The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8/11/1992 - Regular~p ANS. ~~ z 1?.V70 M ^lL ~ (~~~x~tg .~~ ~.~~xxt~.C~ ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA AUGUST 11, 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. HCN ABSENT AT 3:04 (ARRIVED AT 3:10 P.M.I 2. Irnocation: Reverend Gordon Grimes Cave Spring Baptist Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS LBE ADDED TWO EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS: REMOVAL ACTION FOR DIXIE CAVERNS LANDFILL AND POSSIBLE SELECTION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL. BLJ ADDED PERSONNEL MATTER REGARDING AIRPORT COMII~IISSION i ® Re~,yt1W Paper LBE ANNOUNCED ITEM C-1 WAS DELETED C. PROCIAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Adoption of a Resolution of Support for the Roanoke Valley Air Show. DELETED BECAUSE ROANOKE VALLEY NOT SUITABLE LOCATION FOR AIR SHOW. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for acceptance of a Local Government Challenge _ _ Grant from the Virginia Commission of the Arts (Reta Busher, Director of Management & Budget) A-81192-1 BLJ MOTION TO ACCEPT GRANT FOR $2,000 URC 2. Request for Adoption of the Drug Free Work Place Act. (Reta Busher, Director of Management & Budget) R-81192-2 FM MOTION TO ADOPT URC E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS NONE F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 1. Ordinance Authorizing the Vacation of 120 Linear Feet of a 10 Foot Drainage Easement Located on Lot 3 in z Meadow Creek Subdivision, Section I in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering and Inspections) BI{T MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 8/24/92 URC 2. Ordinance Authorizing the Vacation of a 15 Foot Utility and Drainage Easement Located on the Common Property Line of Lots 6 and 7, Falcon Crest Subdivision in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. (Arnold Cwey, Director of Engineering and Inspections) HCN MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING _ 2ND - 8/24/92 URC H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. An Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of Easements and Property for the South Transmission Line and Starkey Road Water Projects. (Clifford Craig, Utility Director) 0-81192-3 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT URC I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Community Corrections Resources Board HCN NOMINATED EDMUND KIELTY TO ANOTHER ONE-YEAR TERM ERPIRING AUGUST 31, 1993 AND ASKED CLERK TO SEND HIM A VOLUNTEER APPLICATION FORM. 2. Grievance Panel HCN WILL CONTACT R VINCENT REYNOLDS 3 3. Industrial Development Authority BI;T NONIINATED T. RICHARD CP;A-NWELL TO ANOTHER FOUR- YEAR TERM EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 26, 1996. J. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WII.L BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. R-81192-4 _ HCN MOTION TO ADOPT WITH ITEM 2 REMOVED URC 1. Approval of Minutes -June 23, 1992, July 14, 1992, July 21, 1992. 2. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to Community Corrections Resources Board and the Highway and Transportation Safety Commission. A-81192-4.a FM MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONFIRMATION OF ROBERT JOHNSON TO HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION SAFETY COMMISSION REMOVED. URC 3. Authorization to Amend Interjurisdictional Pretreatment Agreement. A-81192-4.b 4. Request for Acceptance of Carriage Hills Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. R-81192-4.c 5. Reallocation of Funds for Well at Hofauger House 4 (Explore). A-81192-4.d 6. Approval of Amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan adopted July 14, 1992. A-81192-4.e K. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS SUPERVISOR NICKENS: (11 ANNOUNCED HE HAD JUST RETURNED FROM EUROPE. (21 INVITED BOARD MEMBERS TO RIBBON CUTTING FOR BUSHDALE ROAD WHEN THE PROTECT IS COMPLETE. (3) PLEASED TO SEE THE SALE OF BONDS FOR THE LANDFILL WENT THROUGH AND EXPRESSED CONFIDENCE IN DIANE HYATT AND ECH. SUPERVISOR JOHNSON: (11 ANNOUNCED THAT ONE AIRLINE WILL LEAVE THE AIRPORT AND ANOTHER WILL BE COMING ON SATURDAY. (31 ASKED ABOUT BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT FOR VINEYARD PARK. PMM ADVISED THAT ISSUE SHOULD BE HEARD BY ROANOKE CITY PI,A-NNING COMMISSION IN AUGUST. SUPERVISOR KOHINKE: ADVISED HE RECEIVED GOOD REPORTS ON THE SUCCESS OF THE REENACTMENT AT GREEN HILL PARK. SUPERVISOR EDDY: (1) ANNOUNCED HE HAD BEEN INVITED TO ATTEND MAYOR BOWERS ECONOMIC Si;fMMIT ON SEPTEMBER 2 .AND ASKED FOR SUGGESTED ITEMS FOR THE MEETING. BLT SUGGESTED DISCUSSING WATER ISSUES. (2) ASKED THAT CHANGES BE MADE TO THE