal Reserve District on the deferred payment for the period of deferral. Such deferred payment shall be made at the earliest time that the twenty percent (207.) maxinnrn amount is not reached. (f) Water delivered - The total orater delivered through the City's water system to the City's retail and bullc water customers. All itec~s to be included in the rate calculation 2,'. the beginning of each fiscal year shall be the budgeted am,unts with an adjust- ment Wade at the end of each year based on actual expenditures and interest revenue collected from inv`stment of unexpended bond funds. S - 2. 3. Should the City at any time in the future install water lines which benefit and provide water service to political sub- divisions other than the parties hereto, the cost of construction of said lines shall not- be included in the hereinabove agr~_~d upon formula, unless said lines provide water service to the County or to persons, firms or industries who are customers of the County. 2.4. The formula for determining the quantities of water to be delivered by the City and paid for by the County shall be as follows: To the extent, as determined solely by the City, surplus water is available, the miniansn and maximnt quantities for FY 1979-80 shall be a~__an .annu~~averaQe daily wanti~ of 1.5 million gallons er an million gallons per y, respectively. In any succeeding fiscal year, the right to notify the City in writing by April 1 prior to such fiscal year of its intent to increase the n;n~~ r, quantity for the next fiscal year to an amount, to be specified by the County, not exceed- ing one hundred ten percent (110%) of the then existing nrinirban quantity. The maximtm annual average daily quantity shall always be one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the mininn.an annual average daily quantity. The m;.,,~m, quantity shall never be decreased; provided, ho~oever, in the event the area of the County is reduced the ~*+~~+*+ quantity of water required to be recei~red by the County ray be re- duced. Such reduction in quantity of water shall be based pro rata on the reduction of facilities and customers trans- ferred in a like manner as set out in section 5.8. hereof. The ma~mum instantaneous rate, fire suppression excluded, shall not exceed twice the u~dnnan annual average daily rate. Airing times of water shortages or emergencies, the needs of both parties shall be treated equitably on a pro rata basis. 2.5. The City shall not be liable for any damages to the County or any of its customers for failure to supply such quanti- ties of water or any quantity of water due to unavailability of a surplus, as determined solely by the City, breaks in transmission lines, mechanical or electrical failure, or acts of God. 2.6. The water delivered by the City to the County or by the County to the City shall, at all points of delivery, be at least 50 pounds per square inch for all uses except as otherwise provided in Exhibit "B" and except for fire service, which shall be at least 15 pounds per square inch, both pressures to be established and measured at the points on either the City's - 6 - system or the County's system whereat either the County's water lines or the City's water lines are connected. 2.7. If, at any time in the future, the average annual daily demand on the City's water system shall reach eighty (80%) per cent of the City's water source capacity, the City shall so notify the County. 2.8. The parties agree that, in an emergency situation, the County may, with the consent of the City, exceed the maximum daily usage. 2.4. Except as provided in Exhibit "B" attached hereto, the City and County agree that each shall deliver, at the points of connection to the other party's water system, water meeting the specifications and requirements of the State Health Depart- ment and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Subsequent to delivery of water at the other party's points of connections to the supplying party's water system, maintenance, monitoring and quality of water received from the supplying party, shall be the responsibility of the receiving party. 2.10. The City shall have the right to hereafter construct water line extensions in the County as set forth on Exhibit "B" which extensions shall be retained by the City as major transmis- sion line property of the City. Should any such extension set forth on Exhibit "B" be needed by the County before the City has scheduled construction thereof, the County may demand, upon twelve (12) months written notice, that the City proceed with such con- struction, and the City shall so proceed. Should the City not proceed with such construction within thirty (30) days following the end of said twelve (12) month period, the County may initiate legal proceedings to compel such construction by the City. 2.11. Payment by County to City: The City 'shall submit to the County each month a bill itemizing the readings for each - 7 - -3 meter for the proper amount owed by the County to the City for the caater delivered to the County, which bill the County shall pay within twenty (20) days from the date thereof. If at the end of any fiscal year, the amount of water billed to the County shall be less than the annual average daily quantity required to be accepted by the County by §2.4 of this contract, the County shall pay for the difference at the rate established by §2.1 within thirty (30) days after billing. 2.12.. The City agrees that sales of bulk water to political subdivisions other than the County shall be at rates comparable to the bulk rate charged the County, except such rates may exceed the rate charged the County by any amount. III. TER`~I OF CONTRACT, RENEWAL,-AND TERMINATION. 3.1. Term of contract: Unless terminated as herein provided, this contract shall continue in full force and effect for a term of thirty (30) years from the date hereof; provided, however, the failure of the City to deliver the minimum amount of water herein agreed to be delivered due to breaks in transmission lines, mechanical or electrical failure or acts of God or because the City, in its sole descretion, has determined that surplus water is not available shall not abrogate the other terms and provisions of this agreement or otherwise constitute a breach hereof. Zn the event the City fails to deliver the minimum quantity of water required to be paid for by the County for any of the aforesaid reasons, then the County shall pay for water actually delivered at the rate established in §2.1. 3.2. This contract shall, upon the expiration of the term of thirty (30) years, be automatically renewed for successive terms of five (5) years unless notice of termination be given in writing by either party to the other party at least twenty-four (24) months prior to the end of the original term of the contract or any five (5) year term of renewal. - 8 - 3.3. :To termination of this contract, other than by expra- ~~^~ tion as set forth in the preceding paragraph, shall occur except after notice in writing of such intent to terminate stating a breach of contract, perfected by a declaratory judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia in favor of the party seeking termination. IV. METERING OF SEWAGE A~1D [DATER FL0G1, 4.1. Sewage - Sewage metering shall be pursuant to and in accordance with the aforementioned 1972 contractual agreement; provided, however, in those instances when sewage is not metered either due to insufficient quantity or for any other reason autho- rized by the 1972 contract, the quantity of sewage shall be based on the volume of water provided the water and sewer customer plus forty percent (40%) for infiltration. Transportation costs in secaage lines, whether metered or not metered, not constructed pur- suant to the 1972 contract (lines existing prior to 1972 and not constructed as joint use lines but which may be jointly used by a party to this contract by consent of the party having ownership) shall be deemed to be five dollars ($5.00) per million gallons, per mile. The County reserves the right to remove and relocate any metering station equipment from its present site to needed new metering station sites at the City-County line established by the annexation order effective midnight-, December 31, 1975. 4.2. Water - (a) A11 water sold to the County shall be metered at such points as the water leaves the City's system or at other locations established by mutual agreement between the parties. (b) All water obtained from the County's well system for interim use by the City in the City system shall be metered at the points of delivery into the City with such quantities being sub- tracted from the quantities metered pursuant to subparagraph (a) preceding prior to rendering the County a monthly bill for the quantities sold by the City. 4.3. All water services and meters connected to the water system retained by the City shall belong to the City and all - 9 - ~-3 water meters and services connected to the water system retained by the County shall belong to the County. However, each party shall assume in its name any contracts for individual meters within its service area, serving individual properties, when such service and meters are directly connected to the facilities retained by the other party. Each party shall within fifteen (15) days apply to the other locality for these existing services and for all needed neca services and pay the prevailing fees for new services only at the time. The cost of installing bulk meters on the City system shall be shared equally by the parties hereto; provided, however, where an individual meter is installed on the City system to serve a customer or customers of the County such bulk water, the City shall be paid the full amount of its usual meter installation charge. Each party shall own .and maintain the services and meters directly connected to its facilities and be responsible for reading same with the other party having the right of access to verify readings. Water consumption shall be reported to the other party for each meter. The City or the County shall have the right to turn off the meter and/or service belonging to the other party when that meter and service serves an.individual property; however, notice shall be given to the owning party when such water service is turned off and/or on. Neither party shall turn off and/or on the bulk measuring meters or any valve, pump, etc., belonging to the other party unless permission is granted on a case-by-case basis as needed. 4.4. The City agrees upon the request of the County to install, at the City's expense, bulk water meters on the County system to serve the City in lieu of paying the County installation rates and fees for same if such work can be reasonably scheduled; provided however, the County agrees to reimburse-the City one-half (1/2) the verified cost of such meter installations. Said meters and services shall be owned, maintained and read by the County. - 10 - V. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIOti'S. 5.1. The parties hereto specifically agree that the City from and after January 1, 1976, has the sole and exclusive right to make all new sewer and water connections in said .annexed area and that the City is entitled to receive the funds presently in the escroco account established by the Circuit Court of the City o~f Roanoke in the pending litigation between the parties hereto, provided the City shall give a credit to the County/Public Service Authority for the amount paid by the Public Service Authority for treatment of sewage discharged by new customers for which such escrow account was established. The County/Public Service Authority shall provide the City a detailed accounting for each connection fee and treatment charge paid into the escrow account for the customers to whom such account applies prior to receiving any credit. The County agrees to sign an appropriate order prepared by the City in which the City and County will jointly request that the Circuit Court of Roanoke City pay the aforesaid escrow account to the City. 5.2. The parties agree to jointly seek dismissal of all pending litigation between the parties in any court relating to the right to serve water and/or secaer in the area annexed to the City as of January 1, 1976. The parties also agree not to initiate new litigation or to support new litigation relating to the right to serve water and/or sewer in the area annexed to the City as of January 1, 1976. 5.3. The County shall assign to the City accounts receivable for sewer service rendered in the City on and after January 1, 1976, for which the County has recorded liens in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court and accounts receivable for water service rend- ered to customers in the City of Roanoke who have as of the date of this contract filed affidavits in the case of Fitzgerald, et al. v. Roanoke County Board of Supervisors thereby entitling such cus- tomers to protection against water service termination by the County. The County agrees to take all necessary and proper action to ~.. '' ,,!'i - 11 - ~`~ effectuate assignment of such accounts receivable, including appli- cable liens, to the City within thirty days after execution of this contract by the last party. The County shall provide the City necessary documentation to permit the Ci*_y to take legal action to collect such assigned accounts receivable. In consideration of each account assigned in accordance with this section, the City . agrees to pay fifty cents on each dollar of principal amount assign- ed. 5.4. The County shall provide the City with accurate and complete documentation as to all sums paid to the Public Service Authority or County for water and/or sewer service rendered by the Public Service Authority or County to customers within the corpor- ate boundaries of the City on and after January 1, 1976. 5.5. Except for developer reimbursement contracts and similar obligations of the parties hereto relating to the areas exchanged which contracts and obligations are hereby assigned (See Exhibit "D"), each party shall be responsible for the payment of all its own accounts payable as of the date of this contract irrespective of the basis upon which said account payable is due. 5.6. The parties hereto recognize that each of said parties has entered into certain contractual relationships with various third parties setting forth certain conditions and obligations under which various sewer and water lines were constructed. The contracts of the parties to be assigned are set forth in Exhibit "D" attached hereto and made a part hereof and initialed by the parties hereto for identification. The parties hereto recognize the existence of all such contracts and further hereby indicate their intent to -ompl.y with the provisions of such assigned con- tracts irrespective of which party originally entered into and executed said contract. 5.7. The parties agree that the following documents shall be transferred within thirty (30) days from the date of this contract: (a) Engineering maps and construction plans of the service areas transferred; - 12 - (b) Lists of customers within the service areas transferred, together with current readings as of the date of this contract, for the .areas transferred. 5.8. The parties agree that the City shall pay upon the closing of this agreement a connection fee in the amount of $30,439.00 plus interest at a rate of six percent (67e) per annum cot~encing as of July 2£3, 1975 for a sewer connection at any time in the future for the.Carvins Cove filter plant, without additional fees or charges, at a location determined by•the City, and shall be permitted to discharge up to, but not exceeding, 200,000 gallons per day at a maximum rate of 140 gallons per minute from said plant. The City hereby agrees to grant an easement at a mutually agreed location for the construction of a sewer line to serve the property of the Church of God and property immediately to the west thereof. Such easement shall be granted at no cost to the County, but sewer line construction costs shall not be assessed to nor borne by the City, In addition to normal service charges for sewer service, which the City hereby agrees to pay, the City further agrees to pay any additional charges which may be imposed by the County due to the characteristics of the City's discharge. 5.9. The parties agree that should any question arise between the parties hereto relative to either engineering or accounting matters, it shall be resolved as follows: (a) If as to engineering, then by a majority of a com_nittee of three composed of an engineer appointed by the County, an engineer appointed by the City, and an independent engineer, to be chosen by the foregoing two; provided, however, should the first two appointees not be able to select the third appointee within thirty (30) days following the date of appointment of the last of the first two appointees,, then and in that event, applica- tion for appointment of the third arbitrator shall be made to the Virginia Society of Professional Engineers which shall appoint the third arbitrator. - 13 - ~"`.~, (b) If as to accounting, then by a majority of a committee of three composed of the City's Director of Finance, the Count;~'s chief financial officer, and an independent certified public accountant, to be chosen by the foregoing two; provided, hocaever, should the first tcao appointees not be able to select the third appointee within thirty (30) days following the date of appointment of the last of the first two appointees, then and in that event, application for appointment of the third arbitrator shall be made to the Virginia Society of Certified Public Accountants. (c) In either case, the charge of the independent individual shall be borne equally by the City and the County. 5.10. The County covenants and agrees that, in the event of any future voluntary annexation by petition of County territory, that water and secaer facilities situate in such annexed territory shall immediately, upon the effective date of such annexation, be transferred to the City for service of customers and maintenance of facilities. The City shall pay the County, for any facility so transferred, a sum equal to_the actual amount of public funds expended by the County in the acquisition or construction of such facility less depreciation and adjusted by joint-use rights retained by such other party if such facility be a sewer facility. If the facility was one conveyed to the County pursuant to this agreement and replaced by a new facility prior to the effective date of suzh voluntary annexation, the City shall pay the County a sum equal to the actual amount of public funds expended by the County in such replacement less depreciation, and the City shall receive a credit for any usable life which remained in the facility replaced. Such payment shall, also, be adjusted by joint-use rights retained in the County if the facility be a sewer facility. The County .shall retain joint-use rights in any such facilities to which joint use is applicable based on percentage allocations made at the time of transfer. - 14 - 5.11. The parties shall hold and save each other respectively, their officers, agents, and employees harmless from liability of any nature or kind, including costs and expenses, for or on account of any or all suits or damages of any character whatsoever resulting from injuries or damages to any person or persons or property by virtue of said parties' respective performance of this contract, or based upon any violation of Federal or State statute or ordinance by virtue of performance of this contract, provided that this paragraph shall not be deemed to apply to any of the pending litigation in the Federal and State courts concern- ing o~,rnership of sewer and water lines, and neither party shall hold the other harmless by virtue of suits brought by bondholders of either party. 5.12. This contract may be amended upon mutual agreement of the parties as a written amendment or modification hereto author- ized by resolutions of the governing bodies of the parties. 5.13. This agreement and the exhibits attached hereto contain all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties, and no other understanding, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this contract shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. 5.14. If any part or parts, section or subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this contract is for any reason declared to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this contract. 5.15. This contract shall be effective from and after the date the last party executes this contract; provided,hocoever, the parties recognize and agree that a reasonable transition period not to exceed six (6) months shall be allowed to effectuate cer- tain of the provisions of this agreement. - 15 - ~JITidESS the following signatures and seals: '~ i~ ~~ i ATTEST: ~ ~.,,..~ tea. Cit Cher ~ ~ r~TTcST: c21/,,,G C er~c or Boar o= Supervisors ATTEST: f'`1 ~ ~'E-o~c.c~ E:cecutive-Director, Roano e County Public Service Authority STATE OF VIRGINIA § CITY OF ROAlIOKE By Mayor COUNTY OF ROANOKE By air n, o or upervisors ROAi~OKE COU?JTY PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY ,~~~r By'Chai~i--~nan, Boarrdr~ or Ro no e County Public Service Authority § To-Wit: CITY OF ROANOKE_ § f_~ ' ~ a tdotary Public in and for the City of Roanoke, Virginia, do hereby certify that Ploel C. Taylor and Mary F. Parker, Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Roanoke, whose names asr/s/uch are signed to the fore- going.Contract bearing date of the ~~~ day of 1979, have each personally appeared before me in.my City and State aforesaid and acknowledged the same. - I6 - • ~ ' GIVEid under my hand this /~~ day of 1979. :Iy Commission etipires : =~ /~~,~~- i I -~ ~.~~~ <otary uo is ST:~TE OF VI ;GI:•IIA § CITY OF R0.'1:~OEE I, f ~ z. t ~ a :7otarv Public, in and fo --~ t`+e City of Roanoke, Virinia, do hereby cert'fy that ~ and y~~~ ~- ~l~t..~ Chairman of am Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, respectively, of the County of Roanoke, wizose names as such are signed to the foregoing Contract bearing date of the /,.j~`day of ~ 1979, have each personally appeared before me in my City and State aforesaid and acknowledged the sane. GIVEi1 under my hand this ~Iv Cott•:ission expires STATE OF VIRGINIA § § To-:dit: CITY OF ROA:IOKE § 1_ i u a votary Public, in and for the City of Roanoke, Virgin'a, d reby cer 'iy tha ~ scc~ and ~~_ Chairman of and Executive irector of the Roanoke County Public Service Authority, whose names as such are signed to the foregoing Contract bearing date of the /~ day of 1979, have each personally appeared before me in my City and State aforesaid and acknowledged the same. GIVEN under my hand this /~ day o- 1979.. - 17 - `-a;-._. 1 ~~ mom"," " 2iy Corimission expires : ~~~?~ i1` Y.~- T ~ J / ~[~c. -~i~~s~~ i otary u is Pursuant to Resolution Pdo. ~~,s~3 adooted July 6, 1979,.by the Board of County Supervisors of Roanoke County, the County Executive of Roanoke County hereby accepts this convevance on behalf of Roanoke County. Wiliam F. C ar County xecutive - 18 - EXHIBIT "A" fi~~ k ~` ~,, CITY OF ROAlvOKE -- ROANOKE COUNTY/ROAi10KE COUNTY PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY SEL~TER AND ' [DATER AGREEP~ENT [BELLS AND [BELL LOTS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF R0.4NOKE rledmont Lake: - Official Tax No. 5130120 - Separate well lot to the rear of Lot 8, Block 1, Medmont Lake Subdivision - Access through Lot 9, from Medmont Circle, S. W. Hidden Valley Estates Sections 1 & 2 (Greenfield): - Official Tax No. 5100503 - Lot 1, Block 3, Section 1, Hidden Valley Estates Subdivision - Located on east side of Greenfield Street, S. W. Windsor Lake: - Official Tax Nos. 5100426 & 5110106 - Parcel "A", Block 4, Oak Grove Farms Subdivision - Parcel "B", Block 1, Windsor Lake Subdivision - Access fron Driftwood Lane, S. W. Oak Grove Farms: - Official Tax No. 5100425 - Separate well~lot to the rear of Lot 2, Block 4, Oak Grove Farms Subdivision - Access by easement from VA Rte. 119, and Driftwood Lane, S. W. West ~Iindsor Hills (Windsor Road) - Official Tax No. 5040412 - Lot 12, Block 1, West Windsor Hills Subdivision - West side of Windsor Road, S. W. Sunset Hi11s (Southern Hills): - Official Tax No. 5470704 - Lot 4, Block 12, Section 2, Southern Hills Subdivision - East side of Van [tinkle Road, S. W. . 1 of 2 ~L. ~. _, 6 Being part of the same property conveyed to Board of Supervisors by the Roanoke County Authority by deed dated June 30, 1976, and C1erk's Office of the Circuit Court of the VirQiniA_ in T)PPr~ P.nr,l~ ~'iS21 ~r „~~„ s2Z~ 2 of 2. the Roanoke County Public Service recorded in the City of Roanoke, ~- ~ ~~~ ~~ d EYHIBIT "B" "~,.~ CITY IJATER LINES TO BE RETaI?1ED IN NORTH COU:JTY AREA (1) 8" Line from the intersection of the Salem City line and Green Ridge Road - along Green Ridge P.oad to a point just east of the intersection of Green Ridge Road and Tully Drive to the extent any portion of such line lies in the County. (2) 12" to 16" Line from just east of Harman Lane along Peters Creek toad to a point just west of Loch Haven Road and Peters Creek Road intersection to the extent any portion of such line lies in the County. (3) 36" Line and 12" Line segments from Carvins Cove Filter Plant alon; Plantation Road to ~•.'illiamson Road (ItS 11-220) , thence along ;,1i11ianson Road to Peters Creek intersection caith 'v1i11iamson Road. The 36" Line continues from the intersection of ;Williamson Road, N. ;J. and Peters Creek Road, N. W. to_ the City line near Nelms Lane. (4) 12" Line segments from the City line and Williamson Road intersection along Williamson Road to the intersection of 4illiamson Road and Peters Creek Road. (5) Lines varying in size from ;7iiliamson Road (US 11-220) and Plantation Road intersection along Plantation Road to Hedgelawn and Plantation .°.o ad intersection. / (6) An 8" to 12" Line from jlillianson Road (US 11-220) and Plantation Road intersection along US 11 to the Botetourt County line. (7) A 12" Line along Route 601 beginning at Hollins Station Intersection (.627).near Garman Drive and continuing along 601 to the intersection of Plantation Road and Hollins P.oad at approximately the City line. (8) A line from the intersection of Oakland and Verndale, along Verndale to Florist, thence along Florist to its intersection with City line. (9) Plantation P.o.ad segments (a) Line from the intersection of Elden and Plantation along Plantation to a point just south of T~lagnolia and Plantation intersection. (b) Aline from the intersection of Plantation and Orlando Avenue along P1a~tation to a point just past Hershberger Road. `/2. ~. v 1 o f 4 ,~ FUTURE CI:iY LI~1ES IN THE NORTH COUIITY AREA (1) A line from t:1e point at approximately Tully Drive along Green Ridge Road and Cove Road to the intersection of Peters Creek Road and Cove Road to the extent any por- tion of'such line lies in the County. (2) Aline from the intersection of Cove Road and Peters Creetc along Peters Creek Road to a point just east of Hartman Lane to the extent any portion of such Line lies in the County. (3) Aline from the intersection of Loch Haven and Peters Creelc Roads along Peters Creek Road to its intersection with Williamson P.oad (US 11-220). (4) Aline from the intersection of Peters Creek and Route 1I8 (Airport Road) along 118 to Dent Road, thence along Dent load to its intersection with G•1i11iamson Road (US 11-220). (S) Aline from the intersection of Petty Avenue .and Plantation Road along Petty avenue and Oakland Boulevard to Verndalz Drive. (6) Three (3) se;me:Zts necessary to complete Line alon; Planta- tion Road: (1) Hedgelawn to Elden; (2) iZagnolia *_o Orlando; (3) South Hershberger to City line. (7) Aline from US 11-601 intersection along 601 to the 601- 627 intersection, then continuing along 601 to Garman Drive. (8) Segments of a line alo:zd Williamson Road at Peters Creek Road to the City limits at Williamson Road. -CITY WATE'1 LIVES TO BF. RETAI_dED I:1 SOUTH~•IEST COUNTY AREA (1) A 12" to 16" line from the intersection of Fleetwood Avenue and the Roanoke City line along Fleetwood Avenue to its intersection with Brandywine Avenue, thence along Brandy- wine Avenue to its intersection with Brambleton Avenue, thence along Brambleton Avenue to its intersection with Westmoreland Drive, thence along Westmoreland Drive to its intersection with Antietam Drive along Antietam Drive to its intersection with Manassas Drive, thence along :~anas- sas Drive to the intersection of ?Manassas and Colonial Ave- nue, thence along Colonial Avenue at which point such line becomes an 8" line to the Roanoke City line. (2)~ A 16" line along Ojden Road from Colonial Avenue to Route 419, thence along 419 to Roanoke City limits to the extent any portion of such line lies in the County. ~. ~. o 2 of 4 ~~~ FUTL'L'E CIT: LIi1iJS I~~1 TLiE SOUT?i~:TLST CJU_1TY A_~:1::1 •~, (1) Line from the intersection of I~eagy P,oad and P.te 419 along Rta. 419 to its intersection with Glen 'rieather Drive. (2) Line along 3rambleton (US 221) from Brandywine to file City limits. Cliff ;'!r_1'ED LI`iES 10 BE REiA1_~c.D Ii1 EAST COUNTY ARE.' (1) A 10" line from. the ;:ailing Creek Mater Plant in Bedford Count~~ estenaing from the Roanoke County line to the inter- section of Stewartsville Road and ;Maplewood Drive, e:ctendir.~ along Stewartsville Road to the intersection of Fairmont Drive and Ruddell P.oad, tlzerice in a cesterly direction to Routs o34, along 634 to the intersection of Pollard Street, thence a 12" line along Route 24 to the City limits. rUT~~:L CIT`i LiiiES I~? ir,E E.'1S'~ CvU:~1TY SEP.VICE A?EA (i) Aline for joint use from the intersection of Route 460 and the East ~oanolce City lirnits along Route 450 to the Bote- tourt County ii-ie. (2) 12" line beginninb at the intersection of Ruddell Road and Ste;aartsvilie itoad in a westerly direction along Ruddell F.oad to the City limits. (3) 12" line beginning at the intersection of Pollard Street ar,~ 634 in a northerly direction to the City limits. "vJATLR 1F.A:1Si~iISSIOI i•IAIidS 10 5i O~d:ED BY TiiE COU:~ITY anti^~•r~ ~T (1) 12" and smaller water tires from Rt . 419 at :oanolce City limits along Glen Heather and Grandin Road Extension to Taryn Hills Subdivision. (2) 419 crossovers to be retained for future use. (a) Lonsdale Area (b) Keagy-Bruceton Area (c) ;loodmar Area (2) (d) Glen Heather Area 3 of 4 ~ L• ~. . ~ ~~ SOUTH;JEST FUTURE (1) Line from the intersection of Grandin Road Extension and Glen Heather east along Grandin Road to the Taryn Hi11s subdivision. ~~aATER PRESSURES OT:iER THA~i VOTED IN C0~ITRACT CITY i~;03TH SYSTE`1 0 P.S.I, to be line along P 4G P.S.I. to b.e tion Road. 40 P.S,I. to be (Rt. 601). 40 P.S.I. along 40 P.S.I. along SOUiHr..'~ST SYSTE~1 maintained by i,oanolce City on 36" Lantation Road. maintained on 12" line along Planta- maintained on line along Hollins Road Peters Creek Road and Green Ridge Road. Thirlane Road. 45 P.S.I. along Indian Rock P,oad. COU`1TY ;,~. a The County shall have the right to adjust pressures utilizing County sources by physical valuing of lines for existing City customers that do not have kdequate pressure, if necessary, upon mutual agreement. County bulk water service in City from County system - A minir.:u~ 25 P.S.I. and maximum possible, fire flow as is. 4 of 4 r~•C_~. ~~~ ElHIBI~ "C" _ ALLOCATIOi1 OF CAPACITY Ii1 AUTHOP,ITY O:d^1ED SEG1E~, LIMES LOCATED I:l AREA AvvL:tED JAiiUARY 1 , 1976 i~IGD :~:GD Lv~Ct~F.'IOR DrSI~;ATI0;1 TOTAL CAPACITY COUivTY SIi4~E T`~nker Creel: Interceptor 17.81 (?•Ietering Sta.) 13.29 (i;e<~ Line) Poute 46G East Interceptor 1.33 (Limiting Sec.) .30 Barnhardt Interceptor 5.38 (i•:etering Sta.) 3.15 `mod Lic1c Interceptor 4.05 (Limi.ting Sec.) 3.20 Peters Creek Drainage Area Peters Creels Interceptor ~janlwle 1 to :~anhoie 56 '^' 9.8 (t,etering Sta.) 5.39 Manhole 56 to Manhole 83 -~ 5.9 (Li~i.ting Sec.) 4.54 (Includes Submain A.from Manhole 83 to Manhole 100) Manhole 83 to :Manhole 21~ -~ 0.90 (Limiting Sec .) . 76 Peters Creek SuL^main ~:ort~od Interceptor - 1.83 ri® 2.09 (Int . of Peters 1.87 with parallel - 2.09 , ~D Creels & i~orwood Interceptor) TOTAL CAPACITY Rflanoke River Interceptor '''~ Peters Creek Interceptor -' Manl~le 2I3 to 225 ~~ Submain "C" Peters Creek Suh~ain "E" '~', Manhole 422-423 150' section ~'~ Ca.rvins Creek -''~ Manhole 1081 - 1088 -~ (to the extent this Line lies within the City) i~ICD CITY S'r'~~r. 4.52 1.03 2.~0 o.a5 4.41 I.36 1=~ ,~ .~_ - (At Barru`1ardt ~1tr . Reinder o f Station) Co~nZty Capacity ?.~J X1.05 .87 ..3 1.24 1.237 .~~3 .48 ~ .41 .~: yZ ~.~ 1 of 2~.~ C~~'~, ~ ~. ~ Y ~` P~lanhole numbers refer to plans entitled "Comprehensive Sewage Plan-Peters. Creek Drainage Area", dated Februazy 1, 1972, for the Roanoke County Public Service Authority by the Roanoke County Public Service Authority and Langley, McLbnald and Overman and "Comprehensive Se~sage Plan-Cazvins and Tinker Creek Drainage Area" , dated January, 1973 , for the :~oanoke Cotmty Public Service Authority by the Roanoke County Public Service Authority and Langley, `'1c.Donald and Over- man. ''~ Ownership of these lines only and (1) the pump station, force main and gravity se~,~ers along Peters Creek Road from Thirlane Road to Cove Road and (2) gravity secaers from intersection of Cove Raad and Peters Creek Road along Cove Road and Green Ride Road to the City of Salem limits shall be retained by the Cotmty . ALLOCATION OF CAPACITY Iri CITY O~~NED SE:dER LI~TES LOCATED IN COUidTY AFTER JANUARY 1 , 1976 INCEPTOR DESIG~l~TION TOTAL CAPACITY COtN'I'Y SHARE CITY S'r_-?~ Garst ;Li11 - Brambleton Road (''fud Lick) Unknown (Limiting Sec.) Remainder .30 Lick R~ (Segment Constructed by County) I.13 (limiting Sec.) 1.1 .03 It is agreed that a party not owning a particular joint use interceptor lire „ay make use of the urnised capacity allocated to the o~~z~i_ng party in this interceptor under the same terms as provided in the 1972 Sewage Treatment Contract. 2 of 2 ,~ 2 - ~~ It is fYSther ao eed that the City may use the sanitary sewer lines being retai.:.ed by the County in the City with the City permitting direct connections to the 1=-:es at City rates and charging City treatment fees without any contact with the Co;.:.cy ., .,. EXHIBIT "D" - Roanoke City Water ~~ain Extensions in Roanoke County Agreement Date of (Jo. Contracting Party Agreement 708 Major htotor Inns, Inc. 3/30/73 719- Billy H. Branch 8/7/74 720 G. lJ. Peters 8/19/74 721 Creative Offices, Inc. 8/28/74 722 Creative Offices, Inc. 8/28/74 723 L. E1~•~ood Norris 9/17/74 727 Parker & Wiley, Inc. 4/21/74 128 Valley Air Conditioning 4/23/74 Carp. 734 Al M. Cooper 12/18/75 135 Patterson & Ailstock 2/6/76 Development, Inc. 736 Le~•ri s C. Peters 2/23/76 747 Gene D. Whitlow .10/26/76 748 G. LJ. Peters 12/10/76 749 Paul G. Black 2/16/77 753 Robert D. Carson 7/27/77 159 Archie F. Parrish 1/9/78 761 - D. H. Ridenhour 1/23/78 773 United Virginia Bank 8/10/79 .~~' . ~,~-~- Map !,lo. Location 73-3 Carvins Cove 74-22 Thirlane Rd., N.;•J. & Private Street 74-23 Burnette Heights,Sec.i 74-13 West View Terrace, Sec.6 74-14 West View Terrace, Sec.l 74-20 P~ontclair Forest 75-6 (~ontclair Estates, Sec.7 75-12 ~dayburn Drive, N. ',J. 75-23 Clearview Drive, S. ;J. 76-1 Old Manor 76-2 Summerdean Heights 76-21 Williamson Road, ~N. ;•!. 76-22 Burnette Heights, Sec.Z 77-1 Middleton St. , N. ',J. 77-13 Clearview Drive, S.'.•J. 77-15 Williamson Road 78-4 Lilliamson Road 79-13 Cross Creek Roanoke County Reimbursement Contracts and Similar Obligations Amount of Amount Expiration Balance Contract Reir~bursable Date 6/30/77 Monterey Hills $63,661.85 $63,661.85 10/31/33 824,461.85 Springtree Gravity Sewer Participation Contract per letter•dated November 22, 1973. o~~.~ 2<~. ~. MRS. MAY \V. JOHNSON, CH iIRM.1.N C4V[ STRING hIdGIS TERI'.L DISTRICT R09ERT E, MYERS. VICE CH 11RM•N C •1TAW BA eIaGISTER1aL DISTRICT W ILLIAh1 F. CLARK COUn7Y CXCCUTIVE ~~~Y .OF.~.Rp~11T • . • . RO~NO, Of;j.:.ti :TF }~~ :9 R. WAYNE COMPTON =C~ ~._ ~ C MOLLIN S•MAGISTERIdI DISTRICT ~, D ~i J~ ~ ,~ EDWARD C, PARK, JR, ~ VINTON M~GIST CAIAL DISTRICT ~~~~ I~ b ~ LAWRENCE E. TERRY _ ~ WINDSOR HILLS M~GISTE RILL DISTRICT P. O. 60X 1079 SALEM, VIRGifVIA 24153 August 9, 1979 TO jv`HO~i IT ~IAY CONCERN The City of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke have entered into a certain agreement relating to disposition of sewer and eater lines located within t}ie beographical boundaries of each of said political subdivisions. A question has arisen relating to the intent of the parties as set out in Section ~.1 of said agreement and this letter is •for 'the express purpose of clarifying the aforesaid intent of said parties. Insofar as the intent of Section 4.'1 of the said contract of .august 13, 1979, the parties herein referred to intend as follows: "The X5.00 per million gallons per mile charge provided to be made in Section a.l of that certain agreement dated August 13, 1979, by the City of Roar,o::e and the County of Roanoke is not a charge to be imposed in addition to the charges accruing to either party pursuant to the 1972 sewage tre3:.:lent contract bet~~reen the parties; but• is a charge made applicable to lines constructed prior to 1972 for which no operation or maintenance charge is otherwise made." CITY OF RO~NOKE n~;;' , _ _._ ~.; B y . ~ . ~( ~-CI"Y gel L. "Taylor, Slav r COUNTY OF ROANOKE By: i~ a . Jo n, C iairman Boa of ounty Su}~ervisors RO~~NOKC COUNTY PUBLIC' SER~~ICC aUT.',~:2 t ; Y al~rence E:. Terry, airman `~J~ Exhibit 2 Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance for the City of Roanoke, first being duly sworn, states as follows: 1. From January 1, 1977, to present, I have served as the Director of Finance for the City of Roanoke, Virginia ("City"). 2. As Director of Finance for the City, I have charge and maintain control of the keeping of all accounts and financial records of the City and exercise general fiscal supervision over all the officers, departments, offices, agencies and employees of the City charged in any manner with the assessment, receipt, collection or disbursement of city funds, including calculations required under the August 13, 1979, water-sewerage contract between the City and the County of Roanoke ("County"). 3. By letter dated October 14, 1991, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, notification was given to Elmer Hodge, Roanoke County Administrator, that the amount of $320,353.39 is due and owing by the County to the City pursuant to the water-sewerage agreement dated August 13, 1979, between the City and the County. The letter incorporates the following Exhibits: (i) Exhibit A - Rate calculation for the estimated bulk water rate for Roanoke County for the period July 1, 1991, to June 30, 1992; (ii) Exhibit B - Rate calculation for the actual bulk water rate for Roanoke County for the period July 1, 1990 to June 30, 1991; Joel M. Schlanger Affidavit page 2 (iii) Exhibit C - Calculation of fiscal year usage based upon actual bulk water rate instead of estimated rate. A copy of the billing notice provided to the County is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 4. To the best of my knowledge and belief, in my capacity as Director of Finance for the City of Roanoke, the amount of $320,353.39 is due and owing by the County of Roanoke to the City of Roanoke under the August 13, 1979, water-sewerage contract between the City of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke. Jo M. Schlanger Dir ctor of Finance SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public in and for the Co onwealth of Virginia, in Roanoke, Virginia on the ~ ~. day of 1992. Notary Public My commission expires: ~~!•~/~- ~/ /fP.f'~ .•~ CITY OF ROANOgE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE ..: ~`~~ ~. ~~ rs c+wa+Ara,~., aw.,lloen~ ~ r. a o~.w«,ao ~., v~mas~ao~~aao ,tea y, scN~ase October 14 , 1991 T«~,~ f~ ~~.~~ G~hee«aFln.ec. r«.eooar cro~9s,-2~o Mr. Elmer Hodge County Administrator County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Dear Elmer: Par the water-sewage agreement dated August 13, 1979, this is to advise you that the new bulk water rata as calculated by my office effective July 1, 1991, is $.73 par 100 cubic teat. This rat• will ba adjusted based on actual expenditures upon completion of the 1992 fiscal year audit. The rata was calculated by th• toraula as sat forth in the above mentioned agreement and those calculations are attached for your review (Exhibit A). The figures era derived from the 1991-92 fiscal year adopted budget. Tha actual bulk water rata ($.95 par 100 cubic feat) calcula- tions for fiscal year 1991 era.attached for your review (Exhibit B). Exhibit C i.s a sumaary .of usage ~ from 7/1/90 to 9/30/91 which calculates usage at the actual bulk water rate for fiscal year 1991 and the new estimated bulk rate for fiscal year 1991-92. This calculation shows that the City is due the amount of $320,353.39. This amount will be billed on your monthly bill for November which is based on usage for October. It you have any questions regarding the calculations, please notify ma. srely, Jo M. Schlanger Di for of Finance JMS/pac Attachments cc: Mayor Noal C. Taylor Members of City Council W. Robert Harbert, City Manager, City of Roanoke R. B. Riser, Director o! Utilities and Operations Deborah J. Moses, Chief o! Billings and Collaction• Robert Bird, Municipal Auditor Diana Hyatt, Director of Finance, Roanoke County M. Craig Sluss, Water Department Manager ~b3t ~ Hao~ w~~ ~ pst ~~s~~ xr ffi~t mgt aE ~ aaQrt~r aE xo/a~ ', ~, aoa~nY ~c s~v~ n~,® au~ae~ 13, 1982 ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ar~r 1, 1991 zo ~ 30, 1991 Adopted Water Ftmd budr~et per c~dinanoe No. 30516 dated 5/13/91 $ 4,889,790 Fta~ds reappt~opriated foot es at 6/30/91 per Drdir~anoe No. 30639 dated 7/22/91 55,977 Lk~eaq~ertided ftu~ds far Water Fund ~ltiyear projects carried over fzrm FY1991 703.902 Zbtal Hudge't App~~opriated $ 5,649,669 Depreciation $ 758,793 B{ t ~ {m ani Cbllectian Fees 250.000 (1, 008, 793 ) c3~pital Outlay from Fbeverxie: Tbtal Approp~~iatian fr+cm adopted bucket and ftuxis carried over from prior year $ 1, 626, 902 MaYi~nn Aalount per pigreemestt ~ 910,000) ( 716, 902 ) of Debt Principal -o- Total Operating Gbst per F~-~+i1 ~ S 3.923 , 974 Tbtal water delivered far year ended 6/30/91 6,761,485 Rate per 100 w.ft. 1.25 x S3.923.974 6, 761, 485 (100 cu. ft. ) ate per 100 cu.ft. _ 5.7254 (ramcied to $.73) f ~ibit $ ~t ~ ~ 1 ~~~ ffi~ ~, j Q.~Y PD~.iC S~VI~ 7li/~TY I~!!® AQ~Sl' 33, 1982 ~~ HI1C I~IIl~t It~l48 FQt ~ PStLm JQ.Y 1, 1990 ~ JQ16 30, 1991 'Ibtal Water Ftiu~d des far Year II'~ded 6/30/91 (per lVe AnTyual Ffnat'lC].al RE'~7~'t) $ 4, 209, 647 ~~~~~ $ 714,397 Billirlq grid Ocllectian Fees 245.000 ( 959, 397) ~#~~ 200,000 of Debt Principal Capital Outlay .tram I~v~er~~e 1.699.085 1.899.08 5 S 5, 149.35 Rate per 100 cu.ft. 1.25 x S5.149.335 6,761,485 (100 u1.lt.) I~te per 100 a1.lt. _ ,~~ (rcxu~ied to $.95) % ~ _~ Exhibit C ROi1~O~ COQ!! n' ~O1~0~'T IISGL~YE~A~n nII8~~GE ~A~7~~y~pA}1~.i WlL ~ biOR ~qi~ :,. j..w; .,.. i1~O1 b!!Y O~ ~ <•. J Usage ?~onth Billed ~Iontb of Service 100 cu. ft. August 1990 July 1990 149,186 September 1990 August 1990 124,885 October 1990 September 1990 105,641 November 1990 October 1990 127,702 December 1990 November 1990 101,589 January 1991 December 1990 116,154 February 1991 January 1991 112,321 March 1991 February 1991 98,256 April 1991 March 1991 101,062 May 1991 April 1991 120,817 Jun• 1991 May 1991 107,346 July 1991 ~ June 1991 111.601 Usage for period 7/1/90 to 6/30/91 August 1991 September 1991 October 1991 July 1991 August 1991 September 1991 Usage for period 7/1/91 to 9/30/91 x.376.560- (1) 135,851 117,595 121.013 374.459 (2) Adjustment for estimated bulk rate to actual rate for period 7/1/90 to 6/30/91: 100 cu.ft. uaaga Estimated Rata FY91 Actual Rata FY91 Amount Dua 1,376,560 (1) $.72 .95 x .23 S 316.608.80 Adjustment for difference in FY91 and FY92 estimated bulk rate for period 7/1/91 to 9/30/91: 100 cu.ft. usage Estimated Rate FY91 Estimated Rate FY92 Amount Due 374,459 (2) $.72 .73 x .01 S 3.744.59 Total amount dus from adjustment in bulk rates e • ' ~ e - Sahibit D cm of ROANOKE Roots ass 2 t3 CHUgCH A 'r ~ .. `/E.. SW. I PIIE401TF1 Y ~"~;..~ ° - ROANOKE, VA 2M11 •' ' • ut rosTUe nun Water ~~"'T "''' 9328597 • ~ ~ ACCT. NO. LOCATION SERV D Rate Adjustment 32035339 i 9010220002 0 COUNTY_ROANOKE _ for July & Augus I I 1991 RETAIN FOR PAST DUE D I ~ 'NUR RECORp$ ' PAV T1+IS~ ~A"CE~ 41363 36 I AVERAGE WATER COST PER DAY: 413639 6 A 1 AVERAGE SEWER COST PER DAY: - 111891 ACCT NO. qEA ~ ~ 413639.36 413639.36 ~oC: 0 COUNTY-ROANOKE ~uNCE ''~` 11-18-91 - PAY THIS AMOUNT DATE OUE PRE . R NG PRIOR READING USgG ! . 127789 COUNTY OF ROANOKE ~~~- ' DIR OF UTILITIES 1206 KESSLER MILL RD ._ . SALEM VA 24153 -~ i I i .' -~ ;- i C .. . 0 t ~ ,...+j° AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1992 RESOLUTION 52692-5 APPROVING REQUEST OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, FOR INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND FINANCING FOR RICHFIELD RETIREMENT COMMUNITY. WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia (the Authority) has considered the application of Richfield Retirement Community (the borrower) requesting the issuance of one or more of the Authority's revenue bonds or notes in an amount not to exceed $3,800,000 (the Bonds) to assist in the financing of the construction and equipping of a 120-bed home for the elderly (the Project) on the borrower's campus located at 3615 West Main Street in Roanoke County, Virginia, which will be owned and operated by the Borrower, and has held a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, it has been requested that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (the Board) approve the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds, and such approval is required for compliance with Section 147 (f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Borrower, as required by said Section 147(f), to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by said Section 147(f), does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Borrower or otherwise indicate that the Project possesses any economic viability. The Bonds shall provide that neither the Commonwealth of Virginia (the Commonwealth) nor any political subdivision thereof, including Roanoke County (the County) and the Authority, shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on the Bonds or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and receipts pledged therefor and that neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof,. including the County and the Authority, shall be pledged thereto. 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 4. The Bonds are hereby designated as qualified tax-exempt obligations for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code, but only if the bonds are issued during 1993. The County has not designated, and will riot designate, more than $10,000,000 of obligations to be issued during 1993 as qualified tax-exempt obligations for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy, NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: y'Y~~~- ~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Timothy W. Gubala, Secretary, Industrial Development Authority ACTION NO. A-52692-5 Item No. ~ r 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: May 26, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Request for approval for Industrial Revenue Bond Financing for Richfield Retirement Community COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS: ~~~-~n~~Ay( -~ tJ~ BACKGROUND: The Roanoke County Industrial Development Authority (IDA) was formed in 1970 under the provisions of the Code of Virginia to promote industrial development within Roanoke County. One power of the IDA is to assist new or expanding manufacturing facilities by the issuance of tax exempt Industrial Development Bonds (IDB's) to finance up to 100 percent of the cost of new buildings and new capital equipment. The IDA can also issue bonds to non-profit tax exempt corporations, Section 501 (c) 3 under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, for the construction and equipment of facilities. The IDA functions as a "vehicle" through which bonds are authorized and issued. Neither the IDA nor the County are liable for the repayment of bonds. Neither the County nor the IDA "co-sign" the bonds when issued. Since 1970, bonds totaling $56 million have been issued by the IDA. The IDA Board of Directors are appointed by the Board of Supervisors for four year terms. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Richfield is requesting approval of up to $3.8 million of tax exempt Industrial Revenue Bonds to finance the construction and equipment of a 44,000 square foot 120-bed home for the elderly at their campus on West Main Street in the Glenvar area of Roanoke County. The IDA approved the request by resolution at a public hearing on May 21, 1992. The IDA recommends approval of the request for bond financing for Richfield as a non-profit organization. Richfield intends to place the bonds for sale privately through a local financial institution. Zoning approval was previously given to the project by the Board of Supervisors in August 1991. ~~~ FISCAL IMPACT: Richfield is tax exempt. There will be indirect economic impact from local purchases, new employment and related wages as shown on the fiscal impact statement attached. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution as requested by the Industrial Development Authority for Richfield Industrial Revenue Bond Financing. Respectfully submitted: Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to moo' ~~ ~ ~~~ Timo by W. Gu~ala, Secretary Industrial Development Authority ACTION Motion by: _ No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens Attachment ~4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1992 RESOLUTION APPROVING REQUEST OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, FOR INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND FINANCING FOR RICHFIELD RETIREMENT COMMUNITY. WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia (the Authority) has considered the application of Richfield Retirement Community (the borrower) requesting the issuance of one or more of the Authority's revenue bonds or notes in an amount not to exceed $3,800,000 (the Bonds) to assist in the financing of the construction and equipping of a 120-bed home for the elderly (the Project) on the borrower's campus located at 3615 West Main Street in Roanoke County, Virginia, which will be owned and operated by the Borrower, and has held a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, it has been requested that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (the Board) approve the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds, and such approval is required for compliance with Section 147 (f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Borrower, as required by said Section 147(f), to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. ~-~ 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by said Section 147(f), does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Borrower or otherwise indicate that the Project possesses any economic viability. The Bonds shall provide that neither the Commonwealth of Virginia (the Commonwealth) nor any political subdivision thereof, including Roanoke County (the County) and the Authority, shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on the Bonds or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and receipts pledged therefor and that neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, including the County and the Authority, shall be pledged thereto. 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 4. The Bonds are hereby designated as qualified tax-exempt obligations for purposes of Section 265 (b) (3 ) of the Code, but only if the bonds are issued during 1993. The County has not designated, and will not designate, more than $10,000,000 of obligations to be issued during 1993 as qualified tax-exempt obligations for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code. ~-4 FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: May 21, 1992 Applicant: Richfield Retirement Community Facility: A home for the elderly on the Applicant's campus located at 3615 West Main Street in Roanoke County, Virginia. 1. Maximum amount of financing sought $3,800,000 2. Estimated taxable value of the facility's real property to be constructed in the municipality $ 3. Estimated real property tax per year using present tax rates $ __ 4. Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax rates $ -- 5. Estimated merchants' capital tax per year __ using present tax rates $ 6. Estimated dollar value per year of goods ll 000 $ 525 y and services that will be purchased loca , 7. Estimated number of regular employees on 30 year round basis 8. Average annual salary per employee $ 13,890 Signature: _~ _~ -- ~- j ~, _ , ~ Authorlt airman Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia If one or more of the above questions do not apply to the facility, indicate by writing "N/A" on the appropriate line. M#104110 -~ RESOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, there have been described to the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia (the Authority) the plans of Richfield Retirement Community (the Borrower) to construct and equip a home for the elderly (the Project) in Roanoke County, Virginia (the County); and WHEREAS, on March 23, 1992, the Authority adopted a resolution wherein it agreed to issue its revenue bonds or notes (the Bonds) under the Virginia Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act in an amount estimated not to exceed $3,800,000 to finance the cost of constructing and equipping the Project; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 1992, the Authority held a public hearing with respect to the Bonds and the Project; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The Authority hereby recommends that the Board of Supervisors of the County (the Board) approve the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds. 2. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to deliver to the Board (a) a reasonably detailed summary of the comments expressed at the aforesaid public hearing, (b) a fiscal impact statement concerning the Project in the form specified in Section 15.1-1378.2 of the Code of Virginia, and (c) a copy of this resolution, which constitutes M#104149 -4 the recommendation of the Authority that the Board approve the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds. M#104149 r.~ REPORT OF PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing was conducted by the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia (the Authority) at 9:00 a.m. on May 21, 1992, on the application of Richfield Retirement Community (the Borrower) requesting the Authority to issue up to $3,800,000 of its revenue bonds or notes (the Bonds) to assist the Borrower in the construction and equipping of a home for the elderly (the Project). Notice of such hearing was published on May 7, 1992, and May 14, 1992, in the Roanoke Times & World-News. The Project will be located on the Borrower's campus, which is located at 3615 West Main Street, in Roanoke County, Virginia. The public hearing was held in the Community Room, Roanoke County Administration Building, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia. At the meeting those persons interested in the issuance of the Bonds or the location and nature of the Project were given the opportunity to present their views. The public comments, if any, received at the meeting are summarized in Exhibit A attached hereto. After such hearing, the Authority voted to recommend the approval of the Bonds to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (the Board). Accordingly, the Authority hereby recommends to the Board that it approve the issuance of the Bonds, as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Dated May 21, 1992. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANOKE COSJNTY, VIRGIN-A > .. ,-~ r B ~~~~ ' ~. ---- Y C airman ' M#104104 ~V Exhibit A to Report of Public Hearing The following public comments were received: None M#104104 i ACTION ,~ A~-52692-6 ITEM NUMBER ~%' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 26, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Write-Off of Utility Bad Debts / COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS: ~~_ ~2~r~-6~'/ ~,,7„~,-ru,,,, _ ' J STJNIlKARY OF INFORMATION: Listed below is a breakdown by year of the delinquent utility accounts, which should be written off at this time. Year Amount 1985 $ 4,370.87 1986 4,354.33 1987 8,584.22 TOTAL $17,309.42 Number of Accounts 36 45 44 125 Some of these accounts have judgments or liens against them which will help insure collection. If and when these collections are made, the revenues will be recorded at that time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends writing off the 1985, 1986, and 1987 delinquent accounts. C~J ~ . ~~1~'.a,~t~f Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance L'~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ACTION VOTE Approved Denied Received Referred To ( x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens No Yes Abs ( ) motion to authorize Eddy x ( ) Kohinke x ( ) Johnson x Minnix x Nickens x cc: File 1 Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance ATTACHMENT A UTILITY BILLING BAD DEBT HISTORY BILLING BAD DEBT ~ ACCOUNTS PERCENT 1985 $5,044,170 $4,370 36 0.09$ 1986 5,689,292 4,354 45 0.08$ 1987 5,805,128 8,584 44 0.14$ 1988 5,897,179 6,985 48 0.12$ 1989 5,985,833 6,939 44 0.12$ 1990 6,289,504 5,126 52 0.08$ 1991 7,472,725 9,668 60 0.13$ 2 A-52692-7 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 26, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Request of Dennis Kafura to Use Spring Hollow Access Road as a Means to Access His Property COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : ~~«-~`Z ~~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Kafura have purchased the 40 acre parcel adjacent to County owned property known as the "Old YMCA Camp." In order to access their property without building a new bridge over Dry Hollow, the Kafuras have requested permission to use the Spring Hollow access road for a distance of approximately 75 feet. They also request permission to construct a driveway for a distance of 125 feet over County owned property to their property. A map provided by Mr. Kafura for the proposed access is attached. The locked gate indicted on the map will be moved to a point beyond the old YMCA Camp gate in order to provide better access to the camp while protecting the Spring Hollow access. Staff has no objection to granting the Kafura's permission to use the County property in order to access their property. Staff feels that it would be beneficial to have a permanent resident adjacent to the Spring Hollow Property. FISCAL IMPACT' There is no fiscal impact to the County for this matter. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the request by Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Kafura to use a portion of the County property to access the Kafura property. Staff further recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the County Attorney to prepare such documents as required to effect this approval. ~- SUBMITTED BY: Cliffor aig, P.E. Utility Director k M1 ~~ APPROVED: .~~ rid Elmer C. Hodg County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: H Od 11 Minnix No Yes Abs Denied ( ) motion to approve Eddy x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred Kohinke x to Minnix x Nickens x cc: File Clifford Craig, Director, Utility Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections x r ~-- (~i .. t ~~ J....,, .~~__ ~ ~ E'~~~~ 92 ! ~~ ~9 May 11, 1992 Box 21, Rt. 1 Newport, VA 24128 Mr. Cliff Craig Utility Director 1206 Kessler Mill Road Salem, VA 24153 Dear Mr. Craig, E My wife and I recently purchased a 40 acre tract of land at the end of Route 649 (Dry Hollow Road). This property is bounded on one side by Dry Hollow Creek and on two other sides by property owned by Roanoke County. The south side of the property is adjacent to the old YMCA camp site and the west side of the property is adjacent to the area reserved for the Spring Hollow Resevoir. We have purchased this land for a single family home and currently have a contract with Patwil homes (office in Salem) for the construction. We have no plans to use the land in any way other than as our primary residence. I would like to request that we be granted permission to use the bridge at the end of Route 649 as a means of access to our property. A map (not drawn to scale) is attached. To gain access to our property requires that we be able to cross the bridge and proceed approximately 100 feet before turning right and then proceeding approximately 125 feet to our property line. While our property does have road frontage on Route 649 we make this request for two reasons. First, access to our property from Route 649 would require that we build a bridge over Dry Hollow Creek similar to the one already existing bridge - an expensive undertaking. Second, our preferred building site is at the end of the property nearer to the existing bridge. Access from the existing bridge would thus reduce the amount of roadbed that we would have to build and maintain. I thank you in advance for your help in this matter. If there is any other information which I can provide, please contact me at the address given above or by phone at 703-544-7119 (home) or 703-231-5568 (office). I will be happy, also, to meet with you or any other Roanoke County government or administrative representative as may be useful. e ;~=" EJ~ ter.--e---- .~ Dennis Ka~ura b ~ I~ Rte. 649 Dry Hollow Creek locked gate 25 f t. Entrance to oltl YMCA Camp End State Maintenance sign _ 75 ft. to Spring Hollow Resevoir >~ ACTION # A-52692-8 ITEM NUMBER ~_ MEETING DATE: May 26, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Appropriation to the 1992-93 Regional Special Education Fund COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~rC.rk-~-Y~'~'"t'y''0~ ~'"~~~ ~~ BACKGROUND: The Roanoke County School Board serves as the fiscal agent for the Roanoke Valley Regional Special Education Board. The budget for the regional board for 1991-92 was $2,063,286.00. The board-adopted budget for 1992-93 is $2,083,310.00. The Regional Program began operation during the fiscal year 1986-87 with six school divisions involved in serving two (2) handicapped populations: autistic and severe/profound handicapped. All programs were housed in Roanoke County schools. During the 1990-91 school year the following populations were added: Multihandicapped - MH Deaf/Hard of Hearing - DlHH Multihandicapped/Visually Impaired - MH/VI Regional classes are currently housed in the following school divisions: Roanoke County Roanoke City Botetourt County Franklin County Dr. Eddie L. Kolb, director of pupil personnel services for Roanoke County Schools, will be present to answer any questions related to the program. FISCAL Il1~IPACT: Revenue received from state funding and participating school divisions based on a per pupil cost will offset expenditures. ~-~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriation of the Roanoke Valley Regional Special Education Board's budget for 1992-93. ~~~ `' Frank J. Sp s Elmer C. Hodge Supervisor of Special Education County Administrator ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L . Eddy _ _x _ Denied ( ) Johnson Motion to Johnson _ x _ Received ()approve Kohinke _ x _ Referred () Minniz _ x _ To Nickens _ x _ cc: File Dr. Bayes Wilson, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget 1 ~ ~tOANO~ . F z c~ 2 a OFFICE OF DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS 526 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE SALEM, VIRGINIA 24153 FROM THE MINUTES OF THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA MEETING IN REGULAR SESSION AT 7 P.M. ON MAY 14, 1992 IN THE BOARD ROOM OF THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, SALEM, VIRGINIA. RE: APPROVAL OF 1992-93 BUDGET FOR ROANOKE VALLEY REGIONAL BOARD Moved by Mr. Black and duly seconded, the 1992-93 budget in the amount of $2,083,310 was approved for the Roanoke Valley Regional Board low incidence population. The ensuing year's budget represents an increase of $20,024 over the 1991-92 budget. TE STE :, ,- ,~~~ ~ ~-~`-~ , Clerk ACTION NO. A-52692-9 ITEM NO. "'' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 26, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: REGIONAL CABLE TV COMMITTEE AGRE/EMENT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : ~,,~.,,v,,n,c~c/ ~~'~~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed Regional Cable Television Committee Agreement has been developed by the participating jurisdictions to the Cox Cable Roanoke franchise agreement to provide for the development, ad- ministration, and operation of cable television educational and institution facilities and programming. Section 11 of the cable television franchise ordinance adopted by Roanoke City, Roanoke County, and the Town of Vinton in April of 1991, provides for the establishment of an advisory committee composed of representatives of the three jurisdictions. All substantive actions involving the expenditure of capital grant funds received from Cox Cable Roanoke in accordance with the franchise agreement and any operation of an educational or institutional television system must now be taken by formal action of each governing body. At the initiative of the current advisory committee, legal counsel for each jurisdiction was directed to draft an agreement to provide stability and continuity for these cable television functions. SUNII~iARY OF INFORMATION: The agreement provides a legal framework for a committee which would actually operate an educational or institutional television system, or both, and be authorized to expend capital grant funds. Each locality would equitably fund this Committee's operations based upon a percentage of the gross receipts of Cox Cable Roanoke in each jurisdiction up to a maximum of one percent (1~). However, this agreement will not constitute a binding legal obligation on any jurisdiction to actually appropriate any funds for the committee's operations. In the absence of such an agreement all substantive decisions regarding operations of any television system in connection with the cable television franchise will require 1 independent board action by each of the participating jurisdic- tions. ALTERNATIVES' I. Adopt the proposed agreement and authorize the Regional Cable Television Committee to develop, administer and operate educational and institutional television facili- ties and programs. II. Continue the Cable Television Committee as a purely advisory body and require all substantive decisions to be brought back to the governing bodies for approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the adoption of Alternative I. Respectfully submitted, Jo eph ~. O~benshain S for A sistant County Attorney Action Vote No Yes Abs Approved ( ~ Motion by Lee B. Eddy motion Eddy X Denied ( ) to approve agreement Johnson x Received ( ) Kohinke x Referred Minnix x to Nickens x cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Anne Marie Green, Member, Regional Cable TV Committee 2 ~- B ROANORE VALLEY REGIONAL CABLE TELEVISION COMMITTEE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is dated as of the day of , 1992, by and between the CITY OF ROANOKE, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, ("City"); the COUNTY OF ROANOKE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, ("County"); and the TOWN OF VINTON, a municipal corporation of the commonwealth of Virginia, ("Town"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the City, County and Town have by Ordinance Nos. 30478-42291, 42391-5, and respectively, provided for one or more non-exclusive franchises to construct, operate, and maintain one or more cable television systems within their jurisdictions ("Ordinances"); and, WHEREAS, Section 11 of each of the above described Ordinances provides for the establishment and operation of a Cable Television Committee made up of representatives of the City, County, and Town; and, WHEREAS, the Cable Television Committee as now established is primarily an advisory body unable to take substantive action without the approval of each jurisdiction's governing body; and, WHEREAS, the City, County, and Town by this agreement desire to authorize the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee to provide for the development, administration, and operation of cable television educational and institutional facilities and programming. WITNESSETH THAT FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1-21 of the Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, do covenant and agree to establish the "Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee" ("Committee") upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. I. TERM This agreement shall take effect upon its proper execution .~ $ pursuant to and by ordinance of the governing bodies of the City, County and Town. Thereafter, the term of this agreement shall be concurrent with the Cable Television Franchise Agreements granted pursuant to the Ordinances by the City, County and Town to Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc., ("Franchise Agreements") unless terminated earlier in the manner provided herein. II. ESTABLISHMENT AND TERMS OF MEMBERS City, County, and Town covenant and agree to hereby establish the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee for the purpose of developing, administering, and operating cable television educational and institutional facilities and programming as a joint and cooperative undertaking for the use and benefit of all the parties hereto. The Committee shall be organized and comprised of 11 members selected and appointed in the manner provided in Section it of the Ordinances, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit A. III. PIIRPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION In addition to existing purposes, powers, and duties of the Roanoke Regional Cable Television Committee under the Ordinances, the Committee shall also be authorized to provide for the development, administration, and operation of cable television educational and institutional facilities and programming for the City, County, and Town as provided for in the Ordinances and Franchise Agreements. The administration of all such activities shall be undertaken by the Committee. The committee shall be authorized to receive on behalf of the City, County, and Town and expend all Capital Grant funds provided under the Franchise Agreements by Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc., for the purpose of acquiring equipment for educational and institutional purposes. The Committee shall be authorized to enter into and administer appropriate contracts and agreements for the purchase of goods and services, including personal service contracts. All personal property shall be held in the name of the Committee. The Committee shall be authorized to lease but not to acquire real property. IV. FINANCING AND BIIDGETS In addition to being authorized to expend Capital Grant funds as provided in paragraph III above, the parties hereto intend that the operations of the Committee shall be financed by allocation or appropriation to the Committee by the City, County, and Town of an equivalent amount up to a maximum of one percent (1~) of the gross revenues of Cox Cable Roanoke from each jurisdiction based upon such receipts for the last calendar year. City, County, and Town recognize and agree that such allocation or appropriation to the Committee is subject to and dependent upon annual appropriations being made from time to time by each of their governing bodies for }• -~ such purpose. Nothing herein shall constitute a pledge of the full faith and credit of the City, County or Town or be deemed to require that appropriations or allocations be made. On or before March 15 of each year, the Committee shall have prepared and submit for approval to City, county and Town an annual operating and capital budget for the upcoming fiscal year. The Committee shall not expend any funds or incur any financial obligation except pursuant to a budget approved by City, County, and Town. O. TERMINATION This agreement shall not be terminated except after appropriate action by ordinance or resolution of any of the three governing bodies of City, County, or Town, authorizing such termination. Upon such termination, all property and equipment belonging to the Committee shall be appraised and valued as of the date of termination, and such value shall be apportioned among the three jurisdictions in the same proportion as total funds were contributed to the Committee by each of the jurisdictions. No payment shall be made by the Committee to any jurisdiction terminating this agreement, but the value assigned to such jurisdiction shall be held as a credit against any future use of such property or equipment by that jurisdiction. VI. LIABILITY AND INSORANCE The Committee shall be responsible for any liability that may arise out of its operation. The Committee shall obtain and maintain during the term of this agreement comprehensive general liability insurance in the amount of $500,000.00 per occurrence covering the Committee, as well as the City, County, and Town, their officers, agents and employees as additional insureds. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: City of Roanoke Attest By: Title: County of Roanoke By: Title: By: Title• Attest By: Title• a' Town of Vinton By: Title• b:\catvmmm.agr „` Attest By: Title: 1 ACTION NO. A-52692-10 r ITEM NO. '' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 26, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Acceptance of Environmental Protection Agency 106 Ground Water Protection Grant. ~~C COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~:,T,,~,,.w.Lv~ ac ~'` ~~ BACKGROUND' In March, the Department of Planning and Zoning was contacted by the Virginia State Water Control Board (VSWCB) to see if Roanoke County was interested in participating in a pilot Wellhead Protection Program being funded by the EPA. The program is designed to assist in the development of measures that localities can use to protect their public wells from contamination. The Planning Department discussed the pilot project with the Department of Utility, and thereafter prepared and submitted a grant application in the amount of $10,188 to the VSWCB for funding necessary to undertake the project. On May 19th, the Department was notified that our project proposal was accepted, and that EPA funding for the project was available. The proposed pilot project will target three County public wells selected by the Department of Utility. These wells, known as Bonsack I, Starkey I, and Hidden Valley 6 are valuable components of our water system. They are anticipated to remain in service for the foreseeable future. For each of these three wells a study area will be identified, and special zoning district regulations will be prepared. The purpose of these regulations is to demonstrate the ways that existing land use laws can be used to protect the areas around public wells from contaminants that can endanger the public water supply. Although the pilot project involves research and the preparation of zoning regulations, Roanoke County is not obligated under the accepted proposal to implement any of the protection measures proposed. ~. ~~ :~ ~ 2 FISCAL IMPACT None. No local funds are required as a match for this funding. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: 1. That the Board authorize the acceptance of the EPA 106 Ground Water Protection Grant offered to Roanoke County. Respectfully Submitted, ;. --~- Terrance arring Director Planni g and Zoning Approved, ~,.J ~*` Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Action Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Ref erred to Motion by Harry C. Nickens Eddy motion to accept grant Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens Vote No Yes Abs x x x x x cc: File Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Clifford Craig, Director, Utility ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~ ~ ~ D AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 26, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Ratification of Agreements and Acknowledgement of the Issuance of Solid Waste System Bonds d -y~r,~ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS: ~,C-n~-r7~r"R' GL SUNIIKARY OF INFORMATION: The attached resolution ratifies the Members Use Agreement and related documents approved by the County, the City of Roanoke, and the Town of Vinton on October 23, 1991, acknowledges the issuance of the bonds by the Authority to carry out its duties under the Members Use~Agreement, and authorizes the County Administrator to include for consideration in the County's budget the amount needed to cover the pro rata share payments in the case of a deficit situation. The City of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton will be adopting similar resolutions. This action is necessary because it represents each locality's official recognition of the Authority's issuance of the bonds for their benefit and confirms authorizations that have become dated. On May 21, 1992, the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority authorized the issuance of not to exceed $40 million of Solid Waste System Revenue Bonds. Attachment A explains the estimated sources and uses of bond funds. Attachment B shows the estimated tipping fees required to fund the debt service, operating expenses, and reserve requirements of the landfill. The projected tipping fees include reserves so that future cell development can be funded on a "pay as you go" basis, with the exception of the second large clearing phase which should occur in the year 2001. The Authority will need to borrow about $4 million to accomplish this phase, and debt service for this subsequent borrowing is included in the projected rates. Other than the one additional borrowing, these tipping rates should be sufficient to cover all closure requirements and further site development, in addition to all operating and capital needs of the Authority. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution. 1 ~ - /o Respectfully submitted, ,t ,Qm.R~ '`J Diane D. H att~~~~ Y Director of Finance Approved by, ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To Eddy Kohinke Johnson Minnix Nickens 2 ~~ia Attachment A Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Sources and Uses of Bond Funds Estimated Sources of Funds Series 1992 Bond Proceeds $33,369,205 Estimated Investment Earnings~l~ 1,129,628 $34,498,833 Estimated Uses of Funds Project Costs Landfill $12,742,935 Transfer Station 5,335,640 Railroad 9,000,000 Total Project Costs 27,078,575 Capitalized Interest 3,433,345 Debt Service Reserve Fund 3,167,085 Issuance Costs 819,828 $34,498,833 ~1~ Interest earnings on the Project Fund at the assumed rate of 4.0$, the Capitalized Interest Fund at the assumed rate of 4.5$ and on the Debt Service Reserve Fund at the assumed rate of 6.0$. 3 -/D Attachment B Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Projected Tipping Fees Fiscal Year Residential Commercial 1993-1994 $50.66 $55.66 1994-1995 54.40 59.40 1995-1996 55.15 60.15 1996-1997 55.78 60.78 1997-1998 56.46 61.46 1998-1999 55.78 60.78 1999-2000 56.93 61.93 2000-2001 57.74 62.74 2001-2002 62.79 67.79 2002-2003 63.92 68.92 4 _..~-!t~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1992 RESOLIITION RATIFYING CERTAIN AGREEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE ROANORE VALLEY RESOIIRCE AIITHORITY AND ACKNOWLEDGING THE ISSIIANCE OF THE AIITHORITY'S SOLID WASTE SYSTEM REVENIIE BONDS, SERIES 1992 IN CONNECTION WITH THE AGREEMENTS The County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") is a member of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority ("Authority") pursuant to the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act, Chapter 28, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Act") and has entered into the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Members Use Agreement, dated as of October 23, 1991 ("Members Use Agreement") among the Roanoke County Resource Authority (as predecessor to the Authority), the County, the City of Roanoke, Virginia ("City") and the Town of Vinton, Virginia ("Town"). The Authority proposes to issue its Solid Waste System Revenue Bonds, Series 1992 ("Bonds") in an amount not to exceed $40 million to finance the cost of acquiring, constructing and equipping a sanitary landfill, transfer station and related facilities to provide a regional solid waste disposal system for members of the Authority ("Project"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. Approval of Agreements. The Board of Supervisors hereby approves and ratifies the Members Use Agreement, the Assignment Agreement, dated as of October 23, 1991, among the Roanoke Valley Regional Solid Waste Management Board, the Roanoke County Resource Authority (as predecessor to the Authority), the City, the Town and the County, and the Distribution and Indemnification Agreement, dated as of October 23, 1991, among the Roanoke Valley Regional Solid Waste Management Board, the Roanoke County Resource Authority (as predecessor to the Authority), and the City, the Town and the County; all of which were previously approved by the Board of Supervisors by Resolution No. 102391-1 dated October 23, 1991. 2. Acknowledgement of Authority Financinc. The Board of Supervisors acknowledges the Authority's intention to issue the Bonds in June of 1992, and further acknowledges that the Authority is issuing the Bonds in order to undertake its duties and obligations under the Members Use Agreement. 3. Pro Rata Share. The County Administrator is authorized and directed to include in the budget to be submitted to the Board of Supervisors in each fiscal year or in such supplemental requests for appropriations as may be necessary, an amount equal to the County's Pro Rata Share (as defined in the Members Use Agreement), if any. The County's obligation to make Pro Rata Share payments 1 Tj-/D under the Members Use Agreement is subject to and dependent upon annual appropriations being made from time to time by the Board of Supervisors for such purpose. Nothing in the Members Use Agreement or this Resolution shall constitute a pledge of the full faith and credit of the County or require or be deemed to require appropriations to be made. The facilities and services to be provided by the Project are essential and necessary to the operations of the County. 4. Further Actions. The County Administrator and such officers and agents as he may designate are authorized and directed to prepare, execute and deliver any and all instruments, certificates and other documents and to take such action as they deem appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Resolution and any such action previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed. 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. 2 ACTION NO. A-52692-11 ITEM NUMBER ~ ~' ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 12, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Designation of Agent for County of Roanoke to Obtain Federal and State Financial Assistance for Damages During the 1992 Flood COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency requires that an individual or individuals be authorized by the Board of Supervisors to act as their agent(s) to provide the State and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) with the necessary financial information to obtain reimbursement for damage to Roanoke County during the recent flood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Chief Accountant Vincent Copenhaver and Budget Analyst Brent Robertson be designated as Roanoke County's Agent for matters pertaining to the 1992 flood. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved (x ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by: Harry C. Nickens cc: File Diane Hyatt, Reta Busher, Director, Finance Director, Management & Budget VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy x Johnson ~ Kohinke x Minnix ~_ Nickens x DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED BY Board of Supervisors OF County of Roanoke (GouerningBody) (Public Entity) - ' Vincent Copenhaver, Chief Accountant, and Brent Robertson, Budget Analyst THAT * (Name of Incumbent) ~ (Official Position) Oft are * (Name of Incumbent) ,Governor's Authorized Representative, whereby authorized to execute for and in behalf of County of Roanoke a public entity established under the laws of the State of Virginia this application and to file it in the appropriate State office for the purpose of obtaining certain Federal financial assistance under the Disaster Relief Act (Public Law 288, 93rd Congress) or otherwise available from the President's Disaster Relief Fund. THAT County of Roanoke , a public entity established under the laws of the State of Virginia ,hereby authorizes its agent to provide to the State and to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for all matters pertaining to such Federal disaster assistance the assurances and agreements printed on the reverse side hereof. Passed and approved this 26th rman of th day of MaY ~ lg 92 . Board (Name and Title) and Title) (Name and Title) CERTIFICATION j~ Mary H. Allen , dul a as Clerk y ppointed a3~ (Title) of Board of Supervisors, County of Roanol~ hereby certify that the above is a true and correct co pyofa resolution passed and approved by the Board of Supervisorspf County of Roanoke (Governing Body) (Public Entity) on the 26th May ~ 19 92 day of Date: May 28, 1992 Clerk to the Board (Official Position) YY) ~ . Mary H. Al en (Signature) *Name of incumbent need not be provided in thole cases inhere the governing body of the public entity desires to authorize any incumbent of the designated ojjicial position to reprecent it. FEMA Form 9463, MAR 81 APPLICANT'S RGENT CHECKLIST This checklist was nrsp,~red tv m4~kQ the process o~ applying for and rQr_Piv.i.nr~ rfi~aFtar a~;siSt.-~nce ,3s aa,y as possible. yQl,)_ play n VITAL role i.n this process. ApMINx3rRATTON ( ) Ensure designation by .Local governing body. ( ) litt,end appll,cant;'s br•1r:T'lrry- ( ) ATTEND applzcant'S event training. ( ) G ive r_he s upervisor a copy cif Poch OSR, ( ) Follow proper bid and contract procedures, ( ) Document repair costs at: each work site as they occur. ( ) 5ubm.it TIMELY rF;quest for -Final inspections. ( ) Make ti,moly roquost for audl.t. ~( ) Request; fundf,nq and provide supporting OOCl1MENTATZON. SURVEYS ( ) Provide local inspectors for aurvF:y teams, ( ) list: all damaged facilit.i.es. ( ) Mark location of each damage site on local map. ( ) tfave photographs of d,amaoes av.~i_labla. ( ) Know if repairs will bu made by force account or contract. (. ) Nave local, cados ar st:andards available. ( ) Make sure e11, damages are inspected. ( ) Request resurveys if needed. WORK MONITORING ( ) Review each DSR to become famz~l,iar with APPROVED work, ( ) Make I~PPROVED repairs ONLY. ~ ) ~aquact .an Improuad Proj?ot OCppf~C you chanyo appravr~i worlt, ~ ) Ragc~st approval of cost overruns, ( ) Complete work within time limits. ( ) JUSTIFY timfl nxtc~n~,ion by OSR if noadcd. 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: May 26, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Requests for Public Hearing and First Reading for Rezoning Ordinances Consent Agenda COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND• The first reading on these ordinances is accomplished by adoption of these ordinances in the manner of consent agenda items. The adoption of these items does not imply approval of the substantive content of the requested zoning actions, rather approval satisfies the procedural requirements of the County Charter and schedules the required public hearing and second reading of these ordinances. The second reading and public hearing on these ordinances is scheduled for June 23, 1992. The titles of these ordinances are as follows: 1. An ordinance to rezone approximately 1.615 acres from B-1 and R-1 to B-2 to operate a new car dealership, located at the corner of Peters Creek Road and Deer Branch Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Valley Motorsport. 2. An ordinance to rezone 0.893 acre from B-1 and B-2 to B-2 to operate a convenience store with gas dispensers, located at 3202 Peters Creek Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Workman Oil Company. 3. An ordinance to rezone 24.090 acres from M-2 to M-3 to construct and operate an asphalt batch mix plant, located on the south side of Buck Mountain Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Virginia Asphalt Paving Company Inc. MAPS ARE ATTACHED; MORE DETAILED INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. ,~ 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: (1) That the Board approve and adopt the first reading of these rezoning ordinances for the purpose of scheduling the second reading and public hearing for June 23, 1992. (2) That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth as Items 1 through 3, inclusive, and that the Clerk is authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this action. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens Vote No Yes Abs ~~' ~ Noxra NOTE ~ r - ~ ALL PARCELS ON THIS MAP ~ " / ARE ZONED R1 UNLESS ,. M - , , / , OTHERWI~~ INQICA7ED: ~ 4 ~ - `~~. f • ! , `' / ~ / ' . 1 a ~ ! ~ a / n 'a a ~ » : ~ ~ ,. ~ ~° . ~ . ~ ~ s3cx ~ ~i -'' - / . ' c • ~ '~ ~ " szc sz / / ~ iar ~' / A , ~ ~ ~,, sz ~ t ~t `, ~~'°~' M ~ ~ 'f wr ~ ~ `~ ~ `` + ~ ~ ~ \ ezc ~ s3 ~ A 8 • ` ~ IYhr Orr . ~ ~ / I' ` . .... ~ ~'~ ~~ R! ~ ss ~ ~ ~ a~• `~ ~~ ~ ~ ' B~ ~ /~ 8Z pZ BZ _ / '~ ~ M 1 i ' ' - 62 0~ ~ c~ GX g2 8 aa r iu 4~w` 1 uio.. 62XC ~ ~' / / ' ~ ~ ~~~ i ~~ ~~~ ~ ' BZ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Cx i m ~ u .~ t e s l1 63 ~~ , . -~ ~ R~x ~ ~ ~' ~ p iKk ~ BZ ~ ~/ ~ ~ ` R1 ~ ~M B2 / • i~ ~ ' iuk a ' '~ 63C R1 ~~ ` °2 ~ _ . ~~ raw [~w.~ N 8Z t ~ d3 ials o.a~. •~ir '3 \ O i CONMUNITYSBRVICBS ANDDBVBLOPMSNT VALLEY f~10TORSPORT B1 and R1 to 62 .~ ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 26, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: First Reading of Ordinance - Acquisition of Sanitary Sewer Easement from George and Gertrude Hughes COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The construction of the sanitary sewer line serving the Hollins Community Project requires an easement across the property of George and Gertrude Hughes. Staff has negotiated a 20 foot wide sanitary sewer easement across the Hughes property. Consideration for the easement in the amount of $100.00 has been agreed to by the owners and is within the guidelines established by the Board of Supervisors. FISCAL IMPACT• Funds are available within the Project Budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors hold the first reading of the Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of a Sanitary Sewer easement from George and Gertrude Hughes. SUBMITTED BY: 1. Cliffor r ig, .E. Utility ctor APPROVED: e~ ~~ ~~.~e~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens ~'-/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1992 ORDINANCE FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE A SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT FROM GEORGE HUGHES AND GERTRUDE HUGHES WHEREAS, a permanent sanitary sewer easement across a tract of land owned by George Hughes and Gertrude Hughes is required in connection with the Hollins Community Project; and, WHEREAS, staff has negotiated with the property owners for the acquisition of said easement and the owners have accepted an offer in the amount of $100.00; and, WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition of real estate be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 26, 1992, and the second reading was held on June 9, 1992. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows: 1. That the acquisition and acceptance of a 20-foot wide permanent sanitary sewer easement from George Hughes and Gertrude Hughes for a sum not to exceed $100.00 is hereby authorized and approved; and 2. That the consideration of $100.00 shall be paid from the funds previously appropriated by the Board of Supervisors to the Utility Department budget for the Hollins Community Project; and, 3. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish this acquisition, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. Q i ~ -E AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, May 26, 1992 ORDINANCE 52692-12 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE 1992-93 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET FOR ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, a public hearing was held on April 14, 1992, concerning the adoption of the annual budget for Roanoke County for fiscal year 1992-93; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, approved said budget on April 28, 1992, pursuant to the provisions of Section 13.02 of the Roanoke County Charter and Chapter 4 of Title 15.1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on May 12, 1992, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 26, 1992, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective funds for the period beginning July 1, 1992, and ending June 30, 1993, for the functions and purposes indicated: REVAPPR093 s COUNTY OF ROANOf;B PROPOSED 1992-93 FISCAL YBAR BUDGBT APRIL 28, 1992 RBVENUBS: GBNBRAL FUND GBNBRAL GOVBRNHENT YOUTH HAVEN II LAff LIBRARY RBCRBATION FEB CLASS INTBRNAL SBRVICBS GARAGE II TOTAL GBNBRAL FUN D DEBT FUND CAPITAL FUND ftATBR FUND KATBR OPBRATIONS 1991 KATBR RBVBNUB BONDS KATBR RBPAIR AND RBPLACBNBNT RATS STABILIZATION KATBR SURPLUS TOTAL KATBR FUND SBNBR FUND SBNBR OPBRATIONS SEf4BR OFFSITE FACILITIES TOTAL SBffBR FUND TOTAL COUNTY FUNDS SCHOOL FUNDS OPERATING FUND CAFETERIA FUND GRANT FUND fBXTBOOB FUND CAPITAL FUND TOTAL SCHOOL FUNDS TOTAL RBVENUB ALL FUNDS 3 670,707,832 352,552 30,000 452,848 1,222,527 232,218 72,997,977 7,929,!91 439,760 5,983,802 127,!53 350,000 309,414 191,584 7,568,253 3,409,762 116,394 3,526,156 92,461,637 66,106,683 2,861,370 2,125,671 532,858 67,500 71,694,082 6164,155,719 ~~ COUNTY OF ROANOBB PROPOSBD 1992-93 FISCAL -BAR BUDGBT APRIL 28, 1992 BXPBNDITURBS: GBNBRAL GOVBRNNBNT GBNBRAL ADMINISTRATION BOARD OF SUPBRYISORS CO ADMINISTRATOR ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION A RBFBRRAL ASST CO, ADNIN_ISTRATORS RUMAN RBSOURCBS ' COUNTY ATTORNEY BCONOMIC DBVBLOPMBNT ADMINISTRATION MARXBTING CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICBRS ------------------------------------------------------------ PBRSONNBL OPERATING CAPITAL TRANSFBRS TOTAL ------------------------------------------------------------ 119,411 76,834 600 0 196,845 150,790 16,835 0 0 16T,625 46,295 18,225 0 0 64,520 204,029 16,187 300 0 220,516 236,874 81,897 0 0 318,771 218,295 29,220 0 (37,143) 210,372 170,177 20,000 200 0 190,377 0 151,262 0 0 151,262 1,145,871 410,460 1,100 (37,143) 1,520,288 TREASURER 314,455 139,201 0 17,373 471,029 COMMONWBALTN ATTORNEY 333,200 17,290 ~ 0 0 350,490 VICTIM/WITNBSS 0 6,000 0 0 6,000 COMNISSIONBR OF TRB RBVBNUB ADMINISTRATION 62,883 4,925 0 0 67,808 REAL BSTATB 69,651 4,800 0 0 74,451 PERSONAL PROPERTY 176,228 49,875 0 0 X26,103 BUSINBSS LICBNSB 107,838 8,970 0 0 116,808 CLBRg OF TBB CIRCUIT COURT PUBLIC RECORDS 370,058 49,918 2,000 0 421,976 MICROFILM 24,207 34,693 0 0 58,900 SBBRIFF'S OFFICB ADMINISTRATION 156,383 33,075 14,000 0 203,458 CIVIL DIVISION 676,021 57,995 26,000 0 760,016 CARE A CONFINEMENT OF PRISONBRS 1,825,258 385,916 -- - 0 0 2,211,174 -------------- 4,116,182 --- - ----- 792,658 ------------ 42,000 ----------- 17,373 ----------- 4,968,213 JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION CIRCUIT COURT 0 81,203 0 0 81,203 GBNBRAL DISTRICT COURT 0 21,183 0 .0 21,183 MAGISTRATB 0 884 0 0 884 J ~ D COURT 0 9,158 750 0 9,908 COURT SERVICE UNIT 0 51,680 0 0 51,680 ------------- 0 --------------- 164,108 ------------- 750 --------- 0 ---------- 164,858 ~i 4 r , COUNTY OF ROANOBB PROPOSED 1992-93 FISCAL MBAR BUDGET APRIL 28, 1992 NANAGBNBNT SBRVICBS COUNTY ASSBSSOR ADMINISTRATION RBASSBSSNBNT BOARD OF BQUILIZATION FINANCIAL PLANNING CENTRAL ACCOUNTING PAYROLL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION NANAGBNBNT AND BUDGET RISg NANAGBNBNT PROCURBMBNT SBRVICBS PUBLIC SAFETY POLICB ADMINISTRATION UNIFORM DIVISION CRIMINAL INVEST DIVISION SBRVICBS DIVISION TRANSPORTATION SAFETY COMMISSION B911 NAINTBNANCB FIRB AND RBSCUB ADMINISTRATION OPBRATIONS SUPPORT SBRVICBS VOLUNTBBR FIRB YOLUNTBBR RBSCOB SOOMNs COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNITY SBRVICBS GENERAL SBRYICBS SOLID YASTB RBFUSB COLLECTION RBCYCLING LEAF COLLBCTION BNGINBBRING AND INSPBCTIONS ADMINISTRATION BNGINBBRING INSPBCTIONS DRAINACB ------------------------------------------------------------ PBRSONNBL OPERATING CAPITAL TRANSFERS TOTAL ------------------------------------------------------------ 209,065 39,864 0 0 248,929 362,775 3!,925 2,853 0 400,553 0 0 0 0 0 311,796 75,446 0 0 393,242 111,019 14,421 0 0 125,440 0 70,200 0 0 70,200 88,213 17,341 0 0 105,554 81,345 1,017,900 0 0 1,099,245 208,116 ------------- 24,972 ------- 0 0 233,088 1,378,329 ------- 1,295,069 ------------- 2,853 --------- 0 ----------- 2,676,251 99,655 22,600 0 0 122,255 1,850,937 -282,637 168,984 0 2,302,558 574,202 90,408 ''0 0 664,610 838,290 130,854 12,002 0 981,146 0 912 0 0 912 0 173,170 0 16,830 190,000 60,060 180,060 0 126,503 366,623 1,280,656 219,717 0 0 1,500,373 317,928 259,647 0 0 577,575 0 59,560 44,750 29,067 133,377 0 101,276 78,500 0 179,776 0 2,850 0 0 2,850 5,021,728 1,523,691 304,236 172,400 7,022,055 196,775 26,380 0 0 223,155 773,887 876,858 0 204,888 1,855,633 0 40,550 6,000 0 46,550 20,544 24,035 0 ~~0 49,579 238,278 39,832 0 0 2T8,110 232,678 130,637 0 (137,342) 225,971 393,508 23,393 0 (57,730 359,171 88,436 41,300 88,507 0 218,243 *~./ 5 COUNTY OF ROANOg6 .~ PROPOSBD 1992-93 FISCAL MBAR BUDGBT APRIL 28, 1992 ------------ PBRSONNBL ------------ ------------- OPERATING --------- - ----------- CAPITAL ------------ TRANSFBRS ------------ TOTAL BUILDING HAINTBNANCB -- - ----------- ------------ ------------ BUILDING HAINTBNANCB 164,206 256,941 14,739 (20,000) 445,886 JANITORIAL SBRVICBS 178,612 89,226 0 0 267,838 HANDICAPPBD ACCBSS 0 25,000 0 0 25,000 PLANNING AND ZONING 278,333 56,694 0 0 335,027 PLANNING COMMISSION 16,360 2,850 0 0 19,210 ------------ 2,581,615 ------------- 1,663,695 ----------- 109,246 ------------- (10,184) ----------- 4,344,3 T2 HUHAH SBRVICBS GROUNDS HAINTBNANCB GROUNDS HAINTBNANCB 626,425 365,667 0 0 992,092 STRBBT SIGNS 0 3,990 0 0 3,990 PARRS AND RBCRBATION COMMUNITY BDUCATIOH 69,135 950 0 0 70,085 LBISURB ACTIVITIES 88,459 950 0 0 89,409 OUTDOOR ADVBNTURB 51,149 2,258 0 0 53,407 SBNIOR CITIZBNS 87,917 3,325 0 0 91,242 SPBCIAL BVBNTS 52,864 3,925 0 0 56,789 THBRAPBUTICS 81,253 19,456 0 0 100,709 ADULT ATHLBTICS 60,832 950 0 0 61,782 YOUTH ATHLBTICS 149,943 9,500 0 0 159,443 ADMINISTRATION 142,778 90,742 0 0 233,520 PUBLIC HEALTH 0 376,652 0 0 _376,652 SOCIAL SBVICBS ADMINISTRATION 1,655,933 215,679 6,150 0 1,877,762 PUBLIC ASSISTANCB 0 1,006,850 0 0 1,006,850 INSTITUTIONAL CARB 0 20,000 0 0 20,000 SOCIAL SBRVICB ORGANIZATIONS 0 119,332 0 0 119,332 CONTRIBUTIONS SVC ORGANIZATIONS 0 45,553 0 0 45,553 CONTRIBUTIONS CULTURAL ORGS 0 30,000 0 0 30,000 LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION 134,385 1,210 0 0 135,595 RBSBARCH AND CIRCULATION 650,474 265,063 0 0 915,537 AUTOMATION 0 63,361 0 0 63,361 JOINT BOTBTOURT/RBB CNTY LIB 0 27,600 0 0 27,600 B%TBNSION 3, CONTINUING EDUCATION 0 121,919 0 0 121,919 BLBCTIONS RBGISTAATION 99,166 24,404 5,400 0 128,970 BLBCTIONS 23,220 17,999 0 " 0 41,219 ANIMAL CONTROL - 122,088 ------------ 42,398 ------------ 15,000 0 179,486 4,096,021 - 2,879,734 ----------- 26,550 ------------ 0 ----------- 7,002,305 +^°'" 6 COUNTY OF ROANORB .• PROPOSED 1992-93 FISCAL MBAR BUDGET APRIL 28, 1992 NON-DBPARTHBNTAL BNPLOYBB BENEFITS NISCBLLANBOUS TRANSFBRS TO OTHER FUNDS TRANS TO DBBT-GBNBRAL TRANS TO DBBT SBRVICB-SCHOOL TRANSFBR TO CAPITAL TRANSFBR TO SCHOOL OPBRATING FUND TRANSFBR TO SCHOOLS-DBNTAL INS TRANSFBR TO SCHOOLS-HBALTH INS TRANSFBR TO GARAGB II TRANSFBR TO YOUTH HAVBN II tRANSFBR TO INTBRNAL SBRYICB TRANSFBR TO SBYBR BOARD CONTINGBNCY TOTAL GBNBRAL GOVBRNNBNT YOUTH HAVBN II LAfI LIBRARY RBCRBATION FBB CLASS CONNUNITY BDUCATION LBISURB ACTIVITIBS OUTDOOR ADVENTURE SENIOR CITIZENS SPECIAL EVENTS THBRAPBUTICS ADULT ATHLBTICS YOUTN ATRLBTICS ------------------------------------------------------------ PBRSONNBL OPERATING CAPITAL TRANSFBRS TOTAL ------------------------------------------------------------ 1,165,684 0 0 0 1,165,684 0 857,500 0 0 85?,500 ------------------------------------------------------------ 1,165,684 857,500 0 0 2,023,184 0 0 0 4,487,550 4,487,550 0 0 0 1,646,575 1,646,575 0 0 0 389,760 389,760 0 0 0 31,867,910 31,867,910 0 0 0 192,436 192,436 0 0 0 861,000 861,000 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 0 0 0 25,000 25,000 0 0 0 721,686 721,686 0 0 0 644,390 644,390 ------------- 0 ------------- 0 ---------- '0 ------------ 40,936,307 ------------ 40,936,301 0 ------------- 50,000 ------------- 0 ---------- 0 ------------ 50,000 ------------ 0 50,000 0 0 ._50,000 = ------------- 19,505,430 ------------- ------------- 9,636,914 ------------- ---------- 486,735 ---------- ------------ 41,078,753 ------------ ------ ----- 70,707,832 ------------ 282,852 64,000 5,700 0 352,552 9,043 19,657 1,300 0 30,000 138,532 45,100 2,000 0 186,232 15,232 16,300 1,200 •'0 32,732 4,844 23,700 5,000 0 33,54! 13,241 30,550 1,900 0 .45,691 1,346 37,800 0 0 39,146 9,295 7,505 200 0 17,000 42,419 15,750 0 0 58,169 1,782 2,312 0 0 4,094 V~~ 7 ! ~ COUNTY OF ROANOBB PROPOSBD 1992-93 FISCAL YEAR BUDGBT APRIL 28, 1992 ADMINISTRATION PARE CONSERVATION BQUBSTRIAN CBNTBR TOTAL FBB CLASS INTBRNAL SBRVICBS MANAGBNBNT INFORMATION SYSTBMS ADMINISTRATION OPBRATIONS '- DBVBLOPMBNT COMMUNICATIONS TOTAL INTERNAL SBRVICBS GARAGB II TOTAL GBNBRAL FUND DEBT FOND CAPITAL FUND NATBR FUND ifATBR OPBRATIONS 1991 ifATBR RBV6NUB BONDS NATBR RBPAIR AND RBPLACBMBNT RATB STABILIZATION fiATBR SURPLUS TOTAL fiATBR FUND SBKBR FUND SBKBR OPERATIONS SBKBR OFFSITB FACILITIES TOTAL SBKBR FUND TOTAL COUNTY FUNDS ____________________________________________________________ PBRSONN6L OPERATING CAPITAL TRANSFBRS TOTAL ------------------------------------------------------------ 0 32,240 0 0 32,240 0 1,000 0 0 1,000 0 3,000 0 0 3,000 ------------------------------------------------------------ 226,691 215,857 10,300 0 452,848 156,765 11,300 0 0 168,065 84,503 192,800 12,875 91,207 387,385 246,547 5,750 2,850 0 255,147 208,811 ------------ 175,728 ------------- 27,391 ----------- 0 ------------ 411,930 696,626 385,578 43,116 97,207 ------------ 1,222,527 202,440 ------------ 29,778 -------------- 0 ---------- 0 -------- 232,218 20,923,082 ------------ 10,351,784 -------------- 547,151 ---------- ---- 41,175,960 ------------ ------------ 72,997,979 ------------ 0 7,929,491 0 0 7,929,491 0 0 439,760 0 439,760 548,848 3,680,070 118,010 1,636,874 5,983,802 0 127,453 0 0 127,453 0 0 350,000 0 350,000 0 309,414 0 0 309,414 0 797,584 0 0 791,584 548,848 4,914,521 !68,010 1,636,874 7,568,253 797,074 2,493,949 46,400 72,339 3,409,762 0 ------------ 0 ------------ 0 ------------ 116,394 --- 116,394 797,074 ------------ 2,493,949 ------------- 46,400 ----------- --------- 188,733 -- ------------ 3,526,156 22,269,004 ------------ 25,689,745 ------------- 1,501,321 ----------- ---------- 43,001,567 ------------ ------------ 92,461,637 ------------ .. ~I B COUNTY OF ROANOBB PROPOSBD.1992-93 FISCAL MBAR BUDGET APRIL 28, 1992 ------------------------------------------------------------ PBRSONNBL OPBRATING CAPITAL TRANSFBRS TOTAL ------------------------------------------------------------ SCHOOL FUNDS OPBRATING FUND CAFBTBRIA FUND GRANT FUND TBXTBOOB FUND CAPITAL FUND TOTAL SCHOOL FUNDS TOTAL BXPBNDITURBS ALL FUNDS 66,106,683 2,861,370 2,125,671 532,858 67,500 71,694,082 164,155,719 `~...J '" 9 2. That the County Administrator may authorize the transfer of any unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one classification of expenditure to another within the same department or agency. That the County Administrator may transfer up to $10,000 from the unencumbered balance of the appropriation of one department or agency to another department or agency, including the contingency account encompassed in the Non-Departmental appropriation. 3. That all funded outstanding encumbrances, both operating and capital, at June 30, 1992, are reappropriated to the 1992-93 fiscal year to the same department and account for which they are encumbered in the previous year. 4. That appropriations designated for capital projects will not lapse at the end of the fiscal year but shall remain appropriated until the completion of the project or until the Board of Supervisors, by appropriate action, changes or eliminates the appropriation. Upon completion of a capital project, staff is authorized to close out the project and transfer to the funding source any remaining balances. This section applies to appropriations for Capital Projects at June 30, 1992, and appropriations in the 1992-93 budget. 5. That all school fund appropriations remaining at the end of the 1991-92 fiscal year not lapse but shall be appropriated to the School Capital Improvements Fund in fiscal year 1992-93. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens NAYS: Supervisors Johnson, Eddy A COPY TESTE: Mary H. lien, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator Reta R. Busher, Director, Management & Budget Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources 11 ,. 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: May 26, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Second Reading of the Fiscal Year 1992-93 Budget Appropriation Ordinance. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : ~~,v,-,uti,.,r~ a,, ...-,vy ~'`~~ ~~ BACKGROUND: The 1992-93 fiscal year budget was presented to the Board of Supervisors by the County Administrator on March 24, 1992. Budget public hearings were held on January 28, 1992 and April 14, 1992 to receive written and oral comment from the public concerning the proposed annual budget. SiJNiMARY OF INFORMATION: Attached for your approval is the 1992-93 fiscal year Budget Appropriation Ordinance. The total County budget is $164,155,719. This includes all interfund and intrafund transfers. The budget net of transfers is $119,212,624. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the second reading and adoption of the 1992-93 fiscal year Budget Appropriation Ordinance. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, Reta R. Busher ~ Elmer C. Hodge Director of Management and County Administrator Budget ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved Denied Received Referred ( ) To Motion by: Eddy Kohinke Johnson Minnix Nickens 1 k r ~ y AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF TH8 BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COIINTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COIINTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TIIESDAY, May 26, 1992 ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING FIINDS FOR THE 1992-93 FISCAL YEAR BIIDGET FOR ROANORE COIINTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, a public hearing was held on April 14, 1992, concerning the adoption of the annual budget for Roanoke County for fiscal year 1992-93; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, approved said budget on April 28, 1992, pursuant to the provisions of Section 13.02 of the Roanoke County Charter and Chapter 4 of Title 15.1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on May 12, 1992, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 26, 1992, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective funds for the period beginning July 1, 1992, and ending June 30, 1993, for the functions and purposes indicated: 2 e. r 2. That the County Administrator may authorize the transfer of any unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one classification of expenditure to another within the same department or agency. That the County Administrator may transfer up to $10,000 from the unencumbered balance of the appropriation of one department or agency to another department or agency, including the contingency account encompassed in the Non-Departmental appropriation. 3. That all funded outstanding encumbrances, both operating and capital, at June 30, 1992, are reappropr~ated to the 1992-93 fiscal year to the same department and account for which they are encumbered in the previous year. 4. That appropriations designated for capital projects will not lapse at the end of the fiscal year but shall remain appropriated until the completion of the project or until the Board of Supervisors, by appropriate action, changes or eliminates the appropriation. Upon completion of a capital project, staff is authorized to close out the project and transfer to_ the funding source any remaining balances. This section applies to appropriations for Capital Projects at June 30, 1992, and appropriations in the 1992-93 budget. 5. That all school fund appropriations remaining at the end of the 1991-92 fiscal year not lapse but shall be appropriated to the School Capital Improvements Fund in fiscal year 1992-93. 