PARADE PERMIT PROCEDURE AS A RESULT OF COMPLAINTS OVER A RECENT PARADE ON BRAMBLETON AVENUE. ECH ADVISED STAFF IS WORKING ON THIS AND WILL BRING BACK TO THE BOARD. (3~ ASKED FOR SUPPORT FOR CHANGES TO THE POLICY REGARDING USE OF THE CO ROOM INCLUDING ALLOWING CIVIC AND POLITICAL USE WITH CHARGE OF FEE. HCN AND FM SUPPORTED SOME CHANGES BUT SHOULD PROCEED WITH CAUTION. STAFF TO BRING BACK REPORT. (41 RECEIVED LETTER FROM STATE ABOUT VHDA HOUSING PROTECT. ECH ADVISED STAFF IS INVESTIGATING. BI{T ASKED STAFF TO INCLUDE WATER PRESSURE, FIRE SERVICE AND SCHOOLS IN STUDY. TH ADVISED NO PUBLIC HEARING NECESSARY. (S~ ASKED FOR SUPPORT TO ATTEND COUNTY BOARD INS1TTiJ1'E. ASKED FOR UPDATE ON SSE/R PROGRAM. ECH ADVISED STAFF IS WORKING ON NOTIFICATION. L. CITIZENS' COMII~NTS AND CObBVILJNICATIONS NONE M. REPORTS BLJ MOVED TO RECEIVE AND FILE - UW 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Report on Personal Property Tax Refunds RECESS - 3:45 P.M. RECONVENE - 3:55 P.M. N. WORK SESSIONS 1. Water Projects Capital Improvement Program LBE ASKED FOR REVISED LIST OF PROTECTS IN STRICT PRIORITY FOR COMPARISON WITH CURRENT LIST. MAPS ON EACH PROTECT WILL BE INCLUDED IN CIP 2. Bulk and Brush Collection 6 BOARD CONSENSUS TO CONTII~IUE HANDLING BULK AND BRUSH BY CURRENT METHOD. STAFF TO PUBLICIZE AND ENCOURAGE PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL CONTAINER FOR BULK AND BRUSH. O. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (1) To discuss a personnel matter regarding assignment of an employee; (3) to discuss consideration of the acquisition of real property for public purposes; (1) TO DISCUSS A PERSONNEL MATTER REGARDING THE AIRPORT COMMISSION; (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL CONCERNING A PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION ORDER BY CONSENT FOR REMOVAL ACTION FOR THE DIXIE CAVERNS LANDFILL AND THE POSSIBLE SELECTION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL. _ BLT MOTION AT 5:20 P.M. URC P. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-81192-5 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT RESO AT 7:20 P.M. URC Q. PIANNING RETREAT (5:00 P.M.) PRESENTATION ON TEAMWORK IN ROANOKE COUN'T'Y PRESENTED BY MAUREEN POPLSTEIN OF TRAINING UNLIMITED AND STAFF. BOARD MEMBERS INVITED TO GANG OF 40 TRAINING SESSIONS AND ASKED TO SUPPORT TEAM APPROACH. EXECUTIVE SESSION HCN MOTION AT 9:20 P.M. URC CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION A-81192-6 HCN MOTION AT 10:05 P.M. R. ADJOURNMENT TO 3:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1992 AT THE PUBLIC SERVICE CENTER FOR THE PURPOSE OF A PLANNING RETREAT. ADTOURN AT 10:06 P.M. 8 ~ ROAN ~' _ 9 2 . , ~ 38 IE.Vf 611E fJE lID~ C~a~t~#~ ~r# ~..a~txta~e ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA AUGUST 11, 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. 2. Irrvocation: Reverend Gordon Grimes Cave Spring Baptist Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCIAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Adoption of a Resolution of Support for the Roanoke Valley Air Shaw. i ® Recytfed Paper I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Community Corrections Resources Board 2. Grievance Panel 3. Industrial Development Authority J. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Approval of Minutes -June 23, 1992, July 14, 1992, July 21, 1992. 2. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to Community Corrections Resources Board and the Highway and Transportation Safety Commission. 3. Authorization to Amend Interjurisdictional Pretreatment Agreement. 4. Request for Acceptance of Carriage Hills Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 5. Reallocation of Funds for Well at Hofauger House (Explore). 6. Approval of Amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan adopted July 14, 1992. K. REPORTS AND INQUIItIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 3 Item No . C..~ ~" 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: August 11, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Resolution of Support for April 25, 1992 Roanoke Valley Air Show, featuring the United States Air Force-Thunderbirds COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS: ~ ~ ~,~,~,,t/~ ~~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Roanoke Valley Air Show Steering Committee seeks support of the Board for a proposed air show on April 25, 1993 which would include the United States Air Force-Thunderbirds, commanded by Lt. Col. Daniel J. Darnell of Vinton. The Town of Vinton also desires to bestow the honor of Grand Marshall on Lt. Col. Darnell for its Dogwood Festival on April 24, 1993. Roanoke Chapter 285 of the Air Force Association is