10 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1992 ORDINANCE 52692-13 AUTHORIZING THE RECONVEYANCE OF A 0.470 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE, MORE OR LE88, LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL PARR WHEREAS , pursuant to an Agreement dated August 4 , 19 8 6 , by and between D. J. Higginbotham, Harriet H. Higginbotham, David D. Higginbotham, Rita Higginbotham, Paul R. Higginbotham, Martha Higginbotham, Ronald Higginbotham, Ella Higginbotham, John Higginbotham, Shelly Higginbotham, Gerald J. Higginbotham, Doris Higginbotham, ("Higginbothams") and Corrugated Container Corpora- tion and the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County a 16.21 acre tract of real estate was conveyed to Roanoke County in order that the County could market this real estate as an industrial park (Southwest Industrial Park); and WHEREAS, said Agreement provided for termination of the Agreement and reconveyance of any unsold property back to the Higginbothams and Corrugated Container; and WHEREAS, the term of the Agreement has expired and one parcel of land, consisting of 0.470 acre, remains unsold; and WHEREAS, the Higginbothams and Corrugated Container have requested reconveyance of said parcel. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of § 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance 1 y was held on May 12, 1992; a second reading was held on May 26, 1992; and 2. That the conditions of the Agreement with the Higgin- bothams and Corrugated Container render the subject property unacceptable and unavailable for other public uses, and therefore, pursuant to the provisions of § 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject parcel of real estate is hereby declared to be surplus; and 3. That pursuant to the provisions of the above-referenced Agreement dated August 4, 1986, by and between the Higginbothams and Corrugated Container Corporation and the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, the reconveyance of the remaining 0.470 acre parcel of real estate identified as "New Tract III-B4 - 0.470 Acres" on a plat entitled "Survey of land for the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of New Tract III-2" dated June 19, 1989, of record in the Circuit Court Clerk's Office in Plat Book 11 at page 188, be, and hereby is approved; and 4. That this reconveyance is subject to the reservation of all recorded easements as shown of the above-referenced plat; 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 reconveyance of said property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy 2 NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. len, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney John D. Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment Timothy W. Gubala, Director, Economic Development 3 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: May 12, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE RECONVEYANCE OF A 0.470 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE, MORE OR LESS, LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL PARK COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' This is the first reading of the proposed ordinance to authorize reconveyance of the remaining property located in the Southwest Industrial Park to D. J. Higginbotham, Harriet H. Higginbotham, David D. Higginbotham, Rita Higginbotham, Paul R. Higginbotham, Martha Higginbotham, Ronald Higginbotham, Ella Higginbotham, John Higginbotham, Shelly Higginbotham, Gerald J. Higginbotham, Doris Higginbotham, ("Higginbothams") and Corrugated Container Corporation. BACKGROUND' On August 4, 1986, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County entered into an Agreement with the Higginbothams and Corrugated Container Corporation providing for conveyance of a 16.21 acre parcel of real estate to Roanoke County. Roanoke County agreed to undertake its best efforts to secure the approval, acceptance, and maintenance of an industrial access road to serve this property and to market the real estate as an industrial park (Southwest Industrial Park). The Agreement provided for reconveyance of any remaining property to the Higginbothams and Corrugated Container Corporation upon termination of the Agreement. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The term of the Agreement has expired and the Higginbothams and Corrugated Container Corporation have requested the reconvey- ance of the remaining 0.470 acre parcel. The reconveyance would be subject to the reservation of all recorded easements across the 1 property known as "New Tract III B-4" and shown on a plat of record in the Circuit Court Clerk's Office in Plat Book it at page 188. FISCAL IMPACTS• None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Adminis- trator to execute a deed for reconveyance of the remaining 0.470 acre parcel to the Higginbothams and Corrugated Container Corpora- tion. Respectfully submitted, ~.~ ~ ~Ce ~ Vickie L. Huffman Assistant County Attorney Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Vote No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Nickens Minnix 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1992 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE RECONVEYANCE OF A 0.470 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE, MORE OR LESS, LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL PARK WHEREAS, pursuant to an Agreement dated August 4, 1986, by and between D. J. Higginbotham, Harriet H. Higginbotham, David D. Higginbotham, Rita Higginbotham, Paul R. Higginbotham, Martha Higginbotham, Ronald Higginbotham, Ella Higginbotham, John Higginbotham, Shelly Higginbotham, Gerald J. Higginbotham, Doris Higginbotham, ("Higginbothams") and Corrugated Container Corpora- tion and the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County a 16.21 acre tract of real estate was conveyed to Roanoke County in order that the County could market this real estate as an industrial park (Southwest Industrial Park); and WHEREAS, said Agreement provided for termination of the Agreement and reconveyance of any unsold property back to the Higginbothams and Corrugated Container; and WHEREAS, the term of the Agreement has expired and one parcel of land, consisting of 0.470 acre, remains unsold; and WHEREAS, the Higginbothams and Corrugated Container have requested reconveyance of said parcel. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of § 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance 3 ~./ -.2.i was held on May 12, 1992; a second reading was held on May 26, 1992; and 2. That the conditions of the Agreement with the Higgin- bothams and Corrugated Container render the subject property unacceptable and unavailable for other public uses, and therefore, pursuant to the provisions of § 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject parcel of real estate is hereby declared to be surplus; and 3. That pursuant to the provisions of the above-referenced Agreement dated August 4, 1986, by and between the Higginbothams and Corrugated Container Corporation and the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, the reconveyance of the remaining 0.470 acre parcel of real estate identified as "New Tract III-B4 - 0.470 Acres" on a plat entitled "Survey of land for the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of New Tract III-2" dated June 19, 1989, of record in the Circuit Court Clerk's Office in Plat Book 11 at page 188, be, and hereby is approved; and 4. That this reconveyance is subject to the reservation of all recorded easements as shown of the above-referenced plat; 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 reconveyance of said property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. c:\wp51 \agenda\realest\swind. prk 4 f 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: May 26, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. Board of Zoning Appeals: Five-year term of Carlton Wright, Hollins Magisterial District will expire June 30, 1992. 2. Fifth Planning District Commission Three-year terms of Alfred C. Anderson, Elected Representative, and Mrs. Pat Dean, Citizen Representative and Executive Committee will expire June 30, 1992. 3. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Three-year terms of Vince Joyce, Cave Spring Magisterial District; Karen Pagdett, Hollins Magisterial District; and Thomas Robertson, Vinton Magisterial District will expire June 30, 1992. Unexpired three-year term of Fenton E. Harrison, Jr., Catawba Magisterial District. His term will expire June 30, 1994. 4. Roanoke Valley Regional Cable TV Committee Initial one-year term of Don Terp, Member at Large, will expire June 11, 1992. The subsequent term will be for three years. ~''~_` '~ Respectfully submitted, Mary H. Allen Clerk to the Board Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Motion by: Approved by, ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens VOTE No Yes Abs .:,~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1992 RESOLUTION 52692-14 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM L - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. that the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for May 26, 1992, designated as Item L - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 6, inclusive, as follows: 1. Acceptance of Sanitary Sewer Facilities Serving Double "C" Subdivision. 2. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Fifth Planning District Commission and Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors. 3. Request for Acceptance of the Extension of Edgebrook Road into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 4. Acceptance of portions of Cavalier Drive, Sulgrave Road, Trinity Court and Wimbledon Court into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 5. Acceptance of portions of Crossbow Circle, Chukar Drive, Archer Drive, Red Stag road and Elk Hill Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 6. Adoption of Resolution of Abandonment of Route 634, Hardy Road, in the Town of Vinton. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. s On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Cliff Craig, Director, Utility Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections ~. > ACTION # A-52692-14.a ITEM NUMBER L- y AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 26, 1992 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Sanitary Sewer Facilities Serving Double "C" Subdivision COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Developers of Double "C" Subdivision, have requested that Roanoke County accept the Deed conveying the sanitary sewer facilities serving the subdivision along with all necessary easements. The sewer facilities are installed, as shown on plans prepared by Jack G. Bess entitled Double "C" Properties Subdivision, dated March 19, 1991, which are on file in the County Engineering Department. The sanitary sewer facility construction meets the specifications and the plans approved by the County. FISCAL IMPACT' The value of the sanitary sewer construction is $12,000. RECOMMENDATION- Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the sanitary sewer facilities serving the Double "C" Subdivision along with all necessary easements, and authorize the County Administrator to execute a Deed for the transfer of these facilities. L- / SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: ~:-~1 Cliffor r ig, P.E. Elmer C. Hodge Utility Di ector County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred Kohinke x to Minnix x Nickens x cc: File Clifford Craig, Director, Utility Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections •-----~ L-/ ~ m E ; ~ 1 ~~~sY 92 t C Q~ DEED OF EASEMENT AND ASSIc;NMENT THIS DEED, DEED OF EASEMENT AND ASSIGNMENT, made this 3rd day of January 1992, by and between: _Double "C" Pr~pertieS Inc hereinafter referred to as the "Developer," party of the first part; the BOARD OF Sl1PERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, hereinafter referred to as the "Board," party of the second part; and ELMER C. HODGE, County Administrator of Roanoke County, VIRGINIA, party of the third part. W I T N E S S E T H: THAT FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual benefits to accrue, the Developer does hereby GRANT, CONVEY, ASSIGN AND TRANSFER, with the covenants of GENERAL WARRANTY OF TITLE, in fee simple unto the Board all water and/or sewer lines, valves, fittings, laterals, connections, storage facilities, sources of water supply, pumps, manholes and any and all other equipment and appurtenances thereunto, in and to the water and/or sewer systems in the streets, avenues and public utility, water and/or sewer easement areas that have been or may hereafter be installed by the Developer, along with the right. to perpetually ~.~se and occupy the easements in which the same may be located, all of which is more particularly shown and described and designated as follows, to wit: As shown on the plan entitled _Double "C" PrnnartiPS Suhdivisi~n dated March 19 1991 made by Jack G. Best and nn file in the Roanoke County Engineering Department. Page 1 of 3 ,~ ~' l The Developer does hereby covenant and warrant that it will be responsible for the proper installation and construction of the said water and/or sewer systems including repair of surface areas affected by settlement of utility trenches for a period of one (1) year after date of acceptance by the Board and will perform any necessary repairs at its cost, Elmer C, Hodge, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, party of the third part, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance of this conveyance pursuant to Resolution No. adapted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. WITNESS THE FOLLOWING signatures and seals: Developer: /E C /~ By. •~ ~QES: By: °c As: State of : ~ ~ ,(~ )~ ` County/city of: ~~ `~~ _, t0 Wlt; The foregoing deed wa. acknowledged before me this; By(`1~1~~ day f ~.~ 1.~~«: ~9 , ' ,~ S ~_____ ~ " Duly authorized of icer Title ~ ~- on beha 1 f of UC~~ ~~L C . ~~; ~, ~ c ~(~ 2,C.I >> ~~," Notary Pub 1 i c CtC~~C~'~ ~~ ~ ~) My Commission expires: ~~(,' ~~,~,~ ,~~;~ ~C'C t ~ ~/ Page 2 of 3 1 ,; .~ ~, L ~' Approved as to form: County Attorney State of: County/City of: County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia ~y Elmer C. Hodge to wit: The foregoing deed was acknowledged before me this: day of 19 by Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator, on behalf~of the Board~of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. Notary Public My Commission expires: Revised 10/16/90 Page 3 of 3 ,- 1Ni- ~~ ° ~ wars ~ C.I / •'~ ~ ` M M r ~ ' ' ` J~7 •~7 r ,4 a J''~ ~ /~/ . f t ~ •. "•A't'QN NULL ~ E ~~/ ~ I1gfAM ~/ }~/ dEtt~a+ c ~ ~, _ I ~CjNI / t ~~ ~` ~ t o • -~ -=~ ~r ~' NORTB ~/E~/ r--- ~v j ~ Lo7 1 Lei 2 :^ ~~ ~r~ ~a E~ 3R ~ ~~ ~ ~ iro•i-MST' _ _ .s•sta~ Twe - /:~ ss /wv avT. /tSl~ / 1 / 4~ ~`r~w ~ / / ? f f C, ~s~c! Hi~~ / G~~ 'mo Gfy w -4 vE,r~E • S~ ~ ~~t~ : ~ : 5p' I / V I ~ i v M ~ ^ I ti ~ r ~ W I 0 y 1 wry. •w ~w-wr f ~~ ToP• /Y7A7 ~ ABM M Iu-M 3 w N~ /./V a /If 1( KN. M'A. //?.~/ ~ t' / o `^ ~ / ~ r zz ~ ~ ~. / ? 3 24 ~ / ,? ~ Q ~3~tocK '~ . 3ec7ro,v 2 ¢ ~ 4` CA fT(C //ict D~~/EI.OP•rriN V • .w/-?7f7 I Ec~,/. /cb ~ AffLMiO -- - ~ o~on M.v Jep. ye, pq IREOEL L AVE.~/UE, 5 W /NV //J iwOM M M * Z • 9/ S9 avv ouJ 90 7r. / / i COMMUNITY SBRVIC1sS ACCEPTANCB OF SEWBR FACILITIBS SERVING ANDDBVBLOPMBNT DoUBLB "C" PROPERTIES 'INC. SUBDIVISION 77. J4 ACTION NO. A-52692-14.b ITEM NUMBER L --~. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 26, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Committee Appointments to Fifth Planning District Commission and Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Fifth Planning District Commission Supervisor Kohinke nominated himself to a three-year term as an elected representative. His term will expire June 30, 1995. Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors Supervisor Nickens nominated E. Cabell Brand to another two-year term as a joint appointee with the City of Salem. His term will expire May 5, 1994. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the above nominees be appointed. ./~ Mary H. Allen Clerk to the Board C~O~`~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ------------------------------------------------------ ACTION VOTE Approved (~ Motion by: Bob L. Johnson No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred ( ) Kohinke x To ( ) Minnix x Nickens x cc: File Fifth Planning District Commission File Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors File t ..-, AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, May 26, 1992 RESOLUTION 52692-14.C REQIIESTING ACCEPTANCE OF THE EXTENSION OF EDGEBROOR ROAD INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the proceedings herein, and upon the application of the Extension of Edgebrook Road from the intersection of Red Lane Extension (Route 705) to the existing Edgebrook Road terminus (Route 1150) for a distance of 0.60 miles to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a sixty (60) foot and variable right-of-way for said road have heretofore been dedicated by virtue of certain maps known as the Extension of Edgebrook Road Subdivision which maps were recorded in Plat Book 14, Page 27, and recorded in Plat Book 14, Page 26 of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on March 10, 1992, and that by reason of the recordation of said maps no report from a Board of Viewers, nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said drainage easements and a right-of-way for the street. 3. That said road known as the Extension of Edgebrook Road and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as a public road to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy, NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H.~Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections and copy for Virginia Department of Transportation r ITEM NUMBER ~" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 26, 1992 SUBJECT: Acceptance of the Extension of Edgebrook Road into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke College Investment Corporation, the developer of the Extension of Edgebrook Road, requests that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation requesting that they accept 0.60 mile of the Extension of Edgebrook Road. The staff has inspected this road along with representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation and finds the road is acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT: No county funding is required. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to VDOT requesting that they accept the Extension of Edgebrook Road into the Secondary Road System. ED BY: APPROVED: Arnold Covey, Director Elmer C. Hodge of Engineering & Inspec ions County Administrator ~-3 Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Ref erred to Motion by: ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens 1 s wwcu+~ Raac ~9"'~ GOI.f C6lIR3E EDGEBRppK Rt]AD Q~ ~ ~ ~~ SITE VICINITY MAP L- 3 NORTH ~~ ~ ~~ EX EN,-- HANGING R^CK GdLF C^URSE l~~ a 1 ~ i ' ,,1 , ,1 ~; •~ ~~ `~ ~ ~ P ~~ ~' L^CATI^N ^F , ~~ " ~ RIGHT ^F WAY ^F G~ ~ EDGEBR^^K R^AD PR^P^SED ADDITI^N Extension of Edgebrook Road from the intersection of Red Lane Extension to the Existing Edg ebrook Road CRt 705> LENGTHS 0,60 MILES RIGHT ^F WAY. 60 FEET R^ADWAY WIDTHz 37 FEET SURFACE WIDTH. z2 FEET SERVICE. 0 H^MES ROANOKE COUNTY ACCEPTANCE OF THE EXTENSION OF EDGEBROOK ROAD ENGINEERING & INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT SECONDARY SYSTEM 3 L.` AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, May 26, 1992 RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF THE EBTENSION OF EDGEBROOR ROAD INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the proceedings herein, and upon the application of the Extension of Edgebrook Road from the intersection of Red Lane Extension (Route 705) to the existing Edgebrook Road terminus (Route 1150) for a distance of 0.60 miles to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a sixty (60) foot and variable right-of-way for said road have heretofore been dedicated by virtue of certain maps known as the Extension of Edgebrook Road Subdivision which maps were recorded in Plat Book 14, Page 27, and recorded in Plat Book 14, Page 26 of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on March 10, 1992, and that by reason of the recordation of said maps no report from a Board of Viewers, nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said drainage easements and a right-of-way for the street. 4 ~-` 3. That said road known as the Extension of Edgebrook Road and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as a public road to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 5 ACTION NO. A-52692-14.d ITEM NUMBER .~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 26, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of 0.31 miles of Cavalier Drive, 0.06 miles of Sulgrave Road, 0.09 miles of Trinity Court and 0.08 miles of Wimbledon 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 May 1, 1992: Canterbury Park - Sections 6 & 8 1. 0.31 miles of Cavalier Drive (Route 1799) 2. 0.06 miles of Sulgrave Road (Route 2003) 3. 0.09 miles of Trinity Court (Route 2004) 4. 0.08 miles of Wimbledon Court (Route 2005) Respectfully submitted, m~~,~. Mary H. Allen Clerk Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Approved by, ~ r~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Motion by: grab r,_ ,Tnh»cnn VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy x Johnson x Kohinke x Minnix x Nickens x cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections ACTION NO. A-52692-14.e ITEM NUMBER L - ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 26, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of 0.58 miles of Crossbow Circle, 0.10 miles of Chukar Drive, 0.20 miles of Archer Drive, 0.14 miles of Red Stag Road and 0.06 miles of Elk Hill Drive 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 April 15, 1992: Hunting Hills - Section 4 1. 0.58 miles of Crossbow Circle (Route 1290) 2. 0.10 miles of Chukar Drive (Route 1291) 3. 0.20 miles of Archer Drive (Route 1292) 4. 0.14 miles of Red Stag Road (Route 1293) 5. 0.06 miles of Elk Hill Drive (Route 1294) Respectfully submitted, Approved by, Mary H. lien Elmer C. Hodge Clerk County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by: Rob r,_ ~7ohnGnn VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy x Johnson x Kohinke x Minnix x Nickens x cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections .. "` ' `~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1992 RESOLIITION 52692-14.f ABANDONING A PORTION OF STATE SECONDARY ROUTE 634 (HARDY ROAD) LOCATED IN THE TOWN OF VINTON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 33.1-155 OF THE STATE CODE WHEREAS, State Secondary 634 from the eastern corporate limits of the Town of Vinton to State Route 654, a distance of 2.25 miles, has been altered and a new road has been constructed and approved by the State Transportation Commissioner, which new road serves the same citizens as the road so altered; and WHEREAS, certain sections of this new road follow new locations, these being shown on the attached sketch titled "Changes in Secondary System Due to Relocation and Construction on Route 634, Project 0634-080-110,C501 dated at Richmond, Virginia, November 28, 1961." NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the sections of old location, i.e. Section 3 shown in blue on the aforementioned sketch, a total distance of 0.028 miles, be, and the same hereby is, abandoned as a public road pursuant to Section 33.1-155 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. And it is further resolved that the Clerk to the Board forward a certified copy of this resolution to the State Transportation Commissioner. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: 1 AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. lien, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections copy for Virginia Department of Transportation 2 •t r r y ~ vet`-'~ 1 tt~lR~~{..~ y '~}t4 i ti+ 1tw~,~ lr t y _~, ~f: I; t ap}. ,.e~ k~ t i•,. •~. . (t i.~ / i . t Zi. dv~' ~ c • tt'~~ d ~. _'J'•~ . y F.~ „a~;~. J tYr N l bt 'tr' r I .. h ya yr'~` 'l yp G5 / a ~ 1y ~, Y'',: °F,~: y .~Z 'i"t i < -.o')" -, t ~ \ 1 t u r . t . r ,e, r tt ~. i tit,; '.l,.r'S .:>•- r ~ 5 „a 1 ~' y - 1ti`~.( A#)"M.rz``r 4~f'4 J +~Y"~ t ty ~t rt { ~ '~ ~~r ~`~+rr ~ J=~ 1 r~.~,~~4~ ~.~i~~ ~ ~}r t~ ~. ~.~yi t~ ~~ Y+~- t ? ` tA"~~te #.r t~T r wry ~ ,..~ '~ '{~ yA ~ .. c.3+ 15 4 f ~ 71i a .a, et ~ tyl'rh ;~r• ~ N'n!' ` ~ ~~~, "~ w.n~ t w grt o • 5 r y: J ~, J r x 'f v ntr ~+ ~G> a. .),t ~. r~r c} ICj. ro ~, to tk`~. nS rd J~(r~~• ~ '{ t ~ ~ i~~ wr' ~.i ~ 5:t, ' '+~, yf ~YJ'j", c+`r~{ t ~,. ~ ttt ,~~R sx.~Tr s a ~ JQk t r y ' t f F ~ .-0f a,'p YY:i~tt t'~r ~ J• t ~;~' •d r a: i t '~ t 1 y' 1 11t r / s 5 1~ / ~ `r,,(ye i '4: ~~'• C ~~ ~ J C ' ', aA c + '~ ~ nti: ,~(.~i~ '174 t i { r~ ~ ' y rr f.p+ ,(R.r~ , `. "' t ~'r~~r'r > y ' AI ~ t a ~.,3i s vat xi +. + (~ '"r r, ~~M~i ~~ y ~ r r'~ '~'~ rvi'~~ z~~ t' xF xF~t~` ~ 4!` *71 v7 y V ~i. "~~ ~a. S 1 t ~ " r•1 ,. ~,. C'Iat+ 1;'7(' a. t ~ ; ~ ... " x {'~ t fi'~'+ r~i`1 r 4' J' C ~ r ~: ,.- Gr ~. ti, V~!{ ` -~ x ~4iiVt 4 h~ ~'1t.y ;ro t ~~ t ,t '1 :~~ A r ~ i 7x ~ h y .~i fr h~.rl`. ~.L}~ l~¢~ r ~ •a • ~-,.,.. ,. ~,_ ~ ~~ X i l__ c~ ~ ~ Y~ S f. ~? t' . y r~~ ~ ,~ t u•en J T • ~ [ ~x ,,~~,, r ~. - y 7' . i ~ ri'.' ,, ~ 1 t :l t Y' A i>f x .;'i ? ~ 1` ; . to 1 -r _, .e il~ ""_4 .ryf • \,~{ •~ ~ . ~~' ~ •ce bi~'"~"4 j-.A ,t. S' ', "4`" v • _ti,~ t• is ~v ) ~Je ~ 7i~ '< - h! i•+.~'' 1N~ , X t~ , '' f - s ..b ~ r Z :lt 71i~ ~•,'1. t { - ~., - ~ ~ .. 7 ` . 4 h a.r •h 11Fy 1 i J ur ._r. ,`` t k a ..r ~ . •r~t~ ~''~ • )may; In ~y + r Y^,~ ~I !~- p + r! . till:. ~~ ~: (.}/p~-~ !~ ~~? u~ ~ ~'~ x rf ~'ti _ J ~ -n +- U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ItJ ~~~~J~''i to ,~ *._:y N rx:S °~ f J `.. r -~ 1 _.. ` W 0 + 4 iq v~. f-.• _.f-~ 1 l ~ q '' r, 7-r 2. <xy 'j Q ZT „_ l a cc~~~7cc ~, CZ C~ ( ~ ~r.t'C , - i~ c ~ L J c r F e .,\' ~ ~ ~ r lh c{J'._~ a ~Q i;V '4t. 4. ~'r .ttt'. .. a L a t b } a+i f] JJ - ~ t r 1~~ :', ,~ t.; a 7- ~.t r,~` ` 1^I h 1-I . Y . ~ } tTj , ~ X11 `' ct r 7` 1 (' y ~ ~ L'~1x K~R~ r .t . . W y y a i n •i b ~~ . 'Y . ki r r r T J h~[v.. ~ ~ t Rt i i, x ;l ''~y f P j 0 „f -. i. r: _ ~ l t t, l II ~ ( ! a•~ ~ t ty1 * ( - ~- ..N t ~ ~ ~ ,~t j a ; a ' ~ t 1 ~ 1 f~. -. ~ {"~1A . t _ ~ !"' ~, i r t t y r t i~y>~ '`ti t iYc~~C.vMriy,° `~ ~ f""w ~ ~ t ( - w (} r , ~~~ , L 2.1~ ! ~. 1 t~ i ' h ~ ' v' 1'j ~ , . L - ~ 'i ~ r ~ , 4 ~. (4nJ(V\ i' i i ~. ; Y ty (. l ~ .A {. .1' '~~ fir„ >',X ~~',f •, l7'~ x r ( .~ 5 t !~ 1~ r ~ ~ C J i ,.; ' S , ~ rtl.ji yy ~1 ,a; f .x ' ~ ~ $r ' J. ~ :. ri I~J ~r ~ f y ~ ~ / -~. '~ Y 1~ a y { r{~(~~ *d}? ~ Y•jU9 ~~".~, lJ.y ~ y~i 'lt 't•~T ;~~.J~~<4` : . 4• Srt 1 r i r ~ 2r ~ ~ r' ` $~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ . r . • J: v n r Y i t +t ~ ti..'. - r7 q ~ A a - 1-F # { j . y '` • ~ ~ r °c 14 r ' < v ~t v • , t tr t i r r t v ~•) '• ~h t trtt }4 t?' ~ ~ l~ fir. , ' T' ~y c l' y n ' . ~.~r ~y~a ~ ;,a •r t :) , Z` ti .~ te ) ~r ~~~`~y ~~ i ~ ~ h ' ar. `~,r 4y 1 y~ ,} ~11 i~~yi il„rs;{-t fFti'• , ~ ~ ~~ q r t...~.~r~ _.~ , _.al F ~ p ni ~'S t ~1 , <..i: ~s.z....~.,,r..,... ,. s ~ ~ z Z •. v t ~ l,~,A ' .~., r, ~.G.w4c:e;'n ;6-. a.,.'~3'.7.t,~Iw...~,.a 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: May 26, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: RESOLUTION OF ABANDONMENT OF ROUTE 634, HARDY ROAD, IN THE TOWN OF VINTON COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUNIlKARY This resolution declares that certain sections of an old road, Secondary Route 634 (Hardy Road), be abandoned in accordance with the provisions of Section 33.1-155 of the State Code. SUNIIKARY OF INFORMATION: The Bush Valley Swim Club desires to sell a 1.415-acre tract of land located on Virginia Secondary Route 634 (Hardy Road) in the Town of Vinton. During the course of the title examination to this tract of land it was discovered that there remains a section of an old state secondary road after the reconstruction of the new road. The road construction project was completed in 1962 and the Town annexed this portion of the County in 1964. After discussing this issue with officials with the Department of Transportation and reviewing the provisions of the State Code, the Town Attorney suggests that the Board of Supervisors may want to consider the adoption of this proposed resolution in accordance with the provisions of Section 33.1-155 of the State Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached resolution. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~ ~~~.~ V~ti~~~ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney 1 ~. L - (c, Action Approved Denied Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Eddy Johnson Kohinke Nickens Minnix Vote No Yes Abs 2 f ~ L _ ~n AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1992 RESOLUTION ABANDONING A PORTION OF STATE SECONDARY ROUTE 634 (HARDY ROAD) LOCATED IN THE TOWN OF VINTON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 33.1-155 OF THE STATE CODE WHEREAS, State Secondary 634 from the eastern corporate limits of the Town of Vinton to State Route 654, a distance of 2.25 miles, has been altered and a new road has been constructed and approved by the State Transportation Commissioner, which new road serves the same citizens as the road so altered; and WHEREAS, certain sections of this new road follow new locations, these being shown on the attached sketch titled "Changes in Secondary System Due to Relocation and Construction on Route 634, Project 0634-080-110,C501 dated at Richmond, Virginia, November 28, 1961." NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the sections of old location, i.e. Section 3 shown in blue on the aforementioned sketch, a total distance of 0.028 miles, be, and the same hereby is, abandoned as a public road pursuant to Section 33.1-155 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. And it is further resolved that the Clerk to the Board forward a certified copy of this resolution to the State Transportation Commissioner. c:\wp5]\agenda\general\hardy.~d 3 Q' .~ ` COIINTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA GENERAL FIIND IINAPPROPRIATED BALANCE Audited Balance at July 1, 1991 January 28, 1992 Mid-year budget review April 28, 1992 Flood damages May 12, 1992 Renovation of RCAC lower floor Balance as of May 26, 1992 Amount $5,060,731 (771,314) (200,000) (47,500) $4,041,917 ~ of General ~ 1> Fund Expenditures 7.23$ 5.77$ 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). G/- .~ COIINTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA CAPITAL FIIND IINAPPROPRIATED 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 November 19, 1991 County Share of Traffic Light at Northside High School and Peters Creek Road (12,500) December 17, 1991 Roanoke County Career Center Ball Field Lights - Emergency Repairs (10,000) December 17, 1991 Green Hill Park Playground Equipment (10,000) Balance as of May 26, 1992 $ 8,511 Submitted by ~1.~me~ ~ • ~~~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance D :3 COIINTY 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) November 19, 1991 Transitional Living Center (10,000) December 17, 1991 Vinyard Park Addition - Environmental Assessment (10,000) February 11, 1992 Legal Fees - Grumman Emergency Products (1,152) February 28, 1992 Stop-Smoking Programs (1,500) March 10, 1992 Contribution for Hazardous Household Waste Disposal Day (3,300) March 24, 1992 Legal Fees - Grumman Emergency Products (1,438) Balance as of May 26, 1992 S 11,610 Submitted by Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance ACTION # ITEM NUMBER '~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 26, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid - April 1992 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Payments to Vendors: $2,564,331.22 Payroll: 4/10/92 $ 451,603.83 4/24/92 440,091.16 $ 891,694.99 $3,456,026.21 A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. SUBMITTED BY: Y~J (..Q~v Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance APPROVED: ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Motion by: Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Kohinke Referred ( ) Johnson To Minnix Nickens N ~. r- KU o o ~ o lit 0 0 W W tJ H ¢ ¢ 4. Q ,~ v c (tt v ~+ > \ rovo ~+ K M ~ \ .~ er t7+ ro o .La ~ r W > U E- ¢¢ 0 wv .~ G l1 Oro O C ro •O (11, O d ¢ Q' Y ro I 4- E o•~x Y F- ~ (n Z a~ W O C S ~ w O O J U ¢ ~.YU C to d ,-+ E W v i Y O I ro i ~ M ut s p A M [= O a d !Y .p G 7 lL ro L d C v 0 O Z CL N a 7 C t1- N O v ro c I-- m r ro b N .N. ro v L C O F- } I T .L C O 1 ~ I ~ I I 1 100 ~O N OO R o'S O) 7 0 l11 111 l11 N -- If I i ~ I ic~lnNV V o.-of~----Ujoul .t i I V•.-o hO000DO~ONF--cOh-ai i ~ ~ j ~ ' I 1 i I I I 1 ~ Y.-.-vw ot~•oOUlo •-Nr-Mft I V' V' r~ 'U G~ t7 .- N Ih -- l11 fN N G~ r 1 'IOM41 ~-~-Ifl '7 ~-h U1 G+NN~OK I F~ 07 M.ON~~1'NOJOa"~ I N F hilt i o N V I I i O o I I .0 0o ui 7 ~ N .o ~~ -- m o7 0+ N R ~ I ~NO?-~UIMG1.000 V MaONaD~Ot~ I 1~•Mr-MOMV,l111~07 V'N~toA '~ I N~ 4~ M OD V"~t ~ o V' Iit h N M N I CFO] W V'lf1M~oO+oo+NMt~lfld I i~G+q'N NM7 NN i~-M i 1 ', I !O~~ MNN -- I i I ~ ~ I I V l11 ~-OhU1FNrrN~ I N Vl1 i I oM vM V'~tm..l11N ~ vatic I I.O.- ~No.-o+NOO ~c~oa i I I Utz vauo~ rt71M ~N~K I lilN OMM00CM i No I I M M M -- 1 1 I i I vooool(110 oooooc I I F o 0 0 0 0~ O o 0 0 0 0 0 C I i.-ooooo.-oUtoooooc 1 ~• n I ~MOalitoamoopoUloUloc i I tolitNG~d000D•ttF~ V'.-oU ~ ; V'I~gM +O~ V MMNN00 I INN ~ d'NN ~ ~- ', 1 M L l0 d ~a a m o L ¢ tt. N .+ 6 d •.+ •~+ C N d 3 N N ti 0 v W d d ~I x .b x N x t: v ro x v ro v ro 0 N F ro x N C F- O f- (~ v F- ro c o 0 N Tt~J v0 T~ U ++Fl O W W V i+ ~ W •.+ ro O U x L~ C 7 N J V a v ro d .. ~~ ., C L 10 L t- d W ~+ d N O C ~•+ ro O •* W J I a+ U Al .. U y N 0. N L m u m f. a r 0_ L N G @ J tr ~+ O L 4 ro N W •+ N t J E d y r .• (fj ••• ~C L 111 N N C~ q N N Y ~+ N N> O W I W C W •~ C E N Jr o•.~.•v.,ocuLtn• .,m ro L J] C T U G In ip ~+ x •~ ~+ x l v v~ v ro o o~ ti ro «~ o ro r trddaO.JII V WLLI E•-7x1-C o.-~M7d~NI!I V Lit~NeOo -NNN.NNNNN(Ud 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 o c I •-= N ~•-..ice-~ m-m-o ~~ n-;: m '__^.. 1 1 F i I I I I I I .-oo:wV•o.-oNo~N V mo.-I~Noov IfllrlL'l t~-oOoNo.••~.oMC~mI~MOFOpooM 1`-N~•-~~0~ ~N ft NI`~I~~sTMI~ r0 I UI UI ~OMIft o N o~LF W aONao oJ~o h N oapN O ~ i I II I I II 1 f 1', i t~ Uto~MFinad.0o0+ 1111; NMh1o+.-4y <to N NNO+M (1107 t~~ti1 O]Na0~7~f Lf1 ~D lllfi ~- --U1oO~.•; V•M V! oV NV'oNa+oq .o .- ~ 4 X11-'DN V'Oltt ~MO+~~O~O ~t J~ hJ 4~ .- V', M M N~ r• K M U1 07 7 M N V' ~ N (U i 7 M r- LP NI N i N i M '~ ~M1.O+ap.ooo ~ I ~--~Moo7Utco N M NNC~MtnW Nv V .-otn0707NQM~ v N •-.,-M W o+.-c~M f•- c~ovUlNo.-MO c M ,MOON~N ~notu MNO"~UOaM~llt ~ M NM~J~f ~ oN111 G~~01-W ~»MCbOpN o V• N~ N l11 r-'-NtU~ON~ ~ c~ V, c+ i { hJ ~ 7 M I ~ I i II 1 ~ ~. lTi c+MODD V O V•C07N N hJ 111 -•.~. N ~ootlt~or-o+NO7N~0-- NooM N mo1-NF 1111~o.0U17o ~OC~mu I ~ l ~MC+O~.ali1 oN111M7~ N N~m~ ~ N ~•• N N~ N M V; N m .- N i V' ~ ~ M 00 loo 0 0 oMNO I oc~t-o0vl~ U1 00000 0 0 oovoMl-m~b~U1-- N o1~Moo lit N o ~I~oh1NOV'~O~~h}• N ~G+MlillilU~ N M OOC)FO~~OOfitilii~OM t11 N o N r- ~- M o+ N N I!i N V• ~ N R N NMMoor• O+U1N N M N ~- V h ~ o0 O O lT J a r ~ E ro V C T N v U ••+ ro d d .+ i ¢ O C U ro N N O •.+ (n d ~+ N N d N N N > U ro U m tL m L o ro~ v v L¢ o v v o L~uLV Lno vo lL ~ W •~ N .-~ O d .-. d O W~ J] L C N .-~ ro N l~l m lT Q .r V F+ w ~ dI !+ ro d •.+ ro •w C Z O ~•+ L N L E d Ul N V N U U ~. E •~+ O L •~+ 7 Jr 0 0 •D 7 0 •~+ G O b O U W i r 7 O V <L L L v p V L iL N v~ L C C Ol U w Q O L N O ll -+ d 4- ro J '. U U 4- d. C N L ~f" W 4: lil r N N •~ L F- C Ui O Q ro N UI N fn ~ L r d (A U U_ 4 O r+ro.: w ~dvl vrovL v w F- ro ..• Y o to c q~LTa~ >cJ v ro L v L N E V L1 N L v N W !: L E U O I L 0. W d U N~ .. C L d d O c> ro ro •.+ N U C ro ~+ L L O L ro C ro N N .r J= ... W J: L W •:~ N O L Ci v a. L ~•+ L ~QJ LL.Vd.,LLO:(~Vtr i WZVj30b0.0 ~o~~~I`•W moNOO.-.OO.-7Mw-NM IMMMMMMM V• V'et ll~tti In ~0 V' W M1OO+G+O+ ' O O O O O Q O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ .. i-.. -.. _...._..._-__-_.~._._._.._.. ....___._ ..__, _. 1 1 l 1 1 1 0 ! 1 .:5 N 7 O! N nJ N M M N M M 7 G+ M N (V ; a . ! ~ ' ('J II ~ ! M In O I 1- N m I, 7~ J F- 0 O z U' { 1 N L, t~J o .- o ~ o to 0 0 W W ~~ a¢ an N 0 ro I i a d ~. o. N a c~ ~ 0 V M m C ~ ~~roff 0 ~ N W L.' GI H ~ ~.. U Q I 7 C CI ro LLL_ C! .D O i E O O (n I f ro C I O W I a I , I u! ul r ~ N Z ~ ~ O i ~ T 7 ~ I ~ Y ~ ~ C ~ J ~ 7 ~ d O G U U d In ~ a ., x lL W ' o ~ ~ ~ ,' j N i .D ? i ~+ ~ C j 3 O I V LL. i L ~-+ U ro ! U) L i y ! ~ ~ I C {{f t i C9 f i O 1 I ~ ~ x i I o Y ~ C) O I Z I d = t i I ~' ~. ~ ,~ ~ ~V r I C i W ~ M ~ ff N ~ l ~ ~ J] d d E I r•+ 1 av { . O ao . ocl { ooa+. o iw t a 6v' wry{ ~ d7. d 1 o0otl ~t M.• Lf1 G+C III~R' 111rt~~ MG+Ilt aOo x u OII t~N m ~od Ln rW CJC+ao ~N moaN hoo W lI ~ 1 m ~ ~ N I dl 1 ual N U I .~ C 1 6 ro 1 O .. 1 u ro 1 F m I d I Q I m d 1 L I ~ E I V ] 1 •.. u o 1 U C f- I C W r I d ~ 1 aw I x I W I U N C U I •.} C I v ro I c L I ro J] I ~+ E I N 7 I •+ U I 7 C I O W I I N d 1 C. I T 7 I r+ v I J; •~ I r V I C C I O d I ~ a I x 1 i W 1 1 Y 1 N I i tT I V I 7 I m 1 I I ' I I o I ::~ I ~oU1 i ffG'IN N, UIU1o.-~~o U7 0+ a0Ulo0~N oc~.- o0V'N W f~r,tClvMO cy M~MMtfIFN ci N I~ ~ I`•1 N L() a0 od ff o o! o N Nat] l!I ,n Gi M Gti T ~ 1 NUIO Vt G+~N o7 oapt~4)tfio a Mv~'Ulr-t~+~v V ~N •J Ltl v~ N -oMNNo v(1INOD lfl tllN 1 N N M -- V: M N ~••I ~ M II ~ i Cf-•jo al? V•of~ a0 •1'--~.--i rJ m aDMC'cf~ .acv M In o;o to MUiN~-, -± G~LLYff ff~lllr- ', ~-ffl o ~ OJOjOJ lfl Mot~ff N 00 MLh•-o111--N N .O ff' ff N N V' ~O ~ .- Ul ~= o N O ~' ~ Oj ff .- tn~ff of tnoo ff ff-;NOOVj .•{ o'i 'c~oor»aoN ff N N M M c+ N o .O LL1 ff ~ LL) ff ~ ff N ~ ~ c, ~ .- N h a0 ~ LA a0 r'~ h - Ul ~ <Y, c~ o ~ U1 N G~OjM N LA M m NNr-MtYa ff Ln V'MMo ODff~ ~ N O] --Lflc+ N f'1N~M~ ni ti ri ai to In -- ~ •r' tf, .- ~ ~ ff a; i i N ~ N N I I i I I I ~ i oo+N .nr~ m N o'SOffM.a M NvtiMNo.o.n Ntt)Ul V' o.rN a --hff Ula CI N0.7f-o~NC~M MGM M NO+J 00 ~ffNff OJ '- o~MO7l11ffOJll1 } ? . ~ i ~, .- `n O ap O r- N~ ~- v M .O N N ao .- d .O N ~~•- M ffN w MOJN i h Mw i ~~ I I ~ j ~ I^ ~ I I I ~ ~ ao0.a o coo C ffoNMMO N ~UIf~~MNo I~U)U) G~ MffM o -•LAf~Mffo M~7oDr-NNo NV N ~ aONo .= Nm~UtNo ~M~G~U)l!)N c+~N o0 fflAlf) W N~o+M.ao .aUImMOJNu O+MN o .-Ul h llt CU In .-.alo N NP~r•NMMff 00 r-1~ o V IrNM--N ~- ~ ot~•ON~ ^~~ Ui UINN r N~ •+ r I UI E V ro t7 C d E C µ a~ ~ o u o ~ v N ~j U •.+ U O a.. > I ~ c ro ~ u t_ c c~ ..i •^. G+ M N O E u E 4- N V W v •~ r~ v- c ro v- c. ro o of ~ In 0. d W (' •~ C d N G O ~ C F- v ••. ,~ Q ~ C ~ V.. ~ •.•a ..+ .b (~ .b d r0 ~ r •~ U) E ~ N ror_ ~ m •.. c om.~ .~ ¢~ro~ xu c ro 4 UI U d N m CJ ••+ O d d •.~ E~ ~H C L: .r O H O ~> arm c .~ c v a w o+: a ~~ aa, ac. >~ a Y ~ u ul c• c o rna u c E m •-~ ~ t9 rtl ••, '7 L d O V O Cy. V .a •.. C •.. O (fi a+ ro ~ d3 ~ Od'•.+ UU~ I CJC N LU ro -r L o 3 o w I r 7 ~ O d N C dl ' .•~ '+ ro 0 ~ N C E o C ~7 U L .•~ O O Y H 07 N CI GI ro N L V a b •-~ CV W N ~•+ A '+ M ul W IA a• C pl L. ~ d~ U d L E r o QI L N ELL. o ., W 7 C •.~ ro W U C d I 7 E U 3 K. [- C ~•! N LG 0. •.+ T L C '. d A+ ~ O 0 ••+ ro •»~ O O C N UI a~1 d ro C ro a, ~~ JC9 W Ut~> JILUUQG~ ¢NIKSWUU 000 oglfl oOOOUjN o1~oLf10Uf1o ~--NM ~-NN -NMffffl~ --~-NNMMff NNN MMMMMM V 7ff ff~1•ff ff 0 0 0 0 0 0 I O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I ~ ~ ~ __ ! i I n v :: I~ r: - m m o- '•I n' a i n o ~ _. ~~ ,~ ~ r _~~ - ~ o-~ - ~ I i ~~ I -•; .a oD f r~or-. [U N4~t 7JON~ I .a N u' t N N N ~- t N t`r-oc N M N m ` ~+ M V1 moc+t M ff U)G~L •- of •- .- ~ N Gti M ff ~ N00Nt U M lfl c ff ~-• M O ff N In N N ff M N moo t ' to G~ F ff c ~, !D i hl ff < M i ~ ff c ff I N o M ~ t hC~~C 7 ~ ff N L G+ N U1 M t N M N N t to M c+ c N v N 0. Y ~ L. O 0 3 NI ., U r I •~ L L C ~ ~"~ V' V G1 I n ..v•. 7 N ro C l d d d d < S 2 ++ O ~ O ~ ~ I ff ro~ L~~ o ++ .., d . c n aJ a ~ ~ . EdfAC o11)oL CU N M h LCI Lfi ll~ L O O O G ~,__',~ v v v v_r m ~ ~o Nt`I I o ff h 1 G ~ ;j o W ~ `O M C N J l1) N 7 ff ff Oj 7ffU~o0 7o~c~ a ~~FCi 7.-.Nh I i I I I I 1 r- i M I ~ I N iI I I I - ff N ff Jff c+aG j 1 o N c+ 1 U~ W ~ I )~-No ~ M -= C O .M ro I~ .~ d C u c G 1 ro ! ~ 4U" °' .r w t;1 A ro •.+ c c > i ~ O OJ Cr ~ > d j r ro w 7 S ~ I M .~ .C N i V V •.M N 7 I~1 ) c o 0 r, y- tfi )oLf)O 1 ff ff Lh ~ L(i li7 UI 1 o O O C~ O - rl h I.l 9.. ~. '_1 __. t ~ ~ N N N o .- o ',. o Ul • 0 0 W W U h Q Q an I ~ C i0 i .~ ~ro ~ ~~ la to L D. N a a+ ¢ ~ 0 ~ M ro C \ roq C o U N W ~' d !- • U Q C p L U_ N ~ O E O 7 V) C U Q ro C O W I i ^ 2 4= N F- O W Z L O 7 L F~ i+ C •~ J 7 V C O C U U m cn ~ °•'" x W i W O w O 7 .Oi O aV U N N >: A O L 0 a v O: °,~ N •, ~ `I ~A C 7 11 m L d c a o p z w t ~ m Ir ri 1 ~ I ~ I N 1 7 \ d I J O I V I J 7 I OU I b ~ I I I 1 f-~ al I U 1 C I m 1 .-a 1 m I q m 1 a 1 G 1 n L I I 1 I ~ ~ I 7 Q F- I W ~- 1 ~ I I 1 ~d 1 K i J I U W C.i U I •fq C I ram I L I m d I +U~1 E 1 ~-1 U I C I O W 1 N d I L I T 7 I fi V I 1 r U I a m s a I ~ x I W V I N 1 O+ 1 ~ I 7 1 ~ I I m m.I t `- O N- ,; n d 3 c u c r~ ID~ o CD C q o o F~ N F ~o G~ F U) o f o 0 0 0 0 o O q F Uf o r•o00 oNo Opwa gdo ooo o0o Fq r- N Mo goF Fom N~oO -w N ~~ - Fo) Foap FUf CO golfl i Nq to W ~ i i i M q to q _I q F a0 ~O ~O N ~ 0.) FqN `~ q ~Ol71MOOtn~ r- N G~ N O+ G~ M M! -- Tl lD ~ 00 000 ~ M Nmf~oMl11~ 07 Fq~M q O~gM1FN F M N u N uc~UlM M ~DMNV'MO o N-•gtn q q07~~-~N' N lllFVf M N UIaO oFo N N00~lG Gr ul Nq Nv' OU F M ~~ 0.l q In F UI q G~ o L~ ~ M ~ F r- N '- U"i: F O 111 O Ul *- qi U'i M N m q I`lJ q Q+ M 'V G1 F of F ^ C i .O NI M f uo!N d l11 Ul~~lllq W ^ ~ ^ ~ U1~ N o F M O+~ M U) ap 0 0) o N -a Ut N v o M IYJ o .- o r•~ c+ oJf,FU1o~ 07 gOOINoOD, M oD 00 Pfl L19 '- to o W F N o! o No~~nO~d c+ U1gOr+NoM ~O oo.-q(~ m oNMNF•- F q QI r- F q ~- I o N ~- ro •~ ~ E C U E r 7 m m c x rn w L a I L U E L O C O d O O L r O r Qr •~ O_ C ••+ m •.+ r ro m L > m C C L.~ > r L W O O W N N L ••+ •f+ p C C N [~ U `N 3 r o •.+ N a rn c 6 a ro ~. r y r •~ -+ O> L ••+ ro ¢ C x W O J C a ~• m ow ~ aqO~ 7 L O C .a N ~ N U) E U U O L d a+ C 6611 E d •.•f m w> CI C m O Q: r r d •.+ y L U C 7 Ot r ~ E I- w a m J] o C m tl o f-~ r •f+• o .. L o U o In m m L F c m q.. ~ a ao -Y r o C G, [ a~ N o L N C f-1 ~ O d> J] UI ro •'1 N O S O U d 7 O_~QUU dV W pn. 21 00000 IP OIl~000 ~f'1gU5 .O ~N(1JMg117 Fr~FFr maoaoaowoo! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a ! O Oi O ~ N fl •1 n ,0 f- D (0 O - .f1.__tt l N N N N N N N N N N n fl n C/ (~ ~ ~ '~ I 1 I 1 I gNO~oOOLOstF N Uf q of q o G0 q .- o q o~ oio c o o ts o~ ~~,NMOat UI M.q r-Ni r- !,lnMOdq MF~-• o ',, M N G+ N U~ o F o F [G o .- o a0' o to q o of o q ~ U1 N: tt O~ N U7 --! ~ N N! U) 0)' ~ UI O ^~ N N I M o m U) a0 0'; U) u Op --i W N Y j F^ I!1 i (U M .- i I N 0000 GJ q Jf q 'O O!qo q~ F g0O'~O o oM 00 . ti . N M o~ q o q ~ N qwo', goo MF M '. N M~~ N ~ V, ''. li o. ~ I m u c •'q' O .Q .~ ^ N r ml N m ~ QI Y E ~ U C E C C d 1 0 0 0 N m E >~ U r 01 U ~•+ +• N .-i C d. C m~ L r L •+ •.+ m po ro ~~+ U~ L 3 rl ~ Q am~ar mwi•i o C 7 lV L •'• r U i a o y •.+ v T m c m ww¢ a ro u• ~ o C a L W C L Z o ala o ma ~ ad a r+ U ~SI •~ 7 Q r 0. 0i o E •••~ N W N AI O C W Sh-{~tr~UOr-I oU'tol/lo oNlll --NMMgV'llltnU7 mc~~mm~imc+oy 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a __ _' ' ,n n r O G~ O - N f1 V ~__ IM n v o v ,v v _ '1 •.7 :7 ~ o .n .u~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N F ~ F ~ N N -- ~ ~ o UY lli ~O GP I I , to o'i o) M Nl a0. Wi ~ ~ ~ M~ ~ q ~ U1 OD ~ Ifi ~ ~ a o! ~ q ~ FI I N j , F F i I ~ ~ _ j i u ~ (j F i i I q ~d ~ i ~7 lT~ N. F' i Q+ C t qi ~ ~-I q M M ._ ~ q; M Ul Ul N ~ In I N o oD o) ~ O) o ~ F ~ ~ I~ ~ In In (tI N 0o c~ N N t I q ~Sl U In 0.) aU I ~ I 0 r ~ I O J 7 N O L a ~ 4- L UI d C ~ m N ~ ,' L C ~ I- m L U F C J 7 0 w ~ ~ m o+ o i L O F Y C O l-f Z Q N lr ~ ~ I c+ a I i w, v coo , v ' + i ri m r. ~ % ~ 7 ,~ ;B ~- ~ F,: COUNTY OF ROANOKE, ti z ~o /~~ VIRGINIA r~ ~L ~ oANO~ , A a 1838 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS FOR A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ISSUE FY 1992-93 ~i / TABLE OF CONTENTB Page Letter of Transmittal 1 Summary of Proposed Bond Projects 4 1985 Bond Referendum Brochure 5 Proposed Bond Calendar 7 Summary Schedule of Future Debt Requirements - County and Schools 8 Proposed Bond Projects: North County Library 9 Dixie Caverns Landfill Closeout 11 Drainage 12 Parks and Recreation 15 Roads 18 Valley TechPark 21 Fire Hydrants 23 School Projects 25 0~ ROANp~,~ ~. Z 9 a2 1838 P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 DATE: May 22, 1992 MEMORANDUM TO: Roanoke County Board of Supervisors FROM: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator RE: Proposed Bond Referendum ~' - 1 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR.. VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL'FUZZY" MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 During the past two months, the Board of Supervisors, the School Board, and the County and School staff have met several times to discuss the capital needs of Roanoke County. The Board has also met with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission and the Library Board to discuss needs in those areas. The information which is attached contains the projects which are being recommended, as a result of those meetings, for inclusion in a proposed bond referendum in November. It is important that the County continue to meet its capital needs on an orderly basis. Periodic bond issues, which fall within our ability to pay and our debt structure, are a method of addressing these needs. One of the purposes of the CIP which the Board adopted in July, 1991 is to prioritize the upcoming capital needs so that they can be addressed; most of the projects currently being considered for the November referendum are in the CIP. It has been seven years since the last general obligation bond referendum in 1985. At this work session, we need to finalize the projects and their related cost so that we can meet the schedule which will allow this to be on the ballot in November. I would really like to have some discussion on the projects to be included, so that they can be incorporated in the Board Report that will be on the Agenda for the June 9 meeting. That Board Report will authorize placing the bond referendum on the November ballot and will establish a budget for promotion of the referendum. ® Recyded Paper ~_ 1 The projects included in the proposed bond referendum are as follows: North County Library -for several years, the current Hollins Branch of the Library System has suffered from a variety of structural problems. It is also our busiest branch and the building is not large enough for the population which it serves. The land on which it is built is too small for expansion and the parking is inadequate. The Library Board has identified this as its top priority to maintain the County Library System at its current standard of excellence. Cost: $1.5 million. Drainage/flood control -this is an issue of vital importance to the future of the County and to the residents who must constantly deal with flood water after periods of heavy rain. A portion of the amount requested for this project, $300,000, would be allocated to funding the study suggested by the Fifth Planning District Commission, and the remainder would be used to address particular problem areas, approved by the Board. Cost: $1 million. Close-out of Dixie Caverns Landfill -the old landfill will have to be closed-out within the next few years, and the County needs to decide what will be the best method of paying for this. We can choose to pay for it out of the General Fund, or we can choose to include it in this bond referendum. By including it in the bond referendum, we can pay over time, thus freeing up our resources to construct new facilities at the same time. Cost: $3 million. Roads -the Virginia Department of Transportation provides matching funds for improvements to the roads in Roanoke County. The bond issue would pay for our share of the cost of those improvements, and help address one of the most pressing needs identified by our citizens. Cost: $500,000 (with matching funds will provide $1 million in improvements.) Parks -park facilities are very important to the people of Roanoke County, and particularly to our children. We need to continue to build new facilities, and to maintain and improve those that we already have. There is a $12 million master plan for park improvements in the County, and this will be the first step in implementing this plan. Cost: $1 million. Valley TechPark -economic development provides for the future of Roanoke County. The funds put into this project will be returned by tax dollars from industries which locate in the park. Cost: $1 million Fire Hydrants -hydrants are important to fire protection for our citizens, and this will help to spread that protection to more neighborhoods. The 1985 bond issue also contained funds for hydrants, and this will continue our ongoing effort to protect our citizens. Cost: $183,000. 2 Cave Spring High School Land - it is important that the County plan for the future needs of our school system. Large tracts of land in southwest County are becoming not only increasingly expensive, but also increasingly rare. If we purchase the necessary acreage at this point, we can hold it in reserve, and use it as a park facility until the new high school is built. Cost: $1.0 million School Projects -the School Board has approved a variety of projects which help to maintain the excellence of our school system. A complete list is included in the attached material. Cost: $7,124,000. We could easily spend more money on some of these projects but we have stayed within our existing revenue structure. If the Board wishes to change the allocation of funds to the projects. I would recommend more funding for parks and possibly drainage. The choice of road, drainage, and park projects have been done objectively based on need and benefit. Some districts may therefore receive less than others but it is imperative that we all support the bond issue for it to succeed. We have had excellent coordination with the School Board and everyone involved. This promises to be a well received bond issue. I ask again that you approve the projects to be included in the referendum so that we can finalize this matter at the June 9 meeting. 3 COUNTY OF ROANOKE SUMMARY OF PROPOSED BOND PROJECTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ COUNTY PROJECTS: NORTH COUNTY LIBRARY DIXIE CAVERNS LANDFILL CLOSEOUT DRAINAGE/FLOOD CONTROL PARKS AND RECREATION ROADS VALLEY TECHPARK FIRE HYDRANTS CAVE SPRING HIGH SCHOOL PROPERTY BOND ISSUANCE COSTS TOTAL COUNTY PROJECTS SCHOOLS PROJECTS: MASON'S COVE ELEMENTARY-CLASSROOM ADDITION AND RENOVATIONS (INCLUDING $30,000 ARCH/ENG COSTS) BACK CREEK ELEMENTARY-CLASSROOM ADDITION (INCLUDING $36,000 ARCH/ENG COSTS) CAVE SPRING ELEMENTARY-LIBRARY ADDITION AND RENOVATIONS (INCLUDING $48,000 ARCH/ENG COSTS) ELEMENTARY SCHOOL RENOVATIONS: GLENVAR HERMAN L. HORN MOUNTAIN VIEW OAK GROVE BURLINGTON MOUNT PLEASANT CLEARBROOK ROLAND E. COOK GLENVAR HIGH SCHOOL-MIDDLE SCHOOL ADDITION (INCLUDING $150,000 ARCH/ENG COSTS) NORTHSIDE HIGH SCHOOL-ARCWENG COSTS WILLIAM BYRD HIGH SCHOOL-ARCH/ENG COSTS CAVE SPRING HIGH SCHOOL-ARCH/ENG COSTS BOND ISSUANCE COSTS TOTAL SCHOOL PROJECTS TOTAL PROPOSED BOND ISSUE BOND AMOUNT $1,500,000 3,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 500,000 1,000,000 183,000 1,000,000 100,000 9,283,000 530,000 636,000 848,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300.000 300,000 300,000 100,000 100,000 -------------- 2,000.000 2,650,000 90,000 120,000 150,000 100,000 -------------- 7,124,000 -------------- $16,407,000 4 CO C C O .~ U OJ i L a O QJ QJ ti ..~ .~ U v O ti L Q~ L11 .-_ L Cv C O ~cc~ ~~ ~ L=u.Sc v olio=o~v..°_: _ O v C .~ 3 7 ti E O Oa ~ Q1~ ti L O v c = C v T QJ ~ ~ '`~' l.J ° v v~ a- ti c-c ~ o Y > ° ~ ~ c ~ ,~ ti ~aa~LE~'` v ~: ° ~ n'o ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ Q +~ ~ `~~.. ~~ N Tt d.J V ~ ~O v ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ v ~ O C~C L C Q .~ ~ U ~ .n v Q 4v ~G ~ O ~ ~ O O Q~ C O .~ V .~ O U C u .O Q1 C `v ~n W ~- E ~ rc o v v >, ~~ o O ~ F~ ~c o C m>? c o o v ~, > O ° ° c ° ~ c ti = 0 C= oaia;ofa_m.a ~r._ G .c - ~ aL ° c L ~ ° o- v a~~aQ1oa>No,c (1 CO w ~ ''- C C ~ ~ L ~ Ct' [ ° C ti '~ ~ C ~ G~ N ~+ L ~~ v CO ti~ v v v0 o ~ ~ _ °J ~ c ~ ~ > o, ~ E ~.c o ?~ ~ o_aa,~oN- ~~,v o Qi c C C C C `^ ~ L E~~~ c ti v c c t% ~ 3~ c ~; U a a ~ a L O >~ . ~ ~n ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ v N c ~ ~ > ~ 3~vo°1~cEE~a~ o~ ~vtia~,~G = a~ia,~~v~°-c ° Z`Eov- Eti ~ ~, o a~_ o E ~.E ~ o o-c ~ ~; ~U ~' my ~ v ~ > ,~uvv~~ooEao 0 ~- C C y ~ L~ O 7 ~ v ,cam o ti '-' L o' t v .L v` O. O~~ v u~ v ~ C v o vc~Ecv aE O ti ti v ~' ~v C d~~ ~ Q C a` ~ °a C O ~v ov ~~ o= ~o y c ~ ~ ` `^ ` `~ °' u v o Lea v v v o rcp > ~n Q~ v v ti ~ = C °-~ N ~ ti ~ ~ ti ma c v. v E Q~ u u~ v L~ C C> v~ v o ti o ~ Q,~ o c v ~ L .5 a ti o 3 v oL0 ti.~ E ~~v~ti3~vvo L~~ E v v c o ~~ c v v~ ti° -'> c m° p vL~~ ~ 5, Uc'_ w~ ~53~ vc~ ~_vv`~o~ ~~~ v v ~~ v=_ a~ o v v ti~ c c v v E~ C ~~ a, o~ 3.v c 3 vm Ti ..L O ~R'i O uh >,EaaU,cac,~aZcti ti E~ v E o~ ate,` v > ~ u° o ~ > 3 ~~ o c'^ vvicv~m0~'~v~ v~ v o. Q v v >° x E o ti~.E E~~ ~ c ~ v E ~ v °J ~ u Ea ~ ~ o E o- v v o °' r o 7 v - '^ >. v F- L ti ~ 3 o a ~ L a~ ~~ 3 0 E vvi >' O Gi . v_ v v a~ ti a o o v ~ v '~ . v ~ti>,3~ o~`~aE.° o.S~o-~ L~~vauo C ~ +-~ x - v ~ c ~'= 5 v c ~ ~ v in ~ C ~ ~ O o a o o~ `~ ,~ ti v o 0 3 a ~>'"v°° ~~ a ~ L - c a ti v ,~ ~ v ui ~•~ ~ E c L~ ~ v o~~ c 3 c v O~ac,E~vac,v L 0 v E v L~ a ti~ v a o L E o ~ ~.E 3 C O O N a a i O Q1 C m co~"a3,oLLVo ~~c.tioc~~~"~L v_>Z > >'" ti a o ~ E~~° ~ C a p ry ti v ti ti ~ ~ ~ ~ D_ 3 ~ LL1 7 Y~ O O ti ti vi O O v ti~~ ~'" ~ v `v C A L C C C~ ~ Q1 C >, ~ oooo~._vc-n ~ ~ m ti ~ c aJ ~ ~ u>>°c~Laoa3 Easovtiva= °~~u3~~.E3~ 0 v ti 0 L c N v O O ti O v ~ O L Q.~ u C ~ v a ~~ oLO E.3 c v ¢r C N~~ ~ v C ~a`~,~,~-3ti o Q,v o~ 3 E ti ~ ~ N ti ~ __ ~ v ~ v ~4~ . vOi - C ~ ~~' ~ O ti ~ > v~~~vtivvo E ~ E o,ti a,~a~ 3 L ~ a ti-~ ~ v E o v cp c O_~ vCi ti 0 a,C Q~ Eovoic.~~vti ac,o.°3~~L~ >ti~~ono v tiL~nc,tiao v ao~.o~v a~ cvti°N~ =oa~3~ oaoinO °JV °'`• ~ vv°Jc ° v ~ v C ~ ~ vL~, ~ aE, ~ ~ 7a .? = ti ~ v L V ~ v L' o~ ~~v ~~o ~°jti ~c'^L~tico ~'c ~ o~~ E~ o'~ o v a c ~o E m~ ~~ ti L o~ a>>~c~cn~~,o~;a~,vo~v~c Eavc==vti ~ v N v,° ~ u c ti .~ ~ ti oU N,N ~c `-` c pus 3 > C ~G u Ti ~ ,~ ~c ~ ~ ti ~ v o °a~ _ E Q1ti v ac, ~O c o 0 0 > m O Q ~_ .v w~ 7 O C a~ ~ ti O v a .D_ v ~' ~` ~ O~ O ~ - u C ti v 3 o ti.ti ~, aa, oaa v.° ~ a o~~c~c~ ~ ~~~~a,~~~ vas°-a`,3oi° o~,Q°,°o~~a` CJ ~ QJ N a Y .~ U ~ ~~ L ~ v1 ~ v a,` v c ti o ~~° E~ v °'Z ~~~ o. ti :~ v ov,~ ~c v lJ v °' >, 7 ,~ c o 2 ti `~ ti r o v o w ~~ ~ ~ t E v= ~ c o u mti.5 3 E va.° o . v, ° 3 3v°, v,,, v u - C Z,`= C v ~ v O N ti ti U `~ o (~• ` v ~ O v Y C ~ ~Ctiv~, v m~° ~ L~ ~ ~ ~ v v m Q~ ~ ~._ ~o ~0 ~•U v OZca,a C~ -+ ti °i ~ v~~ ~oo~c x o " ti~ ~.