required to request an appearance by the Thunderbirds by August 15, 1992. BACKGROUND: As of January 1992, Vinton native, William Byrd High School and VMI graduate, Lt. Col. Daniel J. Darnell, became the Commander of the United States Air Force Air Demonstration Squadron, which includes the Thunderbirds. This is one of the most prestigious cockpits, if not the most prestigious cockpit in the world, to hold. Because of Lt. Col. Darnell's position, strong consideration is given to his hometown for a show date. The steering committee, of which several County employees have been involved, will request that Lt. Col. Darnell and his squadron appear at a planned April 25, 1993 Roanoke Valley Air Show. In addition, the Town of Vinton would like to bestow the honor of Grand Marshall upon Lt. Col. Darnell for the Vinton Dogwood Festival, which holds its parade on April 24, 1993. While the steering committee is in the initial planning phase, the Roanoke Chapter. 285 of the Air Force Association needs to show local government support for its application, which is due on August 15, 1992. '"°' In addition to the Thunderbirds, the steering committee is developing an air show presentation that would include additional military fly-overs from such aircraft as the B52, B1 and B2. Other military aircraft will be available for internal viewing. It is also anticipated that civilian air acts will be included. FISCAL IMPACT: A cost and benefits analysis has not However, similar events draw over residents to out of state visitors. being requested. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: been prepared as of this date. 100,000 visitors from both At this time, no funds are Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors endorse the concept of the Roanoke Valley Air Show and approve the attached resolution. Staff will continue involvement on the steering committee to assist in the planning of the air show. Respectfully submitted: Approved: ~~~ z ~ ~' Timothy W ubala, Director Elmer C. Hodge of Econo 'c Development County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to ACTION Motion by: _ No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens Attachment "' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1992 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE ROANOKE VALLEY AIR SHOW FEATURING THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE-THUNDERBIRDS. WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley is increasing its emphasis on tourism, conventions and special events to bring more visitors to the area; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke Chapter 285, Air Force Association is desirous of sponsoring a Roanoke Valley Air Show as a special event to promote public awareness of the importance of aviation; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County staff are on a steering committee involved in the planning for a regional air show to be held in the spring of 1993; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, endorses the application of the Roanoke Chapter 285, Air Force Association to the Department of Defense for military aerial support to conduct the Roanoke Valley Air Show and encourages the cooperation and endorsement of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission to assist in the implementation of this special event in the Roanoke Valley. ~~ ACTION NO. A-81192-1 ITEM NUMBER -J..J - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 11, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of the Local Government Challenge Grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County, each year, applies for the Local Government Challenge Grant. The Virginia Commission for the Arts will match up to $5,000, any donation the County makes to qualified art organizations in the valley. In the FY 1992-93 Budget, the Board of Supervisors approved an appropriation of $2,500 each for the Arts Council of the Blue Ridge and the Roanoke Symphony. Roanoke County, therefore, applied for the maximum grant allocation of $5,000 and was awarded $2,000 for FY 1992-93. This amount is down from previous years due to the significant budget cuts suffered by state agencies in the 1992-94 biennium. FISCAL IMPACT: Staff recommends dividing the $2,000 grant evenly between the Arts Council of the Blue Ridge and the Roanoke Symphony. Combined with the County's appropriation, the following donation would be available to the organizations referred to above: County VCA Organization Appropriation Grant Total Arts Council of the Blue Ridge $2,500 $1,000 $3,500 Roanoke Symphony 2,500 1,000 3,500 5 000 2 000 7 000 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the Local Government Challenge Grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts in the amount of $2,000. Respectfully submitted, Reta R. Busher Director of Management and Budget Appr ved by, :~ru-/ Ch~C~ . Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ~-1 Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by: Bob L. Johnson motion to accept grant for $2,000 cc: File Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy x Johnson x Kohinke x Minnix x Nickens x r ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1992 RESOLUTION 81192-2 EgPRESSING THE INTENTION OF THE COUNTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA TO IMPLEMENT AND ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THE DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE ACT WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States has enacted the "Drug-Free Workplace Act," P.L. 100-690, 41 U.S.C. § 701-707, which requires any grantee of federal funds to certify as a condition of the receipt of such funds that it will provide a drug- free workplace by taking certain steps including establishing a drug-free awareness program, publishing notice of the requirements of this act to all employees, and maintaining a good faith effort to maintain a drug-free workplace; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, to fully comply with the requirements of the "Drug-Free Workplace Act" and to inform its employees of the requirements of this law; and BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the policy entitled "DRUGS IN THE WORKPLACE" is adopted as the official policy of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, pursuant to the "Drug-Free Workplace Act", P.L. 100-690 as follows: DRUGS IN THE WORKPLACE DRUG-FREE WORKING ENVIRONMENT The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors is committed to providing a drug-free working environment for all employees. The unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance by an employee in the Roanoke County workplace is prohibited and is cause for immediate dismissal. No employee shall distribute, dispense, possess, use or be under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or other intoxicating liquors. It is the intent of Roanoke County to fully comply with the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act. The Drug-Free Workplace Act also requires that employees notify their employer of an criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace within five days of such conviction. Information about an employee's conviction should be provided to the Director of Human Resources at 772-2018. This requirement constitutes a condition of employment for all Roanoke County employees. SUBSTANCE ABUSE AWARENESS DANGERS OF DRUG ABUSE IN THE WORKPLACE A. Accidents involving self or others when impaired by alcohol or other drugs or when suffering withdrawal symptoms. B. Negative effects on health of abuser, damages pancreas and liver, increases heart rate and blood pressure, and may adversely affect kidneys, lungs, stomacn, small intestines, and nervous system depending upon type of drug used, frequency, and amount of drug use. C. Impairs judgment. D. May contribute to violence or other behavioral problems. E. Reduces productivity. EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Any employee who feels that he or she has developed an addiction to, dependence upon or problem with alcohol or drugs, legal or illegal, is encouraged to seek assistance. Assistance may be sought by contacting the Roanoke County Employee Assistance Program (EAP). The Employee Assistance Program is available to assist employees and their families. The program is completely confidential. 2. That the Department of Human Resources is directed to take all necessary steps to insure that this policy is published as a notice to all employees of the county and to distribute a copy of this policy to all employees of the county. Further, the Department of Human Resources is charged with the responsibility of insuring that employees abide by the terms of this policy and that the provisions of the policy are implemented. 3. That this resolution shall be in full force and effect on and after August 11, 1992. On motion of Supervisor Minnix 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 Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources Mary Hicks, Executive Secretary Larry Logan, Fire & Rescue ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER " "~' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 11, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of a Resolution to Implement and Enforce the Provisions of the Drug-Free Workplace Act. MM ~~~~ /,~~G COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S CO ENTS: //fJ'~'~~ BACKGROUND: The United States Congress enacted the Drug-Free Workplace Act in 1989, which requires any grantee of federal funds to certify as a condition of the receipt of such funds that the grantee will provide a drug-free workplace. This is accomplished by establishing a drug-free awareness program, publishing notice of the requirements of this act to all employees and maintaining a good faith effort to maintain a drug-free workplace. The Act does not require Roanoke County to perform random drug testing of employees. SUNIIKARY OF INFORMATION: When Roanoke County suffered damage to public property as a result of the April 21,1992 flood, we filed with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for reimbursement for the cost of repairs to our parks, drainage systems and library. A requirement of receiving these federal monies is the formal adoption of the provisions of the Drug-Free Workplace Act. This Act was not in affect in 1985 and therefore was not a requirement of receiving FEMA funds after the 1985 flood. Staff has prepared the attached resolution for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. If the resolution is approved by the Board, staff will incorporate the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act in the Employee Handbook which is currently being revised. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no cost associated with the implementation of the provisions of the Drug-Free Workplace Act. County Employees would be notified of the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act through a memo attached to their paychecks and by articles written for internal publications such as the County Signal. There is the potential, however, of being denied the FEMA grant of approximately $76,000 if Roanoke County chooses to not approve the attached resolution. ~ -2- STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution to implement and enforce the provisions of the Drug-Free Workplace Act. Respectfully submitted, ~ /l, Reta R. Busher Director of Management and Budget ACTION Approv by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved ( ) Motion by: Eddy Denied ( ) Johnson Received ( ) Kohinke Referred ( ) Minnix To ( ) Nickens VOTE No Yes Abs .•C.,i AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1992 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE INTENTION OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA TO IMPLEMENT AND ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THE DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE ACT WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States has enacted the "Drug-Free Workplace Act," P.L. 100-690, 41 U.S.C. § 701-707, which requires any grantee of federal funds to certify as a condition of the receipt of such funds that it will provide a drug- free workplace by taking certain steps including establishing a drug-free awareness program, publishing notice of the requirements of this act to all employees, and maintaining a good faith effort to maintain a drug-free workplace; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, to fully comply with the requirements of the "Drug-Free Workplace Act" and to inform its employees of the requirements of this law; and BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the policy entitled "DRUGS IN THE WORKPLACE" is adopted as the official policy of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, pursuant to the "Drug-Free Workplace Act", P.L. 100-690 as follows: .DRUGS IN THE WORKPLACE DRUG-FREE WORKING ENVIRONMENT The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors is committed to providing a drug-free working environment for all employees. The unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance by an employee in the Roanoke County workplace is prohibited and is cause for immediate dismissal. No employee shall distribute, dispense, possess, use or be under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or other intoxicating liquors. It is the intent of Roanoke County to fully comply with the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act. The Drug-Free Workplace Act also requires that employees notify their employer of an criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace within five days of such conviction. Information about an employee's conviction should be provided to the Director of Human Resources at 772-2018. This requirement constitutes a condition of employment for all Roanoke County employees. SUBSTANCE ABUSE AWARENESS DANGERS OF DRUG ABUSE IN THE WORKPLACE A. Accidents involving self or others when impaired by alcohol or other drugs or when suffering withdrawal symptoms. B. Negative