- y N ~a - E a, _~ >' x c a~ti3 pC°7o~ = N aL a.~F- L.., ~ C r~ ,ti., L o ~ ~;ti~~~ N ,n C - 4J rC `J ti = ~ a C C O ~ 7 v~ O O ~G O ~ C C ~? ~~>> ~,~ >,v y o a°c ~ c E vU~ o>,~ c a, ti~m ° ">~vXv 0 C a~~~ o~ ~~ v x O ~ V N ~ ~ ~'' h O `~ a E Y Q1 °J o v O ,C y~ ~~~ry ~~ m c aE ~ ~, .C v x ~' O ~ ~ ~N~~a~v E °u 7 u v ti o v v u c ~ ` o ~ C ~ ~ o a ._ .~ o v v C O ~ v v C 4J Q1 c ~~ E G C O `1 - r ~ 3 c o _ N ~ 0 3 ~ a a ~° v ~-Z'c~,~e> ~ ~Oti~E a i v ~ o ~ v o ,>~ oo c~ OL ~ a,v ~ ~vUV c ~ o vL ao of N N ~ ~~.~°~'cti v~ N~~,=a, v~ v v= a ~v o ,~ am`~ ~, ti c ~. a ~N ~1 *~' o~~ 3v ~ Q1 ~ - C ~ ~ p ~ a ~~ L L ~ T' w v av 3 ti c U ~ E~` ~ ~ o a N ~~voNo~~ ~ c~ti°o~ ~ v~ ~ o ~ ~_ ~ ~~ a.E i% ti~m~a3 >~°~ ~ --l County of Roanoke P.O. BOX 3600 BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE Roanoke, Virginia 24015 PAID Roanoke, Va. Permit No. 273 p v~ v j~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ -~' O ~ ~ O Oj C ~ O v ~ ~ ~ C ` n ~-' vi C C O a ~ r` ati ~ ~ Qv N ~ Q ~ W W e 7~~~a•O,.E,~ ~H~~o~~ r ~ v `^ ~ ~...+ p Y 0 Y ~ o ff ~O°4 ° v o~.~ 8 Q 8888 0'0 0 0 ~e ~~ a O ~ .~ ~ ~ Q C ~~ O O '• U .= C C v~ c7 7 ~ 0= O O ~D O ~ cDd L b 3 00 t ..~. DJ Z L, v .Q t ~. 4 'n ~ ~ p C ~ ~ f _ C ~ C=~ ~ ~ ~ h O C~~ a~ tyy 0 00 'vi N K N N ~. N V ~OrJ U U H G O h . C C v„" v v O `~ ti Q U ~ W ^i°E= o- ^m`^ H ~o•^?... ti:' v O ~" L~1 ti O QO(1Ja/~~r ~ ~ ~ ~ F=o~•3c ey ,,-_o^~~$ ~ C _~' vvi QCi ~ ~ ~ N ~ L11 IC ~ _~ •° p v ~ v' °' ' ~ o ~ ~ .^ c E u ~ u ~ a ~ $ ~ 0 ~ O ~ ti ~ ~ ~ ~ Q W Q > A id ~~ u °::~- a`.b •E u c ^ b'o o ~ ^ ~ v C ~ ui J s `' ~ rs° ~ c ~w °' g ^ .. E• u .g;; « w vvi "' v C ~ ~ a ~ J ~., Q Z Z cn ~ .o w a s .~ a r o E v o. ~ .~ °' `° v '~ u in v' ~ .~ _ ~ w ~ d L O v a ~~ v~ ~ O Z~ H ~ Z ~ ~~°,-,U.$ v o e E~ .~ p ro m ~s ,3,'0 0..., ,•°, ~ E ~~7 O vi C v j O w ~ ~ > W ~ N V ° u ~ ¢ ~.. a ° v ? c E ,-, v .° C ~ a $ ~ = ~ ^' .e E .°: ~ _ ~ > v I-- ~ Q m W, 8 o H v a^~-.;_ ~ .o v c o w ,~ ~ 4.1 Q. ti Z7 O ~.' O O Q vJ 7 ~ .° ~ ~ O C u t °' u ~ O °° 7 O~ `w° '~ ti ~ .V '~ ed ~ O w p C ?~ C) ~._ v L ~ C ~ ~ V ~V ~ d°.°e = eo to ms°Eu~~,-`°.~4~ Qoc~° ~dv 0 _ .~ a~ .C ~ v ~ ~ > o °c `:~ ii U ~° `o o. 3 cn w u, a cn a a .r ~ o v .°_ E •vo ~ ~ lC ~-/ Proposed Bond Calendar Activity Date Bond Promotion June, July 1992 School Board adopts Resolution July 23, 1992 requesting referendum for General Obligation Bonds for school purposes County Board of Supervisors adopts August 11, 1992 Resolution authorizing referendum for General Obligation Bonds for County purposes Circuit Court signs the order placing September 3, 1992 the bond referendum on the ballot Bond Referendum November 3, 1992 Begin work on preliminary Official April, 1993 Statement and other legal documents for bond sale Sale of Bonds August, 1993 First interest payment February, 1994 First principal payment and second August, 1994 interest payment 7 ~-/ W Z O }O F Z O U J } m ~ O N r~ (n O O O !r t10 lA r M~ M CO O O M M O N CD ~ a0 d t0 t0 t0 Qf ~ M M I r I f0 N ~ M N r N IA M M to tID CD O N M~~ CCC ~ !~ I h N D 0 D Z a M C f~ a0 1A v O^f M O~ O O CMp c0 O C C O N CO ~ i M N _.. v ~ ~ ~ .i~v v ^ v v. ; ~ N vv v v N U v v ' I ~ N I N M CD M O O O O to e} CO O M r CD M h h O M~ t70 M CD N CD I lA I~ M CO O I CD I n N N J Q r n h e r (A h r CO In O (D r r CID ~ (A r r CO ~ C I CD N N ~ O M CD N O M to (D (A O CO CA M M M CD h r CO N N M a0 P 1~ CD Cn O~ I~ O r M~ M~ r I b I ~O N ~ O ~ M M CD O f~ In O ~ CD I~ O (D f~ CD CD ~ st N ~ N N CD CO ~ ~ t+7 M N fV CV N ~ ~ 1 D I N ~ r d ~~ CMA n aN0 c0 M~ cMp h N~ M CMO n 0 0 1~ ~ i N N J "' ~ r M r GO O ~ N h (n M CO N f~ O M 00 '~! I O N Q W ~ I t70 M M M M N M CD t70 ~ M N N O N 1~ CD CD ~ CD O N CD r (b lA N O CO ~ N M ~! M O ~ ~ ~ h~ N 0 (D ~ to M r r r i N N ~ N r r r r I r r Y I N J M O CO CO 1~ CD CD f~ N r In ~ 1q to 1q 1q ~ M ~ ~ ^ N C I r N N Q a M r In 1~ r r r r r r ~ D N N r M t10 r t>D ~ tD ~ N N N N N N t>D M t I h I t N q ~ ~ N O N In CD ~ CD N CO r CD CO 1 N M M r j r ~ Z M IA CO to N t70 1n CD lA t>D ~ N CD N h O CO M r M In CO ^ (D N N M f~ 1~ CD f~ ~A to ~ N I $ M ~ r r ~~~ N N N N N N N ~ to N N a t~ N O N .-. ~ ~ fD N d0 N OD ('~ ~ CO ~ C'~ <O O l ~ I ~ N ~ ~ ef~ e r CA r 1~ h CO N f~ 1\ O N tOA sf ~ O ~t ~ r M M to N In N ~! O O i a00 M Z In CD ~ ~ O lA O) CD M CO cD f~ a0 C D C a 0 M ~ D N ~ ~ i In O N Q v v v v v v M N ~~~ N N I C D N V ~ r I N Z ~ N h (A N M n M~ O CD O lD M M f~ 1~ I M N N ~ -~ t~ CD (10 f~ O N~ M~ l70 ~ M M CD N CD to f~ CD h M M to O h M N r r t10 ~ Q> r r cD O) I M 1 0 N Q ~ N ~ O ' ~ I N ~ ~ r 1 1 C ( n N r 1A In O CCJ M M to Ch CO 1 C7 M M O h h M N~ 1~ CD M~ M~ I pp N O r CD to ~ N O (n h 1A ~ u~ M m ^ O CD 1n v N ~ CD N N N N N N r r r r r I lA Y 2 I N N (~ M O N CIO M h CD h ~A CO CD M CD M (ID O M I Y ~ b~ pp N ~ 0 ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ C `') M CD O C 9 C10 ~ 7 ~ C 7 ~ ~ N ~ ~ 0 i ~ A ~ to O CD O O M O c0 M~ M N N O N 1~ 1~ O O O N ~7 ~A ~ N~ CO E N O CD f N I tD N 1 f t IC s Of O CD I~ CD CA ~ M M N r r r ~ Cp ~ L O N I N J r ~ In N N N N In to 1A lCY In lA CA C10 ~ C C ( I CD N N Q a p ~ p~ p M CD ~p r r r O^ D C 8 M CD GO N N N N N N C1O M lt7 M I CD I r N r N CD CD (A ~ M O~ M CO CD CO 1~ N M M r j O N Z M t10 r to r (A CD sf N CO N h 0 CO M r ~ CO ~ C it ~t M r N N h 1~ CO h 1A Cq ~ N j 0 ~ n ~ r r r r r r r r r r ; ci a M ~ UJ O O p O~ ~~ 00 N~~ in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cp n ~ M ~ O ~ D ~ I ~ i ~ N N N a a ~ Of O O N N ~ N N M D v ~ M T o C G O O r v~~ r C D ~ I f~ N sV'c v v v i ~ N 0 I N Z ~~ tID M st M M CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O I I ~ W LL J ~ n~ C D O~ c O n~~ u ~ i c0 N J , ~rnc`ba°o ~°~ ° I ~ Y N O ^ r ~~~ i N W ~ M M M r r r r r r r i N ~ I Y W O ~ N C~Qp i~ M~ C1D CO M O O O O O O O 0 0 r c0 O~ CIO 1~ r O O CID I ~ I ~ N N } ~ 1~ N r~ ~ M 0 CD GO M I O N ZC N C7p N NM Ch t0 1~ N N ~ N M ~ f t[ ~ O OOD CMD ~~~ N~ ~ O I A N '' ; ~ r I N J N CD r to t_A ~ {O {A O O O O O O O O O O O CO I M N N a N ~ ~ I~ ~ N arD O ~ ~ i ~ N c p ~ ~ r OO M N I ~ I N _Z i C D C i rn N ~ N to O r I C Q N N N r- r- ~- r ~ I CD N Q. ~ r' N J t N M to n (10 O O pr O O ap O O O O M~ Of Of ~ M~ Of Of Of O O O O O O O O O O O ~ j I I I I I I I I fV N N N N N N N N N N ~ j ~ r N M IA l~ ~ 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I M O CA ~ M~ O M C71 r N M C~ ~p f~ GO M M O O> 01 O Of Of O to R~ 0 0 0 8 0 0 O r r r r r r r r~ N N N N N N ~- / Proposed Bond Project North County Branch Library Background The Hollins Branch Library is the second busiest library in the County library system. The 6,500 square feet facility had an annual circulation in 1991 of 164,951. It is estimated that this facility will be serving more than 28, 000 citizens within 10 years. To meet State standards, the library should encompass .6 square foot for each resident in the service area. This means the current facility is less than one-half the size and has one-third the seating space necessary to meet standards. Inadequate shelving space limits collection growth and citizen access to materials. The current facility also has limited parking and no handicapped access. While renovation of the existing facility is an option, it does not appear to be a viable one upon further review by the Library staff and Library Board. The renovation would require maximum use of a small, irregularly-shaped lot and would not alleviate the parking problem. Further, because of the estimated population growth in the North County area in the next 10 years as noted above, the expansion of the existing facility would be a temporary fix. Scope of the Bond Project The Library Board recommends construction of a new North County Branch Library to be funded through the proposed 1992 bond referendum. The recommendation is to construct a 17,000 square feet building on at least 4 to 5 acres of land with provisions for 65 parking spaces. This new branch could also house the Roanoke County historical collection, which is currently in storage due to lack of adequate display space. User convenience is the key factor to consider in selection of a library site. Anew site should reinforce current usage patterns, and should be attractive enough to encourage new usage. Since the present site of the Hollins Branch is very successful, the most pressing matter seems to be to acquire a site which addresses the issue of lot size and parking capacity. Easier access to the site, compared to the current situation, might also encourage greater use. Location should also be near a dedicated residential user base, and placement within a heavy flow of business, consumer, and commuter traffic. A site has not been selected at this point in time, however the Library Board and staff are in the process of beginning a search for possible locations. They are prepared to spend a great deal of time in carefully choosing and recommending a site for acquisition. 9 ~- r The projected cost of the new facility is outlined below: Description Planning Engineering/Design Construction Furniture/Equipment Automation Total Estimated Facility Cost Amount $ 15,000 120,000 1,207,000 140,000 45,000 $1,527,000 The construction costs are based on 17,000 square feet at a cost per square foot of $71. The $140,000 identified for furniture and equipment include tables and chairs for patrons, shelving for a 90,000 volume collection and a security system for the document collection. Automation costs include the MUX system, movement of existing terminals and new terminals for additional staff. It is estimated that two additional staff positions, a branch librarian and a library assistant will be required for the larger facility. Also, facility operating costs such as utilities and maintenance are estimated to increase for a total increase in annual operating costs of approximately $86,000. The Library Board has noted that additional funding may be necessary for parking due to County planning and zoning regulations. The number of parking spaces may need to be increased from 65 to 85, increasing the proposed cost of the project by $24,000 for site improvements and construction. This increased cost estimate will not be added to the proposed bond amount at this time. As well, moving expenses will be incurred when the transition from the old facility to the new facility takes place. The cost of the move will be addressed in future operating budgets. It is believed that current favorable construction costs will continue in the near future, therefore the proposed construction contingency was not included in the amount to be funded by the bond issue. The proposed facility cost outlined above does not include site acquisition costs. This is based upon the understanding that the current site and building would be offered for sale and that the revenues from this sale would be applied to the acquisition and preparation of a new site. The current Hollins Branch site should be highly desirable as a commercial property, and it is thought that such a land/building package would bring a substantial price. In summary, $1.5 million is the amount requested in the 1992 bond referendum for the construction of a new North County Branch Library. 10 ~- / Proposed Bond Project 'lose-out of Old Dixie Caverns Landfill 3ackctround mince the mid-1980s, oanoice County has been working with the Jnited States Environmental ?rotection Agency (EPA) and the ??irginia Division of ~n7aste Management to clean-up the old Dixie '~averns Landfill site. "he EPA requires a long-term remedial solution to this clean-up. ~'he County is currently in the process of cleaning up the landfill, -chile attempting to secure financial eimbursement for a portion of these clean-up costs from other responsible parties. Once the EPA accepts the final remedial clean-up, the County can begin to close-out the Dixie Caverns Landfill in accordance with current State and Federal regulations. Scope of Bond Project The funding of the close-out of the Dixie Caverns Landfill is ~~roposed for inclusion in the 1992 bond referendum. The close- ~ut procedure will include the development of a °1 cap" over the site ~n conformance with the specifications set out in the Resource ^onservation and Recovery Act (RCRA Cap). The 22 acre site will require a clay covering of 2 feet in depth, drainage stone and 6 inches of top soil. A portion of the site, s.2 acres, will require regrading and fill dirt because it is currently too steep for yapping. _~ minimum of 4 monitoring wells will be necessary and ,rust be monitored over a ~0 year period. The present leachate collection system is sufficient. in fact, once the site is capped, she leachate production will probably be reduced thereby reducing the County's yearly operating cost for leachate removal. The total estimated cost for close-out of the old Dixie Caverns Landfill site is $3.0 million. it /~-! Drainage Projects for the Proposed Bond Issue Proiect Summar Development of a Regional Stormwater Management Master Plan (County's Share) Remedial Projects Identified in the Master Plan Major County Drainage Projects Regional Stormwater Management Master Plan $ 300,000 210,000 490,000 $1,000,000 In 1985, the Fifth Planning District Commission sponsored a study for Roanoke County, the City of Roanoke, the City of Salem and the Town of Vinton to determine the feasibility of implementing a regional stormwater management program. Due to the proposed high cost of studying all of the tributaries in the region, it was decided that the localities should concentrate on thirteen "high priority" watersheds that were deemed critical. These are as follows: 1. Glade Creek 2. Cole Hollow Brook 3. Mason Creek 4. Tinker Creek 5. Peters Creek 6. Carvin Creek 7. Lick Run 8. Back Creek 9. Ore Branch 10. Murray Run 11. Mudlick Creek 12. Dry Branch 13. Gish Branch The total cost of developing a Regional Stormwater Management Master Plan is $625,000. Roanoke County's share is estimated to be $300,000. A comprehensive Stormwater management program involves developing a watershed "master plan", which identifies the most appropriate control measures and optimum locations to control watershed-wide impacts. This approach typically involves combinations of the following: (a) strategically locating a single Stormwater detention facility (as opposed to several smaller detention ponds); (b) providing stream channel improvements where necessary; and (c) nonstructural measures such as parkland acquisition and floodproofing to supplement structural control measures. The master plan approach offers significant advantages over the piecemeal approach, including: reductions in capital and in operating and maintenance costs; reductions in the risk of 12 J"r' "" downstream flooding and erosion; opportunities to manage existing stormwater problems; increases in land development opportunities; Increased opportunities for recreational uses of facilities; potential contributions from land and real estate development; and conformity with land use planning issues. Should participation in the regional approach by the other localities not occur, Roanoke County would still pursue the stormwater Management raster Plan for those "high priority" Tributaries that have the most impact on the County. Limited involvement by the other localities could still be offered on an individual watershed basis according to fund availability. Remedial Projects Remedial action projects will be identified as a result of the master plan analysis. Such projects will include detention facilities, channel improvements, and other means to mitigate flooding or damage in flood-prone areas of Roanoke County. Once the alternatives for remedial action projects in each watershed ~zave been selected, the projects will be screened to ensure that 'she proposed improvements will not result in the local flooding r;roblem being transported to a downstream location. In addition, a remedial action plan must not only consider the measures required ~o relieve the existing flooding problem, but structural control Measures must be designed and sized to account for the runoff from suture development in the study area. The runoff impacts of future land use patterns can be predicted by applying the stormwater management model. Major Projects The Engineering and Inspections Department maintains an inventory of drainage problems throughout the County. Attached are some projects that attempt to address these problems County-wide: _. Sierra Drive/Fenwick Drive Description: County-owned sinkhole receives runoff from subdivision which floods adjacent properties. A 36" storm sewer will have to be constructed along Sierra Drive to Garvin Creek. Estimated Cost: $90,000 Magisterial District: Hollins 2. Green valley Description: Poor overall drainage contributes to property damage. A trunk line storm sewer will be installed parallel to Colony Lane and channel improvements made on Murray Run adjacent to the Green Valley subdivision. Estimated Cost: $75,000 Magisterial District: Cave Spring '. 3 ~-e 3. Nottingham Hills Area Description: Severe erosion and flooding along the headwaters of Mudlick Creek create problems in the Farmington, Nottingham Heights, and Castle Rock Farms subdivisions. Channel improvements, including streambank stabilization are planned for these areas. Estimated Cost: $45,000 Magisterial District: Windsor Hills 4. Mason Creek Description: Residential flooding from Mason Creek along Catawba Valley Drive (Rte. 311) will require channel improvements and installation of rip rap at severely eroded areas. Estimated Cost: $75,000 Magisterial District: Catawba 5. Wolf Creek Description: Residential flooding and erosion in the Stonebridge Acres and Spring Grove subdivisions adjacent to Wolf Creek. Reconstruct channel from Stonebridge Drive to Stonebridge Circle. Stabilize channel adjacent to Spring Grove. Estimated Cost: $50,000 Magisterial District: Vinton 6. Mount Vernon Heights Description: Undersized storm sewer facilities contribute to residential flooding along Manassas Drive. Replace the existing storm sewer with adequate facilities. Estimated Cost: $20,000 Magisterial District: Cave Spring 7. Dwight Hills Description: Inadequate storm sewer causes residential flooding in this subdivision. Construct storm sewer system to serve this area. Estimated Cost: $40,000 Magisterial District: Hollins 8. Merriman/Starkey Road Description: Inadequate channel and undersized culverts have contributed to residential and commercial flooding in this area. Reconstruction of the channel and installation of proper storm sewer facilities along Buck Mountain Road to the Starkey area. Estimated Cost: $95,000 Magisterial District: Cave Spring 14 ~~- / Discussion or Proposed darks and Recreation Bond Projects `The Parks and Recreation Department bond projects have been divided into two basic categories as noted below: ?enovation Projects: mall Field Renovations $ ,16,000 ~'ennis Court Renovations X10,400 Facility and Playground Repairs 113,600 Jutdoor might Repairs 50,000 Total Renovation Projects 500,000 ~tew Facilities i~See attached list) X00,000 "_'otal Parks and Recreation Project Cost 51,000,000 The Parks and Recreation Department staff developed a list of the major renovation projects for the County's existing park facilities 3s well as a list of new park facilities needed based on current grogram registrations and projected growth. The presidents of each +~r the recreation clubs in the County were then asked to prioritize '=he needed facilities in their respective communities. The results °aere compiled and submitted to the Parks and Recreation Advisory commission who prioritized the projects by magisterial district. Both groups determined that maintenance and repair of existing Facilities should take priority over new facilities. The completed project list for new facilities totals approximately :1.3 million. The items are in priority sequence by magisterial district. The $500,000 proposed for new facilities will be distributed among the districts according to project priority. If more than $500,000 is authorized by the Board of Supervisors for new facilities, staff will continue to select projects by district according to priority. Staff will also attempt to maximize the value of the dollars received by attempting to leverage bond monies against private donations and public or private grants. Staff will work closely with the recreation clubs to continue to meet the on going needs of their respective communities. ~'_ / COUNTY OF ROANOKE PARKS AND RECREATION PRIORfI1ZED NEW FAClUTY UST FOR THE PROPOSED BOND ISSUE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LOCATION PROJECT COST PRIORITY D15TRICT UNNING TOT HOLLINS WALROND PARK (1) SOCCER FIELD $31,000 1 $31,000 WALROND PARK (2) BASEBALL FIELDS 62,000 2 93,000 WALROND PARK LIGHT SOCCER FIELD 72,000 3 165,000 WALROND PARK PURCHASE LAND 50,000 4 215,000 WALROND PARK PARKING LOT 20,000 5 235,000 NORTHSIDE HS RE-ALIGN (2) FIELDS 62,000 6 297,000 NEW BONSACK PARK BALL FIELD 20,000 7 317,000 NEW BONSACK PARK PICNIC SHELTER 15,000 8 332,000 NEW BONSACK PARK PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 10,000 9 342,000 NEW BONSACK PARK PARKING LOT 10,000 10 352,000 VINTON VINYARD PARK (2) BASEBALL FIELDS 62,000 1 62,000 VINYARD PARK LIGHT SOCCER FIELDS 150,000 2 212,000 ~ VINYARD PARK UTILITIES FOR RESTROOM 25,000 3 237,000 VINYARD PARK PARKING EXPANSION 20,000 4 257,000 VINYARD PARK PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 10,000 5 267,000 ~ MOUNT PLEASANT PARK (1) LIGHTED BALL FIELD 125,000 6 392,000 STONEBRIDGE II UTILITIES FOR RESTROOM 25,000 7 417,000 CATAWBA WHISPERING PINES PARK (1) LIGHTED BALL FIELD 91,000 1 91,000 WHISPERING PINES PARK UTILITIES FOR RESTROOM 25,000 2 116,000 WHISPERING PINES PARK PARKING EXPANSION 10,000 3 126,000 GREEN HILL PARK PARKING EXPANSION 10,000 4 136,000 WHISPERING PINES PARK TENNIS/BASKETBALL 36,000 5 172,000 GREEN HILL PARK (2) PICNIC SHELTERS 30,000 6 202,000 GREEN HILL PARK (3) TENNIS COURTS 54,000 7 256,000 WINDSOR HILLS GARST MILL PARK LIGHTS (2) FIELDS 124,000 1 124,000 NEW FIELDS (COMPLEX) (4) FIELDS 124,000 2 248,000 HIDDEN VALLEY (1) FIELD 31,000 3 279,000 NEW FIELDS (COMPLEX) UTILITIES FOR RESTROOM 25,000 4 304,000 GARST MILL PARK (1) FOOTBALL FIELD 31,000 5 335,000 NEW FIELDS (COMPLEX) PURCHASE LAND 50,000 6 385,000 CAVE SPRING STARKEY TREATMENT PLANT (2) BALL FIELDS 62,000 1 62,000 STARKEY PARK (2) BALL FIELDS 62,000 2 124,000 STARKEY TREATMENT PLANT (1) FOOTBALL FIELD 31,000 3 155,000 STARKEY TREATMENT PLANT LIGHT (1) BALL FIELD 62,000 4 217,000 STARKEY TREATMENT PLANT LIGHT (2) SOCCER FIELDS 144,000 5 361,000 STARKEY PARK UTILITIES FOR RESTROOM 25,000 6 386,000 --------------- $1,796,000 16 ~-/ Summary of Parks and Recreation Facility Operating Costs Averaae Construction Costs • Construction of an unlighted baseball or $ 31,000 soccer field with amenities such as backstop, fencing, goals, etc. • Install Lights: Baseball Field $ 62,000 Soccer Field $ 72,000 • Tennis Courts: Construct/Re-construct $ 18,000 Asphalt Overlay, Seal, Stripe $ 13,000 Seal and Stripe $ 2,400 • Fencing Chain Link Backstop and Player Control $ 5,000 Fence (1 field) Outfield Fencing (1 field) $ 4,000 Averaae Annual Operating Costs Per Field • Unlighted Baseball Field $ 5,492 • Soccer/Football Field $ 6,374 • Operating Cost to Light One Baseball Field $ 500 • Operating Cost to Light One Soccer Field $ 1,000 * Multiple use or combination use fields ma modify the average annual cost or construction cost of these facilities. 17 i Road Bond Project VDOT Revenue 8harinq Matching Funds Background The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) provides a Revenue Sharing Grant to local governments for upgrading roads already in the Secondary Road System. This Revenue Sharing Program allows a dollar-for-dollar match of County funds by the State up to a maximum of $500,000 annually. This would generate $1,000,000 for roadway improvements that would include repaving, reconstruction, drainage improvements and safety improvements. Scope of Bond Project The proposed bond issue includes $500,000 for Roanoke County's local match to VDOT's Revenue Sharing Grant in FY1992-93. 18 ~--1 t~ ~_ d A = W ,~ ~ Z J 1 ~ ~ O~ ~ } fn Q ~3 W = ~ O ~ _ n. ~ ° O Q Z O W w o° 1 Z :7 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J to to tli ~~ to 0 0 0 0 0~~~~ O O O O o O O v~~ 0 0 0 0 0 to O co X 0 0 CO CO to M n (D n n co co N n n ao +n n O O O N O CO CD ~ v O N N N~ N O fD N M N M t " ~...... o ~ r r M ap 00 r O CO Cp r N 01 M O Q~ M O r r M (D M In CO O O n ~t r 0 ( er ~ ~ ~ CO GD CO (O M ~Y f0 n N n co .- ~ M CO M N ~ CD O to v CD ~ n n N M M M O F N N r N N N N N N r r N r N N r r r 4H o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ooooo00000oooooaooooo00000oooooaooo a a z ~O I Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o g o 0 0 ~ 11) ~ to O~ 0 0 0 0 0~~ to to O O O O O O O N~ to 0 0 0 0 0 lA O to O O I~ }.. N N n n~ N~ ~A 0 to O N n n N to M~ O O O O N N N O 0 0 0 to N 1n at M O O ~ d' n ao ao ao co O O O CD cD M 01 n M O O to O CD O co co N n ~n N CO n r O a0 CD ~ ~ CD O O lA CO M (D N O O In a0 N to O tD O O In ~ ~ V ~ CO O CO CD n M l17 (D ~ ' ^ UY r N N lA N M~ M M~ N~ M O r M V N O~ M r r n CD O n N M N M M fD r t0 (O > rfA r r r r r r r r ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~~~ uy O ~n 0 0 0 0 0 ~n to ~ ~n O O O O O O O N ~n ~ 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 0~ 0 0 1 N N n n~ N to lA O~ O N n n CV ~ to ~A O O O O N CV (V 0 0 0 O_ In N lA a_ M O O of n co ao co ao O) O M cD co M O) n M O O t1') O cD O aD co N n to N <O n O ao (O ~ ch t1) CD ~ r v ~ cD O O to (D M (D N Q~ O ~ aD N to O (D O O to V' d et to C~ O CO cD n ~ Z I ~ N N ~A N M d~ M r~ ~ N st c~ O ~ M~ N O T c~ r a n CO O n N M N M M CO r (p (D ~ i p C.? r .-. v... r .- r r r ~ ~~cacaoNOOncaNONao ~coconaoMnMMM~nvrao cDr~n~om r M r r M O N N M O~ r O O V t7 r O O N M~ M r l!') M r N r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J J J J J J J J J J J (7 ~~ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q J J J J J_ J_ J J J Z m m m f~mmmm===~~~~~~~~~~~==22222 ZZZZZZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ~ _ ~ >> >>>> ~~ >>~ 7>>~~~ J J J J J J J J J J J~~~ Q p~ ~ O a O O O O O O ~ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q O O O J J J J J J J J J J J O O O O O O Z~ Z Z Z Z Z Z m ~'~' ~~~~~~ y as m W ~ m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ m m~ ~°o°====_______°°°°°°>> a ~~~~~~ c i a z z z z z z z z z ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U W W > > w ~ W ~ w ° ° W W > `' > Q Z W W W Z Z 2 CC W W Q ° Z = Q ~ ° W J ~ W ~ ~ > > w ? > W Z ° > w _ CC W J Q Z Q ° W ~ J > > U ~ ° ° > > ° ° W~~> Q Z J J W H Q >~ J- (~ Q Q= w CL °° r W° ~ Z o ww ° ~p° o r ° = ~g=ct>Q OwQw °U>o w o>o [tQaC°p w Qctz cnQaQZ ° ~~_ w ~ H Q U U CL Q Q~° Q~ Z J N Z Z Z~° Z CL ~ J O ~~ CC fL J CC ~ a ~ p Q ~~~~~aCUcn00~o¢OOwcnUZ}} ~za~030ZYZwWU~°z m~ o ~ z> z m m a O ~ x~ w Z~~ J~ f z O aC [[ z oC OC 0 0 0= a oC ~ w U U a ~ w o o m m~ a w ~ ~ w 2 a ~ z w w U 0 = ~ ~ v i v v i ¢ i w o ~ a v~~ a t - U~ i 1 C 7 m ~ Cp M r N O r N 0 0 0 N (O n 0> O O n O M M ~7 ~ lA O N M r M n CO CO Cp O N O O O O N N N n CO v i n n n rn rn rn rn ~ M O 1n pp O n n n n n n n n tD t0 ~n in aD ~~~~~~~~~ n n n n n n~ 0 0 0 0~ 0 0 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r ~_ 2 r` W ~..:. r N M~ to ~O n aD O O~ N M d~ CD n m 0 0 N M~~ CO n ao O O r N M~ 1n (O r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M 19 "' OM1 I rn Of ¢ O rN W a O ¢ O W U 0 ¢ a W Z a O ¢ LL O h~ Z O U Z ¢ a 2 W Z W ¢ m } a FQ w a W 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ O N ~ N J 0 0 1p 0~ 1A ~ O G O C O O O C C O 0 0 0 0 0 j ~ M (O O f0 O r N O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N a ~ ~ N N t0 ~ co O O <O (O r 1~ N N O O O O O O O O O O ~ N N r GO G7 CD (D G7 O M <O r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In O O ~ t0 j G7 tl Q N M r d r r r r d d d d ~A r N N r Cp ~ r Mp p ~ j N i9 N ~ p g g $ ~ °o °o $ o °o o °o o °o °o °0 0 0° °o °o °o o °o o i °o p uG, 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$$ i O M ~ O O ~ O N O p N ~ ~ N ~ N C9 Z ' ' ~ ~ N N N ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O~ IA S 0 1q cO~ IA ~A ~ O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ M N p ~ ~ N ~O C (V O CV h CV L7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O pp 0 0 j t7 r M 1n CO O O r (O O O O S O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ CO O O DO ~ In ~ ~O [G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lA O O N N G7 N Go p 8 ~ r r GD d r- r 1n d t0 d G7 f0 In r M to Ln O O O O L7 M O N V7 O ~ r r N N N N N 1~ '- r CO i r N N > ~ i ~ ~ N M i i N tl O pp pp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 1A 0 0 1A O M 1A M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~A N N p (V 1A O N O CV f~ N 1n 0 0 0 C 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 j G7 r G7 IA r tp O O $C~ pp 0 0 0 0 0 O O j O O O O O 1 ~ ~ C t0 S S S (V M C7 tl a0 ~ n CD lA O O r r GO ~ (p ~- r to d (O d M (D IA r G7 In 1A O O O O to 1A O N O ~ p (O tl r r N N N N N f~ r r r ~ ~ M N i i ~ tl i N tl O N O O O N O M fD h 1n IA lfY O 0 0 0 0 IA O f~ N N r O N r O r N N N r r r ~- 0 0 0 O O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - J~ ~ J ~ J J~~ J aJZazaa~aaaaazda='zz~ ~ ~! Z Z m 2 Q m Q m m= m m m m m Q 2 m= Q~ 2 Z oo3¢a3a33¢33333~¢3¢an.¢o ~z`a.Ov~au~aa0aaaaacnOaOcncnOl- Z ~ >> V O> U> U U~ U U U U U> ~ V ~>> ~> Z Z ? Z Z ~ U U U U U 3 3 3 3 3 w > U ~ ¢ Wj O U ~ ~ Z Z ~ ~ p ¢ O a Z~ O W ~ ~ w ¢~-- o a w ooo>_oo~> - w~ U o o¢ O Z O ~~¢ o z ~~ O¢ ¢ ¢ t- m _ zzOUODUp~Up00~0~¢UJ v~io~ 3maaa ww3zo Y¢¢moQQ>c~ wo>~oQ 8 _ ¢wzw 00¢z3~¢wp¢o~ wwo z $~ ~ °C~ 3 w cnv~m wc7o~3 o~ w ~ mz~ ooa=?J~~~v~a~~w~~oo~?='a =xxmx3u~~nc~mw~oF~i3a~c~a~a~c~ ~~pp ~~pp CO ~O to O f~ ~p CO O t0 M ~ CO Of f~ 01 ~j Off S ~ O ~ S GOO S ~ ~ O O ~ t0 iA M O ~ t0 <D I~ CO GO GO ~ J F" ¢ Z GO GD GO ~ t0 ~ Q f~ GO O O r N M~ lA t0 f~ GD M O r N M d N CO f~ CO M G7 CO G7 d d d d d d d d d 1A IA ~ tl') ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1n Z 20 p-/ conomic Development Bond Project 'alley TechPark 3ackaround During 1990, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and Industrial development Authority jointly made a proposal to Allied-Signal corporation to locate a $31 ;pillion disc brake manufacturing acility on a 177 acre industrial site in the Glenvar area of ~toanoke County. The County provided $880,000 to the Industrial Development Authority for the purchase of the site, which was then given to Allied-Signal for the purpose of constructing the disc 'Drake facility. Another $600,000 was expended by Roanoke County to extend a sewer line to the property for a total investment of :1,480,000. The recession of 1991 caused a delay and eventual cancellation of Allied-Signal's project. t7nder the terms of the County's development proposal, Allied-Signal returned ownership of the _;roperty to the Roanoke County Industrial Development Authority. The property has been renamed Valley TechPark and is being marketed ay Roanoke County and the Roanoke Valley Economic Development ?artnership as a large industrial site. Since the Roanoke County Industrial Development Authority is the owner of the property, they have reviewed several proposals for the use of the property. Industrial prospects have inquired about the availability of portions of the site (15-25 acres). This action -could cause the Industrial Development Authority to subdivide the property. Subdivision requires that the owner/developer of the property extend water and sewer on site, provide a road, extend private utilities and develop a drainage system. The Industrial Development Authority does not have the funds in their budget to perform these development functions. Scope of Bond Project The bond proposal includes $1,000,000 for an economic development project. The recommendation is that these funds be used for planning and construction of road access, on-site water and sewer, stormwater management, erosion control and project contingencies to transform the industrial site into the Valley TechPark Industrial Park. The $1,000,000 would provide a "leverage" to obtain other development monies from the State of Virginia to further develop the site. These include the Industrial Access Road Fund, Virginia Community Development Block Grant Program and Virginia Revolving Loan Fund. Therefore, the bond funds (if approved) would provide funds for construction as well as a "match" or leverage to obtain other development loans and grants. 21 f wauu~a a ~ I fOiwR1 ~~ Cr ~ ~N i (~1~sQ D 40f fUFSA Y , ~~.i ~ t f ~A ~ y ~ NEXT T: ~~''~ "' SU 1 ~'~O axir c ~vs ~, Exir ~ NDaf 5 a . ~ AR '' K~~y ~~ ~. ~o~. ~ v ' ~o~ • uoo F FORE ::;`~l~At?x`:::''.;`:':::> ANG ~ ~ LINDSEY~ _~. • ~ WgguN Site name: Valley TechPark Size: 177 acres Zoning: M-1, M-2C Comprehensive Plan Designation: Principal Industrial Access: Route 11/460 water: 16-inch off site Sewer: 8-inch on site Availability: Property is available for sale through Roanoke County Industrial Development Authority 22 ~'~ ! Proposed Bond Project Placement of New Fire Hydrants Background In 1980, the County adopted a Water Ordinance requiring developers to install fire hydrants every 800 feet on any water main extensions. This was updated in 1986 to require a fire hydrant every 1000 feet. Currently there are seventy-five locations on the Fire Hydrant Priority List that meet the rating criteria established by the Insurance Service Office, a nationally recognized evaluator of community fire protection capabilities, for location of a new fire hydrant. All locations identified on the Fire Hydrant Priority List are on existing water mains of 6 inches or more, that were installed prior to the adoption of the Water Ordinance in 1980. The purpose of adding fire hydrants on existing water mains in Roanoke County is to enhance fire protection and lower fire insurance rates for affected residences. Scope o! Bond Project Funding for the installation of fire hydrants at the locations identified on the priority list is included in the proposed 1992 bond referendum. The total estimated cost of installation of all seventy-five fire hydrants is $183,000. Once the County completes the installation of these hydrants, the outstanding fire hydrant needs on existing water mains will have been satisfied. 23 ~". , '~'~ COUNTY OF ROANOKE, ' PRIORfTIZED LIST OF PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT ADDffIONS i 1. 2505 ELECTRIC ROAD-OUR LADY OF NAZARETH CHURCH 2. 1887 ELECTRIC ROAD-GOOD SHEPARD LUTHERAN CHURCH ' 3. COLONIAL AVENUE SW AND OGDEN ROAD SW ', 4. MAIN ENTRANCE CAVE SPRING HS CHAPPARAL DRIVE 5. 4203 ELECTRIC ROAD-OLDEN AND ELECTRIC ROAD SW 6. GLENVAR HIGH SCHOOL 7. WILLIAMSON ROAD AND COMMANDER DRIVE NW 8. WATER FALL DRIVE AND SUNDANCE CIRCLE NW 9. ROUTE 24 AND BAKER DRIVE ~ 10. 6 HYDRANTS BETWEEN SALEM AND N0.9 FIRE STATION WEST MAIN STREET 11. 2730 OLDEN ROAD-COLONIAL AMERICAN BANK ' 12. COLONIAL AVENUE SW AND GIRARD DRRVE SW 13. COLONIAL AVENUE SW AND GEORGETOWN ROAD SW 14. COLONIAL AVENUE SW ANO OVERDALE ROAD SW 15. MANASSAS DRIVE AND ANTIETAM DRIVE SW 16. MANASSAS DRIVE AND BUNKER HILL DRIVE SW 17. ROUTE 24 AND MAPLE WOOD DRIVE ',18. ROUTE 24 AND LINDEN WOOD DRIVE x,19. PLANTATION ROAD NW AND SANTEE ROAD 20. WHIPLEDALE AND TWILIGHT ROAD NW 21. FINNEY DRIVE AND CAMBRIDGE DRIVE ~~ 22. PEDIGO LANE AND CAMBRIDGE DRIVE 23. WOODLAND DRIVE AND COLONIAL AVENUE SW 24. VALLEY FORGE AND BUNKER HILL DRIVE SW 25. HARDY ROAD AND FINNEY DRIVE ~, 26. 6231 NELL CIRCLE NW 27. MANASSAS DRIVE AND VIEW AVENUE SW 28. SUGAR RIDGE ROAD SW AT OLD BARN CIRCLE '~ 29. HOLLINS ROAD NE ROANOKE FISH AND OSTER 30. STARKEY ROAD SW AND EDEN LANE SW L 31. CANTER DRIVE AND LAKELAND DRIVE SW 32. HUGH AVENUE NW AND PEYTON STREET NW 33. 3203 WOODLAND DRIVE SW 34. NORTHLAKES DRIVE NW AND EAST DALE NW 35. WILLIAMSON ROAD NW AT ENTRANCE TO ROANOKE VALLEY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL 36. 3340-3350 BLOCK OF WOODLAND DRIVE SW i 37. GLENVAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ENTRANCE 38. HUGH AVENUE NW AND ESTES STREET NW 39. WHIPLEDALE AVENUE NW AND QUAIL HOLLOW 40. PEYTON STREET NW AND ESTES STREET 41. HOLLINS ROAD AND GARMAN DRIVE NW 42. 5265 NORTHSPRING DRIVE NW 43. 5416 PLANTATION ROAD NW 44. DEER PARK DRIVE AND HEATHER HILL NW 45. 602 MAGNOLIA STREET NW 46. HOLLINS ROAD AND CARLOS DRIVE NW 47. WILLIAMSON ROAD NW AT NELMS DRIVE 48. HOLLINS ROAD AT TREVILLIAN 49. HOLLINS ROAD AT BEAUMONT 50. GARST MILL ROAD AT HOLLOWDALE SW 51. 6339 NELL DRIVE 52. 7016 PLANTATION ROAD 53. EVENINGWOOD LANE AND NORTHLAKES DRIVE 54. SUMMER DRIVE AND EVENING WOOD LANE 55. 544 WATER OAK DRIVE NW 56. PLANTATION ROAD AND PETTY AVENUE 57. WILLIAMSON ROAD AT ENON BAPTIST CHURCH 58. HOLLINS ROAD AT SHADWELL DRIVE 59. 3434 ELECTRIC ROAD SW-K92 60. BRAMBLETON AVENUE AT OLD CAVE SPRING ROAD 61. 4955 NORTHLAKES DRIVE 62. SUMMER DRIVE AND NORTH GARDEN LANE 63. MASON PARK DRIVE AND WINTER PARK DRIVE 64. WILLETT AND HASTINGS SW 65. WEST MAIN STREET-DIXIE CAVERNS AUTO PARTS 66. NORTHLAKES AND GREEN TREE LANE 67. 5416 PLANTATION ROAD 68. WILLIAMSON ROAD AND DENT ROAD 69. TINKER VIEW AND SHADWELL DRIVE NW 70. BENOIS ROAD SW AT RAILROAD TRACKS 71. FRANKLIN ROAD SW AT BUCK MOUNTAIN ROAD SW 72. FRANKLIN ROAD SW AND 5000 BLOCK OF STABLE RD 73. VALLEY AVENUE SW AND MEADOWVIEW ROAD SW 74. VALLEY AVENUE SW AND BOOKER ROAD SW 75. BOOKER ROAD SW COUNTY LEISURE ARTS BUILDING 24 °" Roanoke County Schools Fiscal Year 1992-93 Proposed Bond Projects 1. Mason's Cove - Classroom addition and renovations Architecture/engineering costs (6~) 2. Back Creek - Classroom addition Architecture/engineering costs (6$) 3. Cave Spring Elementary - Library addition and renovations Architecture/engineering costs (6~) 4. Glenvar Elementary - Electrical upgrade, heating and air conditioning 5. Herman L. Horn - Electrical upgrade, heating and air conditioning 6. Mountain View - Electrical upgrade, heating and air conditioning 7. Oak Grove - Electrical upgrade, heating and air conditioning 8. Burlington - Electrical upgrade, heating and air conditioning 9. Mount Pleasant - Electrical upgrade, heating and air conditioning l0. Clearbrook - Electrical upgrade, heating and air conditioning 11. Roland E. Cook - Electrical upgrade, heating and air conditioning 12. Glenvar High - Middle school addition - (Close Ft. Lewis) Architecture/engineering costs (6~) 13. Northside High - Architecture/engineering 14. William Byrd High - Architecture/engineering 15. Cave Spring High - Architecture/engineering Bond issuance costs (estimated) Total School Bond Projects $ 500,000 30,000 600,000 36,000 800,000 48,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 100,000 100,000 2,500,000 150,000 90,000 120,000 150,000 7,024,000 100,000 $ 7,124,000 25 /~'~ ~,-~ GOBONDSA COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA :---i- ----~--------- -- --------------------- DEBT-_PROJECTIONS---- ------- --- _... --- - - -- - - - ~r COUNTY GENERAL FUN D ~` CURRENT SAVINGS OVER GO BONDS REMAINING ~ YEAR DEBT 92-93 BUDGET ($9.283 MILL) SAVINGS '' : S'~ 19 91- 9 2 3, 7 6 2, 9 5 4 ---- -- _------ ---- --- 1992-93 3,790,764 0 0 .., __-_ ______ _ 1.9_9 3 _9 4___ ___ __ 3_, 17 8_~3 4 8 _ __-_-,.-._6.12 ,- 416 ______ __-_ 3 2 4 ,_9 0 5 __ ____ _2 8 7 ,_511 ________ _ __ 1994-95 1,796,609 1,994,155 939,310 1,054,845 #`~ 1995-96 1,749,904 2,040,860 918,310 1,122,550 :~-__--- --L99.6=9-'I_---- --L,_.5.8B_,_58L -._^.2-,-2-0'L,-1-8-3.---- 8.27,-310-- -1-,_.3_0.9,8.73----.------------- ": 1997-98 1,204,833 2,585,931 876,310 1,709,621 ~~~ 1998-99 1,192,741 2,598,023 855,310 1,742,713 -_ -.._____ __1999_ 2.000_ -_1-,_164_,..578_ ____ 2 X6.26-,_186__ - --_930,_810 1_, 695, 37.6 ______ __ 2000-01 1,180,545 2,610,219 902,810 1,707,409 ~~~ 2001-02 0 3,790,764 874,810 2,915,954 `,- ------ _. _-- 2.0.0 2 -_0 3 ___ _- - _-- --0 -_ --___._3-,._7.9 0. , -'Z6-4 ----- - 846_,_8.10 -2_,-9~ 8 , 9 5 4 ------- `~ ,~ 2003-04 0 3,790,764 818,810 2,971,954 2004-05 0 3,790,764 887,310 2,903,454 .~-. _ _ . _ _ _ ..2 0 0-5 - 0 6_ - .-- _-_ ___-- --__0 -- ___3., 7.9 0 ,.7 6.4_ _______ _.-__.-- 8 5 2 ,_31._0 --- --___2-, 9 3 8 , 4 5 4_________-_- - ~- 2006-07 0 3,790,764 817,310 2,973,454 ~~ - 2007-08 0 3,790,764 782,310 3,008,454 _ -----__ _.--20.0.8-09____ ___-___._-.------0__ ______3_, 79-0.,_7.64__-___ __--._74.7_,_310---- _-3-, 0.43_, 4b4____. __-___-.. ''_~ 2009-10 0 3,790,764 857,060 2,933,704 2010-11 0 3,790,764 811,560 2,979,204 _:..: -- -- - ----20.1..1-12---- -------------0-- -- ----- 3,-7.90, 764 ----- -----.7_66,_0-60-- -3, 024, 704-------- - - 2012-13 0 3,790,764 735,035 3,055,729 ~~- 2013-14 0 3,790,764 691,380 3,099,384 _ 20,604,857 66,554,905 17,133,150 ~' ~" f- _-_--_--_._-_-------_-.-_-----.- ~•'~ ~- ^ .' -: .y..~.. - ------ --------------------- - _ - -------------------------------- - ----- ;Fundtools - -B--O-N D----.C.A-L_C_-U- L A.T O.R by.Microfle~ Summary of Bond Information ~~ ' ~ ' ' ------- -- - ~ ~ - Issue Title: GO BONDS - NOV92 REFEREN ' ~ Total Debt Service: $17,133,150.00 i , - - - --___,------------- ---Total ---Interest-------------- --$7,-850.,.15.0..00-------_-_ ---- -- -.... - ~ - *. - ~ Total ~ Principal: $9,283,000.00 ; -- -- -- ; Net I nterest Rate: _ 7.0000% _ ~ , ~ -~--------_____---True- Interest-..Rate:- ------- _----------7.0000%.------ ------- - -~ i, __ , DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE ~ MO YEAR PRINCIPAL RATE INTEREST TOTAL D/S . 8 .. 1993 - _------- ---- ---2-- -1994- -----------$0-.-00-- _-0.00%-- ---$324-,905.00---- -- --$324,905.00 5 ~ 8 1994 $300,000.00 7.00% $324,905.00 $624,905.00 2 1995 $0.00 0.00% $314,405.00 $314,405.00 - -- - --8-- 1995-- - --- $300,000.00- -7.00% --- ---$314,405.00---- -- $614,405.00 . 2 1996 $0.00 0.00% $303,905.00 $303,905.00 8 1996 $300,000.00 7.00% $303,905.00 $603,905.00 _ ___ .. .__ --2 _ 1997 - $0.00- - 0.00%- - $293,405.00 $293,405.00 . 8 1997 $300,000.00 7.00% $293,405.00 $593,405.00 2 1998 $0.00 0.00% $282,905.00 $282,905.00 ------- - 8- 1998 - - - -$300,000.00 - 7.00%- $282,905.00 -$582,905.00 ~ - 2 1999 $0.00 0.00% $272,405.00 $272,405.00 8 1999 $400,000.00 7.00% '$272,405.00 $672,405.00 - -- ---- ---2--- -2000------ -------- -------$0.-00---- -- 0.00%---- -- $258-,405:00 --- --- $258,405.00 8 2000 $400,000.00 7.00% $258,405.00 $658,405.00 2 2001 $0.00, 0.00% $244,405.00 $244,405.00 - - ---- -- -- -8 --- 2001-- - - -----$404,-000 .00 -- 7.00% -_ --$244, 405 . 00 -_ $644, 405.00 ~ 2 2002 $0.00 0.00% $230,405.00 $230,405.00 . 8 2002 $400,000.00 7.00% $230,405.00 $630,405.00 ---------- --.--2 -- -2003--- ...- --- _--- ---_ _$0:00-- --- 0:00%---- - -- $216 , 405 ~ 00._ -- -$ 216 ~ 405 .00 . ~ - 8 2003 $400,000.00 7.00% $216,405.00 $616,405.00 2 2004 $0.00 0.00% $202,405.00 $202,405.00 - --8 2004---- -- $500,000.00- 7.00%- $202,405.00 $702,405.00 . 2 2005 $0.00 0.00% $184,905.00 $184,905.00 8 2005 $500,000.00 7.00% $184,905.00 $684,905.00 ------ -- --2----- 2006------- -------------$0:00- --0.-00%- - .. $167-;405.00-__. - $167,405.00 ~ 8 2006 $500,000.00 7.00% $167,405.00 $667,405:00 -- 2 2007 X0.00 0.00% $149,905.00 $149,905.00 - 8 -- 2007-- - - $500, 000. 00 - - 7.00% -$149, 905 . 00 -- - $649,905.00 ~ 2 2008 $0.00 '0.00% $132,405.00 $132,405.00 8 2008 $500,000.00 7.00% $132,405.00 $632,405.00 -_--- -- -_- 2-- 2009 ------ - ---- --------$0.00--- -- 0.00%-___ __ $114, 905.00 _ - _ _ $114, 905 .00 ._ ~`- 8 2009 $650,000.00 7.00% $114,905.00 $764,905.00 ------ '__------ -2--- -20..10- --- --------------$0-•-0-0- ---0...._0.0%.---- - -- ..$-9.2,.15.5_...00--- -- ----_.$92,.-15.5..00._____ 8 2010 $650,000.00 7.00% $92,155.00 $742,155.00 ~u 2 2011 $0.00 0.00% $69,405.00 $69,405.00 - ` -------- ----- --8_.__ ._2.Q11___- -- _-$_6 5 0, 0 0.0_._0_0----- __7_._0 Ol__.__..-__ __-$ 6 9, 4 0 5, 0 0____ --.$ 719, 4 0 5_, 0 0___-._-- _ 2 2012 $0:00 0.00% $46,655.00 $46,655.00 ~.`~ 8 2012 $665,000.00 7.00% $46,655.00 $711,655.00 --------- 2---- -2D-13---- ---------$0.._00_._ ..0 ~QO%---- --__$2B_,-3-8Q.--0.0------ ---_$23.,..380_...0.0------- -'~'' 8 2013 $668,000.00 7.00% $23,380.00 $691,380.00 ~~' 2 2014 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 -~- --- -- --- ---- .8.--- 2 0-.14---- -- ------ ---- - ---$ 0-.-0 0- - --- 0 ,_ 0 0 %----- ------- --- ----~0 . -~ ~-- -- - - - --- - ----- --$ ~ '-~ ~ - - -- 2 2015 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 ~'`' 8 2015 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 -y-_ --------- 2 -- - 2.016---- ----- ---. $.0- ~ 0 0_:_ -Q . _Q0.%-- --- -- $ Q ._QQ---- ---- $ 0 .0 0- ---- ~' `~ 8 2016 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 _ ~ 2 2017 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 - ~ --- ------ -- 8-- - -2 0-17 -- - - - - --- ---- -------$-0_._0 0--- - q-~-0 0 % - --- ------ --- --$ 0 .0 0 ----- - --- --- - -- -- $ ~ ,_Q4 - _ ' ~ 2 2018 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 _ ~,`" 8 2018 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 =- ---- -2---- 2019--- ------.-$Q._0.0__ ---0_.-00%----- - -$0-. 00.---- --- ---$0..00__-. `" ~'~ 8 2019 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 2 2020 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 ----- ---------- 8--- 2 0 2.0-- -- - ---- - ------- $ 0_. 0 0 - - -- 0_ . 0.0 % --- ----------- $ Q . 0 0- - - ---- - - - - - $ 0.. 0 0 -- -_ ~- ~``' 2 2021 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 . 8 2021 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 .. _, -_ ----- 2-- 2022-- -------_---$0-•OQ-- --0..00%----- - ----------$0_.00----- --- - ---- -$0.00_._.-__. _ '_~ ~~` 8 2022 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 2 2023 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 --------------- 8--_ 2023----- ----------$0..00 - .-.0..00%---- ----- - - -$0_._00 - -- -__. _.___ ._$0..00 - ~=-~ *~****~**** END OF REPORT ~*~**~~********************************* '.- ~__ ~'v ~- -. ~- . ~:: N s I L a S N N L N y T S v I m a, a ti ""1 w C a N 7 N flI •~. J m -. s O S O Q U N In .+ C O T ~ •H J 44 u ~ U 7 i- N O o '•-1 U O 1.7 L `V ~ 6. Y .:l O O 1J C d U S Ol O :7 O !r ...~ !n CI w w z V7 w U X w C7 Z N O Z 7 W o .~ L'• C 1J n O N ~ ~.1 41 d ~ L ~ L •-, am C 7 O d va Lz c a -- a a ~, rli L 3 lu x c a L m a Z 4C H ~ O4 d •-4 ~ U V N N N N (!7 ~ C N C CI ~ ~ E x •>•- >, W C 40 ~ 1 I -+ 1-~ I y m ~a7 I O 2 D I F f I I _ I I C -I I m •-I u1 I ~ = E i 1 :n a I +~v S 1 N V I -~ sa I .~ I I I C I 4C -a N I O V1 -I L I ~ ~ E r a.7 3 N S I •-+ ~ V I J .. I I ~• I 9 I c -+ W I O r UI o I o v1 E L 3 I J= a r w I i.1 Z 9 Z I •-+ .~ v I ~ w W I w I 1 O I a t c -+ C7 1 ~L' ~-+ N s I o E :l I J r I v1 In 1 L U S I ••~ N V 1 J ss N Q7 W 0 H z Z Z ~ ' U ' C ~ 7 •-1 ~ E u7 TJ L C u c r O L N Q7 ~L .-1 S y- V a; ~ w •-7 ~ ¢ c E L v7 ,a r a o r1 1 ~ T S • N 64 m N I :~ Q+ .-I d C 01 O+ •ti ~ ~ L ~ O O b !n ~ O a.7 --i LI C ~U ~ d U .17 O ~ a I- ~ 2 .nrlwrn+1r11~scc40N.DOI~ITNrn v bcrnccczccc a S tD N N N .~-I ~O C P •~-I S x N T .~'1 W S C -+ 71 Q 'a 4D L a a a a S (~1 ID l0 t•] N @ N .~ ~ ~ 01 b W P ,~ M @ a (n T S ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~1 r/ 01 c (n l0 l0 Q •••4 N~ QI v v N S S 01 411 S S JI S I~ P D M '~; ~ ... W t0 @ N W @ S M D .•+ tD ~ 'D 01 'D N ~ e•7 S •••1 ?': ~ a ~ ~ r1 ... .-a .-I .~ v In 4D 417 lb AI S (~') 4P tt) ,~ \ 01 C' v c .D t0 1 1 .-1 .-1 .-1 .ti ~ rl r7 N N V N N N N @ m S S m S S S 4D S S 9 9 9 9 S S 6 9 S S S m 9 S S S 9 49 S S 9 O S 9 S 0 S S 9 S S m S@ C.1 S 9 S 9 0 S S S S S m S S 9 4S S S S S S m S S 9 S S S O S 9 9 S S 9 S 9 S '9 S m S S@ S 9 S m@ S S S S S S S t9 S S S 9 S S S S S 9 O S S S S S S 9@ S S S S S S S 49 0 S S S@@ S S S S S f7 (•1 M (~ M P1 M M M M M M .~'1 M .~'1 !7 17 M M :~'1 M M (•7 M •?~ M M M In M W QI n n M S 40 P to N .D T 01 QI N Ol N W P Ol v v v T v v v :fl @ l0 N ~ n W 'D 4D c .-1 S W V 01 (+7 tD @ C :-1 71 C :O t0 :O a 4D l0 :O 9 M In t0 40 .~ 41 N N E 7~ 01 Q7 ,O c r~ M O W M T S ~ h ~~ ~~ '~ . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . M rl 01 c :O M f'1 c N N l~ O1 c v N 9 9 01 411 S Q' 01 S h C 'D M N @m~ornml~ln Tmmm b.-l~ol.•amaN:~,19~r1~'a~.~ M v M N .-i ~•1 M N e-1 N M N 4D a^ S N M v v t0 .-4 .+ .-1 •V ?'1 v c --i .-1 .'1 .-1 ~ e-1 N N V V N N N W S O1 G7 .-7 c OJ ~ •~ P 7~ N S P~ N 4D CO N t0 9 417 9 S S S S S S 417 0] Q .-7 C .-1 W m 'D M S J7 :h In 7~ S N 01 N v :~ rl S S S S S S S S N 01 W m 01 01 W S W 01 T v N S 01 :~ n .-1 P ~ ~ S@ S S 9 S S N .-I S N Q7 01 411 D W 01 M n P !•7 N S 71 l0 N 7~ N OD n m M e-1 v 4D 9 10 m M 9 N S !V b ~O N~ 9 ;n S .f1 71 01 C J7 M .b S 01 .~ :+1 v M '.h c m QI T O N C M 4D In C :A C v (*7 N N N .-i r1 .71 W V v M V H .-1 S S 9 S S S S 9 S S S S S S S 9 S S 9 S S S S S S S S S S S 9 S S 9 S S S S S 9 S 9 S S S 9 S 9 S S 9 S S S S S S S S S a S 4D S :D S a S to 9 4P S a S 7D S 11 9 N S v, 1 f+ -; s S m o1 m z~~ 'a 1o u1 a P c M M N N N V N N rl ri r-1 n •-1 r•I ,-~ rl .~ n .-1 rl rl N S S S S S S S .: S S 4S 9 S S 9@ S S S 9 S S S 9 9 S S 9 S S O S S S 9 S© 9 9 S S 9 9 S S S S 9 m S© 9 S 9 9 S@ S 9 S • 'a N ?] c S 'a N ~b C S l0 N b C S 40 :V ~b c i>»'a10 D411 ~ccv»m vNn7.~+r+ss .~ e-1 ri e-1 .-~ ~ N '-, rl '-1 e•i .-• ~ .-~ ~ e-1 r1 -• -1 .+ B S S S S S .9 S S S S S S ^u S S@ 6` S S S S S S O S S S S S S .^. 9 S 9 S 9 S S S S S S S 9 S S S S 9 S S S S S S S m S 9 411 V T 4D M 9 ~ ? --1 b In N 01 4D ?'1 9 ~ v -I b M M N N N N .ti -+ .1 S S S Q1 QI T .71 W W S• ~ 0 9 9 S S S S S S S 9 S 9 S 9 S B S S S 9 S S@ S S 9@ 9 S S S© 9 S@ 49 S S S S S S S 9 S 9 S S S .". S 9 S O O S S a 9 a S~ S a S n S .n © In S a@ en S iJ --I ti 9 S .71 :. D b~~ a 'D 411 D 7 C M n N N V N N .~-I -• <r ti rl ~ rl .ti e-1 --, r/ '+ ri -. © S S S S S In 411 a 417 ,A 9 S m S S S S S 9 ;D Q (D f•7 M Q1 (`7 S a S W 9 :~ ~ M M ''~ b b CD b -~ M .•. 01 v f0 01 37 9 :'') 4D b z c c c P :O ,-, t0 -. ~ 01 4A N 417 N Q1 c V J1 t0 M M .D :~ 01 ~ --i 9 2 ~ c Q Q1 M r1 Q LD :V S ~ 417 M 'b ~ N Q1 ~~ Q1 lD N T 'D N 4D 7~ ~ m D ~ .~ •D 'a 'a 'D 'a 'D to W N ,n 4D c 7 OJ @ fl'f W .-7 Q (D V t0 m N n S P~ N W Z] N 4D S 11 v1OW •-•I m 4n ao9 v4r11.9vc~. T-~cm~1 9 01 n 70 P N S W~ W M .-~ S W t0 v V -7 ?, ~ a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'N rl to 01 M n .~i c D N ID @ C~ e-1 to ~T M a S C '..-4mmolmm~.a4c4r7:nc,7mN ~-aS©~1 N N rl '•I ri .••i r-1 ..I .--I .-1 r-1 -1 -~ H .-1 .~-, .~ .~ .-1 II N II ~ II T II II ~ ii ~ II II ~ II N II O O S m In In m S O E 9 Q. N l9 O S M N S In N M m D ti W al N N In M r` M m on7.lnmc~.ln~InmMC:DM~'+~:.vvvcvccPCC a ~ n n 00 4D !h S N 9 ~ N W r-1 D ~ v :~ S t0 4D D t0 tD lD 'D ~D 4D l0 'D ~ 01 M, GO •~-1 n S C In 4D W W M '~ 411 t0 9 JJ ~ ~ .~ ~ r. n ~ ~ ~ n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a Ol '•7 n N 40 N N~ N •-I n 01 ,~ C~ 9 W ~ n .~ ~ n n~~ ~ ~ .~ W e•7 l0 .-1 R7 M~ D~ In .~ b 'D tD N 'D T S S S S@ O S S S m S .~-1 M 4D l0 m 9 S S t0 n 07 ~ S S .•1 +1 •n •a 4D 'D 'a 4D 4D D 'D l0 t0 tD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~~~ .•~ .i .~ .-~ -+ N N N N N N V N N N V N N N N c .-I ~ O4 40 S 7~ 01 n .T 'a e•I S 70 rl m !'M n~ 49 © S S S m S 9 S lS S I 01 II l0 W m W n S N 411 M a JJ v W v Q7 W N ?J ~ 9 S 9 S S S S S S© .9 I M II ~ 'D 7~ M (O 'D @ ~ M V '•I .ti m y S, .•~ .-1 •D T 9 0 9 9 S 0 9 S 9 m S I m II I QI v Ol CO rl ,~ (1') ,~ n V~ Q~ rl S -+ 4D N 01 M N N V N N N V V N N N ~ II m Mvmcrnn~r7 V n1r.rn v•acs1P~ M II lD a C N @ 01 t\ .n N W 01 0~ r~ b 'D In c .V ~ II N ;V N N N •~ .-I .~-I .-1 .-1 'I N I S S N M c ~ l0 n W 71 S .••4 ~~! M c .n 'D ~ N 01 9 •--~ N !M v 4A lD •' ~ D Q1 @ -1 01 QI Q1 Ql Q1 01 01 01 N 9 9 m O S S O S S --1 .~-, •-1 --1 -i H N -• -~ rl N 'V .-7 N M v N 4D ~ 70 01 9 .i N M 'T n t0 t~ m T m '-7 :V M C In 4D ~ 07 QI 9 71 T Q1 Ol QI QI 01 71 Q1 ~ S B S ~ S S 9 S S .-I N -1 -1 H N -1 ~ .-1 '-I V O1 71 01 T Q1 ?1 Q1 01 01 9 9 S S S S m S S S S S S S O O S S S S 9 •-+ .-~ .i r-1 .i rl -1 r1 e-r V •V N N N ,V N N .V V N N 'V .V N N N V N N N he>'13 1 ~a~i- --------------------------------------------------------------------- •e„ Fundtools B O N D C A L C U L A T O R by Microflex - Summary of 'Bond Information - ._ ; Issue Title: GO BONDS - NOV92 REFEREN - .- ---- ---~----------- _ --Total--Debt -Sergi=ice --__ - ---- ---$12 ,-981 ;-600 .-00 - ------ - -- --- - -- ... Total Interest: $5,857,600.00 Total Principal: ~ $7,124,000.00 ----; Net Interest Rate: ~ 7.0000% True Interest Rate: 7.0000% DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE MO YEAR PRINCIPAL RATE INTEREST TOTAL D/S - 8 1993 - 2 1994 _____ $0, 00__ __ 0.0.0% _ __ ___ $24.9, 340.00 __ __ $249, 3.40.00_ 8 1994 $100,000.00 7.00% $249,340.00 $349,340.00 2 1995 $0.00 0.00% $245,840.00 $245,840.00 - 8 1995 _ _ $_250, 000._00 7.00% $245, 840.00 $495, 840.00 _ __ _ _ _ __ - -- 2 __ _ 1996 $0.00 0.00% $237,090.00 $237,090.00 - 8 1996 $250,000.00 7.00% $237,090.00 $487,090.00 .-_________..___.._2.__ __1997__.__ - _ __$0,00-_ __.0...00%_.__. . ._.$228,340.00 _. _ $228,340.00 - 8 1997 $400,000.00 7.00% $228,340.00 $628,340.00 _- 2 1998 $0.00 0.00% $214,340.00 $214,340.00 _ _ __- _ 8___ _.1.9-98__ _,__ ______$250., 0-0.0.._00_._ _ .._7,..00% $21.4, 340.00... - $464, 340.00 _ - 2 1999 $0.00 0.00% $205,590.00 $205,590.00 '= 8 1999 $325,000.00 7.00% $205,590.00 $530,590.00 ._ _- -------.----_-__--2.__ __2.000------- _----___- .---__$0.00.___ .-_0 .0O% ----_- .. _. $194 ,.215..00. _ _ __ _ $194 , 215.00 8 2000 $325,000.00 7.00% $194,215.00 $519,215.00 2 2001 $0.00 0.00% $182,840.00 $182,840.00 ___-_____. 8__ - 2001...__.. _.__._._.$325,00.0.00._ ._.7..00% _ $182,80.00 _ _.$507,840.00 2 2002 $0.00 0.00%':. $171,465.00 $171,465.00 ~ 8 2002 $325,000.00 7.00% $171,465.00 $496,465.00 _ _ - ----- -2 -- -2003 ---- --------__ ____.. __$0.00_-- ---0 .00% - -- ----$160, 090.00 - _.$160 , 090.00 ' 8 2003 $325,000.00 7.00% $160,090.00 $485,090.00 _ 2 2004 $0.00 0.00% $148,715.00 $148,715.00 _. _ 8 -2004-_ _ _-.$400,000.00 7.00% $148,715.00 $548,715.00 2 2005 $0.00 0.00% $134,715.00 $134,715.00 8 2005 $400,000.00 7.00% $134,715.00 $534,715.00 = --- 2 -2006 -_ __-__.-_..____._$0.00 -- - 0.00% -- - $120,715.00 $120,715.00 8 2006 $400,000.00 7.00% $120,715.00 $520,715.00 2 2007 $0.00 0.00% $106,715.00 $106,715.00 8 .2007- $400,000.00- 7.00% $106,715.00 $506,715.00 2 2008 $0.00 0.00% $92,715.00 $92,715.00 8 2008 $400,000.00 7.00% $92,715.00 $492,715.00 2 2009... $0.00... 0.00% $78,715.OU $78,715.UU = 8 _.. . 2009 $450,000.00 7.00% _ - _.. $78,715.00 $528,715.00 J -- y' _ 2 2010_- - - - ------$0_•.~0.-- --0, 00% __ __ . _ _ .$-62, 96.5_.•-O Q- - - $62, 965 .00 8 2010 $450,000.00 7.00% $62,965.00 $512,965.00 2 2011 $0.00 0.00% $47,215.00 $47,215.00 8 2q1 1 $4..5.0, 00.0_. 00 7._00%... _ _-----~47_~ 215_._00_ ... $497, 215.00 -- :~ 2 _ - 2012 $0.00 0.00% $31,465.00 $31,465.00 8 2012 $450,000.00 7.00% $31,465.00 $481,°465.00 .: ---- - -- - 2 _ .-20.13.----- -- ----- _.- --$0.,_00_- _..0...00%. --- ...__.__$1.5_, 7-1.5-•-~~---- - -- $15 ~ ~-1.5 ~ 0-~ 8 2013 $449,000.00 7.00% $15,715.00 $464,715.00 2 2014 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 8 2014 ___ __ _- $0.00 - _ -.0_.00% $0._00- -- _ _ -.$0_.00.. _ __ ..__ . 2 _..._ -- 2015 _ $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 8 2015 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 _ _..