effects on health of abuser, damages pancreas and liver, increases heart rate and blood pressure, and may adversely affect kidneys, lungs, stomach, small ~-2 intestines, and nervous system depending upon type of drug used, frequency, and amount of drug use. C. Impairs judgment. D. May contribute to violence or other behavioral problems. E. Reduces productivity. EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Any employee who feels that he or she has developed an addiction to, dependence upon or problem with alcohol or drugs, legal or illegal, is encouraged to seek assistance. Assistance may be sought by contacting the Roanoke County Employee Assistance Program (EAP). The Employee Assistance Program is available to assist employees and their families. The program is completely confidential. 2. That the Department of Human Resources is directed to take all necessary steps to insure that this policy is published as a notice to all employees of the county and to distribute a copy of this policy to all employees of the county. Further, the Department of Human Resources is charged with the responsibility of insuring that employees abide by the terms of this policy and that the provisions of the policy are implemented. 3. That this resolution shall be in full force and effect on and after August 11, 1992. ACTION # ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 11, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Approval to vacate 120 linear feet of a 10 foot Drainage Easement shown on the southern property line of Lot 3, Block 2, Section 1, Meadow Creek Subdivision and recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 305, located in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The petitioner, 3 is requesting that the above described intersects with Mea Ordinance, in order BACKGROUND The Wagstaff construct a porch the encumbrance on their Sherry Wagstaff, the own of Supervisors vacate a easement from where the Drive, West 120 linear ers of Lot portion of easement feet, by property. his vacation in order to house. Roanoke County staff has no objection to this during the development of Section 4, Meadow Creek stormwater detention pond was required in order Roanoke County's current stormwater Management Or the construction of the detention pond and grad properties, the drainage within this portion of diverted, thus eliminating its need. request because Subdivision, a to comply with dinance. With ing of adjacent the easement was Robert and the Board drainage dow Creek to remove s are requesting t on the back of their ~-i SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Roanoke County staff is requesting that the described drainage easement be vacated in accordance with Chapter 11, Title 15.1- 482(b), State of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by the adoption of the attached Ordinance. First reading of the proposed Ordinance is scheduled to be held on August 11, 1992; the public hearing and second reading is scheduled for August 25, 1992. STAFF RECOMMENDATION County staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed Ordinance to vacate 120 linear feet of a 10 foot drainage easement shown on the southern property line of Lot 3, Block 2, Section 1, Meadow Creek Subdivision, recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 305, and instruct the County Attorney to prepare the necessary Ordinance. U MITTED BY• APPROVED BY: /~ ~ ~~ ~~~ 1~ o d Covey, c or Elmer C. Hodge of Engineering In pections County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Ref erred To Motion by: ACTION Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens VOTE No Yes Abs pc: Paul Mahoney, County Attorney 2 -i NORTH ROANOKE COUNTY To vacate 120 1 i nea r feet of a 10 foot Drainage Easement ENGINEERING & shown on the southernproperty line of Lot 3, Block 2, INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT. Section 1 , Meadow Creek Subdivision and recorded in Plat Book g, Page 305 3 G-i AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1992 ORDINANCE VACATING 120 LINEAR FEET OF A 10-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 3, BLOCK 2, SECTION 1, MEADOW CREEK SUBDIVISION (PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE 305), WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Robert and Sherry Wagstaff have requested the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia to vacate 120 linear feet of a 10-foot drainage easement located on the southern property line of Lot 3, Block 2, Section 1, Meadow Creek Subdivi- sion in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District as shown in Plat Book 9, at page 305 of record in the Clerk's Office of the Roanoke County Circuit