- --- __._2._ _ 20.16--- -- ------ ---- - ~~-• ~~ --- --0_, 00% --- - ------- -$0 .00-.--- - _ __ . _ - _ ~0-' ~-0 - 8 2016 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 2 2017 $0.'00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 8 2017 -$0..00 - -0_.~~%-- - -~0.-~~ --- - - _ $0.00 . 2 .. _ 2018 -- - _ _ _ $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 8 2018 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 2 2019 $0_.00- 0.00%. $0.00 _-$0.00 8 2019 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 2 2020 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 8 2020 $0.00 _- 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 2 2021 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 8 2021 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 _ _ _ .-__ _ _ 2 ._.2022_- _ -- . _.._ __ $0, 00 --- 0, 00/ ° _ .$0..00 _ _ . _ $0 .00 8 2022 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 2 2023 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 __ - 8- -- -- ---2023- --- _ _ _ - -- --$0 ._00 - 0.00% -- - $0.00 _ $0.00 ~*~******** END OF REPORT *~*****~*******~***~**~*******~*****~**~ _ _ _ ~~_;Fundto.ols _____ __ _ _B_O_-N_D _.G._A.L _C U L A_T 0 _R_ _ _ _by Microfle~ ~ Summary of Bond Information ~ ~ ' _ ~ , ~ _ _. _ _ ~ - - -- ~ ~ " ' Issue Title: VPSA - ~O ~~ ~ ~ - - _ _ , . Total Debt Service: $3,308,743.75 _~ ; Total._Interest: _ _._ __ _ _ _- ..-- $1, 378, 7.43 . 75._ - ; Total Principal: $1,930,000.00 - - __ - ' Net Interest Rate: 6.7500% ~ ' .6.7485% __-; _ True...Interest..Rate: __ ~ ~ ~ ' _ _ _ DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE - _ MO _ _ _ __ YEAR - _ - - PRINCIPAL RATE INTEREST TOTAL D/S 11 6-- 1992 -1993-- - _$0.00.. --0.00% - $75,993.75 $75,993.75. _ 12 1993 $96,500.00 6.75% $65,137.50 $161,637.50 6 1994 $0.00 0.00% $61,880.63 $61,880.63 12 . 1994 __ $96, 500_.00. _6.75%. _ $61,880.63 $158, 380.63 .- _ ~- - 6 ___ .-. 1995 $0.00 0.00% $58,623.75 $58,623.75 12 1995 $96,500.00 6.75% $58,623.75 $155,123.75 -6-- -1996 --- - - _$0.00- -- 0.00% --.- .- $55,366.88 $55,366.88- ____ _ _ _ - 12 1996 $96,500.00 6.75% $55,366.88 $151,866.88 6 1997 $0.00 0.00% $52,110.00 $52,110.00 12 199.7____ _.__ __ $96,500.00 _ 6.75% _-_ -- $52,110.00 __ $148,610.00 ___ 6 - 1998 $0.00 0.00% $48,853.13 $48,853.13 12 1998 $96,500.00 6.75% $48,853.13 $145,353.13 ---._---6 - - ` --1999---- -_------_ _----$0.00- ---0.00%----- --$45,596.25 --- ----$45,596,25 .. ----__ _ 12 1999 $96,500.00 6.75% $45,596.25 $142,096.25 6 2000 $0.00 0.00% $42,339.38 $42,339.38 12 .._2000___-.- . _-_- - -$96, 500..00 _ ---6.75% __ .__. _-$42, 339.38 _ _ ..$138, 839.38 __ _ _ - 6 2001 $0.00 0.00%- $39,082.50 $39,082.50 12 2001 $96,500.00 6.75% $39,082.50 $135,582.50 --- 6 - ---2002--- -- -_----- -- __$0 .00 ------0.00% --- - --- -- $35, 825.63. _ _ __ $35, 825. 6 12 2002 $96,500.00 6.75% $35,825.63 $132,325.63 6 2003 $0.00 0.00% ~ $32,568.75 $32,568.75 12 .2003-___ . ___.__. $96, 500..00. . .....6..75% - - _.: _-.$32, 568.75 _ _ _.$129, 068.75 _ - _ _- 6 2004 $0.00 0.00% $29,311.88 $29,311.88 12 2004 $96,500.00 6.75% $29,311.88 $125,811.88 ____--_---__-"--6- ---2005 --- --------------$0._00- __._._0...00%.__. _ .--$26,055.00 __ $26,055.00. 12 2005 $96,500.00 6.75% $26,055.00 $122,555.00 6 2006 $0.00 0.00% $22,798.13 $22,798.13 12 2006.. _ $96,500.00 ._..- 6..75%.- $22,798.13 $119,298.13 _ 6 . 2007 $0.00 0.00% $19,541.25 $19,541.25 12 2007 $96,500.00 6.75% $19,541.25 $116,041.25 6 2008 -_ __.._ ._ ._$0 .OU - 0.00% _ _ $16 , 284.38 $16 , 284.38 12 2008 $96,500.00 6.75% $16,284.38 $112,784.38 6 '~ 2009 QQ $4 ~ .._._.0.0.0%_.__.._ _ _-$1.30.2.7-.~50 -- $13,027.50 -- - -- - 12 ._ __ - 2009 _. - . _-. . _ $96,500.00 6.75% $13,027.50 63 $109,527.50 63 770 $9 6 2010 $0.00 00 500 $ 96 0.00% . 75% 6 $9,770. 770.63 $ 9, _ _ . , $106,270._63. -- _ 12. 6 ._2010-- 2011 . _x_ _ . _ $0.00 - __ - _ 0.00% _ _ - -- $6,513.75 $6,513.75 12 2011 $96,500.00 6.75% $6,513.75 8 $103,013.75 8 2 5 6 8 $ 3 _ - - . _ _-- -- -6 -._ _.20.1.2__.- - 2 0 ._0-0 - --- ------ .~- 500.00 $96 0 ... 0.0 ~---- ---- _ 6.75% 3 ~ 2 5 6-, 8 -- -- _ _$ - - $3,256.88 . , _, -- __ __ - . -- - -_ $99,756. 12 6 201 2013 , $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 = 12 _ _ . -- 2013 __..__ - $0.00___ _. _- --- 0.00% - - ... $0.00 _ _._ 00 $0 $0.00 ~-_ _ __--$0.00 _ 6 2014 $0.00 00 $0 0.00% 0.00% . $0.00 $0.00 12 6 2014 2 015 . ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 0 . 0 0%.- - - - - ------ -- - $ 0 ._0 0_ ... - - -- -$0._00.___. - _ . __ - - -- 12 - -- - -- 2015 - --- - - - - - $0.00 -- . 0.00% $0.00 00 $0 $0.00 $0.00 6 2016 $0.00 00 $0 0.00% 0.00% . $0.00 $0.00 12 - - _ - 6 2016 _. _ 2017 . __ $0.00 0.00% _- _ $0.00 $0.00 12 2017 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $0.00 6_ _ __2018 $0._00 00 $0 0.00%- _ 0.00% . $0.00 $0.00 12 6 2018 2019 . $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 __ 12 2019 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 00 $0 $0.00 $0.00 6 -- 12 2020 2020 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00% . $0.00 $0.00 - 6 - 2021-- --_ - _ $0_. 00. ___.0...00% _ _ $0-• QO _ _ _ $0 .00 00 $0 _ _ 12 2021 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 00 $0 . 0.00 $ 6 2022 $0.00 00 $0 0.00% 0 . 00% . $0 • 0 0 $0 .00 12 2022 - . __- -._.. _ _ . _ _ _ **~******** END OF REPORT *~******~****~**~~*~~~********~********* 9 May 26, 1992 County staff requests the Board to adopt a motion to enter into executive session within the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act as follows: (a) to discuss a specific legal matter requiring the provision of legal advice by the County Attorney and briefings by staff members concernuig possible amendments to the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Members Use Agreement in accordance with Section 2.1-344 A 7 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. ~~%`., AT A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1992 RESOLUTION 52692-15 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 Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy, NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Executive Session -~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1992 ORDINANCE 52692-16 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 3-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE, MORE OR LESS, LOCATED AT 6095 NEWPORT ROAD (TAR MAP NO. 13.00-1-53 AND A PORTION OF TAX MAP NO. 13.00-1-52) IN THE.CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF M-2 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF BOBBY L. HODGES WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 28, 1992, and the second reading and public hearing was held May 26, 1992; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on May 5, 1992; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 3 acres, more or less, as described herein, and located at 6095 Newport Road, (Tax Map Number 13.00-1-53 and a portion of Tax Map No. 13.00-1-52) in the Catawba Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of A-1, Agricultural District, to the zoning classification of M-2, General Industrial District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Bobby L. Hodqes. 3. That the owner has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts: a. To be used for machine shop only. b. Building to consist of a maximum of 3,000 sq. ft. c. No outside storage of materials or machinery. d. Land will be increased to a total of three acres prior to obtaining a business license. e. Building and land will be kept clean and neat. f. All metal chips will be recycled. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: STARTING at a point in the center of Virginia Secondary Highway Route 624, which point is the northeasterly corner of that certain 77.2 acres which was conveyed to Bobby L. Hodges, et ux. by Paul F. Sirry, et ux.; thence with the center of Route 624 S. 44 deg. 00' W. 381.15 feet to a point; thence S. 47 deg. 00' W. 371.25 feet to a point; thence S. 30 deg. 00' W. 304.75 feet to a point opposite a 12" poplar which is on the easterly side of Route 624; thence N. 44 deg. 32' W. 160 feet to the Actual Point of Beginning; thence continuing N. 44 deg. 32' W. 348.00 feet to a point; thence N. 34 deg. 00 E. 380.48 feet to a point; thence S. 44 deg. 32' E. 348.00 feet to a point; thence S. 34 deg. 00' W. 380.48 feet to the Actual Point of Beginning, and containing 3 acres, more or less. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~ . Q.~_1._e_ Mary H. llen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul Mahoney, County Attorney `~ -r PETTI'IONER: BOBBY L. HODGES CASE NUMBER: 7-5/92 Planning Commission Hearing Date: May 5, 1992 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: May 26, 1992 A. REQUEST Petition of Bobby L. Hodges to rezone approximately 3 acres from A-1 to M-2 to operate a machine shop, located at 6095 Newport Road, Catawba Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS None. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION None. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS 1) To be used for machine shop only. 2) Building to consist of a maximum of 3,000 sq.ft. 3) No outside storage of materials or machinery. 4) Land will be increased to a total of three acres prior to obtaining a business license. 5) Building and land will be kept clean and neat. 6) All metal chips will be recycled. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Ms. Hooker moved to recommend approval of the petition with conditions. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Witt, Gordon, Robinson, Hooker, Massey NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map Staff Report _ Other ~` ~ ', Terrance H ngton, ecretary Roanoke ounty Planning Commission . STAFF REPORT .S - / CASE NUMBER: 7-5/92 REVIEWED BY: LYNN DONIHE PETITIONER: BOBBY L. HODGES DATE: MAY 5, 1992 Petition of Bobby L. Hodges to rezone approximately 3 acres from A-1 to M-2 to operate a machine shop, located at 6095 Newport Road, Catawba Magisterial District. NATURE OF REQUEST a. Conditional request to rezone approximately 3 acres from A-1 to M-2 in order to operate a machine shop out of an existing barn. Petitioner proposes to manufacture small parts not exceeding 2" diameter. The 3 acre rezoning site is a made up of a portion of the petitioner's 2 acre parcel and a portion of the surrounding property belonging to the petitioner's mother. Petitioner lives on the remainder of the 2 acre site in a single family dwelling in front of the barn. b. Petitioner's request incorporates suggested regulations for custom manufacturing from the proposed zoning ordinance. The proposed ordinance requires a minimum of 3 acres of land, a maximum of 3000 square feet of shop area, all activities within an enclosed building, and accessory to a single family dwelling. c. Petitioner has proffered the following conditions: 1) The rezoning is for a machine shop only. 2) There will be no storage of materials or machinery outdoors. 3) There will be no outside noise. 4) All metal chips will be recycled. 5) Building and land will be kept clean and neat. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS a. A machine shop is currently allowed only in the M-2 zoning district. Manufacturing of any scale is only permitted in the industrial districts. (Under the proposed zoning ordinance, the same use is considered "Custom Manufacturing" and is proposed as a permitted use in the AG-3, I-1, and I-2 districts, and as a special use permit in the AG-1, AV, and C-2 districts. b. Entrance permit will be required from VDOT. c. Site plan review may be required in order to ensure conformance with county regulations. SITE CHARACTERISTICS TOPOGRAPHY: Site slopes upward from road, levels out around existing buildings, and slopes upward behind barn. GROUND COVER: Site is cleared around existing barn and heavily wooded to the rear and sides of the building. AREA CHARACTERISTICS FiTTURE GROW'T'H PRIORITY: Situated within the Catawba Community Planning Area. The growth initiative for this area is to limit growth. GENERAL AREA is partially developed with rural large-lot single-family residential (site-built and mobile homes) and agricultural uses. Most parcels along this portion of Newport Road extend 1200-1500 feet or more back from the road and border the Jefferson National Forest. ., ;.~ i 2 LAND USE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Rating: Rate each factor according to the impact of the proposed action. Use a scale of 1 through 5. 1 =positive impact, 2 =negligible impact, 3 =manageable impact, 4 =disruptive impact, 5 =severe impact, and N/A =not applicable. RATING FACTOR COMMENTS LAND USE COMPATIBILITY 4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1985 Comprehensive Development Plan has placed this area within a Rural Preserve designation. According to the Plan, manufacturing uses are not compatible with this designation and should be prohibited. While the proposed use is not addressed in any of the development policies in the Rural Preserve designation, it is not counter to the principles of rural land preservation described in the Plan. The Plan discourages disruption of productive farmland, promotes minimal disruption of vegetative cover and visual landscape, discourages establishment of incompatible and intensely developed land uses that may threaten productive farms, woodlands, and protected resources such as open space, and encourages preservation of rural lifestyles. The petitioner's request follows these principles in that additional land clearing is not necessary for the operation of the machine shop, the operation will be entirely within an existing barn --atypical agricultural structure in rural areas, and the use will be located on the same large parcel of land as the petitioner's home. 3 SURROUNDING LAND: The site is bounded on one side by the petitioner's home fronting on Newport Road and on the remaining three sides by one heavily wooded 71 +/- acre parcel with a single family dwelling. The scale of the petitioner's request along with its location within an existing agricultural structure on the site, the size of the parcel of land, and the topography and ground cover on the site, the use should not be incompatible with the adjacent land use or other uses permitted on the adjacent land. 3 NEIGHBORING AREA: Single family residential (site-built and mobile home), agricultural activities including cattle and farming, undeveloped wooded land, and the Jefferson National Forest. The site is approximately .5 mile from the intersection of Newport Road and Route 311. The scale of the petitioner's proposed use, the architecture, and the location should have no visual or environmental impact on the neighboring area. 2 SITE LAYOUT: Petitioner intends to use existing 45' x 50' barn for shop. Barn is located to the rear of the existing single-family dwelling. One half of an existing horseshoe-shaped driveway will serve the shop and the other half will continue to serve the dwelling. A parking area is located adjacent to the barn. 2 ARCHITECTURE: Existing barn, compatible with other agricultural structures in the area, will be used for shop. 2 SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING: Site is heavily wooded to rear and side of barn. Type D or E screening may be required on nonwooded border. 2 AMENITIES: Required parking can be accommodated in area indicated adjacent to barn. TRAFFIC 2 STREET CAPACTTIE.S: 1986 ADT for Newport Road between Route 311 and Miller Cove Road (Rt 620) was 574. Proposed use generates little additional traffic. ~- 2 CIRCULATION: Petitioner proposes using one half of an existing horseshoe-shaped driveway for the business and a cleared area adjacent to the barn for a parking area. VDOT must approve the entrance. UTILITIES 2 WATER and SEWER: Private well and septic system. DRAINAGE 2 BASIN: Trout Creek Drainage Basin. 2 FLOODPLAIN: No PUBLIC SERVICES 3 FIRE and RESCUE PROTECTION: Site located within 4-8 minute travel time area. 2 PARKS AND RECREATION: 2 SCHOOLS: ENVIRONMENT 2 AIR: Work will be done within enclosed building. 2 WATER: No known impacts. 2 SOILS: Metal chips will be recycled. 3 NOISE: Work will be done within enclosed building. 3 SIGNAGE: Petitioner may locate a sign near Newport Road since it is still on the same parcel of land as the proposed business. The sign must comply with regulations for the A- 1 zoning district since the frontage of the parcel will still be zoned A-1. PLAN CONSISTENCY This area is designated as Rural Preserve. Although petitioner's request for a machine shop is not consistent with the land uses encouraged in the Rural Preserve designation, it is not inconsistent with the principles of rural land preservation described in the Plan. STAFF EVALUATION STRENGTHS: (1) Operation to be conducted within existing barn which is compatible with agricultural structures in the area. 2) Proposed use would be considered "custom manufacturing" under proposed zoning ordinance and would be permitted either by right or by special use permit in agricultural areas. 3) Petitioner's request is consistent with requirements suggested for custom manufacturing in proposed zoning ordinance. 4) Petitioner has proffered machine shop as only use of M-2 zoning. WF.AIQ~TESSES: (1) Request is not a use encouraged in 1985 Comprehensive Plan although it does follow land development principles described in the same. PROFFERS SUGGESTED: none . ~ Date Rec .: ? `.~ ~i Received B~w Case No.: ~_ Ord. No.. ROANOKE COUNTY REZONING APPLICATION ~(o<.a.~cEa Z~KC~ 1. Owner' s Name : ~a ,[~~y ~ ~O O' 9 E S Phone : 70~ 8~/- L/93 Address: ~a 9S l~lf i~v,,do/~T /5'1~. ~RTigt/Vt~A 1/J9 ayo7o 2 . Applicant's Name: ,13014~~/ ,~ , f/od Q t= S Phone: ~BL~- L/ 93 Address: ~0 0 4~ ,11/f W~o~IT IQ,17 C'ig T.4 cl6N , Y~y . .~<'o'%'ts 3. Location of Property: /ogs /v~ w~igT' lQn, G'ATigtiyd.4., l//~, /QiANsA'F [.. Tax Map Number (s) : )3. Do ~ 1 - S.~ 4. Magisterial District: G°/'9TA W~i/5i- 5. Size of Property:_ ,j /-~~~f-S 6. Existing Zoning: ~-}- Existing Land Use: /~fS ~ c~ f ~r r~f?~_ t Jy'l' c' f S.Sai*'S~ .SToR ~g y ~ 7. Proposed Zoning: /y- Proposed Land Use : l~~ c° `~ ~ .~; f ; ;', c ,d 8. Comprehensive Plan Designation: ,~'s„-,",:)~ ,r~,~- ~ r ~~~,~,~' 9. Are Conditions Proffered With This Request? Yes / No (If you are voluntarily offering proffers as a part of your applica- tion, these proffers must be in writing. A member of the Planning Staff can assist you in the preparation of these proffers.) 10. Value of Land and (Proposed) Buildings: )u /~ 11. The Following Items Must Be Submitted With This Application. Please Check If Enclosed. Application Will Not Be Accepted If Any Of These Items Are Missing Or Incomplete: Letter of Application / Concept Plan ,. Metes and Bounds Description ~ List of Adjacent Owners of Property (Attach Exhibit A) ,/ Vicinity Map _~ Application Fee ~ Written Proffers ~/~ Water and Sewer Application (If Applicable) 12. Signature Of Property Owner, Contract Purchaser, Or Owner's Agent: Signature ,.,~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ Date _~ .2,2 ~ ~, J- t /j .q !/E tjEEN dd/N ~j ~'7ig Ch/~v5 T C..~o~s; d . ~0/Q ~ o /YES. l'~~ .S o ~/ ~ S /~v T h~F S/9 ht' ~y/9 ~ ~ in~~ S~o~o ~ ~v C'i9r'igw6.q, wou ~ o f ~00o ro/y~ 1"h~" J~fSi¢d~NT'3 , ~ ~/o/~~ Th ~'.s ~v i L ~ e /y E~ 7`E' Jo BS , S r.~~ r~M f .~ a n/~ ~ oi91 . ~/,~ ~ c h .~ - /~` ~~~ r . S _~ .~ ~/ ~ .S h f'c !/o L U nr 7~iR ~ ,C y pi~o FfE~ Th',E" foL ~ o w ~~~ Coiv~i Tioni s ; ~, /~f ZcN£ ~o/~ /J,gehir,,~ S/~o ~iV[ y. ~~ ~ ~ 3,vv0 O : /yA X l r! v l~/ S~ U /~.~? t ~o d T/-~~ F' -~"~,-~~--e- .58 . /c T N o ,S T o ~~4~ ~" o~ ~if-~ T E~' ~ f,~ i s o ~q ~'-~~ c h, ~,~-.r y o ~. T p~~ ~s ~/~N17 Lv ill bE //Y~ra~'~4,St"D To ~ 7"<?~1_ a ~ .3 A~'~t~F 1 ~d~ ~ , ~~~ ~~ ~-/ z w .,, ~ .*i v ..~ O o•e e' e~ Q 'R MPS 0~ t~t7l: Z2 Nrt~P~ _ ~O p ~ ~ « ~ m ^iN+~R 2 0 ~ 4 4 h ~ O u h W d N p =v N h ~ ~ Z W ~ t Qcn m I~ ~ lQi~ a ~~• ~~ -. ~ ~ I -'' ~ i /!, .; ~~~. W Z a '~ = O ~ ~~ I ~ Q ~ I Y ~ ~ ~~ -_ ~ Win; ~ I ,` --~- -- Z' ~~z `i ~,~~ . ~~ ~ ~ i O ~ ~_! ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ o F- Z~r ~Qw~m~ a [~Zoc O W O ~ 3=>~ -.r v ~ G Z W 2~¢x~YOI O¢r~z4 U `~~, » CL ~ ~'~- ~1 '_" ~ ' ~// W ~.~ -~. s-l NORTB COMMUNI7'j'SERVICES Sobby L. Hodges AND DEVELOPMENT 13.00-1- 53 A-1 To ",1-?_ s- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1992 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 3-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE, MORE OR LESS, LOCATED AT 6095 NEWPORT ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 13.00-1-53 AND A PORTION OF TAX MAP NO. 13.00-1-52) IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF M-2 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF BOBBY L. HODGES WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 28, 1992, and the second reading and public hearing was held May 26, 1992; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on May 5, 1992; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 3 acres, more or less, as described herein, and located at 6095 Newport Road, (Tax Map Number 13.00-1-53 and a portion of Tax Map No. 13.00-1-52) in the Catawba Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of A-1, Agricultural District, to the zoning classification of M-2, General Industrial District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Bobby L. Hodges. 3. That the owner has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts: ~! / a. To be used for machine shop only. b. Building to consist of a maximum of 3,000 sq. ft. c. No outside storage of materials or machinery. d. Land will be increased to a total of three acres prior to obtaining a business license. e. Building and land will be kept clean and neat. f. All metal chips will be recycled. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: STARTING at a point in the center of Virginia Secondary Highway Route 624, which point is the northeasterly corner of that certain 77.2 acres which was conveyed to Bobby L. Hodges, et ux. by Paul F. Sirry, et ux.; thence with the center of Route 624 S. 44 deg. 00' W. 381.15 feet to a point; thence S. 47 deg. 00' W. 371.25 feet to a point; thence S. 30 deg. 00' W. 304.75 feet to a point opposite a 12" poplar which is on the easterly side of Route 624; thence N. 44 deg. 32' W. 160 feet to the Actual Point of Beginning; thence continuing N. 44 deg. 32' W. 348.00 feet to a point; thence N. 34 deg. 00 E. 380.48 feet to a point; thence S. 44 deg. 32' E. 348.00 feet to a point; thence S. 34 deg. 00' W. 380.48 feet to the Actual Point of Beginning, and containing 3 acres, more or less. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. ~:~ti„ps »~~~w~g~noa~.non ,~~ ~;" AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COIINTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COIINTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TIIESDAY, MAY 26, 1992 ORDINANCE 52692-17 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 7.864-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED ON CARLOS DRIVE (TAX MAP NO. 39.01-1-3; 3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 3.4) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A-1 AND M-2 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-E IIPON THE APPLICATION OF JAMES S. BOLLING WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 28, 1992, and the second reading and public hearing was held May 26, 1992; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on May 5, 1992; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 7.864 acres, as described herein, and located on Carlos Drive, (Tax Map Number 39.01-1-3; 3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 3.4) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of A-1 and M-2, Agricultural District and General Industrial District, to the zoning classification of R-E, Residential Estate District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of James S. Bolling. 3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at a point located on the northerly right-of-way line of Va. Sec. Rte. 616 (Carlos Drive, formerly Hershberger Road), which point is approximately 0.2 miles in a northeasterly direction from Va. Sec. Rte. 601, and which point is S. 54 deg. 41' 34" W. 58.75 feet from an iron pin located in the centerline of Va. Sec. Rte. 616 (Carlos Drive), and which point is S. 66 deg. 56' 00" E. 6.00 feet from an iron pin. From the True Point of Beginning thus established; thence leaving the northerly right-of-way line of Va. Sec. Rte. 616 (Carlos Drive) N. 66 deg. 56' 00" W. a total of 224.20 feet to a post, crossing an iron pin at 6.00 feet; thence N. 00 deg. 05' 00" E. a total of 653.00 feet to an iron pin, crossing iron pins set at 200.00 feet and 470.00 feet; thence S. 82 deg. 58' 00" E. a total of 238.40 feet to an iron pin, crossing a 7" sumac on line at 31.5 feet; thence N. 72 deg. 23' 00" E. a total of 314.20 feet to an iron pin, crossing an iron pin at 60.00 feet and crossing an 18" locust on line at 306.82 feet; thence S. 15 deg. 12' 00" E. 321.90 feet to an iron pin on the northerly right-of-way line of Va. Sec. Rte. 616 (Carlos Drive); thence with the northerly right-of-way line of Va. Sec. Rte. 616 (Carlos Drive) S. 39 deg. 54' 00" W. a total of 646.97 feet to the True Point of Beginning, crossing iron pins set at 106.37 feet, 212.74 feet (which pin is S. 70 deg. 43' 54" W. 29.27 feet from an iron pin located in the centerline of Va. Sec. Rte. 616 (Carlos Drive), 319.11 feet and 425.48 feet; and containing 7.864 acres; all as more particularly shown on a plat of survey made by T. P. Parker & Son, Engineers-Surveyors- Planners, dated October 7, 1991, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, VA, in Plat Book 13, page 161. 4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. On motion of Supervisor Eddy to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None PRESENT: Supervisor Johnson A COPY TESTE: Mary H. A len, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul Mahoney, County Attorney s - z. PETITIONER: JAMES S. BOLL.ING CASE NUMBER: 8-5/92 Planning Commission Hearing Date: May 5, 1992 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: May 26, 1992 A. REQUEST Petition of James S. Bolling to rezone 7.864 acres from A-1 and M-2 to R-E to allow the continued use and new use of these tracts for residential purposes, located on Carlos Drive, Hollins Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Sanford Gurian, one of the property owners, said that he is living in the existing house on Carlos Drive and asked that the Commission approve the request. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Witt stated that it does not make sense for this piece of property to remain industrial and he's not comfortable going against a "5" designation on the staff report's Comprehensive Plan. He stressed the need to get the Comprehensive Plan updated in this locality as well as some other locations as soon as possible. Mr. Massey concurred with Mr. Witt and emphasized the importance of updating the Comprehensive Plan. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS None. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Witt moved to recommend approval of the petition. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Witt, Gordon, Robinson, Hooker, Massey NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other Terrance H rington, cretany Roanoke ounty Planning Commission R« STAFF REPORT CASE NUMBER: 8-5/92 PETITIONER: JAMES S. BOLLING REVIEWED BY: JANET SCHEID DATE: May 5, 1992 1. NATURE OF REQUEST a. This is an unconditional request to rezone five tracts of land totalling 7.864 acres from A-1 and M-2 to R-E to allow the continued and future use of these tracts for residential purposes. Properties are located on Carlos Drive in the Hollins Magisterial District. b. Mr. Bolling acquired the 7.864 acres of land in September 1987. At that time the land was in one tract. Mr. Bolling had it divided into five tracts of over one acre each by plat of survey in October 1991. In November 1991 Mr. Bolling imposed restrictive covenants on the property limiting the use to single-family residential. Since the subdivision was for 5 or less parcels of land, and each parcel was one acre or greater, Mr. Bolling was not required to go through subdivision review. As such, the conflict between the stated purpose of the subdivision, i.e. single-family residential development and the M-2 zoning on the properties, was not raised and resolved at the time the property was subdivided. c. Mr. Bolling has sold three of the tracts of land and is attempting to sell the remaining two tracts for residential uses. There is an existing house, built in 1940, on the southernmost tract of land. The people who bought the other two tracts from Mr. Bolling did so with the intent to build single-family homes. C. 2. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS a. The R-E, Residential Estates district allows a combination of single-family residential, institutional and agricultural uses. 3. SITE CHARACTERISTICS a. Topography: These properties are located on a bluff that rises steeply from the Norfolk Southern Corporation railroad tracks. b. Ground Cover: primarily grasses, trees and shrubs 1 ..~- 4. AREA CHARACTERISTICS a. Future Growth Priority: Situated within the Peters Creek Community Planning Area. The growth initiative for this area is to stimulate growth. b. General area: The general area is a mix of residential, agricultural and industrial uses. The industrial uses are located west of the railroad tracts and along Route 601, Hollins Road. The Economic Development Department has stated that the petitioners property is no suitable for industrial development purposes and has no plans for this immediate area. 5. LAND USE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Rating: Rate each factor according to the impact of the proposed action. Use a scale of 1 through 5. 1 = positive impact, 2 = negligible impact, 3 = manageable impact, 4 = disruptive impact, 5 = severe impact, and N/A = not applicable. RATING FACTOR COMMENTS LAND USE COMPATIBILITY 5 a. Comprehensive Plan: 1985 Comprehensive Development Plan has placed this area within an Industrial designation. The proposed rezoning is not consistent with any of the land use principals of the industrial designation. Although this area is designated Principal Industrial the Economic Development Department has indicated that these properties are not suitable for economic development purposes and has recommended that the rezonings be approved as requested. 1 b. Surrounding Land: Combination of residential, agricultural, and industrial uses. Industrial properties are located to the west and across the railroad tracks. The steep bluff provides a natural buffer between the industrial uses, the railroad tracks and the residential uses. 1 c. Neighboring Area: Surrounding properties are used primarily for single-family residential purposes. 3 d. Natural Features: These sites are situated at the top of a steep bluff and are relatively level. UTILITIES 3 e. Water and Sewer: Neither public water nor sewer are available to these sites. 2 S-2 DRAINAGE 3 f. Basin: These sites drain into the Tinker Creek basin. 3 g. Floodplain: no PUBLIC SERVICES 3 h. Fire and Rescue Service: Services available within requirement. 6. PLAN CONSISTENCY This area is designated as Principal Industrial. The petition to rezone this property to Residential Estates is not consistent with any of the land use guidelines of the industrial designation. The Economic Development Department has indicated that these parcels are not suitable for industrial development. 7. STAFF EVALUATION a. Strengths: (1) Although designated Industrial on the 1985 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map these sites are not suitable for industrial development. (2) The neighboring areas along Carlos Drive are exclusively residential in nature. (3) The existing nonconforming single-family. residence will be brought into conformance with the zoning ordinance. b. Weaknesses: (1) None c. Proffers Suggested: (1) None 3 ,~~ - -- ~ ~~ ATTACHttENT 1 '"--7 `~ ROANORE COUNTY REZONING APPLICATION ~M~--~__y _~ ~J Date Rec. Recd By Case No. Order No.: ~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ /y .~ ~'-~ / 1. Owners' Names: James S. Bolling 6114 Plantation Road Roanoke, VA 24019 Phone: 362-1563 [39.01-1-3. (1.427 acres)] [39.01-1-3.2 (1.642 acres)] Sanford Gurian Holly S. Peters 1324 Carlos Drive, N.E. Roanoke, VA 24019 Phone: 362-2406 [39.01-1-3.1 (1.412 acres)] Jeffery Lynn Shelton Rachel Ann Shelton 5409 Cooper Street, N.E. Roanoke, VA 24019 Phone: 362-2774 [39.01-1-3.3 (1.648 acres)] Robert Marshall Hale Martha Elaine Bayse Hale 6268 Nell Circle Roanoke, VA 24019 Phone: 362-8036 [39.01-1-3.4 (1.735 acres)] 2. Applicant's Name: James S. Bolling 6114 Plantation Road Roanoke, VA 24019 Phone: 362-1563 3. Location of Property: Va. Sec. Rte ,616 (Carlos Drive, formerly Hershberger Road) Tax Map Numbers: 39.01-1-3. (1.427 acres) 39.01-1-3.1 (1.412 acres) 39.01-1-3.2 (1.642 acres) 39.01-1-3.3 (1.648 acres) 39.01-1-3.4 (1.735 acres) 4. Magisterial District: Hollins 1 ~" 5. Size of Property: 7.864 acres (total) 39.01-1-3. (1.427 acres) 39.01-1-3.1 (1.412 acres) 39.01-1-3.2 (1.642 acres) 39.01-1-3.3 (1.648 acres) 39.01-1-3.4 (1.735 acres) 6. Existing Zoning: A-1 (Agricultural) and M-2 (General Industrial District) Existing Land Use: Single Family Residential; Undeveloped 7. Proposed Zoning: R-E (Residential Estate District) Proposed Land Use: Single Family Residential 8. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Industrial 9. Are Conditions Proffered With This Request: Yes No_X_ (If you are voluntarily offering proffers as a part of your application, these proffers must be in writing. A member of the Planning Staff can assist you in the preparation of these proffers.) 10. Value of Land and (Proposed) Buildings: Per tax assessments: 39.01-1-3. (1.427 acres) $18,300 39.01-1-3.1 (1.412 acres) $65,300 39.01-1-3.2 (1.642 acres) $19,400 39.01-1-3.3 (1.648 acres) $19,400 39.01-1-3.4 (1.735 acres) $19,800 11. The Following Items Must Be Submitted With This Application. Please Check If Enclosed. Application Aill Not Be Accepted If Any Of These Items Are Missing Or Incomplete: X Letter of Application _X_ Metes and Bounds Description of property _X_ Application Fee N/A Water and Sewer Application N/A Concept Plan _% List of Adjacent Owners N/A Written Proffers (If Applicable) 2 ~--.s - 12. Signatures of Property Owners, Contract Purchasers, or Owners' Agents: \ ~, 1 ~ ~ Ja es S. Bolling Dat an ord Gurian Ro e t arshall Hale ha, Elaine Bays Hale 3 Z S 9~ Dat 3 _ q 2- Date 03 / ~ Date o~ a i 9~ Date 3~z~~9~ Date ~, Date Rachel Ann Shelton KEN\ETH C. KING, ]R. STEVEN L H1GGS KING & I~IGGS, P.C. Attorneys and Counselors at Law :i0 }RANKLI?: F.OAD, SOUTH0.'EST SGITE 400 PROFESSIONAL ARTS BUILDING ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011 TELEPHONE (703) 985-0736 FACSIMILE 1703) 985-0742 MAILING ADDRESS POST OFFICE BOX 1784 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24008-1784 March 27, 1992 HAND DELIVERED Roanoke County Planning Department Roanoke County Administration Center 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0789 Re: Rezoning Application of James S. Bolling 7.864 Acre Tract Carlos Drive, N.E. (formerly Hershberger Road) Ladies and Gentlemen: Please let this serve as our Letter of Application on behalf of James S. Bolling and others for the rezoning of 7.864 acres on Carlos Drive, N.E. (formerly Hershberger Road) from A-1 (Agricultural) and M-2 (General Industrial District) to R-E (Residential Estate District). All property owners directly affected by the proposed rezoning have joined in Mr. Bolling's application. This rezoning is requested by Mr. Bolling and by the property owners to preserve the existing character of the property as single-family residential property, and to make the zoning of the property consistent with its present and intended use. Property to be Rezoned The Property to be rezoned comprises 7.864 acres on Carlos Drive, N.E., and is more fully described in Exhibit A to the application accompanying this letter as Attachment 1. Mr. Bolling acquired the Property from Violet R. Hull and Myles K. Hull, her husband, and Mary R. Eary and Leslie M. Eary, her husband, by deed dated September 7, 1987, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke in Deed Book 1272, page 1405. Mr. Bolling divided the Property into five tracts of over one acre each by plat of survey made by T. P. Parker & Son, Engineers-Surveyors-Planners, dated October 7, 1991, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 13, page 161. A copy of the plat is enclosed with this letter as Attachment 2. I{I\G fi HIGGS, P.C. Roano};e County Planning Department March 27, 1992 Page Two S-.2, By instrument dated November 4, 1991, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1353, page 52, Mr. Bolling imposed restrictive covenants on the Property which would limit the use of the Property to single family residential uses. A copy of the restrictive covenants is enclosed with this letter of application as Attachment 3. Tract 1 (Tax Map No. 39.01-1-3.), containing 1.427 acres, is still owned by Mr. Bolling, and is listed for sale for single family residential use. A portion of this tract is currently zoned A-1 (Agricultural). The balance of Tract 1 is currently zoned M-2 (General Industrial). Tract 2 (Tax Map No. 39.01-1-3.4), containing 1.735 acres, has been conveyed by Mr. Bolling to Robert Marshall Hale and Martha Elaine Bayse Hale, who have joined in this application. Mr. and Mrs. Hale plan to construct a single family residence on Tract 2. A portion of Tract 2 is currently zoned A-1 (Agricultural). The balance is currently zoned M-2 (General Industrial). Tract 3 (Tax Map No. 39.01-1-3.3), containing 1.648 acres, has been conveyed by Mr. Bolling to Jeffery Lynn Shelton and Rachel Ann Shelton, who have also joined in this application. Mr. and Mrs. Shelton plan to construct a single family residence on Tract 3. A portion of Tract 3 is currently zoned A-1 (Agricultural). The balance is currently zoned M-2 (General Industrial). Tract 4 (Tax Map No. 39.01-1-3.2), containing 1.642 acres, is still owned by Mr. Bolling, and is listed for sale for single family residential use. This tract is currently zoned M-2 (General Industrial). The fifth tract (Tax Map No. 39.01-1-3.1), is comprised of a parcel originally containing 0.699 acres, which was conveyed by Mr. Bolling to Sanford Gurian and Holly S. Peters and combined with a parcel they owned containing 0.713 acres to create a parcel containing 1.412 acres. This parcel is currently used for single family residential purposes, and is currently zoned M-2 (General Industrial). Surrounding Property The Property is surrounded by property used primarily for single family residential purposes. Burnette Heights, which is located in a neighborhood preservation zone as designated on the County's Comprehensive Plan, is located nearby. Property used for residential purposes is located on either side of the Property, as well as south across Carlos Drive. KItiG R HIGGS. P.G. Roanoke County Planning Department March 27, 1992 Page Three The Property abuts on its western boundaries railroad tracks located within a 33.00 foot-wide right-of-way owned by the Norfolk Southern Corporation/Norfolk & Western Railway Company. The railroad property is physically located down a steep grade or bluff from the more level portions of the Property which might be improved for residential uses. The bluff and the railroad tracks provide a natural dividing line and buffer between the generally industrial uses of property west of the railroad to Route 601, and the generally residential uses of property east of the railroad. Effect of Rezoningt Rezoning the Property will have no significant effect on the surrounding area. As indicated above, the area east of the railroad tracks is currently used primarily for single-family residential purposes. Use of the Property for such purposes certainly will not affect the general industrial use of the property located west of the tracks, which is physically separated both by the railroad track and by the natural topography. The Land Use Plan The Property is located in an area designated for industrial uses by the Comprehensive Plan. As indicated above, however, the Property abuts a neighborhood preservation zone which could easily be expanded to include and protect the residential character of the Property and of the surrounding area. Proffered Conditions There are no conditions proffered with this rezoning application. Conclusion We respectfully request on behalf of Mr. Bolling and the other property owners that the Property be rezoned from A-1 (Agricultural) and M-2 (General Industrial District) to R-E (Residential Estate District). Very truly yours, KING & HIGGS, P.C. ~. Steven L. Higgs S-2 NORTI~ COMMUNITY SERVICES James S. Bolling AND DEVELOPMENT M1 and Al to RE "" . AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1992 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 7.864-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED ON CARLOS DRIVE (TAX MAP NO. 39.01-1-3; 3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 3.4) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A-1 AND M-2 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-E UPON THE APPLICATION OF JAMES 8. BOLLING WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 28, 1992, and the second reading and public hearing was held May 26, 1992; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on May 5, 1992; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 7.864 acres, as described herein, and located on Carlos Drive, (Tax Map Number 39.01-1-3; 3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 3.4) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of A-1 and M-2, Agricultural District and General Industrial District, to the zoning classification of R-E, Residential Estate District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of James S. Bolling. 3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at a point located on the northerly right-of-way line of Va. Sec. Rte. 616 (Carlos Drive, formerly Hershberger Road), which point is approximately 0.2 miles in a northeasterly s -.2-- direction from Va. Sec. Rte. 601, and which point is S. 54 deg. 41' 34" W. 58.75 feet from an iron pin located in the centerline of Va. Sec. Rte. 616 (Carlos Drive), and which point is S. 66 deg. 56' 00" E. 6.00 feet from an iron pin. From the True Point of Beginning thus established; thence leaving the northerly right-of-way line of Va. Sec. Rte. 616 (Carlos Drive) N. 66 deg. 56' 00" W. a total of 224.20 feet to a post, crossing an iron pin at 6.00 feet; thence N. 00 deg. 05' 00" E. a total of 653.00 feet to an iron pin, crossing iron pins set at 200.00 feet and 470.00 feet; thence S. 82 deg. 58' 00" E. a total of 238.40 feet to an iron pin, crossing a 7" sumac on line at 31.5 feet; thence N. 72 deg. 23' 00" E. a total of 314.20 feet to an iron pin, crossing an iron pin at 60.00 feet and crossing an 18" locust on line at 306.82 feet; thence S. 15 deg. 12' 00" E. 321.90 feet to an iron pin on the northerly right-of-way line of Va. Sec. Rte. 616 (Carlos Drive); thence with the northerly right-of-way line of Va. Sec. Rte. 616 (Carlos Drive) S. 39 deg. 54' 00" W. a total of 646.97 feet to the True Point of Beginning, crossing iron pins set at 106.37 feet, 212.74 feet (which pin is S. 70 deg. 43' 54" W. 29.27 feet from an iron pin located in the centerline of Va. Sec. Rte. 616 (Carlos Drive), 319.11 feet and 425.48 feet; and containing 7.864 acres; all as more particularly shown on a plat of survey made by T. P. Parker & Son, Engineers-Surveyors- Planners, dated October 7, 1991, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, VA, in Plat Book 13, page 161. 4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. c:\wp51\agenda\zoning\bolling " ~~` ~a ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1992 ORDINANCE 52692-18 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 0.83-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED IN THE 6100 BLOCK OF PETERS CREEK ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 27.13-6-62.1) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF B-2 AND B-3 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF B-2 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF STEVE WALDROP WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 28, 1992, and the second reading and public hearing was held May 26, 1992; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on May 5, 1992; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 0.83 acre, as described herein, and located in the 6100 block of Peters Creek Road, (Tax Map Number 27.13-6-62.1) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of B-2 and B-3, General Commercial District and Special Commercial District, to the zoning classification of B- 2, General Commercial District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Steve Waldrop. 3. That the owner (Cube Venture Real Estate Company) has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts: a. Uses permitted by B-2 zoning shall exclude convenience stores. b. Exterior lighting pole height, if erected, will be limited to 14 feet and lighting shall be directed into the lot. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Parcel I - 0.444-acre tract of land to be known as "Tract B-2-A, Dr. Davis Division" being a portion of the property conveyed to Lube Ventures Real Estate Company, L.P. by deed of record in Deed Book 1314, page 103 in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office. Said 0.444- acre tract being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING in the north right-of-way of Peters Creek Road (Va. State Route 117) and the most southern corner of a tract of land conveyed to Jones Investment Ventures in Deed Book 1317, page 1085 of the Roanoke County deed records; thence with said Peters Creek Road S. 33 deg. 14' 30" W. 120.00 feet to an iron pin set; thence N. 53 deg. 05' 28" W. 165.27 feet to an iron pin set; thence N. 37 deg. 00' 00" E. 120.00 feet to an iron pin found at the western corner of said Jones tract; thence with the south line of said Jones tract S. 53 deg. 00' 04" E. 157.48 feet to the Point of Beginning, and containing 0.444 acre as surveyed by Balzer and Associates, Inc. on February 3, 1992. Parcel II - 0.385-acre tract of land to be known as "Tract B-2-B, Dr. Davis Division" being a portion of the property conveyed to Lube Ventures Real Estate Company, L.P. by deed of record in Deed Book 1314, page 103 of the Roanoke County deed records, said 0.385-acre tract being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING in the north right-of-way of Peters Creek Road (Va. State Route 117) and the centerline of the vacated Jones Road by deed found in Deed Book 1280, page 967; thence along the said centerline N. 56 deg. 55" 00" W. 171.82 feet to an iron pin set, being the most southern corner of a parcel of land conveyed to Charles M. Vandergrift, et. ux.; thence with the southeast line of said Vandergrift parcel N. 37 deg. 00' 00" E. 105.29 feet to an iron pin set; thence N. 53 deg. 05' 28" W. 165.27 feet to a point in the north right-of-way of said Peters Creek Road; thence with said north right-of-way S. 33 deg. 14' 30" W. 94.02 feet to the Point of Beginning and containing 0.385 acre as surveyed by Balzer and Associates, Inc. on February 3, 1992. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens NAYS: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: Mary H. en, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Y t Y ~ ~ PETITIONER: STEVE WALDROP CASE NUMBER: 9-5/92 Planning Commission Hearing Date: May 5, 1992 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: May 26, 1992 A. REQUEST Petition of Steve Waldrop to rezone 0.83 acres from B-2 and B-3 to B-2 to operate a dental clinic and permit general business uses, located in the 6100 block of Peters Creek Road, Hollins Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Beth Fobare, a nearby resident, expressed concern that a convenience store may be situated at this location. She requested that the height and direction of any lighting should be restricted. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION At the Commission's request, Mr. Beard summarized the previous proffers: 1) Concept plan dated Nov. 2, 1987 and revised Dec. 2, 1987. 2) The B-3 property will be used for a vehicle lubrication facility. 3) The B-2 property will be used for a retail facility (shown on concept plan as a convenience store). 4) The buildings will be constructed of similar materials. 5) Locational signage will conform to sign ordinance and will have sides averaging less than 95 sq.ft. 6) All lighting systems will be directed into site. The maximum height of light supports shall be 14 feet. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS 1) Uses permitted by B-2 zoning shall exclude convenience stores. 2) Exterior lighting pole height, if erected, will be limited to 14 feet and lighting shall be directed into the lot. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Massey moved to recommend approval of the petition with conditions. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Witt, Gordon, Robinson, Hooker, Massey NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other ~. ~~ Terrance 'ngton ecretary Roanoke ounty P arming Commission , STAFR REPORT i ~ _ CASE NUMBER: 9-5/92 REVIEWED BY: TIM BEARD PETITIONER: STEVE WALDROP DATE: MAY 5, 1992 Petition of Steve Waldrop to rezone 0.83 acres from B-2 and B-3 to B-2 to operate a dental clinic and permit general business uses, located in the 6100 block of Peters Creek Road, Catawba Magisterial District. NA"IZJRE OF REQUEST a. Unconditional request to construct and operate aone-story, 2,000 sq.ft. dental clinic on approximately one half of a 0.83 acre tract (currently zoned B-3 conditional) and to remove conditions on the remainder of the parcel to permit general business uses in the B-2 district. b. Concept plan and zoning vicinity map describe project in more detail. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS a. The B-2 General Commercial District permits a wide variety of business uses. Although no proffers are proposed at this time, a dentist is under contract with the landowner to buy that portion of the property described as B-2-A on the concept plan, pending rezoning. That portion now described as B-2-B would become an unrestricted B-2 zoned parcel. b. A history of the previous conditional rezoning approved in December 1987 reveals that a concept plan indicating specific B-1, B-2, and B-3 uses was proffered including an office building, convenience store, and vehicle lubrication facility, respectively. That concept plan and accompanying use restrictions remain in effect. The office was developed and houses Jones & Jones Associates Architects. The petitioner wishes to remove the B-2 and B-3 site related conditions as well as individual conditions regarding signage and lighting. c. VDOT commercial entrance permit will be required. d. Site plan review will be required to ensure compliance with County regulations. SITE CHARACTERISTICS TOPOGRAPHY: Predominantly flat. GROUND COVER: Field grass; sparse evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs. ARFA CI-IARACTERISTICS FUTURE GROWTH PRIORITY: Situated within the Peters Creek Community Planning Area. Designated for stimulated growth, the site is located within the urban service area. GENERAL AREA is developed with single-family residential and office commercial uses. A large tract of undeveloped property, formerly farmland, lies just west of subject site. LAND USE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Rating: Rate each factor according to the impact of the proposed action. Use a scale of 1 thru 5. 1 =positive impact, 2 =negligible impact, 3 =manageable impact, 4 =disruptive impact, 5 =severe impact, and N/A =not applicable. RATING FACTOR GUMM~N1.5 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY 4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1985 Comprehensive Development Plan has placed this area within a Transition land use category. Office uses are encouraged with high compatibility. ~i~ 2 The proposed dental clinic is consistent with the land use map and policies TR-7 (provide shared access and parkin agreements where possible and establish minimum frontage lot widths) and TR-9 (provide screening and buffering along rear borders where frontage development backs up to residential uses). General retail activities are discouraged wrath low compatibility unless clustered or in a planned shopping center. The unconditional use of a B-2 tract is not consistent with the land use map or with policies TR-1 (prevent haphazard commercial sprawl along major highways) and TR-2 (encourage new retail uses to locate in planned shopping centers or in planned groupings of independent buildings). ~ SURROUNDING LAND: Single-family residential, office commercial, undeveloped pasture. 2 NEIGHBORING AREA: Single-family residential, office and retail commercial, institutional, undeveloped tracts. 3 SITE LAYOUT: Current proposal features dual shared access design (see Traffic Circulation) and adequate parking for proposed dental clinic through shared parking agreement with adjoining Jones & Jones office. Access may be altered during in-depth County and state review. Limited size of each tract will dictate one small building for each parcel and careful parking design, especially tract B-2-B. Screening and buffering and signage requirements can be readily satisfied wnthin the dental clinic portion of the proposal. 2 ARCHITECTURE: One-story 2,000 sc~.ft. building expected to contain three examining rooms proposed for tract B-2-A; extenor materials unknown. Any building walls located less than 10 feet from a property line are required to have at least aone-hour fire rating. 2 SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING: Per ordinance. Type C buffer yard and plantings required along rear of subject property. Perimeter plantings required along Peters Creek Road parking lot interface. ~ AMENITIES: Pending submission and County acceptance of shared parking and access agreement, proposed parking supply should be adequate utilizing a portion of existing Jones & Jones lot. Handicap space required per ordinance as well as loading area. Parking adequacy becomes more problematic with development of tract B-2-B (see Site Layout). 2 NATURAL AMENITIES: Predominantly flat parcels will yield to full site development other than screening and buffering yards and plantings. TRAFFIC 3 STREET CAPACITIES: VA 117 (Peters Creek Road) functions as a major urban arterial. 1990 ADT (from 11 to 118): 20,270 vehicles. 1987: 6 accidents at VA 117NA 1841 (Dwight Street) intersection; 4 accidents at VA 117NA 118 (Airport Road) intersection. Anticipated additional ADT is 50-60 vehicle trip ends per day (dental clinic only). 4 CIRCULATION: Direct shared access available at northeast corner of site per concept plan. County public street and parking design standards require reverse frontage and/or combined access be utilized whenever a commercial subdivision abuts a primary or arterial highway. VDOT n1a require the re-location of entrance(s) and/or the elimination of the proposed shared access on the tract B-2-A/tract B-2-B border. The possibility exists of entenng only at the northernmost (existing) access and exiting only at the southernmost (proposed) access. Acceleration and deceleration lanes are considered likely. The practical utilization of the entire site makes a reverse frontage concept unlikely if not impossible. UTILITIES 2 WATER: Adequate source and distribution via two inch water line along rear property border. S ~-, ~j 3 2 SEWER: Adequate treatment and transmission via existing sewer (owner to install new force main and pump station) northeast of subject property or on-site septic if percolation allows. DRAINAGE 2 BASIN: Tinker Creek ~ FLOODPLAIN: County engineering department will determine whether or not on-site stormwater detention well be required. 100-year floodplain for west fork of Carvins Creek lies approximately 200 linear feet southwest of subject property. PUBLIC SERVICES 2 FIRE AND RESCUE PROTECTION: Within established service standard. PARKS AND RECREATION: SCHOOLS: TAX BASE 1 LAND AND IMPROVEMENT VALUE: Approximately $150,000 (unimproved property only). TAXABLE GROSS SALES/YF.AR: Unknown TOTAL EMPLOYEES: For tract B-2-A, a maximum of five, including two dentists. TOTAL REVENUE TO THE COUNTY/YF.AR: Approx. $1,695 (unimproved property only). ENVIRONMENT 2 AIR: 2 WATER: 2 SOILS: 2 NOISE: ~ SIGNAGE: Per ordinance; approximately 160 maximum total sq.h. permitted for each parcel based on 1.5 sq.ft. per frontage foot. PLAN CONSISTENCY This area is designated as Transition. A dental clinic or other proposed office uses are consistent with the land use plan map and with policies TR-7 and TR-9 (dealing with shared access/parking, minimum frontage lot width, and screening respectively). General retail uses are inconsistent with policies TR-1 and TR-2 (regarding the prevention of commercial sprawl and the use of planned shopping centers, respectively). STAFF EVALUATION STRENGTHS: 1) Proposed dental clinic is consistent with Transition policies TR-7 and TR-9. 2) Limited scale and office commercial infill nature of proposal as related to tract B-2-A. WEAIQ~IESSES: 1) Two direct access points within 80 feet of one another are not advisable on an arterial highway sustainin over 20,000 vehicles per day. 2) Speculative nature of future use possibilities for tract B-2-B. 3~ Inconsistent with policies TR-1 and TR-2 as related to tract B-2-B. 4) Minimum amount of parking available, even with cross access agreements. PROFFERS SUGGESTED: None. t L ~~ , Date Rec.: _-~~~~ ~;': ~~_ ~~ • ~,U-'~ ,~ `~ ~Rece ived By - ~,'~ I, Case No.: ~ ~~1. Ord. No.._t- =_ --- ---- ---- ROANOKE COUNTY REZONING APPLICATION 1. Owner's Name: Lu Address: c/o Microage,P.O. Drawer-__3514 Venture Real Estate Com (_roonvi ~ ~ o . tariff Garne_ t ~, , 2. Applicant's Name: Steve Waldrop - Realtor Phone:3'5~-8101 Address: P.O. Box 1479, Salem, VA 24153 3. Location of Property: 6100 Block - Nor h lin et_ s Cr ek Road Tax Map Number(s): 27.13-6-62.1 4. Magisterial District: Catawba 5. Size of Property: 6. Existing Zoning: B2-General Commercial & B-3 Special Commercial Existing Land Use: Vacant Land 7. Proposed Zoning: Tract B-2-B Undeveloped Proposed Land Use: B2 Tract B-2-A Proposed Dental Clinic - John J. Davis 8. Comprehensive Plan Designation: '; rt/s,•1gt-r~o~l 9. Are Conditions Proffered With This Request? Yes No X (If you are voluntarily offering proffers as a part of your applica- tion, these proffers must be in writing. A member of the Planning Staff can assist you in the preparation of these proffers.) 10. Value of Land and (Proposed) Buildings: Land $150,000 Improvement--not determined 11. The Following Items Must Be Submitted With This Application. Please Check If Enclosed. Application Will Not Be Accepted If Any Of These Items Are Missing Or Incomplete: / Letter of Application / Concept Plan ~- Metes and Bounds Description List of Adjacent Owners of Property (Attach Exhibit A) Vicinity Map Application Fee N/A Written Proffers ~- Water and Sewer Application (If Applicable) 12. Signature Of Property Owner, Contract Purchaser, Or Owner's Agent: Signature .~ \,l1c~, > Date ~ 2 6 9 2 ~ ./ Waldrop, Jr., Realtor-Owner's Agent / , _ . y ~ P PY~tS`rte: 91~~~.7,56-9378 s~'~'REALTV March 26, 1992 Roanoke County Planning Commission P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 RE: 27.13-6-62.1 Ladies and Gentlemen: The owners of the above referenced parcel, Lube Venture Real Estate Company purchased the business interest of the successor owner, who previously rezoned the parcel in December, 1987 from B1 to B2 General Commercial and B3 Commercial with special conditions. It is our understanding that the prior owners contemplated a convenience store and Lube service facility. The current owners have no intent to develope the property and have placed the property on the market for sale. At this time Lube Venture has entered into a contract with John J. Davis, DDS to purchase a portion of the property identified as B-2-A on the attached plat. The contract is contingent on zoning permitting a dental clinic. The rezoning application specifically request a B2 zoning for both parcels and the removal of the prior proffers. A B2 zoning would permit a dental clinic on tract B-2-A (formerly B3-lube service) and permit B2 business classifications on tract B-2-B {formerly B2- convenience store). Respectfully, ' ~ /L--~ ~~LL" S. Wa drop; Jr., MAI, CCIM Main Office: P.O. Box 1479, 500 East Fourth Street, Salem, VA 24153 (703) 389-8101 Fax 389-6004 P.O. Box 20509, 2727 Electric Road, Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 772-7200 fax 772-7201 ~"~ EXISTING TRACT TRACT o .a JONES 6 JONES AssOCIATes AACNITECTs FOR DR. JOt1N a DAV15 Ate L.t~E VIEKfUREs REAL ESTATE COMPANY L P. L~ W ,. . . .` ~ f a ~ F- V~y~ ,~ -' i .• ~. 4 ~ ~ ', ~~ ttr ~~ 4 0. ± .J C o '~ d ~~ e ~r ~~~ ~~ ~ ~,_~~;a ~~ R~~ ~ ~ . a r!.-..~~ ~~r . .lam+~C~CO~~~O .~~ ~a a~o ~ •~ ~~ ~~~F~~a~ 9e , w~iwi w+ , ~ N V .A I ~ „~. II ~ tiMH • ~ [; ~~ ~`F i ~' a I~ I ' ' V j w uW L~(1 .1 L o7 9/v. b Yd ~ L7YNei/ __ hN~ a°: y ncf~, J.hO.00.fS5- I. O Qv~ Q. ,,{{yy '~~ I 1.Y 9N ~fS ~ . ~ 1L M~-M. O.C N 1 ~~ ~ ~ 4 c ~ I ~) , ~ ~~ ~ ~~° g ~ ~. v m bey ' t p ~ 7 ~ s7 ~ .;, V h ~~;"• 2 ~ ~ C` I I V ~~~ 1 ~ ~ p i vM o~ ~' j i L ~ a I /L/ fM.00. I.fSN _ 7S ~d 3i r~rn ~ v O 199L/1S s~ivo!' ~ ~ ~" 0 Or I1 V ~ N,; `` I ~ ~~ ~ 2 < ••v 4"In4 ~l I I v~~ I ~ e ~ I ~ ' - ---{{~f ---- ti 4 ti) w ~`Q ~~ I h~ ~ ~ 2w • ~Q ~ ? 9~~~ ~~h ~ ~ . <ry ~ ~ ~~ O V •' I° `~ I i sr ~ ~ Q ,; n ~ (•. N ~ I ~ E ~ ~ ~ • ~w~~~~ r' ~"~~ ~ $~ ~ . g ~ I Nt r +~~ ~ a ~~~ Ta R~ AMR ~~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ •~R~ ~C~~a~~ ~ ~3 Q~ ~ ~Na~ R +~ ~~~ 3 ~ ~ o ~~_~ ~ ~ ~ ,k~ ~" b ` ~~~~~ ~~~ Syo ~ys~~~ ~ - soa a . ~ y ~ $ y 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~°~ ~ M w ~~~00 ~t ~~ ~ Mr^~^~rz~ • ~' M<OFO~M C C a e (N~ C N ~~ :2i C ~,3 Q I a ~~ O ~ ry ~ K rt I Y, I I ~ ~ I I I ~~ O ~1 H H .~ AA r p wns rr~ $nnwi OOVrO annwa Ow.°1ww a =.~~~ :..~:. .,.~: ~a..a .;n...; "A1A ,; iii J Y Z ~ d y • V ~"1 < ~ N o..cca W zF0• <WUN~•O F~?~onoo r~a>..7a~er ~~~~m~ y -+~NWm 41 lCUVw7 ~go~~o WO(a~ ZOO>^f ~ ~OOOR ~+N ~ (fJ a $ , r m O I W p O ? ' 0 s 6 <b N ~~ ~~ M yM~R ~~ ~ d ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ . ~ ~ I ' A I. ;;. ~ ~~~ C ~~~ I g Y ~~~ag tl~ ~=a I ° al ~ r yOQ ~ w X ;~ ~~~ WALDROP L~JREALTV May 6, 1992 Y ~ h .~ ;~0 19Q? f. ~-: ~ ~l4,1~~~a f.uuq,li~~~4~ Mr. Terrance Harrington, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 RE: Proffers Petition of Lube Ventures 0.83 acres 6100 block Peters Creek Rd. Dear Mr. Harrington: This letter confirms the agreement to proffer the herein conditions for the rezoning of the above referenced parcels: 1. Uses permitted by B2 zoning shall exclude convenience stores. 2. Exterior lighting pole height, if erected, will be limited to 14 feet and lighting shall be directed into the lot. ~J ~~ ~I,X~A.1r'~- Date `~ ~ 2 Lube Ventures Real Estate LP William G. Garner President/General Partner Lube Venture Inc. Main Office: P.O. Box 1479, 500 East Fourth Street, Salem, VA 24153 (703) 389-8101 Fax 389-6004 P.O. Box 20509, 2727 Electric Road, Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 772-7200 Fax 772-7201 ~ / J i ~ /~,~~ ~a \ r ~ . Y ~'~ k- ~ a _ ~ rte. ~. ~ ~ j\ '~';~: ,col ~ ~ ~~`~ , 4 `, ~f ~A'vDS N5'`~ ~ say S { NI row~~p's4 ~ ~' ~ ~r.f:'~f 'Eti ~'~ a ' `~ _ ~ ~` ~ VICINITY J~IAP ' ~ _ 3 - ~'~ ~~ NORTB `fP .~~ !^ 4, q ` cwi~iii~u.a0ti,t1 - Cl~6~w,.'l ~ ,~~ fo f _ ___ ,_._ ~ r \4O ~S u~~ r w i.u / N X27 \' _ \ q. ~ r 6 ~ 0.T • • ~ X24 r~ ~r • \ ~~ `t ~ t2 RE 'hC.~S~ \ ~\ ~e• 4 \ r e \~ .i• ~ fir- uvirs An/rcrs/N \ ~~ ~2 • N 1 ~ \ ~3\ \ • ~r\ ti ~ Gx~vrr ' ,ur ~ 33 \ \\ r\ w\ ~ ti ~>3 /D \ ~ tl \~ \ ~ / \ ~i \ 12\\ ~ 18 ~ • X37\ 48 ,' ,+ ~~\\ / \ \ \ ~ ~ ~~ » b \ \ 3 \ • \ r • \ ~ \ i \ \. ~r ~e r • \ \ \\ / B~ ~\ N \ 1 1i\ ~, • \ Bi\ \ ~ i \ \~ \ > i /I\ \ \ / \ \ M \ r , \ \ N ~~~ ~ \ \ ~•\ \ ~ 43 ~ ~ \ ~ / \ \ M \~ . / \ R3 ~ r ~ \ fi ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ,~ iR1 \ ~ \ Pro :s.16-t•K ~ ~ 1'•100' ~ B1 ! ~ ~ e ~/ 1 11 ~C ~ . r: ~--r - • a/ ' i` ° °` a xay~ Bt NOTE P/0 26.16-2-14 RE Q% • ~~ ALL PARCELS ON THIS MAP I 1-,,~~ ~ ARE ZONED R1 ,UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. Steve Waldrop COMMUNITYS1sRVICBS 62 & B3 To B2 AND DBVBL(?PMBNT *~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1992 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 0.83-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED IN THE 6100 BLOCK OF PETERS CREEK ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 27.13-6-62.1) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF B-2 AND B-3 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF B-2 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF STEVE WALDROP WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 28, 1992, and the second reading and public hearing was held May 26, 1992; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on May 5, 1992; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 0.83 acre, as described herein, and located in the 6100 block of Peters Creek Road, (Tax Map Number 27.13-6-62.1) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of B-2 and B-3, General Commercial District and Special Commercial District, to the zoning classification of B- 2, General Commercial District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Steve Waldrop. 3. That the owner (Cube Venture Real Estate Company) has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts: r~ a. Uses permitted by B-2 zoning shall exclude convenience stores. b. Exterior lighting pole height, if erected, will be limited to 14 feet and lighting shall be directed into the lot. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Parcel I - 0.444-acre tract of land to be known as "Tract B-2-A, Dr. Davis Division" being a portion of the property conveyed to Lube Ventures Real Estate Company, L.P. by deed of record in Deed Book 1314, page 103 in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office. Said 0.444- acre tract being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING in the north right-of-way of Peters Creek Road (Va. State Route 117) and the most southern corner of a tract of land conveyed to Jones Investment Ventures in Deed Book 1317, page 1085 of the Roanoke County deed records; thence with said Peters Creek Road S. 33 deg. 14' 30" W. 120.00 feet to an iron pin set; thence N. 53 deg. 05' 28" W. 165.27 feet to an iron pin set; thence N. 37 deg. 00' 00" E. 120.00 feet to an iron pin found at the western corner of said Jones tract; thence with the south line of said Jones tract S. 53 deg. 00' 04" E. 157.48 feet to the Point of Beginning, and containing 0.444 acre as surveyed by Balzer and Associates, Inc. on February 3, 1992. Parcel II - 0.385-acre tract of land to be known as "Tract B-2-B, Dr. Davis Division" being a portion of the property conveyed to Lube Ventures Real Estate Company, L.P. by deed of record in Deed Book 1314, page 103 of the Roanoke County deed records, said 0.385-acre tract being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING in the north right-of-way of Peters Creek Road (Va. State Route 117) and the centerline of the vacated Jones Road by deed found in Deed Book 1280, page 967; thence along the said centerline N. 56 deg. 55" 00" W. 171.82 feet to an iron pin set, being the most southern corner of a parcel of land conveyed to Charles M. Vandergrift, et. ux.; thence with the southeast line of said Vandergrift parcel N. 37 deg. 00' 00" E. 105.29 feet to an iron pin set; thence N. 53 deg. 05' 28" W. 165.27 feet to a point in the north right-of-way of said Peters Creek Road; thence with said north right-of-way S. 33 deg. 14' 30" W. 94.02 feet to the Point of Beginning and containing 0.385 acre as surveyed by Balzer and Associates, Inc. on February 3, 1992. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts ~' of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. c:\wp57\agenda\zoning\waldrop r ; VOTE CORRECTED 6/1/92 EGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUY ADMINISTgATION CENTER ON ~ AT AR VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE CO MAY 26, 1992 TUESDAY, TUESDAY, ORDINANCE 52 6~ 9 E O BARD OF SUPERVII S RS OF THE MEMBERS OF TH ROANORE COUNTY PUR RTERT AND SECTION 314 ?1O46TCE ROANORE COUNTY CHA 1;1 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA of Roanoke WHEREAS, Section 3.07 of the Charter of the County Su ervi- rovides for the compensation of members of the Board of P p their salaries; an sors and the procedure for increasing WHEREAS, Section 14.1-46.01:1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as establishes the annual salaries of members of boards of amended, supervisors within certain population brackets; and Virginia, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, tofore established the annual salaries of Board members to has here 45 b Ordinance 61290-9 and further has established the be $9 - 2 y ensation for the chairman for the Board to be additional annual comp nd for the vice-chairman of the Board to be $1,200; and $1,800 a AS this section provides that the maximum annual WHERE ear by an salaries therein provided may be adjusted in any Y inflation factor not to exceed five (5%) percent; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the establishment of these salaries will be held on May 26, 1992; and EREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on May WH was held on May 26, 1992. 12, 1992; the second reading the Board of NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDAINED by rs of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the annual salaries Superviso 1 ~ y Virginia, of members of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, an inflation factor of three (3~) percent are hereby increased by ursuant to the provisions of Section 3.07 of the Roanoke County P as Charter and Section 14.1-46.01:1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, amended. The new annual salaries shall be $9,522 for members of the Board. In addition, the chairman of the Board will receive an additional annual sum of $1,800 and the vice-chairman of the Board will receive an additional sum of $1,200. 1, 1992. This ordinance shall take effect on July On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Kohinke, Johnson, Nickens NAYS: Supervisors Minnix, Eddy A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File County Attorney Paul M. Mahoney, Reta R. Busher, Director, Management & Budget Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources 2 r ~ ~ "1 4+-i AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1992 ORDINANCE 52692-19 TO INCREASE THE SALARIES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.07 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CHARTER AND SECTION 14.1-46.0- 1:1 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, Section 3.07 of the Charter of the County of Roanoke provides for the compensation of members of the Board of Supervi- sors and the procedure for increasing their salaries; and WHEREAS, Section 14.1-46.01:1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, establishes the annual salaries of members of boards of supervisors within certain population brackets; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has heretofore established the annual salaries of Board members to be $9,245 by Ordinance 61290-9 and further has established the additional annual compensation for the chairman for the Board to be $1,800 and for the vice-chairman of the Board to be $1,200; and WHEREAS, this section provides that the maximum annual salaries therein provided may be adjusted in any year by an inflation factor not to exceed five (5%) percent; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the establishment of these salaries will be held on May 26, 1992; and WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on May 12, 1992; the second reading was held on May 26, 1992. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the annual salaries of members of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, 1 r • ~ ~ are hereby increased by an inflation factor of three (3%) percent pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.07 of the Roanoke County Charter and Section 14.1-46.01:1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The new annual salaries shall be $9,522 for members of the Board. In addition, the chairman of the Board will receive an additional annual sum of $1,800 and the vice-chairman of the Board will receive an additional sum of $1,200. This ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 1992. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens NAYS: Supervisors Johnson, Eddy A COPY TE5TE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Reta R. Busher, Director, Management & Budget Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources 2 a AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE MEETING DATE: May 26, 1992 AGENDA ITEM : 0~ THE C BOA PURSUANT TO CHARTER AND VIRGINIA ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~ ' OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER INCREASE THE SALARIES OF THE MEMBERS ,D OF BIIPERVISORB OF ROANORE COUNTY BECTION 3.07 OF THE ROANORE COUNTY BECTION 14.1-46.01:1 OF THE CODE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND' In June of 1990, the Board adopte its salaries pursuant to the provisions the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. Code and Section 3.07 of the County increase in Supervis betweenlMaye 1 and after public hearing ercent limited to an annual five (5~) p d an ordinance to increase of Section 14.1-46.01:1 of This section of the State Charter require that any accomplished by ordinance June 30. Any increase is inflation factor. S~p,RY OF INFORMATION: The first reading of this proposed ordinance was held on May 12, 1992; the second reading and public hearing is scheduled for May 26, 1992. The proposed salary for Board members will be increased by an inflation factor of three (3~) percent from $9,245 to $9,522• In addition, this ordinance eSOfbthehBoardhat $aa800oand fornthe compensation for the Chairman Vice-Chairman at $1,200. FISCAL IMPACTS' Three (3~) percent, increase in Board salaries: ($277 each x 5 = $2,200) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None. 1 s-y Respectfully submitted, Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Action Motion by ~ ~,~Lt~Q ~~ rn~~-.~,~.~~~o- Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Vote No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Nickens Minnix 2 ~' / AT A REGULAR MEETING OF TRO~O~DCOUNTYP ADMINISTRATION CENTER ONY ~ VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE 1992 TUESDAY, TUESDAY, MAY 26, ORDINANCB TO INCREASE THE SAt,ARIEB OF THE MEMBERB OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY CST RT~TD SECTION 14 O 1 4 6 01$1 OFNTHE COUNTY CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, Section 3.07 of the Charter of the County of Roanoke provides for the compensation of members of the Board of Supervi- sors and the procedure for increasing their salaries; and WHEREAS, Section 14.1-46.01:1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, establishes the annual salaries of members of boards of supervisors within certain population brackets; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has heretofore established the annual salaries of Board members to be $9,245 by Ordinance 61290-9 and further has established the additional annual compensation for the chairman for the Board to be $1,800 and for the vice-chairman of the Board to be $1,200; and WHEREAS, this section provides that the maximum annual salaries therein provided may be adjusted in any year by an inflation factor not to exceed five (5~) percent; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the establishment of these salaries will be held on May 26, 1992; and WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on May 12, 1992; the second reading was held on May 26, 1992. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the annual salaries of members of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, 3 S- y are hereby increased by an inflation factor of three (3~) percent pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.07 of the Roanoke County Charter and Section 14.1-46.01:1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The new annual salaries shall be $9,522 for members of the Board. In addition, the chairman of the Board will receive an additional annual sum of $1,800 and the vice-chairman of the Board will receive an additional sum of $1,200. This ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 1992. c:\wp51~8e~~~ries•ord 4 ACTION NO. A-52692-20 ITEM NO. ~ i AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 26, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Authorization to Pay Certain Legal Fees for legal action a ainst Grumman Emer ency Products COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY• The County agreed to share with the Town of Vinton the legal expenses for the litigation with Grumman Emergency Products Inc. over the defective ladder on the aerial fire truck. BACKGROUND• In November of 1991, the Board agreed to join with the Town of Vinton in legal action against Grumman Emergency Products, Inc. and other possible defendants over the defective ladder on the aerial fire truck which the County had jointly funded with the Town. Since this vehicle is titled to the Town of Vinton it was agreed that the Town Attorney should handle this litigation. The fees thus far approved by the Board are as follows: February 11, 1992 $1,151.95 March 24, 1992 1,437.59 Attached is a statement dated May 6, 1992, in the amount of $2,363.43 due from Roanoke County. It is anticipated that future billings shall occur on a regular basis. FISCAL IMPACTS• $2,363.43 in current fees to be paid from the Board contingency fund. 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors authorize the payment of this invoice from the Board's contingency fund. Respectfully submitted, Paul M. Mahoney ~J County Attorney Action Approved (x) MgoiPayb~e~~~b~n~sonum~tionEddy Denied ( ) Johnson Received ( ) appropria e rom Boar Kohinke Referred Contingency Fun Nickens to Minnix cc: Reta Busher c;\wp51\agenda\general\kgal.fee cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Vote No Yes Abs x x x x x 2 TOWN OF VINTON P. 0. BOX 338 VINTON, VIRGINIA 24179 PHONE 17031 983-0608 FAX (7031 983-062 f May 6, 1992 TO: Joe Obenchain, Senior County of Roanoke POB 29800 Assistant County Attorney Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 JOAN B. FURBISH FINANCE DIRECTOR/TREASURER I S T A T Ei'viEii T Statement From Natkin, Heslep, Siegel and Natkin, PC For Professional Services Rendered Regarding Litigation With Grumman Aircraft Company April 3, 1992 Statement -- $1,801.93 Fifty Percent (50%) Due From Roanoke County To Town of Vinton $ 900.97 May 4, 1992 Statement -- $2,924.92 Fifth Percent (50%) Due From Roanoke County To Town of Vinton $1,462.46 DUE UPON RECEIPT $2,363.43 MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: TOWN OF VINTON CC: Diane D. Hyatt 0~ ROAN ~F ti Z ~ 2 a~ 13 z s (~~~xxrt~ ~# ~.~~xx~~~e P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL-DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOCHAITAK 6ASMRAGt /SITF~JiW.HDIISTRICT BOB L_ JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELLFUZZY MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (7os) 772-2004 June 30, 1992 (703) 772-2005 The Honorable L. Douglas Wilder Governor, Commonwealth of Virginia State Capitol Richmond, VA 23219 Dear Governor Wilder: of Resolution No. 52692-2 supporting the Attached is a copy alachian Regional Commission. inclusion of Roanoke County in the App This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, May 26, 1992. The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors would appreciate your support and endorsement of this request. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Attachment Chairman, Roanoke County Board of cc: The Honorable Lee B. Eddy, Supervisors Timothy W. Gubala, Director, Economic Development Elmer Hodge, County Administrator ® ~,yClad P~~ O~ ~oAN~'YF ~' ~ z ~ a rasa P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELM ER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 May 27, 1992 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY" MIN NIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 Mr. E. Cabell Brand 701 West Main Street Salem, VA 24153 Dear Mr. Brand: I am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, May 26, 1992, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you as a member of the Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors for a two-year term beginning May 5, 1992, and ending May 5, 1994. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed, or re-appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflicts of Interest Act. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Very truly yours, //~ Lee B. Eddy, Chair n Roanoke County Board of Supervisors LBE/bj h Enclosures cc: Theodore J. Edlich, III, Executive Director, TAP Forest G. Jones, Clerk, Salem City Council ® Recycled Paper O~ ROANp~~ A ~.~ 2 J a ~' P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HOOGE (703) 772-2004 May 27, 1992 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN MIINDSOR MILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAMfBA MAGISTERIAL pISTRK:T BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLJNS MAGISTERUIL DISTRICT H. ODEI.L FUZZY' MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL- pISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL. dSTRICT (703) 772-2005 The Honorable Jim Olin U. S. House of Representatives 1410 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable Rick Boucher U. S. House of Representatives 428 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D. C. 20515 Dear Congressmen Olin and Boucher: Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 52692-2 in support of the inclusion of Roanoke County in the Appalachian Regional Commission. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, May 26, 1992. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Attachment cc: Timothy W. Gubala, Director, Economic Development Wayne Strickland, Executive Director, Fifth Planning District Commission ®~rcba ~ ~F FtOANp~~ G ti A z ~ 2 v a 1838 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 C~oixz~~~ ~~ ~~~~~C~e P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS May 27, 1992 LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 The Honorable Edward G. Kohinke, Sr. Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Ed: I am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, May 26, 1992, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you as a member of the Fifth Planning District Commission for a three-year term beginning June 30, 1992, and ending June 30, 1995. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed, or re-appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflicts of Interest Act. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Very ruly yours, Lee B. Eaay, Chai an Roanoke County Board of Supervisors LBE/bj h Enclosures cc: Mr. Wayne Strickland, Executive Director, Fifth Planning District Commission ® Recycled Paper May 15, 1992 Message from Harry Nickens There will be a vacation meeting, (Old Hard °f State road o to: y Road). After meeting, send copy fda for 5/26 resolution r• Jim Perry 4252 Twin Mountain Drive Vinton, VA 24179 Does not need certified copy Brenda - Just send a copy, cc: Mary Allen ROANOKE COUNTY REZONING APPLICATION Date Rec.: '~ I23 f 92 Received By: Case No.: ~ Ord. No.: P1 A c AR p3 l3SuEO 'T`p ~ Mr q ~~31g2 1. Owner's Name: St. Philip Evangelical Lutheran Church phone: 366-7046 Address: 6806 Peters Creek Road, NW, Roanoke, VA 24019 2. Applicant's Name: George Logan of Valley Motorsport phone: 366-4830 Address: 6900 Peters Creek Road, NW, Roanoke, VA 24019 3. Location of Property: Corner of Peters Creek Road and Deer Branch Road Tax Map Number(s) : 27.10-5-12 and 27.10-5-13 4. Magisterial District: Hollins 5. Size of Property: 1.615+ acres 6. Existing Zoning: One parcel 27.10-5-12 (B-1) One parcel 27.10-5-13 (R-1) Existing Land Use: Church and Day Care Center 7. Proposed Zoning: Proposed Land Use: B-2 General Commercial New car dealership 8. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Core 9. Are Conditions Proffered With This Request? Yes Forthcoming No (If you are voluntarily offering proffers as a part of your applica- tion, these proffers must be in writing. A member of the Planning Staff can assist you in the preparation of these proffers.) 10. Value of Land and (Proposed) Buildings: S410.000 11. The Following Items Must Be Submitted With This Application. Please Check If Enclosed. Application Will Not Be Accepted If Any Of These Items Are Missing Or Incomplete: x Letter of Application x Concept Plan a Metes and Bounds Description x List of Adjacent Owners of Property (Attach Exhibit A) x Vicinity Map x Application Fee Written Proffers x Water and Sewer Application (If Applicable) 12. Signature Of Property Owner, Contract Purchaser, 0 0 ' r weer s Agent . I'~ Signature w o~,,,~ aQ Date ~1 ~ l-I __ -_`-__ _ _= Valle Motors ort ' - - - - 6900 Peter Creek Road / P.O. Box 19309 / Roanoke, ~rgTnia ?4019 / PH. (703) 3ti6~830 /FAX (703) 366-6660 April 24, 1992 Terrance Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Dear Mr. Harrington: Valley Motorsport has been located at 6900 Peters Creek Road since 1984. Too, we had two major expansions, one in 1986 and one in 1990. This application will serve to introduce you to another expansion. As you know, we are located between Dixie Farm Equipment and St. Philip Lutheran Church. While this is a great location, growth is limited unless one of our neighbors decides to relo- cate. Therein lies our opportunity and the purpose of this rezoning application. It is my understanding that St. Philip's Building Committee has recommended that the Church relocate to a site in north Roanoke County. While the congregation has not yet voted on this matter, the Building Committee's recommendation comes with a unanimous endorsement. If the congregation agrees with this recommendation, I intend to exercise my option and pur- chase tracts 27.10-5-12 and 27.10-5-13 from the Church. This purchase will allow us to move vehicles easier, clear the front lane at our existing lot, allow for easier customer access and make our three lines of vehicles more distinguish- able. So as you can tell, this is an important step in the development of my dealership. In regards to the development of the site, we understand that we will need B-2 General Commercial Zoning. Additionally, the Land Use Plan designates this area as Core. Site specific changes and improvements can be seen on the accompanying Concept P1$n. But generally they include moving the existing house and refurbishing the Church. The refur- bished Church gill serve as a showroom for both Volkswagen and Subaru. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Si~cerely, • P-- George `~1. Loga P esident Enclosure `~/ ® • ® sue~u. ~~ St. Philip Evangelical Lutheran Church ~ 6806 Peters Creek Road, 1VN' Roanoke, VA 24019 ~~,~E~' 703-366-7046 The Rev. Paul G. Gunste~ Pastor April 20, 1992 Mr. Terrance Harrington Director of Planning s Zoning Roanoke County 3738 Brambl a ton Av. SW Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Mr. Harrington I am writing in support of the Rezoning Application submitted by George Logan of Valley Motor Sport. The property, located at the corner of Peters Creek Road and Deer Branch Drive, i s presen tl y owned by St. Philip Evangelical Lutheran Church, a congregation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. We have completed a process of study to determine needs and the 1 ong range plans of our congregation and community. Given the present and potential growth in membership and expansion of ministries, we have determined that an expanded facility is needed requiring a larger site. Our Building Committee and Congregation Council have unanimously agreed to recommend the sell of our property to Valley Motor Sport, and we anticipate approval by the congregation at a Special Meeting called for May 3, 1992. As a congregation, we wish to be sensitive to our neighbors who have been supportive of our ministry in this place. It is our desire that our anticipated move would not cause disruption within the community, especially for our residential neighbors. Our congregation has enjoyed a most positive relaCionship with George Logan and the staff of Valley Motor Sport through the years, and we would anticipate that they would continue to be good neighbors for those who adjoin this property. Therefore we wish to voice our support for the Rezoning Application submitted by George Logan of Valley Motor Sport. Sincerely, Gt~K ~ ~%?~ G4.~ Pestor Paul G. "Chip" Gunsten ~ ~ '~ Af ~ 1 1pA< 'i ~ ~ • ~` s q / 1 • w! • ~ 4 / 'O +1 llo.l.iok / h ~ •! ~ ~ ~ ~ Rcs '~ ~ ~4 ''~ 21 LO6Ae • ~ \ / ~ ~ AC~S• ~ ~ \ e~ RC~f ~~' ~'~• (.1 ll70 ~, 17 4 r 2! 1410 I.OOAe ~` 1.94At ~GIS • / ~ ~ , ~ 15 '` 9 ~ 4~ ~ 'Sty 2S H ~ / l!n 1 p•r / ,, ,~ 1.2 / ' 1.~3AC l!t! ~ ~ ~ / N ~p ~~ hC •/ ~ ~ •a i ~ ~ / r 1~ ~• -~ a 2 / 13 ti ~ / 9 ~•~> ~'rjr ~ J ~~ s ., yp ~ „ a ti • M /~ ~ r • `~ Is y ~ ' ~ 10 / 'o' 22 ` Is ,, „ ~~tir / ~ 21 ~ ` "' " a 17,E : ~, 0 ~', ~ \~~ • 20 O.i: Ac t• ~ 0 ~ / t t • 4 • ~~ / +' ~~ a , 0` ' ~ O / • 14 ~~ • ~oo~ / ~ S tM ~ _` f it , .~ / ~ ,r Is • „ e • n 1 r •a !' ~~ 16 ~~~~ ~ p ~ ~ '•~ ~~ ~' f AfA Aa AO TIDINO>f ` ~~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ X000 ~tw~up~ o00 °~ / ~ ~q ` ~ N . ~ i~ r ~ CMURCN ~ ~ ', of ~ ~' b ~ a I ~ /, f fl1~ a~ ,y~~ ., ~ / 1:~ i `.+ ' / ~~ ~ ~ . s tN• 1 ,. n~/~~ i 9 3 •04K k% O` ,• , i ~ x: A< 2 uek ~y00 / r ROAI~ORE COUNTY OTILITY DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR WATER OR SEWER SERVICE TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Date April 1992 Name of Applicant George Logan of Valley Motor-:_ .phone 366-4830 sport Address of Applicant 6900 Peters Creek Road, NW, Roanoke, VA 24019 Name of Developer Phone Address of Developer Name of Design Engineer Motley & Associates Phone 774-4493 Address of Design Engineer 4818 Starkey Road, SW, Roanoke, VA 24018 P.O. Box Name of Contact Person George Logan Name Of Proposed Development Valley Motorsport Expansion Type of Development and proposed number of units (Be specific) Automobile showroom and sales office. We will use the church building after refurbishing. (One building) 1fYA'`ER 8E WER PORN M E T0.1 G A A 9 Location of proposed development (Furnish copy of map) Corner of Peters Creek Road and Deer Branch Road Size of proposed development in acres: 1.615 Acres Give minimum and maximum elevation (Use USGS Elevations) at which the individual water/sewer service connections would be located: Minimum 1,070 feet MSL. Maximum 1,075 feet MSL Is this application for a development that will be a part or section of a larger future development? No _~___ Yes If yes, provide map of entire area if available. (OVER) W. Signat re of App cant ,\ a . a ,-~ ~ .~ , - ~~ . ,• ~. ~ ~ a a; .~ ~.o .,, ~ , f ~. ~ ' 6 . - ~ -, ~~ .~ ~ ,, ~ ~, ~ poi .~ -' ~` ' • ,' _ ;,.(r . ~ ,;, " -fir-: - p . " ~ - ~ ~•• ~4•. 1 _d ~ O ~ , . ,... _r, ~ ~ _O y r ~~ ~ ..- .7 ~.. " ` r y r , ~- .. - • ~ ', : t ti d 8 ~ ~S ~, t %~ f ~, ... h /~' r ' ~ . , .- ' ~ '~ ~. ~„ ~ ~.. ~~ i i ~ -C ~ .. t ~ ~ N ~ C ~~ ~ ~ . , N S~ • •. 1 ~ ~ j ;. ~ ~ ~ 1164 ' ~ t .~ -. ~' . ~ ' ~ ~~ •o ~~ ~ ~ ..- ~ ~~ ~ ~ a lCov o ~~OO ,, ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ /. ~ ,o ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ W= ~ ~ ~ .r w~~ ~ ~ Y Q ~ t. ~ O ~ ._ ~ ~ e ~ ~~ g c a, ~ , . O 9 ~ o ; -- o, .~~' • 1~ .; ~~ ~, i ~ ~ j o ~. ,, j ' - ~ ~~ ,~' ~~ ~ o ~~ ~ ~ ~~ is ' , ~ ~-~ _ •' j.~ a ~ ,_~ ~-~ ' ~ ~ ~ 1 ~' ' ' ~' // 4 + ~ ,~ ~~ W .l ~ '~ Q IQ t 1 ~ ~, ~a ~,~. .. / e~,~F '':_.....~~ ARO ~~ /or 3 FNS. o ~.~ ~ .6~ °p~ 3 ~. ~. 7. r7 ~ ~' 9 ~ O .. ~~ ~~~~~: ~ ~ a d~. ~d ~ .r o~ 0 Zs. ~~ ~~ N ~'o Mo~tto~ & Associates .~::::.:PG~S~'~: 60...SP ............... -. _, ,, .',.'i~!iiii",::li''':::::::~~i:::i(iiili%:!%`.i;!J:~i'ri.~:ii'.i::~:':: ~Sii:~~r!~~~: '~iii'..!i? V_ ~~Stea~NO ~-PN~ P ~ ONCE PT PLA N ~ ~ '~ ROANOKE COUNTY REZONING APPLICATION ~-z 1. Owner's Name: Workman Oil Company Phone: 804-239-6933 Address: P.O. Box 4332, Lynchburg, VA 24503, ATTN: Mr. Mike Duncan 2. Applicant's Name: Workman Oil Com any Phone: 804-239-6933 Address: P.O. Box 4332, Lynchburg, VA 24503, ATTN: Mr. Mike Duncan 3. Location of Property: 3202 Peters Creek Road Tax Map Number(s): 37.14-01-09 4. Magisterial District: Hollins 5. Size of Property: 0.893 Ac./38,915 Sq. Ft. 6. Existing Zoning: Convenience Store w/gas dispensers Existing Land Use: B-1 0.471 Acre, B-2 0.422 Acre 7. Proposed Zoning: B-2 Proposed Land Use: Convenience Store w/gas dispensers 8. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Urban Developments 9. Are Conditions Proffered With This Request? Yes No X~ (If you are voluntarily offering proffers as a part of your applica- tion, these proffers must be in writing. A member of the Planning Staff can assist you i.n the preparation of these proffers.) 10. Value of Land and (Proposed) Buildings:_ Land $155,600/Bldgs. $10,000 11. The Follo~rinq Items Must Be Submitted With This Application. Please Check If Enclosed. Application Will Not Be Accepted If Any Of These Items Are Missing Or Incomplete: x Letter of Application X Concept Plan _~ Metes and Bounds Description X List of Adjacent Owners of Property (Attach Exhibit A) Vicinity Map x Application Fee X Written Proffers Water and Sewer Application (If Applicable) 12. Signature Of Property Owner, Contract Purchaser, Or Owner's Agent: Signature ~ Date ~- Z Date Rec.: ~ d ~j ~- Received By: Case No.: Ord. No. .. 4 ~ ~ ~ TPP&S ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS County of Roanoke P. 0. Box 29800 Roanoke Virginia 24018 ATTN: Mr. John Hartley Planning Department Dear John: T. P. Parker, P.E., L.S. (1919-1989) John T. Parker, P.E., L.S. Frank B. Caldwell, III, P.E., L.S. 15 April 1992 RE: Rezoning Request for Workman Oil Co. • Peters Creek Road & North Lake Drive Work Order No. 91-1604 Please find enclosed the Rezoning Application Package and a check in the amount of Nine Hundred Seventy-Seven Dollars ($977.00) for the application and filing fee for the referenced rezoning request. As we have previously discussed, this application is for the rezoning to B-2 of the remaining part of New Tract A-1 which is currently zoned B-1. The major portion of New Tract A-1 was rezoned to B-2 in two separate requests. The last request was approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 8, 1985. As you may recall, during the original rezoning for this property, the Planning Commission and Board was reluctant to zone the entire frontage of the property owned by Ralph Richardson along Peters Creek Road as B-2. This decision was based on their uncertainty as to the ultimate use of the entire frontage. Subsequent to these rezonings, a portion of this frontage, which is now contained in New Tract A-2, was sold to the ELCA Fund (St. Paul Lutheran Church). As a result of this sale, there can be no further commercial development along Peters Creek Road in the frontage of New Tracts A-1 & A-2. Workman Oil Company is requesting that all of their property (New Tract A-1) be zoned under the B-2 designation. Their request is made in order that they may expand their gasoline retail facilities and associated canopy. We feel that this request can be granted and stay within the intent of the original zonings to B-2. Due to the current configuration of the property, there can be no additional land added to New Tract A-1 which would have any significant change on the current use in this corner. Additionally, the City of Roanoke and YDOT will not allow any additional entrances - T. P. Parker & Son - 816 Boulevard • Post Office Box 39 • Salem, Virginia 24153 • Telephone 703-387-1153 • FAX 703-389-5767 County of Roanoke ATTN: Mr. John Hartley 15 April 1992 Page 2 onto Peters Creek Road. Therefore, the approval of this request would allow Workman Oil Company the fullest and best use of their property without changing the original intent of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors when this project was originally approved. If you have any questions regarding this petition, please feel free to call myself or Mr. Mike Duncan of Workman Oil Company (804-239-6933). Thank you for your help. Very truly yours, T. P. PARKER & SON rank B. Caldwell, III, P.E., L.S. FBC/msc Enclosures TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: Being in accord with Sec. 15.1-491.1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia and Sec. 21-105E of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, the Petitioner, Workman Oil Company, hereby voluntarily proffers to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia the following conditions to the rezoning of the above-referenced parcel of land: 1. The property rezoned to Business District B-2 will be used only as a convenience grocery store. 2. The gasoline pumps which will be used in connection with the convenience store will be on the easterly side of the store. 3. Petitioner will not request additional access for ingress and egress to Peters Creek Road for New Tract A-1. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Petitioner Cyr-~', ~99~ MY Cortxniuiort Expir@S 1_ ,1993 ROA>g0>RE COQNTY UTILITY DEPARTlSBNT APPLICATION FOR WATER OR SEWER SERVICE TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Date APRIL 24 , 1992. Name of Applicant V~oRKMAN Dit_ Co. Phone x'804-239- (x933 Address of Applicant i?0.8ox 4332 ~ Lynchburg ~ VA 24.503 Name of Developer WORKMAN 0-~ Co. Phone I-804.239• co933 Address of Developer P.O. i3ox 433 2 . Lync hb~ ~q , ~A 24503 Name of Design Engineer T. P PARKER ~XrJoN Phone X03 - 387- 1153 Address of Design Engineer P.O. Box 39 Sc.lem , VA 24 t53 Name of Contact Person N1R. M -KE ~unco-t~ Name of Proposed Development ORANGE ~ARKE.T Type of Development and proposed number of units (Be specific) EX•IS~-inc~ Cor1JGr'1~iEnCE S-}'ot't wi+ gasbl~r,e ~~Spe.ns~r-5 -}-o expand wi+h _ addi~-tor~ d~ S{~ev~5 a r'S And P~.lM1 ME'fW C. FoR wA'lER ~ SEwE Q G C ~ ~ Location of proposed development (Furnish copy of map) : 320 2 Pe{-~rs Cr eC~ Rou d -~ NO"f6: EX-ST1NCa 8u~t-D 1NC~ SERVEp B~( GOVNTY UTtt.1T1E5 NO NEW GONNEGT-0~15 ARE PROPOSED Size of proposed development in acres: o . 89 3 Acres ~TOTA L, Give minimum and maximum elevation (Use USGS Elevations) at which the individual water/sewer service connections would be locateds Minimum 1125 feet MSL. Maximum 1135 feet MSL Is this application for a development that will be a part or section of a larger future development? X No Yes If yes, provide map of entire area if available. C~°u1 ~'.C~~ - AGENT (~R) T. P~ ~At~ KE FZ 8~ So a P • _ .. L .. _ _ _ ~ , _ _ , .. _ .. L 1 ~. ~ ,J . ~ .~~ a ~ . ,f~ ~ ~~ ~ / .• •1, .~ ~L, ~F , ~~, ~~ ~ , ~~ ~ ~, • ~ `~ , ~ r ` • .~. , , y i-~ J ~ --~_ . ri-~ O ` ~` `~• / ~ h ~` 1 .~ / j ° •~~ 1 ~IT~ `~•. ` ~ „~ • ~ ` .t ~^ 1 ~ ., A _-~ ti t i ~- ~ ~ <~ ~ O Q C r-.-, '~ C ~~ ~ ~ o ~ • i •, Nf:RT H ~~ / ~~ ~ \ ~~ t ~ i '• . ~ ~ O ~ ~~ v ~ •~ ~ • ~ - ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ N J > A ~ , . ~r -• •• • 's w ~.. . •~ r. - + ~' ~ ` •~.r 1 is 7 w•~• ~ f« ~ tv •' . .T ` _ ..;. ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~- Q~ r -- as ~ ~ G - 6 ~ ~ - ~. C l i 5 t '1 rr . ~~ ,~ ~ .~• i -' Z1 ~ ~.~t 2 O ~ ~- /~ ~. _ , .. w t . ,r- ~- • r ~ .l . -. ' •t PETERS CREEK Ftp ~ PROPE7tTY of . E.L.f:.A. IGAN f~ 't' S8 (st PAfAS EPISOOPAL q~URgi) BONED ~~ SIT E TAX PARCEL 37.1 ~--Ot -li.t coy E ~e~~• V 1,C 1 N ITY MAP ~""~' l i i i ~A~cESs 1 / r ~ /y. `\`~•~ / ` ~ \ ~ ~ `~` • ` ` ~`N ~ Pr:oPOSm s SPACES '~µo~ ~ ~ ~ 10~~' ~~ ~~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~~~ `~ / ~s Q~ ~ ''.~ c~ ca .•~ ~ z / ~~- ~ Q o .~ d~ cs ~ NN~ ~ sa ~N C p ~ ~ • Zm O~ ~~ ~. ~~, ~ 1 ti _~~ ~`~~ o ~I ~ ~, d ~` ~ b r l NqR~ `40' ~ q~-~f REZONING PLJ1T FnR WORKMAN OIL C SITUATE PETERS CREEK ROAD AND NORTH LAKE DRIVE ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA TPP&S r• P• !'dRl;'~R ~ SOAi ENCnNEERa Old Boatn~d suftvE~r+orss Past Ol~o~ 8a~ so PLANNERa ~tl~, ~ ~~ n ~U~c~~dl-~ ?03`r?22030 q 2 R•c.iv.a By:_ - ~ case No,: ' ~ Ord. No.: ROAN01a COUNTY REZONING APPLICATYOH 1. Owner' i Name: Vi Qinia Aspt-aic P~vinB,S~m,Danv. Inc. Phone t 774.4475 _ 1-ddr•ss: P.O. ,Box 8395, Roa oke, V rain a 24014 Z. Applicant's Natnl: Virginia Aa halt Paving Company, Inc. Phone: 774-4475 Address: P.o. Box 8395, Roanoke, Virginia 24014 3. Location of Froperty: 24.090 Ac. off of Va. Sac. Rte. b79 (Buck Mountain Road) Tax Map Number(s) : 98.01-2-25; 98.01-2-26; 98.012-27; 98.01--2-28 4 • Magf sterial District: Cave Spring Ma isterial District _ 5. Size of Property: 24.090 Acre: 6. EXisting Zoning: M 2 General Industria District - Existing Land Use: Industrial 7. Proposed Zoning: M 3 special Industrial istriet Proposed Land Use: _ Indus iai 8. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Villa e 9. Are Conditions Proffered With This Requost7 Yos X No _ (It you are voluntarily offering proffers as a part of your applica- tion, these proffers must be in rriting. .~ member of the Planning Staff can assist you in the preparation of these proffers.) 10. Value of Land and (Proposed) Buildings: se• attached il. '1"he Following Items Must Be Submitted With This Application. Pleass Check Zf Enclosed. Application Will Not He Accepted It Any of These items Are Kissing Or Incomplete: 12. x Letter of Application _ X Concept Plan X Metes and Bounds Description x List o! AdaaCent Owners of Property (Attach Exhibit A) X Vicinity Map x Application Fea ' x Written Proffers -~ Water and Sewer Application ~ (If.Applicabie~ __.__ signature Of Property Owner, Contrast Purchaser, Or owner's Aqe Signature . M c Pacc• Jr. GENTRY LOCKS RAKLS b Counecl for Virginia Asphalt Paving, Inc. Date Aoril 24 199_ ~PiT 8Y: 04-28-92 03: igf'M 9822201-i ?03??22030 q 3 Valu• oP Land and Huildinq• Land: $ 77,800 Buildi.nq $171, 800 ~~ Nn. 98.01-2-26: Land $ 26,000 Building S 0 fax Maw Na.~ 98.01~-?~2i Land $ 1,400 Building $ 0 band S 3,800 Building $ 0 8856/4/006.1gt GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & NK30RE 1lttorneys at law 703.982.8000 10 Franklin Road, S.E. Post Office Box 1018 Telecoper 703.982.8524 Apr i 1 2 4, 19 9 2 Roanoke,Virginia 24005 HAND DELIVERED Department of Planning and Zoning Roanoke County Administration Center Room 600 3738 Brambleton Avenue, SW P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Attention: Terrance Harrington Re: Application for Rezoning by Virginia Asphalt Paving Company, Inc., of a 24.090 Acre Tract, off of Buck Mountain Road in Roanoke County, Virginia, from M-2 General Industrial District to M-3 Special Industrial District Dear Sirs: Virginia Asphalt Paving Company, Inc. ("Virginia Asphalt") hereby requests that its property located off of Buck Mountain Road (Virginia Secondary Route 679), containing 24.09 acres (the "Property"), be rezoned from the current M-2 General Industrial District designation to M-3 Special Industrial District designation to enable it to construct and operate on the Property a state-of-the-art asphalt batch mix plant, as shown on the concept plan attached as Exhibit A (the "Concept Plan"). THE APPLICANT Virginia Asphalt is a Virginia corporation in the business of manufacturing bituminous concrete or asphalt mix used in paving. Virginia Asphalt maintains its offices and shop building at the Property and operates asphalt plants in Roanoke City under a lease with Rockydale Quarries Corp., and in Rocky Mount and Dublin, Virginia. Virginia Asphalt desires to construct and operate a new asphalt plant on the Property in order to consolidate and more effectively carry out its business. . ~ ~ GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & NIODRE Department of Planning and Zoning Attention: Terrance Harrington April 24, 1992 Page -2- The Property contains 24.09 acres, and is an irregular shaped parcel of partially cleared, mostly wooded, level to sloping ground ranging in elevation from 1300 feet to 1440 feet, as more particularly shown on the Concept Plan. The Property is bordered by large deciduous trees mixed with large and small evergreen trees and shrubs. There exists at least a 50 foot buffer yard between the proposed location of the plant and adjoining properties. The Property is improved by a modular frame office building, containing 2,193 square feet, together with a 1,100 foot paved entrance road and paved parking lot. The Property is also improved by a metal shop building containing 5,040 square feet and gravel parking lot, surrounded by a chain-link fence enclosing an area of approximately 1.5 acres. There are available on the Property a total of 50 parking spaces. The Property is not located in a HUD flood designated area. Available public utilities include electricity, water and telephone service. A septic tank-drain field sewage system serves the Property. By final order entered December 27, 1977, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors granted the petition of Virginia Asphalt for rezoning of a portion of the Property from Agricultural District A-1 and Residential R-E District to M-2 General Industrial District, to allow the construction of an office building and shop facility. Similarly, by final order entered on July 22, 1980, the Board of Supervisors granted Virginia Asphalt's Petition for rezoning of the remainder of the Property from A-1 Agricultural District to M-2 General Industrial District. Accordingly, all of the Property is currently zoned M-2 General Industrial District, which rezoning pre-dates the adoption by Roanoke County in 1985 of its Future Land Use Plan (the "Comprehensive Plan"). As such, the Property constitutes an existing non-conforming land use within the Rural Village sector of the Cave Spring Magisterial District. GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & NIOORE Department of Planning and Zoning Attention: Terrance Harrington April 24, 1992 Page -3- In the event the property is rezoned, the proposed asphalt plant will be constructed substantially as shown on the Concept Plan. The manufacture of bituminous concrete used in asphalt paving is accomplished by blending together various sizes of crushed aggregate and asphalt cement in a hot mix asphalt plant. An asphalt plant generally consists of several cold aggregate storage and feed bins, a conveyor system to deposit cold aggregate from the bins to a dryer, an aggregate dryer to remove moisture from the aggregate, a gradation control system which separates and stores dried aggregate and feeds the requisite amount of aggregate into hot bins and then to a mixer where the hot aggregate is mixed with asphalt. An asphalt plant also includes a dust collection and control system to minimize dust in the area. The asphalt mix is contained completely within the plant. A diagram depicting these various components containing a description of their purpose is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Virginia Asphalt currently has approximately 15 dump trucks traveling to and from the Property on a daily basis, which would increase to approximately 50-75 dump trucks a day based on 1991 plant production. As is demonstrated by the letter from F.C. Altizer, Jr., Resident Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, Buck Mountain Road is properly designed and constructed to handle the truck traffic generated by the proposed use of the Property. In light of the fact that the location of the proposed facility is generally level, and because there will be no increase in the paved parking area on the Property, there will be little or no increase in storm water runoff onto adiacent properties. All asphalt plants owned by Virginia Asphalt are operated in accordance with federal and state environmental regulations, particularly regarding air quality and water protection standards. Virginia Asphalt will continue to comply with the requirements of the Air Pollution Control Board and Water Control Board, as well as any and all other governmental regulations pertaining to the proposed facility. GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & NK~RE Department of Planning and Zoning Attention: Terrance Harrington April 24, 1992 Page -4- l~D.~OINING PROPERTIES A list of the owners of the properties adjoining the Property are attached hereto as Exhibit D. The nearest residence to the north is approximately 850 feet from the proposed facility, and is at the 1400 foot elevation point, approximately 40 feet below the elevation of the proposed location of the plant. The nearest property to the south and west is owned by N&H Investment Co., Inc., is unimproved and is not zoned for development. The nearest residence on the east is approximately 970 feet and approximately 45 feet below the proposed location of the facility. Accordingly, physical activity from the Property will be imperceptible to those residences, as well as from Buck Mountain Road. In light of the foregoing, the requested rezoning and proposed use of the Property will not adversely affect adjoining properties, either aesthetically or in value. As previously stated, the Property is already zoned M-2 General Industrial District, and is used as an office and shop facility. The Property is entirely shielded from view of surrounding residences, and from the view of travelers along Buck Mountain Road, due to the topography and wooded nature of the Property. PREVIOUS REZONING I n October, 1989, Virginia Asphalt filed a petition to conditionally rezone the Property from M-1 General Industrial District to M-3 Principal Industrial District to permit it to construct and operate an asphalt plant. On February 6, 1990, the Roanoke County Planning Commission (the "Planning Commission") approved the request for rezoning. We think it is significant that Mr. Witt, the commissioner representing the Cave Spring Magisterial District, recommended approval of the rezoning, and was supported in his position by Mr. Gordon and Mr. Massey. The Planning Commission noted that Virginia Asphalt had proffered conditions to mitigate any negative impact the rezoning may have on the surrounding area, and that the proposed use was not significantly different than the permissible activities within the M-2 designation. Accordingly, the members of the Planning Commission correctly decided in light of the previous rezoning of the Property to allow an industrial use, GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & NKIORE Department of Planning and Zoning 8ttention: Terrance Harrington April 24, 1992 Page -5- that Virginia Asphalt should be allowed to construct an asphalt plant on the Property alongside its office and shop. At the meeting of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors (the "Board of Supervisors") on February 27, 1990, Mr. Johnson and Dr. Nickens voted to approve the rezoning. Mr. Johnson noted that while the issue had become an emotional one for adjoining landowners, the impact of the proposed use would in many ways be less obtrusive than if Virginia Asphalt expanded its use under the current M-2 designation, and that the proffered conditions minimize any adverse consequences of the rezoning. Dr. Nickens noted that there were negligible differences between the M-2 and the proposed use, and that the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan were sufficiently broad and flexible enough to permit mixed uses. However, the Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to deny the request for rezoning on the grounds that the proposed use was incompatible with the existing land use plan for the County. At the public hearings held in conjunction with the previous rezoning request, the primary concerns expressed by the Department of Planning and Zoning staff, adjoining landowners and others were a. Potential Damage to the Blue Ridge Parkway Viewshed Virginia Asphalt's existing office and shop facility are visible along the Blue Ridge Parkway for approximately 300 feet for approximately 6 months a year. The original staff report stated that the Parkway viewshed is potentially threatened by the construction of an asphalt plant on the Property. To address that concern, the staff recommended that Virginia Asphalt proffer that no new structures exceed 40 feet in height. The gradation control system (or silo) component of the plant is approximately 60 feet in height. M-3 zoning regulations provide that structures in an M-3 District may be erected up to a height of 45 feet. However, chimneys, flues, cooling towers, flag poles, radio and communication towers, or their accessory facilities not normally occupied by workmen, are excluded. Additionally, the zoning regulations also permit the construction of buildings over 45 feet in ' ~ GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & fV100RE Department of Planning and Zoning attention: Terrance Harrington April 24, 1992 Page -6- height with approval of the zoning administrator. A storage silo component of an asphalt plant is no different than the structures specifically referred to in the Code. It is very similar to a cooling tower, and much shorter than a communication tower, and it is not normally occupied by workmen. Accordingly, the gradation control system, which is only one of several components of the plant, should be excluded from the height restriction. Representatives of Virginia Asphalt have spoken with several parkway officials, including Mr. Jim Ryan (District Superintendent), Mr. Richard Moorefield (Area Superintendent), and Mr. Bob Hope (Local Parkway architect). None of them expressed concern over the location of the plant on the Property, although they declined to write a letter to that effect for policy reasons. Notwithstanding, in order to address the potential adverse impact on the Parkway viewshed, Virginia Asphalt makes the following proffers: (1) It will locate the asphalt plant on the Property at the lowest point feasible as determined by its engineers substantially in accordance with the Concept Plan. The location of the plan at the lowest feasible point will reduce its height relative to the existing contour. (2) Virginia Asphalt will excavate the site upon which the plant is to be constructed to a depth determined feasible by its engineers to further reduce its height. (3) Virginia Asphalt will install Type E screening and buffering as determined in accordance with the staff's review and approval of the site plan, and will paint the plant to reduce its visibility. The original staff report provided, that "without a more precise elevation, even accounting for site excavation, the ultimate height of the proposed asphalt plant and its potential effects on the Blue Ridge Parkway viewshed remain unknown." Virginia ' GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & N10DRE Department of Planning and Zoning Attention: Terrance Harrington April 24, 1992 Page -7- Asphalt has not yet had elevation and engineering studies of the Property done to determine the lowest feasible point on which the asphalt plant may be constructed. Such studies are more properly the subject of the site plan review stage and are not required as a prerequisite to approval of the rezoning request. However, in order to accommodate the staff's concerns, Virginia Asphalt proposes to float several helium balloons from various points and at varying heights on the Property at the approximate location of the proposed plant in order to provide the commissioners and members of the Board of Supervisors a frame of reference in considering its impact on the Parkway viewshed, as well as the surrounding area. b. ois The original staff report and adjoining landowners expressed concern about the noise generated by the proposed plant, and noted that the specific nature of noise control devices which can be installed on the proposed facility were not specified by Virginia Asphalt. There are various noise making components included in an existing asphalt plant, such as a burner, dryer, exhaust motors, and shaker screens. Each of these components can now be designed and constructed to drastically reduce the noise level. Virginia Asphalt proposes to construct a state-of-the-art asphalt plant, which includes the most technologically advanced noise reduction components available at the time of construction. Such components include particular types of burners such as an Astroflame or Ultraflame burner, a second insulation skin in the dryer, mufflers installed in the exhaust motors, and an insulation barrier included around the shaker screens. These devices will effectively reduce the noise .generated by the plant to an almost imperceptible level at adjoining property lines. In addition, Virginia Asphalt intends to stockpile material around the plant to provide a substantial noise buffer. GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & NIOORE Department of Planning and Zoning Attention: Terrance Harrington April 24, 1992 Page -8- It is significant, we think, that Virginia Asphalt has its office on the Property and must conduct its business within close proximity to the proposed plant. Accordingly, it is more directly affected by the noise level than are adjoining landowners, and it is therefore in Virginia Asphalt's best interest to construct the plant in a fashion so as to reduce noise as much as possible. We also believe it significant that the proposed use would generate less activity and noise than some of the activities which are already permissible under the current M-2 zoning designation, such as certain manufacturing processes, welding and machine shops, an automobile assembly plant and automobile graveyard, concrete mixing, trucking yard and terminal, and used tire storage. Virginia Asphalt is committed to building a state-of- the-art asphalt plant which includes these various components and noise reduction devices so that the noise level will not affect its other operations on the Property, or the surrounding neighborhood, and voluntarily proffers that it will install the components listed above at the proposed plant. c. us The initial staff report expressed concern over the amount of dust which would be generated by the construction of the plant. The report suggests that dust minimization measures be employed during the construction and operation of all on-site facilities, including access roads. As you know, Virginia Asphalt is regulated by the Air Pollution Control Board, and Water Control Board, and other state environmental agencies. Prior to being able to operate an asphalt plant, even if the property is rezoned, Virginia Asphalt must make application for and receive permits from the various agencies. In addition, Virginia Asphalt must comply with all regulations and requirements of these state agencies with regard to the operation of the plant. Virginia Asphalt does so at all of its existing plants, and will do so at its new plant. GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & NIOORE Department of Planning and Zoning Attention: Terrance Harrington April 24, 1992 Page -9- However, to address this concern, Virginia Asphalt proffers that it will install dust collecting devices in the plant, such as a "baghouse", and will comply with all applicable environmental laws and regulations regarding the operation of the plant. In addition, Virginia Asphalt proffers that it will employ appropriate dust minimization measures during the construction of the plant, including wetting the access roads from Buck Mountain Road to the Property. d. Odor One resident complained at the previous public hearings that he found the odor of asphalt objectionable, and opposed the rezoning on that basis. Everyone has his or her own proclivities and tolerances for certain things, and Virginia Asphalt is not able to address the concerns of all opponents to the rezoning to their satisfaction. However, it must be noted that the manufacture of asphalt does not involve any toxic or hazardous substances, and will not negatively impact the air quality or constitute a hazard to health and safety in the surrounding area. e. Depreciation of Property Values Several residents complained previously that the construction and operation of the plant on the Property will adversely affect their property values. However, the proposed use will not cause a reduction in the value of property in the area due to the fact that the Property has already been rezoned for industrial uses more obtrusive than the operation of an asphalt plant. Accordingly, any decrease in value, which we dispute, has already occurred. f. Incompatibility with Existing Land Use As previously stated, the parcels comprising the Property were rezoned to M-2 designation prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan was not intended to be an inflexible document, and cannot be interpreted in a vacuum. It cannot be disregarded that Virginia GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & MaORE Department of Planning and Zoning Attention: Terrance Harrington April 24, 1992 Page -10- Asphalt has since 1980 operated under a M-2 designation within the Rural Village sector. Virginia Asphalt's current use of the Property predates the Comprehensive Plan, and is therefore entitled to significant weight in considering this request. The staff concluded in its initial report that notwithstanding the current industrial use of the property and any proffers made, Virginia Asphalt could not overcome the staff's position that the proposed land use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for the area, which is "Rural Village". However, the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need for mixed land use principles, encourages mixed use development within zoning districts, and recommends that adoption of a modified performance zoning ordinance establishing zoning districts to permit by right as many potentially compatible uses as possible. The land use types recognized as compatible in Rural Village sectors specifically include intensive commercial uses such as commercial foresting and mining and extraction activities. In addition, the land use guideline policy RV-5 recognizes the importance of existing zoning, the encouragement of economic development objectives and the unique location requirements of certain industrial uses within the rural village sector. Accordingly, we believe that the proposed use is not incompatible with existing land designations, but rather is consistent with the underlying objective of permitting mixed uses within zoning designations of a compatible nature. Since the previous rezoning request, Virginia Asphalt's need to construct and operate an asphalt plant on the Property has increased. Its lease at Rockydale Quarry expires in 1995, and may not be extended on favorable terms, which would negatively impact Virginia Asphalt's business. With the help of staff in the Planning Department and the Department of Economic Development, Virginia Asphalt has explored the possibility of locating the facility at another location in the County within 1.5 miles of its off ices and Rockydale Quarry, which is critical to the GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & (VK~ORE Department of Planning and Zoning Attention: Terrance Harrington April 24, 1992 Page -li- efficient operation of its business. Relocation beyond that range is economically infeasible due to the increase in the cost of hauling material from the quarry to the plant. After reviewing 90 sites identified in the Site Suitability Matrix prepared by the staff and attached as Exhibit E, Virginia Asphalt and the County staff concluded that there is not a better site from a Comprehensive Plan perspective for the location of an asphalt plant than Virginia Asphalt's current location within one and a half miles of the Property. Sites outside that range were found to be either unsuitable for use as an asphalt plant due to restrictions on access to the source of the aggregate or limitations concerning the nature of the site, making the construction and operation of a plant economically unworkable. The only site identified by the County staff having the necessary characteristics for the location of an asphalt plant is approximately 3 miles from Virginia Asphalt's current location in Starkey Road near the Penn Forest subdivision. The impact which the proposed plant would have on that highly developed area of the County would arguably be significantly greater than if the plant were located on the Property. Even if the impact was the same or less, relocation to that site would not make economic sense due to the distance from the source of the aggregate. Accordingly, unless the petition for rezoning is granted, Virginia Asphalt will be unable to consolidate and more efficiently operate its business at its current location. As a result, Virginia Asphalt may have to look to areas outside of Roanoke County to relocate its business. Two of the stated objectives of the Board of Supervisors are to (a) expand the County's industrial tax base, and (b) to keep existing industry within the County so as not to be so heavily reliant on real estate taxes on residential properties. Failure to allow mixed uses like the one proposed will promote neither. The use of the Property if rezoned is not more obtrusive than the uses permitted under the current M-2 designation, including but not limited to, GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & NK~ORE Department of Planning and Zoning Attention: Terrance Harrington April 24, 1992 Page -12- the operation of a cement plant, the manufacture and processing of certain materials, including paint and plastic, sawmills, use of the Property for a trucking yard or terminal, automobile graveyard or assembly plant, or used tire storage. Additionally, the rezoning will provide the dual benefit of allowing Virginia Asphalt to consolidate its business within Roanoke County and permit the County to continue to build its tax base from its corporate citizens. g. Discussions with Ac~joininQ Landowners In an attempt to give all of its neighbors an opportunity to comment on this rezoning request, Virginia Asphalt forwarded a questionnaire to 65 residents of the area around the Property, and received 20 responses. A list of the people contacted and a representative sample of the questionnaire and various responses are attached as Fxhibit F, as are copies of Virginia Asphalt's responses to some of the concerns raised. The majority of those who responded and object to the rezoning expressed concerns regarding noise, dust, and increased traffic congestion which they believe will be caused by the proposed plant. Virginia Asphalt has responded to each of the issues above and does not believe these concerns to be justified. Such fears are, we believe, the result of a misunderstanding as to how an asphalt plant works. Virginia Asphalt has been a good corporate citizen of Roanoke County, and a good neighbor to the residents along Buck Mountain Road. As such, it will operate the proposed plant in a manner so as to minimize any negative impact on the community (as evidenced by the proffers), and will continue to be mindful of the concerns of the neighbors. Rezoning the property to permit the operation of an asphalt batch mix plant will allow Virginia Asphalt to put the property to its highest and best use and enable it to more efficiently operate its business. The activities to be conducted at the proposed plant are less intensive than some activities expressly GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & NK3DRE Department of Planning and Zoning Attention: Terrance Harrington April 24, 1992 Page -13- permitted under the existing M-2 zoning designation as well as those permitted within a Rural Village area pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is also consistent with the flexible principles upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based, and is in accord with the orderly development and growth of the area. Additionally, the proposed facility will not adversely impact the surrounding community in terms of reduced property value or burden public roads or existing utilities, or adversely affect the quality of the lives of Virginia Asphalt's neighbors. Accordingly, Virginia Asphalt respectfully requests that its application for rezoning be acted upon favorably and that the Roanoke County Land Use Plan be amended to permit it to construct and operate an asphalt batch mix plant on the Property. lly ~ubnti~ed, G~i~~chael Pace, Jr. GENTRY LOCKE RAK MOORE GMP,ir./lgh 8856/4/004.app1 VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPL'ItVISORS OF RgAtdOKE CpUNTY A 24.089 acre parcel of land generally located on Va. Sec. Rte. 679 (Bunk Mountain Road) within ) p~ITION the Cave Spring Magisterial ) District, and recorded as parcel ~9$.01~2^25j 98.01-2-26; 98.01-2-27, and 98.01-2-28 in the Roanoke County Tax Records TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY Comes now, your Petitioner Virginia Asphalt Paving Company, Inc., a virginia Corporation, by counsel, and respectfully files this Petition pursuant to Section 21-105 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance and in accordance with the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, respectfully showing the following: 1) The Petitioner is the owner of the above-referenced parcel of land. 2) The property is presently zoned under the provisions of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinances as M-2 General Industrial District. 3) The property is designated Rural Village SQCtor in the Future Land Use Guide of the Roanok4 county Comprehensive Development Plan. 4) Your Petitioner now desires to have this property rezoned as M-3 Special Industrial District fox the purpose of constructing and operating an asphalt batch mix plant. WHEREFORE, your Petitioner respectfully requests that th® Zoning ordinance of Roanoke county be amended and that the above-referenced parcel of land be rezoned as set out in number 4 above. FUR'PHER, your Petitioner respectfully requests that this petition be referred by the Secretary to the Roanoke County Planning commission for its consideration and recommondation. Respectfully submitted, William R. Rakes G. Michael Pace, Jr. GENTRY LpCKE RAKES & MOORE p. O. BoX 1018 Roanoke, Virginia 24005 (703) 982-8000 Counsel for Petitioner 200/088g6~-004/OOl.pet 2 VIRGINIA ASPHI~LT PAVING COMPANY, INC. VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY A 24.089 acre parcel of land, generally located on Virginia Secondary Route 679 (Buck Mountain Road) within the Cave Spring Magisterial District, and recorded as parcel 98.01-2°25; 98.01-2-26; 98.01-2-27; and 98.01-2-28 in the Roanoke County Tax Records. PROFFER OF CONDITIONS TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: Being in accord with Section 15.1-491.1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia and Section 21-105E of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, the Petitioner, Virginia Asphalt Paving Company, Inc., a Virginia corporation, hereby voluntarily proffers to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, the following conditions to the rezoning of the above-referenced parcel of land: 1. Petitioner will locate the proposed asphalt plant at the lowest point feasible as determined by its engineers at a point southwest of the plant's designation on the concept plan attached as Exhibit A to its application. In addition, Petitioner will excavate the site upon which the plant is to be constructed to a depth determined to be feasible by its engineers. 2. Petitioner will install Type E screening and UW OFFICES SENTRY LOCKE ;AKFS & NKIDRE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA buffering to supplement existing forested ground cover as determined by site plan review and approval. Petitioner will also paint the proposed plant so as to blend into the environment. 3. Petitioner will install noise reduction devices in uw o~clcEs ~4KES & LMODRE RGANONE, VIRGINIA the proposed asphalt plant, including but not limited to, an Astroflame or Ultraflame burner, a second insulation skin in the dryer, mufflers for the exhaust motor, and in insulation barrier around the shaker screens, or substantially similar state-of-the-art components as are developed at the time of the construction of the proposed plant. 4. Petitioner will install dust control devices in the proposed plant, including but not limited to, a component commonly known as a "baghouse." Petitioner will also comply with all applicable environmental laws and regulations, including air pollution control standards, regarding the operation of the proposed plant. Additionally, Petitioner will employ appropriate dust minimization measures as determined by the Department of Planning and Zoning during the construction of the plant, including watering all access roads as necessary. 5. Petitioner will not erect any signage larger than the existing signage at the entrance to its offices on Buck Mountain Road. 2 Respectfully submitted, UW OFFICES ONES & LM®RE iANOKE. VIRGINIA G. Michael Pace, Jr. GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & P.O. Box 1018 Roanoke, VA 24005 (703) 982-8000 MOORE Counsel for Petitioner 8856/4/005.poc 3 VIRGINIA ASPHALT PAVING COMPANY, INC. ROA90RE COONTY OTILITT DEPARTNBNT APPLICATION FOR WATER OR SEWER SERVICE TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Date ,~ 1992 Name of Applicant Virginia Asphalt Paving Co., Inc.Phone 774-4475 Address of Applicant P.O. Box 8395, Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Name of Developer Not Applicable Phone Address of Developer Name of Design Engineer_ Not Anvlicable Phone Address of Design Engineer Name Of COntdCL Person G. Michael_Pace, Jr. Name of Proposed Development Type of Development and proposed number of units (Be specific) Construction of asphalt batch mix plant Location of proposed development (Furnish copy of map): See Vicinity Map attached hereto Size of proposed development in acres: 1-3 Acres Give minimum and maximum elevation (Use USGS Elevations) at which the individual water/sewer service connections would be located: Minimum NfA feet MSL. Maximum N/A feet MSL Is this application for a development that will be a part or section of a larger futuze development? N/A No N/A Yes If yes, provide map of entire area if available. (OVER) ig ture of icant (` Minl~onl p~nn Tr ~~ ~b rr .~.- ~r~~I ~rw .r ...~ ..++iw l~ I ~ ~~~_ ~ilj J ~~zs a~~ w s ~ ~, c.~ i ~/-MM"1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~~' ,,,~ ~~ M `~" ~ . ~ »~ ot~,. 7 ~ ~~~ ~'~ ~~, ~~ ~ 8! ,^ . • _, ~~ a i~r" BSI i ~~ - ifi ~ ~ ~ `/i ~~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ a i Q~ I ~ A ~ a ~~ ~ ~.. ~~~ ~ ~ ~:~ ~ ,,, f 1 i ~ i i~ i i ~ I ~ i i • ~ ~ w ~ t ~~e: ~i1y ~-~ ~•a V t-j ~'~`~ ~~N ~~ ~ 1 U z .. z a ~ a ;, c V ~ ~ N Z ~~ ~. ~ i0 ~ v H ~ ~ (~ W O ~ > < ~r ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ $~Wa o Q ~ ~v oo ~ ~ ~_ F ~ u X a ~o < ~< <o <~ ~~ ~~~ ~ 2 Z W ~ ~ ' Q ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~~ _ ,^ 0 WWw ~ Z Q O 0. n Q ~ < ~ c33 .=]W W i a ~ z v a ;~ t "~ ~ ~s ~' . _E ~ ~~ s ~: ~, ~ ' • ~ ~~ ~ .~,• ~~_ ~. ~ ,~t ~ t ~~~~ ~ ~'~ ~:1 J \ f jE \ I~ ~ i ~ \~ ~ i ,, ,. t. i ~ . K+ A i ti 1 ~~_~ ~;~ ~~ Q H z hl h pK ~ d N R M ~ N e ~ M s O M ~ ~~ W A a r ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A pq ~ ~ Q t ~ N N I O ~~ N 1 ~O ~i N ~~ p0 C~+ N N ~~ i . ,- i ~~ i+ • I ~~ ~i ~~ ~i ~~ ~~ ~+ ~1 ~ ~~ 1 ~~ ~~ ! ~~ j i ~S ~~ ~ 1 1 ~~~_: ~.....~r-`rid., ~ _ , ~: . , ''3 ~~. : f !J I. a ~ j ~ ~ ~~ ~~ .~ ,~ j~ ~ >> ~ ~ ~~ ~!~ ~ f~ ~~,~ j ~~ ~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ :.fit ~'~~ • r.~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~ . z ~~~~ ~z ~ ~ t a a ~!~# ~~ X 3 ;;. ~ ~~ ~ ~~. 2 ~ V m ~ ~~~ G ~~' Q ~ ;~ ~i s a ~ ~~ to ~ C a ~#~~~ ~' ~~ ~~ ~~ l~ ;; ,~ f~ '~~ ~z ~~ i f~ r, ;'~ ~• '~~ it, ~~i 3~~ B ~! .. ~ ~^ j ~~::~- -_• ~ i. ~ c v s - _ .. ., _. .,. ,..~ a ., ~. c i ~~L r ~ ~ 6 .Y •'d ~ ~ ti ~ ~.'~ G~OMMONWEALTH of V1RC~INI.~ DEPANTMEMT OF 1!lANaPpRTAT10N »~ aouT-+~~oAD tT~E[~ IIAY D. 1ET11TEl ~AllM, 24t5~ COMrN~SIl~OMt" i. C. ALTIIER, Jp. October 4, 19b9 "f"~~ !"c.«~'" Post ilf t i;.P Rox 3011 Salem, ~'~rclinia 24153 Mr. R. Q. Cunningham V1rglnta Asphalt Paving Co., Inc. P . 0 . E3ox $395 Rua~rtuke, VA 24014 re: Route 679 - l+uck Mt. Rd. IZr~,~nnkN (:rnriil y Dear Mr. Cunningham: As per your request, this will confirm our convErrjtion relative to the adequacy of geometric standards of Route !~/!~, duck !'~~.,nt.,9in Road. duck Mountain Road has been constructed to a current stan~iar{~, which will be adequate to handle the increased traffic proje:ted by your ru~iness establish- ment. this highway i s one of the few secnr~-lary roads irl >;~I~thwest County which has been reconstructed to a higher standard. The a1i?r~~~~?nt and grade is such that the increase 1n traffic from yor,r proposed 'acitity would be negllgl~le in reyar•ds Lo the overall traffic t1ow. Certai-liy, Buck Mountain Road has become a mayor corridor for the Sol~thweSt County ~~rea. The next Important facet of this road, which will receive signlficar.i, review from th15 Department, 1s the Intersection of Buck Mountain Road ants I?~ute 220. As you know, we have a small Improvement project whlr.n will provi~ic- .3 right turn lane from southbound Route 220 onto Buck Mountain Road. Tl~i~, should help the traffic flow in that area. I trust that this wilt provide Information r~~ean~rlgfui to your company. 5i r~rarPly, T. `', .~ F, I',. Altlter, ,'}r. Resident Engineer FCA/m~ - . ,~ . '•. ~' :~ ' +'~ t . t ~ _ ~.~~ : / • ' ; . ~~ ,, ~ ~ ~. ~~. t~ i J ~~ X11,! .~ t~ ~ • ~' ~'ti' •.. u- • S «' ~. :'r~'_ _ ~ . '~ U ~ ~; .~. . .. -? f, ~~t~ ~~:~ ~ ~~ ~ '.. , is .• ~u .a ~" ~~... , `Il ...c ~ ~ -~1t;~ ~j{:; III ~~t ~~1 I' ~~ I ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MAY S, 1992 WORK SESSION: 3:30 P.M. (DOWNSTAIRS CONFERENCE ROOM) PUBLIC HEARING: 7 P.M. (CO ROOD WORK SESSION: A. Call to Order B. Approval of Agenda C. Approval of Minutes: April 28, 1992 D. Consent Agenda: June 2, 1992 Petition of Valley Motorsport to rezone approximately 1.615 acres from B-1 and R to B-2 to operate a new car dealership, located at the corner of Peters Creek Road~nd Deer Branch Road, Hollins Mag~ster~al District. Petition of Workman Oil Company to rezone 0.893 acre from B-1 and B-2 to B-2 to o erate a convenience store with gas dispensers, located at 3202 Peters Creek Road, )xs Magisterial District. C',~-t ~~~w r~»- Petition of Virginia Asphalt Paving Company Inc. to rezone 24.090 acres from M-2 to M-3 to construct and operate an asphalt batch mix plant, located on the south side of Buck Mountain Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. E. Site Viewing F. Comments of Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff G. Adjournment for Dinner PUBLIC HEARING: H. Call to Order I. Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance: Ron Massey J. Public Hearing Petitions: 1. Petition of Bobby L. Hodges to rezone approximately 3 acres from A-1 to M-2 to operate a machine shop, located at 6095 Newport Road, Catawba Magisterial District. 2. Petition of James S. Bolling to rezone 7.864 acres from A-1 and M-2 to R-E to allow the continued use and new use of these tracts for residential purposes, located on Carlos Drive, Hollins Magisterial District. 3. Petition of Steve Waldrop to rezone 0.83 acres from B-2 and B-3 to B-2 to operate a dental clinic and permit general business uses, located in the 6100 block of Peters Creek Road, Ca Magisterial District. ~o1~~v.~ Update on Historic Surve ~ti, L. Final Orders M. Adjournment ,; y 313 Luck.~~enue,S.1i~. Ph: (7(lzi~~t3--t~il" / ~~ ~~~ Post Oft'ice 13os 26'1 I~~at: i 7U; i ~~3..~.~ i /~ ~~ ~ ftoanol.e, Virginia .210111 V "~ ~ April 30, 1992 MF.MnR ANDLIM TO: W. Robert Herbert, Roanoke City Manager Amer C. Hodge, Roanoke County Administrator Randy Smith, Salem City Manager FROM: Wayn~ G Strickland, Executive Director SUBJ: Material Pertaining to the Designation of Roanoke Valley Governments in the Appalachian Regional Commission's Service Area You may recall that at the last Chief Administrative Officials luncheon held on March 26, the issue of trying to designate the Roanoke Valley governments in the Appalachian Regional Commission's (ARC) service area was discussed. Enclosed you will find the following materials pertaining to the issue of designation in ARC: (1) a brief overview of the Commission and its programs; (2) a map of the Appalachian region as currently designated by ARC; (3) a copy of the letter from Delegate Rick Boucher pertaining to the request by the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors to amend the ARC Act to include Montgomery County in the Appalachian region; and (4) a rough draft of a resolution to be considered by Roanoke Valley governments and submitted to Jim Olin (the resolution will have to be fleshed out in more detail before submitting for adoption by local governments). The programs of the Appalachian Regional Commission have been very beneficial for those communities in the Fifth Planning District that are part of the ARC (Alleghany County, Botetourt County, Craig County, Clifton Forge and Covington). Over the last few years, funds from ARC have been used to support: a solid waste recycling effort in the Alleghany Highlands; special vocational programs at the Jackson River Vocational School and Dabney S. Lancaster Community College, special literacy programs in the Alleghany Highlands School System, site improvements for the Covington Industrial Park and the Alleghany County Industrial Park. ARC funds have been used in other Virginia ARC communities to fund geographic information systems, child care centers (which accompany new industrial development), water/sewer line expansion for industrial development purposes, and industrial access roads. :111eghun~ Cuunt~ • F3uteta~urt ~uunt~ q C~rai~ Cr,unh ~ K~xuii~l.e ('uunt~ (~it~ of (Tifton l~urf;e ~ (~il~ of t~,i~in~;tnn a ( ih u! 1Z~~anui.r u (il~ ~~f tialrn~ a '1'm~n of ! in?nn April 30, 1992 Page 2 I cannot guarantee that our efforts to obtain ARC designation for Roanoke Valley governments will be successful. But, the worst that could happen is for Congress to refuse the designation. Please contact me if you have any questions concerning the enclosed material. WGS:jlp Enclosures cc: Howard C. Packett, Chairman, Fifth PDC Mr. Bev Fitzpartrick, Executive Committee Member Mr. Lee B. Eddy, Executive Committee Member A BRIEF OUTLINE OF THE APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION (some of this material came from a memorandum prepared by the Director of Economic Development, Montgomery County for the Montgomery County Administrator) ARC was created by Congress in 1965 as a mechanism for building a better economy and quality of life for the people of the Appalachian region. The ARC region consists of all of West Virginia and parts of twelve (12) other states -- Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia -- an area of 195,000 square miles and about 21 million people. The Virginia portion of ARC region encompasses 21 counties: Alleghany, Bath, Bland, Botetourt, Buchanan, Carroll, Craig, Dickenson, Floyd, Giles, Grayson, Highland, Lee, Pulaski,. Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, Washington, Wythe, and Wise; and five cities: Bristol, Clifton Forge, Covington, Galax and Norton. Federal, state and local cooperation is essential. The innovative intergovernmental partnership of the-ARC program distinguishes it from other federal programs. At the local level in Virginia, ARC works with the Planning District Commissions (PDCs), Each PDC has a board consisting of locally elected officials and private citizens who provide direction for full-time staffs. These boards, with input from local officials, assess local needs and determine regional priorities (e.g., water, sewer, industrial enterprises, business incubators, etc.). ARC undertakes projects in two major categories. The highway programs, which annually receives about two-thirds of ARC funds, provides for construction of the Appalachian Development Highway System to support industry and tourism. ARC funds are used for construction or reconstruction of highway corridors that connect with the Interstate system. Area development is the other major category. These projects address two goals: (1) the creation of new jobs and private investments; and (2) special help for the Region's poorest-distressed counties. ARC has designated two distressed counties in Virginia: Lee and Buchanan. Over the last eight (8) years, the major thrust of Virginia's area development program has been economic development. This effort includes the funding of infrastructure projects supporting enterprise sites that create, expand or retain employment. ARC eligible activities for area development projects include: community development (community facilities infrastructure; industrial site development; local access roads; local government assistance demonstrations; and housing assistance); human resources development (education, workforce training, youth leadership, child and elder day care, and health projects); business development programs (research projects, technical assistance, and projects supporting enterprise siting); and environmental projects (solid waste planning, organizing, construction, operations, and equipment). Virginia's projected ARC allocations for FY 1992 are as follows: Area Development (includes economic development projects) $1,337,000 Distressed Counties 157,000 Planning District Commissions 253,000 Highways 3,830,000 TOTAL $5,577,000 ARC was established by Congress, therefore, its charter can be amended only by federal legislation. Several counties have been added to ARC membership since its inception. One county, Columbiana County, Ohio, was added in 1990. The entire process, from the initial resolution by Columbian's governing body to review of the county's economic status by the House Committee on Public Works to Congress' approval of the legislation, took approximately three (3) years. Calhoun County, Mississippi was added last year, through legislation added to the Surface Transportation Act by Senator Jamie Whitten. Time is of the essence. A bill extending authorization of ARC will be before Congress this year -- hearings will be held in September 1991. If interested in becoming an ARC member, Roanoke Valley governments would need to have its request to Virginia's Congressional delegation by the end of May. LOC.-~L DES"ELOP~'~lE\T DISTRICTS I~ THE :~PPAL.~CHI,~~ REGIO'~ This map includes districts on the bor- der of the Region containing both Appalachian and non-r~ppalach,ian coun- ties. The non-.Appalachian counties are indicated by broken boundary lines. New York •~ \ ~` 6C i ... ~ ~~• I ~ •.,,. 6B ~ . ,~.,,,,,, LL6A ... ~..I ..~•,~ ~ ,~^° .~ ..~..~ rnI ~'~^~ Pennsylvania Ohio Maryland 13-i West Virginia Kentucky ,. r 3J ~ -----, r' ~` 12F . 12E Virginia 2D Tennessee -- y y~ ~1,,,.... ,.~ `~ ""°°/11l T~(ar ~ - '~,' _ '1 a li ~ i ~' y n ~ r ----~ North Caro „ta J ° ~l ___ ~~r~y •Q J ~ 9` 4 .4 ~ ,..ul w, '~ ~ South Carolina t,. `c _ ` (' i ~ ~ . ~a~ _A'~ q ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ .J~ < ! 2 ~ ~ 2 ^ ~ ~ "° ~ r ; Georgia -_ `. ~... ~ ~ 144 --yl SD _ ~1 •..J ~ '+'"` Mississippi Alabama L~---~ P,I%K ~GU~~i~' yr„ ~~i;rnitr '~,°',~~.~~ .~MI~i77[1' ENE=tGY ANG CU'~~F~ErZC~ JUD!G'A5v 1 ^1CE, SpgC°, ANt 1tCr;,vOLOGv SC E C,/Alll.+an, S~e:DUM,r;cc oh ~.IIH;E Af{I{1 ANT MA~Ox,ir tvH~r ;r%?~, ' a • rr ~- +~~ 4 ~ 1 • / W ~~ i ~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~a,~ ~~~~QD t~tC~ ou~e taf ~e~re~c~ltatib~~ ~a~fjittgton, ~~ 20515 November 26, 1~~91 'T'he Honorable James M. Moore Montgolncry County Board of Supervisors Post Office Box 806 CIIriStl~nSbUrQ,, '~%irginia 240730806 1 •!. •.:;'1 NUJ:: D11 . I y„ - 1 : i - 1: ~1; 17^ ~"" CO!~S~i7CENT SEAV~C` pc.lr-ES 1{) 1~3T NA~H Si°FFr AO~~r+GDOM VA 1a1+J ,;o1~e1{.111, 711 g,l r,vrrtE AVf 4vF [a51 e,~ SrCNE GA- VA !1119 17071 {7S~. aS^. ,1~ HCR'N WA6HIHG IOM A•.I M'JF rD eox +1e{ PUL4yx1, VA Z UG; ITO7i 9eo•arn Y7car Tim: the Montgemery County Board of Supcrvisorsn lode t11e county ii~lthe latian At the request of t~i.R. 3751) to amend the Appalachian Regional Development Act to i A alachian Region. A copy of the bill is enclose for your iniortl1atioii. r rams PP e of the legislation, Montgomery C°unty ~V'i`lhqu~ h y`,eo~rlto~1fo ~s1}aben fitted °ur Upon passag alachian Regional Commission (AR ~~ administered by the App Southwest Virginia education and economic developr~1ent efforts. According to the ARC{ the criteria used to define the region are: 1 . er capita market income n<~ grcatcr thtia eraPera~ng eater; and ~ avera°e; ()p (2) poverty rate at i50 percent of th PU.S. g e or realer. (3) three-year unemployment at 150 ercent of the IJ.S. avera.g g rsninc of H.R. 3751 has triggers an ircluiry try the tARCAtIu la~h n Regionl~ Next Introduction the whether Montgomery County meets these criteria for inclusion in P ncmic Develapn~ent Subcommittee ~vill hold ~'f the Gha nbcgriof tCommerce g7i11 Spring, the House Taco ion, I will ARG. At that ume, local Sovcrnrnent officials and reT,resc.ntatncs ~tin~ Avic~ntgomcry County's caso far being inclerdeci in tine Appalachian Reg. join me in presc~ b be coordinate this presentation with all interested partieS• four rogress in this riled of the sube°n1mittee's SChedttle and o P I will also k~P Yt'u app i ~ arsonal regards and best wishes, I remain important cconon~ic development matter. ~~~ ith :;_tnd P Sine ly> Flick Boucher. ?vicn~ber o.~ C:~13~ r•ess 10?1~ C0~(~I~lSS . ~~~ 1ST S>/SSip:~ ~ s To amend the ~ p,. ~cl;i~n i{c~~;onal De~'efo~ment :1ct o.° ] ~ G5 ;u irlcluc 1 nltl Alont.golner~• (;Ollrit.~~', Z'irgini-~, as pall cat the ~l,palarl~ian region. Ir; TITI~ TIULI~I; car rLI~lI31~,r~E~'TATT~'"~S 2~pv::,r;SER 1?, I'J'J1 llr: I~UU.^..F3F.i: itiLradl.leed thr: follr~:~~n~ bill; ~+•hich ti~•,:5 rcfcrred to the tfi1Ti:'i1ltl.eG CIl i}taill(~ ti~~QI't':5 i~na ~1'PBntil?til'~sitlu;i A. ~XLL 'I'a ~l~ne2icl the App}ala~~l2i~u1 I;,c~;iollal Dcvc~l~pj1lcnt Act of IJGS tc~ inc?ude :~'lolit~arne2y Cout~t,~~, biro rlia, ~s part of t:he App<ilaclziail i't~ai~~r~~. 1 £3e it er)uctecl by the S'enrrte rtaid 1~'~o2c.se of ,li'e~~rese~lta.- 2 z`•rvcs nf'ti~r Il'~t~t:terl ,~il.rfr.:s gr.'l:iiet,l-Ca. in Cprtr~?•~'SS rtssrrnt~l.~d, SLCTIC?N 1. IN(;I.USIUi~' C7F '~10N'I'C;O>FTT::Ft~T CrJL:v'~'1', VIR- 4 (;TtiI~~, :',~ P;~.RZ' OI' Api'AI,:ICITIr1N RIsUIU1. 5 .~'c~ctio?1 4~:~3 0£ t'.c Al~p~~lai~l~'rzr; Rc~A-ic~2lal I)eti~clc;p- ~ ~~ :t, of 1~'fi5 t~{) L.~.C%. A1;1,. 40^) is ~itnencled irl rilc:2 L 1 i + ~"''~>'" .211 ?`tl~ti.il~l~ tli ~71!'~lill~l ~i'i 12iSC1't' 7 the und~~~i~•r~~tec, ptt. ~.~. aI- - <<, ,~ << iii :11Utit~0111{a'~'," li~~t.'r sn~:'~, . V A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE INCLUSION OF Jurisdiction Name IN THE APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION WHEREAS, the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC} was formed in 1965 to enhance the economic development and the quality of life of the people in the Appalachian area of the United States; and WHEREAS, ARC, through its federal, state and local partnership, has pursued its mission in a very effective manner by supporting local economic development projects and could be of great assistance to the Jurisdiction Name in its economic development efforts; and WHEREAS, the ARC region currently counties adjacent to Jurisdiction Name and these close economic and social ties with Jurisdiction WHEREAS, Jurisdiction Name has significant economic linkages with the counties and cities in the ARC region of western/southwestern Virginia and southeastern West Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Jurisdiction Name ability to promote industrial growth within this region of the Commonwealth of Virginia could be greatly enhanced by participation in the Appalachian Regional Commission; and WHEREAS, the Jurisdiction Name recognizes the need to approach economic development from a regional perspective. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Name, Virginia requests Congressman Jim Olin to inclusion of the Jurisdiction Name as a member of .the Regional Commission. 1 includes three communities have Name; and Jurisdiction pursue the Appalachian 5/19/92 from Ed Kohinke Mary Allen: I have the information on Appalachian Trail Club resolution. Hal Cantrill said that he will be there at the May 26 meeting to receive the resolution on behalf of the Roanoke Appalachian Trail Club. I have a whole bunch of information here which you can pass along to Mary Allen for me. Sidenote for Brenda or Mary or whoever is doing this: You obviously aren't going to be able to use all of that material. The main focus here is just kind of a resolution of appreciation for the club for what it is doing out there. I think that the main focal point should be the volunteer aspects of what they are doing. The fact that people are volunteering to go out and take care of and take the responsibility for federal property. If there are any questions, I will be glad to help you out with them. Sidenote: Mr. Kohinke dictated the remainder of this message, putting in commas, capitalization, etc. eF aoanr ~F ~~~ z s- ~ c~ °v ,~$ 1838 1, ~ .~1'~~ ~~ ~1 ~ apr~ ~-~~ ~".~Z.~ OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY PAUL M. MAHONEY COUNTY gTTORNEV MaY 1, 1992 Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr. City Attorney City of Roanoke 464 Municipal Building Roanoke, Va. 24011 Dear Mr. Dibling: JOSEPH B. OBENSHAIN SENIOR gSSI$TgNT COUNTY gTTORNEY VICKIE L. HUFFMAN ASSISTANT COUNTY gTTORNEY This letter will acknowled e behalf of Roanoke Cit g receipt of your Notice of Claim on charges for the purchase of bu k waterkfrom the C t ardin g unpaid This issue will be heard b y• 26, 1992 meeting at 3:00 y the Board of Supervisors at their May invited to attend the meeting andptoAriate Roanoke City staff are present this claim. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney CC: Members of the Board of Supervisors Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator Mary H, Allen, Clerk to the Board P• S. to Board Members: This is a legal matter and as such should not be discu time. Please refer any questions from the media or ssed at this office. Thank you, others t0 my PMM P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772.2007 ® Recycled Paper R WILBURN C. DIBLING, JR. CITY ATTORNEY Hand Delivered The Honorable Chairman and Members Roanoke County Board of Supervisors c/o Mary Allen, Clerk Paul M. Mahoney, Esquire Roanoke County Attorney Gentlemen: Re: NOTICE OF CLAIM :~, .a. WILLIAM X PARSONS IrfARKALLAN WILLIAMS STEVEN J. TALEVI KATHLEEN MARIE KRONAU ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS Pursuant to sections 15.1-550 through 15.1-554 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, a claim is hereby submitted on behalf of the City of Roanoke against the County of Roanoke in the amount of $320,353.39 for unpaid charges from the purchase by the County of Roanoke of surplus bulk water from the City of Roanoke for fiscal year 1991 pursuant to the August 13, 1979, contract between Roanoke County and Roanoke City. A copy of the contract is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference. By letter dated October 14, 1991, the City notified the County of this charge. A copy of the letter as well as the billing notice and an itemized statement of the calculation of the charges verified by affidavit by the Roanoke City Director of Finance is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by reference. Tre City of Roanoke respectfully requests that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors consider this claim and pay to the City of Roanoke the sum of $320,353.39 to which the City is rightfully entitled under contract. Please respond directly to me with regard to this matter. Thank you nor your consideration of the City's claim. Respe tf 1 it ed, i Wilburn C. ibling, Jr. City Attorney attachments CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITYATI'ORNEY 464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011.1595 TE lE PM O N E: 703.881-2431 TE LECOPIER: 703.881-2840 April 30, 1992 cc: The Honorable Mayor and Me:rbers, Roanoke City Council W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance ' Exhibit 1 THIS COPdTRACT, made and entered into this 13th day of August 1979, by and between the CITY OF ROANOKE, herein- after referred to as "City", party of the first part, and the COUNTY OF ROAIIOKE and/or the ROA:dOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY, as their interests may appear, hereinafter referred to as "County", parties of the second part; W I T N E S SET H: 4~IEREAS, the City owns certain water and sewer lines in the County cahich it is willing to sell and convey to the County upon certain terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, the County owns certain water and sewer lines in the City which it is willing to sell and convey to the Citq upon cer- tain terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by § 2(9) of its Charter to sell to persons, firms,_or industries residing outside of the City limits any surplus water it may have over and above the amount required to supply its inhabitants; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto deem it mutually advantageous that the City sell such surplus water as may be available at the rates provided for herein. THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants, agreements and obligations herein contained, the parties hereto do covenant and agree, one with the other, as follows: I . OWPIERSHIP AI1D SALE OF WATER AND SEWER LINES . 1. 1. The County hereby grants, conveys, and quitclaims all of its right, title and interest in all sewer and water lines situate, lying and being within the boundaries of the city to the City ex- cept such sewer lines as are specifically shown on Exhibit "C", attached hereto and made a part hereof and initialed by the parties, r" hereto for purposes of identification, as being retained by the Coun- ty subject to the express allocation of joint use rights to the City ., as shown on Exhibit "C" and further subject to the express condi- tion that owners of property situate in the City who connect to such joint use lines shall be City customers at City connection fees and service charges. The County further grants and conveys unto the City with General Warranty of title all its right, title and interest in and to the wells and caell lots described and identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof and initialed by the parties hereto for identification. 1.2. (a) The City grants, conveys, and quitclaims unto the County all of its right, title and interest in all sewer and water lines within the County; less and except, however, the water transmission mains and joint-use rights in sewer lines located in the County which are retained by the City, and set forth and identified in Exhibits "B" and "C", respectively, attached hereto and made a part hereof and initialed by the parties hereto for identification. (b) Customers within the County receiving water through lines retained by the City shall be County customers. The City shall, however, read the individual water meter of any County customer not separated from the City system by a bulk water meter and the water consumed by such customer shall be deemed to be a bulk water sale to the County and shall be included in the bulk water bill submitted to the County as set out in this contract. (c) Customers within the City receiving water from the County shall be City customers. The County shall, however, read the individual water meter of any City customer not separated from the County system by a bulk water meter and the water con- sumed by such customer shall be deemed to be a bulk sale to the City and shall be included as a credit to the County in the bulk water bill submitted to the County as set out in'this contract. The City shall have the right to extend water lines and develop water resources within the City to serve customers within the City boundaries. - 2 -• 1.3. The sale and conveyance of lines as set out in sections 1.1. and 1.2. includes all easements, rights-of-way,. or other legal interest or rights in real estate of the parties hereto with the exception of such property herein expressly retained as s.et out in sections 1.1, and 1.2. above. 1.4. The joint-use allocations in sewer interceptors and trunk lines located within the City have been calculated on the basis of the percentage of the natural drainage area served through .such line by the respective parties subsequent to trans- fer of lines as set out in this contract except as otherwise set forth in Exhibit "C" and are set forth and identified in Exhibit "C" attached hereto. New joint-use sewers that are hereafter determined to be necessary to be constructed shall be constructed pursuant to the provisions of the 1972 sewage treatment contract bet~aeen the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County. 1.5. In addition to the grants, conveyances, and quitclaims herein made to the County by the City, the City shall pay unto the County as further consideration for the grant, conveyance, and quitclaim of the County's right, title and interest in and to sewer interceptor and main trunk lines built by Roanoke County Public Service Authority or under contract to the Public Service Authority and water lines situate, lying, and being in the territory annexed to the City as of midnight, December 31, 1975, the sum of $946,833.00. Payment shall be due on the closing and transfer of lines; provided, however, such closing shall not take place less than thirty (30) days from the date of this contract. Payments shall be made to the County of Roanoke and mailed to the chief financial officer of the County. - 3 - 1.6. The conveyance of all lines, both water and sewer granted, transferred, and quitclaimed hereby, shall be deemed to include all right, title, and interest held by the grantor to all real estate utilized in the system and shall further be deemed to include all appurtenances to the system, including but not limited to hydrants, meters other than meters through which bulk sales are made, valves, and other tangible personal property. 1.7. Except as may be othercaise provided in this contract, the parties agree that the City shall have the responsibility for servicing water and sewer customers in the City and the County shall have the responsibility for servicing water and sewer customers in the County. 1.8. In addition to the sum set out in Paragraph 1.6., above, the City agrees to pay unto the County a sum equal to 29.3% of a:.,• prepayment penalty actually paid by the County/Public Service Authority in retiring all outstanding Public Service Authority bonds, which penalty shall be predicated upon the amount of such bonds outstanding on the date of execution of this agreement, but at no time shall such amount outstanding for the purpose of computing penalty be deemed to exceed $3,250,000.00, said 29.3% penalty to be paid by the City within ten (10) days of receipt by the City of documented evidence that such full penalty has been paid by the County. I I : BULL: WATER . 2.1. The City agrees to sell and the County agrees to buy surplus water at bulk rates as hereinafter set out and the rate shall be calculated in accordance with the following formula - 4 - which has been mutually agreed upon by the parties: Rate per = f x (O,c,I,~ebt service+Interest~Ca ital Outlav from Revenue) 100 cu.ft. dater were uz cu.tt. units 2.2. The parties hereto agree that the words,•terms, and- abbreviations used in the foregoing formula shall have the follow- ing definitions: (a) f - a factor having a value of 1.25. (b) CSa~I - Actual cost of operating and maintaining the City's entire caater syste*n, but O~a~i shall not include payment in lieu of taxes, depreciation, reserve for replacement, refunds for debts or rebates other than refunds under a bona fide water extension agreement to a developer or individual for t'~e construction of a neco water line, and the cost to the City of billings and collection from the City's retail water customers. Administrative expenses, which shall not exceed 7.02 percent, being the percentage of adminis- trative expenses set forth in the City's 1977-1978 Water Fund Budget, shall be included in operation and maintenance. (c) Interest - Annual interest cost to the City for outstanding debt on the City's water system. The County shall be creoited with revenue received from the investment of unexpended bond funds. Said credit shall reduce the annual interest cost for purposes of the rate calculation. (d) Debt Service - Annual cost to the City for debt retirement of the water system, less developer contributions and Federal and State grants des>.o~nated for or actually applied to debt retirement. (e) Capital Outlay from Revenue - Actual expenditures in any fiscal year for capital outlay from that current fiscal year's earnings or any previous fiscal year's retained earnings, provided, however, that not more than twenty .percent (20%) of the retained earnings existing on June 30, K 1977, which retained earnings were $4,550,000.00, may be ZIP spent in any one fiscal year without the county having the option of deferring payment on said eecess over the twenty percent (20%) to a subsequent fiscal year by agreeing to pay interest annually at the average weighted discount rate charged member banks in the Fifth Federal Reserve District on the deferred payment for the period of deferral. Such deferred payment shall be made at the earliest time that the twenty percent (20%) maxisrnan amount is not reached. (f) Water delivered - The total water delivered through the City's water system to the City's retail and bulk water customers. All items to be included in the rate calculation ~~ the beginning of each fiscal year shall be the budgeted am:~unts with an adjust- ment made at the end of each year based on actual expenditures and interest revenue collected from investment of unexpended bond funds. S - 2. 3. Should the City at any time in the future install water lines which benefit and provide water service to political sub- divisions other than the parties hereto, the cost of construction of said lines shall not be included in the hereinabove agr•_ad upon formula, unless said lines provide water service to the County or to persons, firms or industries who are customers of the County. 2.4. The formula for determining the quantities of water to be delivered by the City and paid for by the County shall be as follows: To the extent, as determined solely by the City, surplus water is available, the ~*+~~~+ and maximinn quantities for FY 1979-80 shall be at__an ~nua~averaQe daily Quantity of 1.5 million gallons e- r 3a an million gallons per y, respectively. In any succeeding fiscal year, _ e the right to notify the City in writing by April 1 prior to such fiscal year of its intent to increase the ~;n~~ m+ quantity for the next fiscal year to an amount, to be specified by the County, not exceed- ing one hundred ten percent (110%) of the then existing *~ nir*nnn quantity. The tnaxinnan annual average daily quantity shall always be one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the minimum annual average daily quantity. The miniraun quantity shall never be decreased; provided, however, in the event the area of the County is reduced the n,;n,~ ~ quantity of water required to be received by the County say be re- duced. Such reduction in quantity of water shall be based pro rata on the reduction of facilities and customers trans- ferred in a like manner as set out in section 5.8. hereof. The maxil~ instantaneous rate, fire suppression excluded, shall not exceed twice the aaxinaIIn annual average daily rate. During times of water shortages or emergencies, the needs of both parties shall be treated equitably on a pro rata basis. 2.5. The City shall not be liable for any damages to the County or any of its customers for failure to supply such quanti- ties of water or any quantity of water due to unavailability of a surplus, as determined solely by the City, breaks in transmission lines, mechanical or electrical failure, or acts of God. 2.6. The water delivered by the City to the County or by the County to the City shall, at all points of delivery, be at least 50 pounds per square inch for all uses except as otherwise provided in Exhibit "B" and except for fire service, which shall be at least 15 pounds per square inch, both pressures to be established and measured at the points on either the City's - 6 - system or the County's system whereat either the County's water lines or the City's water lines are connected. 2.7. If, at any time in the future, the average annual daily demand on the City's water system shall reach eighty (80%) per cent of the City's water source capacity, the City shall so notify the County. 2.8. The parties agree that, in an emergency situation, the County may, with the consent of the City, exceed the maximum daily usage. , 2.9. Except as provided in Exhibit "B" attached hereto, the City and County agree that each shall deliver, at the points of connection to the other party's water system, water meeting the specifications and requirements of the State Health Depart- ment and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Subsequent to delivery of water at the other party's points of connections to the supplying party's water system, maintenance, monitoring and quality of water received from the supplying party, shall be the responsibility of the receiving party. 2.10. The City shall have the right to hereafter construct water line extensions in the County as set forth on Exhibit "B" which extensions shall be retained by the City as major transmis- sion line property of the City. Should any such extension set forth on Exhibit "B" be needed by the County before the City has scheduled construction thereof, the County may demand, upon tarelve (12) months written notice, that the City proceed with such con- struction, and the City shall so proceed. Should the City not proceed with such construction within thirty (30) days following the end of said twelve (12) month period, the County may initiate legal proceedings to compel such construction by the City. 2.11. Payment by County to City: The City 'shall submit to the County each month a bill itemizing the readings for each - 7 - meter for the proper amount owed by the County to the City for the caater delivered to the County, cahich bill the County shall pay within t~aenty (20) days from the date thereof. If at the end of any fiscal year, the amount of water billed to the County shall be less than the annual average daily quantity required to be accepted by the County by §2.4 of this contract, the County shall pay for the difference at the rate established by §2.1 within thirty (30) days after billing. 2.12.. The City agrees that sales of bulk water to political subdivisions other than the County shall be at rates comparable to the bulk rate charged the County, except such rates may exceed the rate charged the County by any amount. III . TER`4 OF C0~1.TRACT , RENEWAL , -AND TERMINATION . 3.1. Term of contract: Unless terminated as herein provided, this contract shall continue in full force and effect for a term of thirty (30) years from the date hereof; provided, however, the failure of the City to deliver the minimum amount of water-herein agreed to be delivered due to breaks in transmission lines, mechanical or electrical failure or acts of God or because the City, in its sole descretion, has determined that surplus water is not available shall not abrogate the other terms and provisions of this agreement or otherwise constitute a breach hereof. In the event the City fails to deliver the minimum quantity of water required to be paid for by the County for any of the aforesaid reasons, then the County shall pay for water actually delivered at the rate established in §2.1. 3.2. This contract shall, upon the expiration of the term of thirty.(30) years, be automatically renewed for successive terms of five (5) years unless notice of termination be given in writing by either party to the other party at least twenty-four (24) months prior to the end of the original term of the contract or any five (5) year term of renewal. - 8 - 3.3. .Io termination of this contract, other than by expra- tion as set forth in the preceding paragraph, shall occur except after notice in writing of such intent to terminate stating a breach of contract, perfected by a declaratory judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia in favor of the party seeking termination. IV. METERIPdG OF SE[JAGE ACID ~JATER FL047. 4.1. Sewage - Sewage metering shall be pursuant to and in accordance with the aforementioned 1972 contractual agreement; provided, however, in those instances when sewage is not metered either due to insufficient quantity or for any other reason autho- rized by the 1972 contract, the quantity of sewage shall be based on the volume of water provided the water and sewer customer plus forty percent (40%) for infiltration. Transportation costs in sewage lines, whether metered or not metered, not constructed pur- suant to the 1972 contract (lines existing prior to 1972 and not constructed as joint use lines but which may be jointly used by a party to this contract by consent of the party having ownership) shall be deemed to be five dollars ($5.00) per million gallons, per mile. The County reserves the right to remove and relocate any metering station equipment from its present site to needed new metering station sites at the City-County line established by the annexation order effective midnight, December 31, 1975. 4.2. Water - (a) All water sold to the County shall be metered at such points as the water leaves the City's system or at other locations established by mutual agreement between the parties. (b) All water obtained from the County's well system for interim use by the City in the City system shall be metered at the points of delivery into the City with such quantities being sub- tracted from the quantities metered pursuant to subparagraph (a) preceding prior to rendering the County a monthly bill for the quantities sold by the City. 4.3. All water services and meters connected to the water system retained by the City shall belong to the .City and all - 9 - Boater meters and services connected to the water system retained by the County shall belong to the County. However, each party shall assume in its name any contracts for individual meters within its service area, serving individual properties, when such service and meters are directly connected to the facilities retained by the other party. Each party shall within fifteen (15) days apply to the other locality for these existing services and for all needed new services and pay the prevailing fees for new services only at the time. The cost of installing bulk meters on the City system shall be shared equally by the parties hereto; provided, however, where an individual meter is installed on the City system to serve a customer or customers of the County such bulk water, the City shall be paid the full amount of its usual meter installation charge. Each party shall own .and maintain the services and meters directly connected to its facilities and be responsible for reading same with the other party having the right of access to verify readings. Water consumption shall be reported to the other party for each meter. The City or the County shall have the right to turn off the meter and/or service belonging to the other party when that meter and service serves an individual property; however, notice shall be given to the owning party when such water service is turned off and/or on. Neither party shall turn off and/or on the bulk measuring meters or any valve, pump, etc., belonging to the other party unless permission is granted on a case-by-case basis as needed. 4.4. The City agrees upon the request of the County to install, at the City's expense, bulk water meters on the County system to serve the City in lieu of paying the County installation rates and fees for same if such work can be reasonably scheduled; provided however, the County agrees to reimburse-the City one-half (1/2) the verified cost of such meter installations.. Said meters and services shall be owned, maintained and read by the County. - 10 - V. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 5.1. The parties hereto specifically agree that the City from and after January 1, 1976, has the sole and exclusive right to make all new sewer and water connections in said .annexed area and that the City is entitled to receive the funds presently in the escro~o account established by the Circuit Court of the City o•f Roanoke in the pending litigation between the parties hereto, provided the City shall give a credit to the County/Public Service Authority for the amount paid by the Public Service Authority for treatment of sewage discharged by new customers for which such escrow account was established. The County/Public Service Authority shall provide the City a detailed accounting for each connection fee and treatment charge paid into the escrow account for the customers to whom such account applies prior to receiving any credit. The County agrees to sign an appropriate order prepared by the City in which the City and County will jointly request that the Circuit Court of Roanoke City pay the aforesaid escrow account to the City. 5.2. The parties agree to jointly seek dismissal of all pending litigation between the parties in any court relating to the right to serve water and/or secaer in the area annexed to the City as of January 1, 1976. The parties also agree not to initiate new litigation or to support new litigation relating to the right to serve water and/or sewer in the area annexed to the City as of January 1, 1976. 5.3. The County shall assign to the City accounts receivable for sewer service rendered in the City on and after January 1, 1976, for which the County has recorded-liens in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court and accounts receivable for water service rend- ered to customers in the City of Roanoke who have as of the date of this contract filed affidavits in the case of Fitzgerald, et al. v. Roanoke County Board of Supervisors thereby entitling such cus- tomers to protection against water service termination by the County. The County agrees to take all necessary and proper action to - 11 - effectuate assignment of such accounts receivable, including appli- cable liens, to the City within thirty days after execution of this contract by the last party. The County shall provide the City necessary documentation to permit the Ci*-y to take legal action to collect such assigned accounts receivable. In consideration of each account assigned in accordance with this section, the City agrees to pay fifty cents on each dollar of principal amount assign- ed. 5.4. The County shall provide the City with accurate and complete documentation as to all sums paid to the Public Service Authority or County for water and/or sewer service rendered by the Public Service Authority or County to customers within the corpor- ate boundaries of the City on and after January 1, 1976. 5.5. Except for developer reimbursement contracts and similar obligations of the parties hereto relating to the areas exchanged which contracts and obligations are hereby assigned (See Exhibit "D"), each party shall be responsible for the payment of all its own accounts payable as of the date of this contract .irrespective of the basis upon which said account payable is due. 5.6. The parties hereto recognize that each of said parties has entered into certain contractual relationships with various third parties setting forth certain conditions and obligations under which various sewer and water lines were constructed. The contracts of the parties to be assigned are set forth in Exhibit "D" attached hereto and made a part hereof and initialed by the parties hereto for identification. The parties hereto recognize the existence of all such contracts and further hereby indicate their intent to ~ompl.y with the provisions of such assigned con- tracts irrespective of which party originally entered into and executed said contract. 5.7. The parties agree that the following documents shall be transferred within thirty (30) days from the date of this contract: (a) Engineering maps and construction plans of the service areas transferred; - 12 - (b) Lists of customers within the service areas transferred, together with current readings as of the date of this contract, for the areas transferred. 5.3. The parties agree that the City shall pay upon the closing of this agreement a connection fee in the amount of $30,439.00 plus interest at a rate of six percent (6%) per annum commencing as of July 2B, 1975 for a sewer connection at any time in the future for the_Carvins Cove filter plant, without additional fees or charges, at a location determined by•the City, and shall be permitted to discharge up to, but not exceeding, 200,000 gallons per day at a maximum rate of 140 gallons per minute from said plant. The City hereby agrees to grant an easement at a mutually agreed location for the construction of a sewer line to serve the property of the Church of God and property immediately to the west thereof. Such easement shall be granted at no cost to the County, but sewer line construction costs shall not be assessed to nor borne by the City, In addition to normal service charges for sewer service, which the City hereby agrees to pay, the City further agrees to pay any additional charges which may be imposed by the County due to the characteristics of the City's discharge. . 5.9. The parties agree that should any question arise between the parties hereto relative to either engineering or accounting matters, it shall be resolved as follows: (a) If as to engineering, then by a majority of a committee of three composed of an engineer appointed by the County, an engineer appointed by the City, and an independent engineer, to be chosen by the foregoing two; provided, however, should the first two appointees not be able to select the third appointee within thirty (30) days following the date of appointment of the last of the first two appointees,, then and in that event, applica- tion for appointment of the third arbitrator shall be made to the Virginia Society of Professional Engineers which shall appoint the third arbitrator. - 13 - (b) If as to accounting, then by a majority of a committee of three composed of the City's Director of Finance, the Count;~'s chie~ financial officer, and an independent certified public accountant, to be chosen by the foregoing two; provided, ho~oever, should the first two appointees not be able to select the third appointee within thirty (30) days following the date of appointment of the last of the first two appointees, then and in that event, application for appointment of the third arbitrator shall be r.^.ade to the Virginia Society of Certified Public Accountants. (c) In either case, the charge of the independent individual shall be borne equally by the City and the County. 5.10. The County covenants and agrees that, in the event of any future voluntary annexation by petition of County territory, that water and sewer facilities situate in such annexed territory shall immediately, upon the effective date of such annexation, be transferred to the City for service of customers and maintenance of facilities. The City shall pay the County, for any facility so transferred, a sum equal to .the actual amount of public funds expended by the County in the acquisition or construction of such facility less depreciation and adjusted by joint-use rights retained by such other party if such facility be a sewer facility. If the facility was one conveyed to the County pursuant to this agreement and replaced by a new facility prior to the effective date of suzh voluntary annexation, the City shall pay the County a sum equal to the actual amount of public funds expended by the County in such replacement less depreciation, and the City shall receive a credit for any usable life which remained in the facility replaced. Such payment shall, also, be adjusted by joint-use rights retained in the County if the facility be a sewer facility. The County .shall retain joint-use rights in any such facilities to which joint use is applicable based on percentage allocations made at the time of transfer. - 14 - 5.11. The parties shall hold and save each other respectively, their officers, agents, and employees harr.7less from liability of any nature or kind, including costs and expenses, for or on account of any or all suits or damages of any character whatsoever resulting from injuries or damages to any person or persons or property by virtue of said parties' respective performance of this contract, or based upon any violation of Federal or State statute or ordinance by virtue of performance of this contract, provided that this paragraph shall not be deemed to apply to any of the pending litigation in the Federal and State courts concern- ing o~.rnership of sewer and water lines, and neither party shall hold the other harmless by virtue of suits brought by bondholders of either party. 5.12. This contract may be amended upon mutual agreement of the parties as a written amendment or modification hereto author- ized by resolutions of the governing bodies of the parties. 5.13. This agreement and the exhibits attached hereto contain all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties, and no other understanding, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this contract shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. 5.14. If any part or parts, section or subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this contract is for any reason declared to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this contract. 5.15. This contract shall be effective from and after the date the last party executes this contract; provided,hocaever, the parties recognize and agree that a reasonable transition period not to exceed six (6) months shall be allowed to effectuate cer- tain of the provisions of this agreement. - 15 - ~dITi1ESS the following signatures and seals: ATTEST: ~ ~ ~~ Cit Cler i ; CITY OF ROANOKE By P~ayor COUNTY OF ROANOKE ATTF: S T Cle--~~rk of Bo- and or Su ervisors air n o r p o upervisors ROAi~OKE COU?1TY PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY ATTEST: E:cecutive-Director, Roano e ~Tairman, Boar oT Ro poke County Public Service Authority County Public Service Authority STATE OF VIRGINIA § § To-Wit. CITY OF ROANOKE. § ~_~ t a idotary Public in and for the City of Roanoke, Virginia, do hereby certify that PJoel C. Taylor and Mary F. Parker, Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Roanoke, whose names as such are signed to the fore- going.Contract bearing date of the /~~u` day of , 1979, have each personally appeared before me in.my City and State aforesaid and acknowledged the same. - 16 - GIVEid under my hand this /~~ day of 1979. :I,a Commission expires : ~ ,~/ = , /~~~-~. i i ~, ,, ~,u,~ .otary Puoiic STATE OF VI?GI2IIA § § , To-;lit: CITY OF R0.'1:JOnE I,1~\ ' f ~ ~ z L ~- a .Jotarv Public, in and fo --~ t e City of Roanoke, VirJinia, do hereby cert'fy that i (_ ~ _ ~ / and y{~,~ /,,_,,~ ~~,F;1 ,~l Chairman of am Clerk of the 3oard of Supervisors, respectively, of the County of Roanoke, whose names as such are signed to the foregoing Contract bearing date of the /,~~`day of ~^ 1979, have each personally appeared before me in my City and State aforesaid and acknowledged the same. GIVEi1 under my hand this :4y Com-~ission expires STATE OF VIRGINIA § ~~-~ § To - ~v'i t CITY OF ROA:JOF:E § 1_ zas a Notary Public, in and for the City of Roanoke, Virginia, d reby cer 'fy tha ~ yr~ , ~! and p/ ; ~4.a.a.~_ Chairman of and Executive irector of the Roanoke County Public Service Authority, whose names as such are signed to the foregoing Contract bearing date of the /~ day of 1979, have each personally appeared before me in my City and State aforesaid and acknowledged the same. GIVEN under my hand this /~i(day of 1979.. - 17 - .fy CJ.^.1misSlon expires:~„+ i'1~Y~- i i otary u . is Pursuant to Resolution Pdo. ..~,ada~ adooted July 6, 1979, by the Board of County Supervisors of Roanoke County, the County Executive of Roanoke County hereby accepts this conveyance on behalf of Roanoke County. ~/(/G~~~(it~.- William F. C ar County Executive 1$ - EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF ROANOKE -- ROANOKE COUNTY/ROAr10KE COUNTY PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY SE[~TER AND [DATER AGREEMENT [JELLS AND [TELL LOTS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF ROAIVOKE riedmont Lake: - Official Tax No. 5130120 - Separate well lot to the rear of Lot 8, Block 1, Medmont Lake Subdivision - Access through Lot 9, from Medmont Circle, S. W. Hidden Valley Estates Sections 1 & 2 (Greenfield): - Official Tax T1o. 5100503 - Lot 1, Block 3, Section 1, Hidden Valley Estates Subdivision - Located on east side of Greenfield Street, S. W. Windsor Lalce - Official Tax Nos. 5100426 & 5110106 - Parcel "A", Block 4, Oak Grove Farms Subdivision - Parcel "B", Block 1, Windsor Lake Subdivision - Access from Driftwood Lane, S. W. Oak Grove Farms: - Official Tax No. 5100425 - Separate well~lot to the rear of Lot 2, Block 4, Oak Grove Farms Subdivision - Access by easement from VA Rte. 119, and Driftwood Lane, S. W. West 6,Iindsor Hills (Windsor Road) - Official Tax No. 5040412 - Lot 12, Block 1, West Windsor Hills Subdivision - West side of Windsor Road, S. W. Sunset Hills (Southern Hills): - Official Tax No. 5470704 - Lot 4, Block 12, Section 2, Southern Hills Subdivision - East side of Van [tinkle Road, S. W. 1 of 2 5 ~/~ 2 of 2_ ~~~ C~- Being part of the same property conveyed to the Roanoke Count Board of Supervisors by the Roanoke County Public Service Authority by deed dated June 30, 1976, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in Deed Bonk 1 ~st~ ~~ .,~~~ Q~~ • EYHIBIT "B" CITY [•7ATER LINES TO BE RETAINED IN NORTH COUJTY AREA . (1) 8" Line from the intersection of the Salem City line and Green ridge Road - along Green Ridge P,oad to a point just east of the intersection of Green Ridge Road and Tully Drive to the extent any portion of such line lies in the County. (2) 12" to 16" Line from just east of Hartman Lane along Peters Creek Road to a point just west of Loch Haven Road and Peters Creek Road intersection to the extent any portion of such line lies in the County. (3) 36" Line and 12" Line segments from Carvins Cove Filter Plant alon; Plantation Road to [•;illiamson Road (US 11-220) thence along [~Jillianson Road to Peters Creek intersection with villiamson Road. The 36" Line continues from the intersection of [Williamson Road, N. [J. and Peters Creek Road, N. W. to_ the City 1:ine near Nel*_ns Lane. (4) 12" Line segments from the City line and Williamson Road intersection along Williamson Road to the intersection of 4illiamson Road and Peters Creek Road. (5) Lines varying in size from [1i11iamson P,oad (US 11-220) and Plantation Road intersection along Plantation Road to Hedgelac,m and Plantation Doad intersection. ~ (6) An 8" to 12" Line from [1i11iamson Road (US 11-220) and Plantation Road intersection along US 11 to the Botetourt County line. (7) A 12" Line along Route 60I beginning at Hollins Station Intersection (.627) near Garman Drive and continuing along 601 to the intersection of Plantation Road and Hollins P,oad at approximately the City line. (8) A Line from the intersection of Oakland and Verndale, along Verndale to Florist, thence along Florist to its intersection with City`Line. (9) Plantation P.o.ad segments (a) Line from the intersection of Elden and P1.3ntation along Plantation to a point just south of P~Iagnolia and Plantation intersection. (b) Aline from the intersec~ion of Plantation and Orlando Avenue along Plantation to a point just past Hershberger Road. ~, . ~. o 1 o f 4 Q~ (~ • FUTURE CITY LINES IN THE NORTH COUidTY AREA (1) A line from the point at approximately Tully Drive along Green ..edge Road and Cove Road to the intersection of Peters Creek Road and Cove Road to the extent any por- tion of'such line lies in the County. (2) A line from the intersection along Peters Creek Road to a to the extent any portion of (3) A line from the intersection Roads along Peters Creek Roar Williamson P,oad (US I1-220). of Cove Road and Peters Creels point just east of Hartman Lane such Line lies in the County. of Loch Haven and Peters Creels i to its intersection with (4) Aline from the intersection of Peters Creek and Route 118 (Airport Road) along 118 to Dent Road, thence along Dent Road to its intersection with ~Jilliamson Road (US 11-220). (S) Aline from the intersection of Petty Avenue :and Plantation Road along Petty Avenue and Oakland Boulevard to Verndale Drive. (6) Three (3) segme:zts necessary to complete line along Planta- tion Road: (1) Hedgelawn to Elden; (2) magnolia to Orlando; (3) South Hershberger to City line. (7) A line from US 11-601 intersection along 601 to the 601- 627 intersection, then continuing along 601 to Garman Drive. (8) Segments of a line alo:zb Williamson Road at Peters Creek Road to the City Limits at Williamson Road. CITY WAT?'_t LIMES TO B RETAI.IED I1~1 SOUTIfi~JEST COU:•iTY AREA (1) A 12" to 16" line from the intersection of Fleetwood Avenue and the Roanoke City line along Fleetwood Avenue to its intersection with Brandywine Avenue, thence along Brandy- wine Avenue to its intersection with Brambleton Avenue, thence along Brambleton Avenue to its intersection with Westmoreland Drive, thence along Westmoreland Drive to its intersection with Antietam Drive along Antietam Drive to its intersection with Manassas Drive, thence alonj :~anas- sas Drive to the intersection of l~ianassas and Colonial Ave- nue, thence along Colonial Avenue at which point such line becomes an 8" line to the Roanoke City line. (2)~ A 16" line along Orden Road from Colonial Avenue to Route 419, thence along 419 to Roanoke City limits to the extent any portion of such line lies in the County. ~. ~_ v 2 of 4 ~ ~~ FUTURE CITY LIi1'r:S I~1 TiE SOUTj-i':•ILST COD:?TY A_~~ (1) Line ~ro~, the intersection of I~eaby P,oad and Rte 419 along Rt... 419 to its intersection cvith Glen 'rieather Drive. (2) Line along Brambleton (US 221) from Brandywine to the City limits. CITY ~•JA lt:D LI`?ES 10 3E RET~iI~~ ~D Ii1 EAST COU~~1'Y ARES (1) A 10" line from the ;,ailing Creek t,Tater Plant in Bed~ord County extending from the Roanoke County line to the inter- section of Stecaartsville Road and Maplewood Drive, extendinj along Stewartsville Road to the intersection of Fai wont Drive and Ruddell P,oad, thence in a westerly direction to Route 634, along 634 to the intersection of Pollard Street, thence a 12" line along ?,oute 24 to the City limits. • rUli,~:,=, CIT`i Lii~ES I? 1'r'~E E.'1ST CvU?ITY SEP.~IICL A?EA (i) Aline for joint use from the intersection of Route 460 and the East :~oanolce City lirnits along Route 400 to tine Bote- tourt County ii~ie. (2) 12" line beginnin at the intersection of Ruddell Road and Ste:vartsvilie Road in a westerly direction along Ruddell F,oad to the t,ity limits . (3) I2" line beginning at the intersection of Pollard Street and 634 in a northerly direction to the City limits. WATT R TF.A:1Si'iISSI07 i•IAIi~TS TO B 0~1;ED >3Y TiiE COU:~TTY Snt1^i~?•7r'~T (1) 12" and smaller water lines fron Rt. 419 at Roanoke City limits along Glen Heather and Grandin Road Extension to Taryn Hills Subdivision. (2) 419 crossovers to be retained for future use. (a) Lonsdale Area (b) Keagy-Bruceton Area (c) :Joodmar Area (2) (d) Glen Heather Area 3 of 4 •e-- SOUTHiJEST FUTURE (1) Line from the intersection of Grandin Road Extension and Glen Heather east along Grandin Road to the Taryn Hi11s subdivision. GRATER PRESSURES OTHER THAN VOTED IN COLITRACT CITY i`10RTH SYSTE~1 0 P . S . I . to be maintained by t.oanolce City on 36" line along Plantation Road. 4G P.S.I. to be maintained on 12" line along Planta- tion Road. 40 P,S,I, to be maintained on line along Hollins Road (Rt. 601). 40 P.S.I. along Peters Creek Road and Green Ridge P.oad. 40 P.S.I. along Thirlane Road. SOUTHEAST SYSTE'i1 45 P.S.I. along Indian Rock P,oad. COUNTY The County shall have the right to adjust pressures utilizing County sources by physical valuing of lines for existing City customers that do not have adequate pressure, if necessary, upon mutual agreement. County bulk water service in City from County system - A minimum 25 P.S.I. and maximum possible, fire flow as is. 4 of 4 ~n C.~- i ~" ~- ~ ~ ElHIBI1 "C" ALLOCATIOi1 OF CAPACITY ITT AUTHOP,ITY OaTNED SET~7Er', LINES LOCATED I:J AREA ANNLYED JAIdUAhY 1 , 1976 Lv'I~~cCt.~'TOR DFSIG`;ATION i~IGD TOTAL, CAPACITY `.GD COUiv"TY SfiARE , CITY S'r'.~RE Tinker Creed: Interceptor (i; Li 17.81 (?•Ietering Sta.) 13.29 4 52 eca ne) . Route 46G East Interceptor 1.33 (Li.miting Sec.) .30 1.03 Barnhardt Interceptor 5.38 (i•ietering Sta.) 3.1s 2,20 `czd Lick Interceptor 4.05 (Limiting Sec.) 3.20 0.85 Peters Creek Drainage Area Peters Creek Interceptor Manhole 1 to Manhole 56 -'~ 9.8 (iletering Sta.) 5.39 4.41 Manhole 56 to Manhole 83 -~ (Includes Submain A.from 5.9 (Li~i.ting Sec.) 4.54 1.36 Manhole 83 to Manhole 100) Mar~tZOle 83 to :Manhole 213 %; 0.90 (Limiting Sec .) . 76 .14 Peters Creek Submain Nor~,~od Interceptor - I.83 ri® 2.09 (Int. of Peters 1.87 22 with parallel - 2.09 ~~D Creek & ibr~,n~od , Interceptor) TOTAL CAPACITY Roanoke River Interceptor -~'', - (At Barnhardt ~1tr. Remainder of Station) CotuZty Capacity 2.~J Peters Creek Interceptor Manhole 213 to 225 -~ !1.05 ,87 •3 Sulxnain "C" ` Peters Creek Su3~a.in "E" ::-': t~wle 422-423 150' section ~'~ 1.24 1,237 C.J3 Ca.rvins Creek -'~ Mantwle 1081 - 1088 -', , [,g . 41 . C ` (to the extent this line lies within the City) --yZ~.~ 1 of 2 c,~~~ • L::411J1~ 1, ~.~ll~.liG1::u '~ P~ZO1e numbers refer to plans entitled "Comprehensive Sewage Plan-Peters. Creek Drainage Area", dated February 1, 1972, for the Roanoke County Public Service Authority by the Roanoke County Public Service Authority and Langley, McDonald and Overman and "Comprehensive Secsage Plan-Cazvins and Tinker Creek Drainage Area", dated January, 1973, for the :~oanoke County Public Service Authority by the Roanoke County Public Service Authority and LangYey, McDonald and Over- man. •''~ Ownership of these lines only and (1) the pump station, force main and gravity sewers along Peters Creek Road from Thirlane Road to Cove Road and (2) gravity sewers from intersection of Cove Road and Peters Creek Rnad along Cove Road and Green Ridge Road to the City of Salem limits shall be retained by the County. ALLOCATION OF CAPACITY IrJ CITY O~rNED SE;`TER LI,JES LOCATED- IN COUiJTY AFTER JANUARY 1 , 1976 IyT'"RCEPTOR DESIG:~IATION TOTAL CAPACITY COUNTY SHARE CITY Si~.~.~ Garst ,Till - Brambleton Road ' ~d ~ck) 'Unknown (Limiting Sec.) Remainder .30 Lick Run (Segment Constructed by County) ~ 1.13 (limiting Sec.) 1.1 .03 It is agreed that a party not owning a particular joint use interceptor Line ,may make use of the unused capacity allocated to the owning party in this interceptor under the same terms as provided in the 1972 Sewage Treatment Contract. It is fisther agreed that the City may use the sanitary sewer lines being retained by the County in the City with the City permitting direct connections to the li~.es at City rates an11dlcharging City treatment fees without any contact with the Co:~:ty OY/~~T}" .][. TY,11T ltl9!'~ 1n aL.~iw '..ti~~...~~~~. 2 of 2 ~. ,' ~. ~~ ~ EXHIBIT "D" Roanoke City Water ~4ain Extensions in Roanoke County Agreement Date of , No. Contractin Party Agreement Map ~'l0. Location 708 Major Motor Inns, Inc. 3/30/73 73-3 Carvins Cove 119 Billy H. Branch 8/7/74 74-22 Thirlane Rd., N.;J. & Private Street 720 G, lJ. Peters 8/19/74 74-23 Burnette Heights,Sec.l 721 Creative Offices, Inc. 8/28/74 74-13 West View Terrace, Sec.6 722 Creative Offices, Inc. 8/28/74 74-14 4Jest View Terrace, Sec.l 723 L. El~vood Norris 9/17/74 74-20 Montclair Forest 727 Parker & Wiley, Inc. 4/21/74 75-6 !~ontclair Estates, Sec.l 728 Valley Air Conditioning 4/23/74 75-12 Wayburn Drive, ~~. !J. • Corp. 734 Al M. Cooper 12/18/75' 75-23 Clearview Drive, S. !J. 135 Patterson & Ailstock 2/6/76 76-1 Old Manor Development, Inc. 736 Lewis C. Peters 2/23/76 76-2 Summerdean Heights 747 Gene D. Whitlo~r .10/26/76 76-21 Williamson Road, N. !J. 748 G. W. Peters 12/10/76 76-22 Burnette Heights, Sec.2 749 Paul G. Black 2/16/77 77-1 Middleton St., N. ;J. 753 Robert D. Carson 7/27/77 77-13 Clearview Drive, S.'.•;. 759 Archie F. Parrish 1/9/78 77-15 Williamson Road 761 D. H. Ridenhour 1/23/78 78-4 Williamson Road 773 United Virginia Bank 8/10/79 79-13 Cross Creek Roanoke County Reimbursement Contracts and Similar Obligations Amount of Amount Expiration Balance Contract Reimbursable Date 6/30/77 Monterey Hills $63,661.85 $63,661.85 10/31/33 $24,461.85 Spring tree Gravity Sewer Participation Contract per letter•dated November 22, 1978. 2~-f~ . ~. ~~~Y OF, .~p~~ G~ o~~ MRS. MAY \V. JON `ISON, CM AIRM.aN COVE SPRING ~I.~GISTERI'.L D157RICT R09ERT E. MYERS, vKE CN IIRMAN CITAW BA I.I .ICISTE RI.~L DISTRICT WILLIAM F, CLARK COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO WHOA} IT ~IAY CONCERN aouN~,, o;, ~;_:r; :?F ~~.r~ \ 4 L h/~ ~~~ ~. ~,c \ 1l ~l J~ c ~~~ ,~ 13 $ P, O. 60X 1079 SALEM, VIRGINIA 24153 August 9, 1979 R. WAYNE COMPTON MO LLINg•Mq GISTERI4L DISTRICT EDWARD C. PARK, JR. VIN70N M4GISTERIAL DISTRICT ~ LAWRENCE E, TERRY WINDSOR MILLS M4GISTERI4L DISTRICT T}ie City of Roanoke and the- County of Roanoke have entered into a certain agreer,.ent relating to disposition of sewer and n•ater lines located within t}ie geographical boundaries of each of said political subdivisions. A question has arisen i-elatin~ to the intent of the parties as set out in Section ~.1 of said agreement and this letter is -for 'the express purpose of clarif}•ing the aforesaid intent of said parties. Insofar as the intent of Section 4:1 of the said contract of august 13, 1979, the parties herein referred to intend as follocvs: "The SS.00 per million gallons per mile charge provided to be made in Section 4.1 of that certain agreement dated August 13, 1979, by the City of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke is not a charge to be imposed in addition to the charges accruing to either party pursuant to the 1972 selvage treatment contract between the parties; but~is a charge made applicable to lines constructed prior to 1972 for which no operation or maintenance charge is otherlvise made." CITY OF ROANOhE r',;~ ~ " a - _._ r'', "`~ By. ~, ~ gel C. 'T'aylor, ,play r COUNTY OF ROANOhE By: ha Jo n, Chairman Boa of ounty Su}~ervisors ROr~NOKC COUNTY PUBLIC' SER~lIC1r AUTI~ORITY 0 B y . ,~ ~ alvrelice L. Terry, airman 1 Exhibit 2 Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance for the City of Roanoke, first being duly sworn, states as follows: 1. From January 1, 1977, to present, I have served as the Director of Finance for the City of Roanoke, Virginia ("City"). 2. As Director of Finance for the City, I have charge and maintain control of the keeping of all accounts and financial records of the City and exercise general fiscal supervision over all the officers, departments, offices, agencies and employees of the City charged in any manner with the assessment, receipt, collection or disbursement of city funds, including calculations required under the August 13, 1979, water-sewerage contract between the City and the County of Roanoke ("County"). 3. By letter dated October 14, 1991, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, notification was given to Elmer Hodge, Roanoke County Administrator, that the amount of $320,353.39 is due and owing by the County to the City pursuant to the water-sewerage agreement dated August 13, 1979, between the City and the County. The letter incorporates the following Exhibits: (i) Exhibit A - Rate calculation for the estimated bulk water rate for Roanoke County for the period July 1, 1991, to June 30, 1992; (ii) Exhibit B - Rate calculation for the actual bulk water rate for Roanoke County far the period July 1, 1990 to June 30, 1991; Joel M. 5chlanger page 2 Affidavit (iii) Exhibit C - Calculation of fiscal year usage based upon actual bulk water rate instead of estimated rate. A copy of the billing notice provided to the County is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 4. To the best of my knowledge and belief, in my capacity as Director of Finance for the City of Roanoke, the amount of $320,353.39 is due and owing by the County of Roanoke to the City of Roanoke under the August 13, 1979, water-sewerage contract between the City of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke. Jo M. Schlanger Dir ctor of Finance SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public in and for the Co onwealth of Virginia, in Roanoke, Virginia on the ~s~ day of 1992. ~~ Notary Public My commission expires: ~%~a~- ~/~ /f9.r'- i •/ CITY OF ROANOgE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 2t6 0~ AvrmN, S.w.. Ileoie Mt r. a o~.w..,aao no.not., vua~w.~ooe.,rlo ~oe~ M. acMwrop~ October 14 , 19 91 T ion ~~ ~~ D~neca a finrro~ Ttl~COpNr. (7~119a,•2410 Mr. Elmer Hodge County Administrator County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Dear Elmer: Per the water-sewage agreement dated August 13, 1979, this is to advise you that the new bulk water rate as calculated by my office effective July 1, 1991, is $.73 per 100 cubic feat. This rat• will be adjusted based on actual expenditures upon completion of the 1992 fiscal year audit. The rate was calculated by the formula as set forth in the above mentioned agreement and those calculations are attached for your review (Exhibit A). The fiqurea are derived frog the 1991-92 fiscal year adopted budget. The actual bulk water rate ($.95 par 100 cubic feet) calcula- tions for fiscal year 1991 are. attached for your review (Exhibit s). Exhibit C i.s a summary of usage~froa 7/1/90 to 9/30/91 which calculates usage at the actual bulk water rate for fiscal year 1991 and the new estimated bulk rate for fiscal year 1991-92. This calculation shows that the City is due the amount of $320,353.39. This amount will be billed on your monthly bill for November which is based on usage for October. If you have any questions regarding the calculations, please notity me. erely, Jo M. Schlanger Di for of Finance JMS/pac Attachments cc: Mayor Noal C. Taylor Members of City Council W. Robert Herbert, City Manager, City R. B. Riser, Director of Utilities and Deborah J. Moses, Chief o! Billings Robert Bird, Municipal Auditor of Roanoke operations and Collections Diane Hyatt, Director of Finance, Roanoke County M. Craig Sluss, Water Department Manager i ~~~ ~~~~s~p ~~~T^ ~ ~ ~~ AI~i~O ~ ~` ~ ~O'ernAs ~' ~~+~~~ BD~ PQt '~ ~ JD1.Y 1, 19'91 ~ JQ~ 3~, 19'92 '~ ~~ F1uxi b<rk~et Pte' ~inanoe No. 30516 dated 5/13/91 Funds z'~e~appropri.ated fcae o~utstandir~g at 6/30/91 per Ordinance No. 30639 dated 7/22/91 L~~err~ed ftXx]s for' Water Fund nultiyear projects carried cMer from FY1991 Tbtal Budget Appr'+opr~iated De~~eciation Billing and Cbllectian Fees Capital Outlay from Revpnie: Tbtal Apprripriation Eton adopted budget and ftiQ~ds carried over mom prior year Maxi,,. A1aou;'Yt p~ ~ee'me~t ~it3cns of Debt principal 2b~ta1 Operating Cost per F~,+., t a Zbtal water delivered for year ended 6/30/91 $ 758,793 250,000 $ 1,626,902 910.000) ~~ Pte' 100 ~• ft. 1.25 X 53.923.974 6,761,485 (100 a1.it.) t $ 4,889,790 55,977 703.902 $ 5,649,669 (1,008,793) ( 716,902) -o- S 3.923,974 6.761,485 Rate per 100 ai.ft. _S 7254 (z~currled to $.73) f ~~~~ ~~ ffi~ QTY Qr 1 ]lt~D CZ~t1Y ~ I~~O; AID/Qt ~C ~~ ~~~ I~!® 1831' 13, 1982 ~ BQ~ i01~t RAQB PQt ~ PSiIm JQ.Y 1, 1990 ~ JON$ 30, 1991 Zbtal Water' Fund Expersses far Year BYied 6/30/91 (Per Dompr'ehensive Annual Financial Report) ~'~~~~ $ 714, 397 Billing and Cbllettian Fees 245.000 of Debt Principal. $ 200,000 Capital Outlay~frtm ~~~ 1,699,085 Rate Per' 100 cu.ft. = 1.25 x 55,149.335 6, 761,485 (100 cu. ft. ) ~~t 8 $ 4,209,647 ( 959,397) 1,899,085 S 5.149,335 Rate per 100 ai.ft. 5.9520 (raun3ed to $.95) a .~ :~ / O0~! CALCQLi~I?IO1~ OF FISCaL YE~t II8~lGE B11.SBD Ol~i ~G'1'OlIL BIII~ ~TBZt R1~TE INSTB~D OF BSTIIrATBa RaTB Exhibit C IIsage 100 cu. t. August 1990 September 1990 October 1990 November 1990 December 1990 January 1991 February 1991 March 1991 April 1991 May 1991 June 1991 July 1991 July 1990 August 1990 September 1990 October 1990 November 1990 December 1990 January 1991 February 1991 March 1991 April 1991 May 1991 June 1991 Usage for period 7/1/90 to 6/30/91 August 1991 September 1991 October 1991 July 1991 August 1991 September 1991 Usage for period 7/1/91 to 9/30/91 149,186 124,885 105,641 127,702 101,589 116,154 112,321 98,256 101,062 120,817 107,346 111.601 1.376.560- (1) 135,851 117,595 121.013 374.459 (2) Adjustment for estimated bulk rate to actual rate for period 7/1/90 to 6/30/91: 100 cu.ft. usage 1,376,560 (1) Estimated Rata FY91 $.72 Actual Rata FY91 .95 x .23 Amount Due S 316,608.80 Adjustment for difference in FY91 and FY92 estimated bulk rate for period 7/1/91 to 9/30/91: 100 cu.ft. usage Estimated Rate FY91 $.72 Estimated Rate FY92 .73 Amount Due Total amount due from adjustment in bulk rates 374,459 (2) x .01 S 3.744.59 S 320,353.39 ~ '' e • -----~ ~ i ~ Exhibit D - ~_~_ ~ ~ CITY OF ROANOKE ROOM 252 215 CHURCH AVE., S.W. ROANOKE, VA 2d011 CURRENT CHARGE I I ~ • ~ ~ • ~ ~ • • P PIIE~SNTFO fMET QASE MIIL 1 / U E POETIKE PUB 1 I . . ~/ ,~ PE91HT M. I ~d Water 9328597 ~ I • • • I ACCT. NO. LOCATION SERVED 9010220002 0 COUNTY-ROANORE Rate Adjustment 32035339 for July ~ Augus 1991 RETAIN FOR PAST DUE ~ I YOUR RECORDS PAY THIS AMOUNT BALANCE ~ 41363936 ~ AVERAGE WATER COST PER DAY: ~ A AVERAGE SEWER COST PER DAY: 41363916 1 1 111891 ,' ACCT. NO. READING DATES 0 ~ 413639.36 413639.36 LOC: 0 - 103 ~ eA~aNCE ~ 11-18-91 - O COUNTY_ROANOKE PAY THIS AMOUNT DATE DUE PRES. READING PRIOR READING USAGE ' ' 127789 COUNTY OF ROANOKE DIR OF UTILITIES 1206 KESSLER MILL RD '_ SALEM VA 24153 ~ ' - ; i~ / I ~ ~, .• ~ iii _ _ J I • ~--rs~ ~ ~ '~~ g"~ ~ ~ ~~ ~' °"~ ~~ f-~~ ~- ~ 6 c/ '~o'~~ ~°`'~ ~ ~--~ 0 - ;. Roanoke County Department of Economic Development 772-2069 M E M O RAND U M TO: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator ----""-_ FROM: Timothy W. Gubala, Director I /~ DATE: May 1, 1992 SUBJECT: Information - several items of interest Just a few items of information for you. 1. Richfield Retirement Community is requesting up to $3.8 million in industrial revenue bonds to construct a 120-bed S/26 home for adults. The IDA public hearing will be on May 21. Richfield wants the Board of Supervisors to consider and approve on May 26. 2. Fred Altizer is willing to come and talk to the Board of ,(~/ ~, Supervisors in a work session on Interstate I-81 six laneing project. He needs Board support because we are competing for federal funds with other interstate projects in Virginia. 3. When do you want Richard Burrow and Rupert Cutler to come and update the Board of Supervisors on Explore.' The Planning Department is preparing a Board report for May 12 on capping a 3 rezoning fees at $5,000. This would affect the Explore District rezoning request. 4. Since the flood, perhaps the City of Salem would be interested in buying our 35 (?) acres near the VA for industrial purposes. 5. I received Lee Eddy's comments. They are constructive and I will include them in the final draft. Call me if you wish to discuss these further. sbo 5/13/92 Ruth Wade called re: May 26 agenda 1. Authorization for VPSA Loan. (She only said VPSA Loan - this is my title) School Board approved but she does not know which projects to include. Dr. Wilson was called out of town today and she will check with him tomorrow. 2. Appropriation for Regional Special Education Board 1992-93 Budget. (Her title) She said they were working on this one and will send over when complete. Brenda O~~ ANA F ~ 9 2 cv .., , a~ 1 38 (~.~ixx~#~ ~~ ~ ~~x~~~e P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS February 5, 1992 LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 Rev. Charles W. Easley, St . Mark's Lutheran Church . ~ ~- Q ®C~ 1008 Franklin Road, S.W. ~ _` Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Reverend Easley: 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, May 26, 1992, at 3:00 p.m. For your information, I am attaching a list of the board meeting dates for 1992. 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, QS qv alp Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ®R~ydea Paper O~ ROANp~,~ ~ ~ 2 L ., ~ ~ J ? a 18 E50 88 sFSQU1CENTENNIP~' .4 BeautifulBeginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE ~, AL4AMERR~A CITY ~~~~~ ~~ ~~r~tYt~r~~ ' I I' I I 1979 1989 May 4, 1992 Mr. Hal Cantrill, President Roanoke Appalachian Trail Club 208 Eagle Drive Salem, Virginia 24153 Dear Mr. Cantrill: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STEVEN A. MCGRAW. CHAIRMAN CATAWFLA AUGISTERUL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS. VICE-CHAIRMAN VWTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERAL DLSTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS CAVE SAFtING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Supervisor Ed Kohinke has advised our County Administrator Elmer Hodge that the Roanoke Appalachian Trail Club will be celebrating its 60th anniversary this year. The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors would like to recognize this organization with a Resolution of Congratulations at their May 26th meeting at 3:00 p.m. On behalf of the Board I would like to invite you to attend and accept the resolution. If you would prefer another date, please let me know. The Board also meets on June 9 and 23. I would appreciate your sending me any information you may have about the Roanoke Appalachian Trail Club such as history, the activities of the Club, membership numbers and any other unique information that will assist us in preparing the resolution. You may send the information to the following address: Mary H. Allen Clerk to the Board of Supervisors County of Roanoke P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Congratulations on the 60th anniversary. .We look forward to seeing you on May 26 at 3:00 p.m. at the Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue. If you would prefer another date or have any questions, please call me at 772-2003. Sincerely, Mary H. Allen Clerk to the Board CC: Supervisor Edward G. Kohinke P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 • <703) 772-2004 ~, PUBLIC NOTICE Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, at its meeting on May 26, 1992, at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia, at the evening session beginning at 7:00 p.m. will hold a public hearing on the following: ORDINANCE TO INCREASE THE SALARIES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORB OF ROANORE COIINTY PIIRSIIANT TO SECTION 3.07 OF THE ROANORE COIINTY CHARTER AND SECTION 14.1-46.01:1 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA All members of the public interested in the matter set forth above may appear and be heard at the time and place aforesaid. Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Roanoke County, Virginia Publish on the following dates: May 12, 1992 May 19, 1992 Send invoice to: Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 ATTENTION: MRS. MARY ALLEN S ~" U LEGAL NOTICE ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, May 26, 1992, in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of James S. Bolling to rezone 7.864 acres from A-1 and M-2 to R-E to allow the continued use and new use of these tracts for residential purposes, located on Carlos Drive, Hollins Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, VA. Dated: May 7, 1992 Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times & World-News Tuesday, May 12, 1992 Tuesday, May 19, 1992 Direct the bill for publication to: James S. Bolling c/o King & Higgs, P.C. PO Box 1784 Roanoke, VA 24008-1784 (703) 985-0736 SEND AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANORE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANORE, VA 24018 LEGAL NOTICE ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, May 26, 1992, in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Bobby L. Hodges to rezone approximately 3 acres from A-1 to M-2 to operate a machine shop, located at 6095 Newport Road, Catawba Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, VA. Dated: May 7, 1992 ~,~ ,~ Mary H. lien, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times & World-News Tuesday, May 12, 1992 Tuesday, May 19, 1992 To be paid on delivery by: Bobby L. Hodges 6095 Newport Road Catawba, VA 24070 (703) 384-6193 SEND AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANORE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANORE, VA 24018 LEGAL NOTICE ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, May 26, 1992, in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Steve Waldrop to rezone 0.83 acres from B-2 and B-3 to B-2 to operate a dental clinic and permit general business uses, located in the 6100 block of Peters Creek Road, Hollins Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, VA. Dated: May 7, 1992 ~`~' . Mary H. lien, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times & World-News Tuesday, May 12, 1992 Tuesday, May 19, 1992 Direct the bill for publication to: Steve Waldrop c/o Waldrop Realty PO Box 1479 Salem, VA 24153 (703) 389-8101 SEND AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANORE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANORE, VA 24018 ;;~ DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RAY D. PETHTEL RICHMOND, 23219 COMMISSIONER May 4, 1992 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 resolutions dated July 23, 1991, the following additions to the Secondary System of Roanoke County are hereby approved, effective April 15, 1992. ADDITIONS HUNTING HILLS - SECTION 4 Route 1290 (Crossbow Circle) - From Route 220 to Route 1294 Route 1291 (Chukar Drive) - From Route 1290 to 0.10 mile South- west Route 1290 Route 1292 (Archer Drive) - From Route 1290 to 0.20 mile North Route 1290 Route 129.1 (Red Stag Road) - From Route 1290 to 0.14 mile West Route 1290 LENGTH 0.58 Mi 0.10 Mi 0.20 Mi 0.14 Mi Route 1294 (Elk Hill Drive) - From Route 1290 to 0.06 mile West Route 1290 0.06 Mi Sincerely, ~" ~~~ Ray D. Pethtel Commissioner TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET R!('HlVIOND, 23219 May 8, 1992 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 March 24, 1992, the following additions to the Secondary System of Roanoke County are hereby approved, effective May 1, 1992. ADDITIONS LENGTH CANTERBURY PARK - SECTIONS 6 & 8 Route 1799 (Cavalier Drive) - From Route 2002 to Route 690 0.31 Mi Route 2003 (Sulgrave Road) - From Route 1799 to Route 2004 0.06 Mi Route 2004 (Trinity Court) - From Route 2003 to 0.09 mile West Route 2003 0.09 Mi Rcute 2005 (Wimbledon Court) - From Route 1799 to 0.08 mils Northwest Route 1799 0.08 Mi incerely, Ka D. Pethtel y Commissioner TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY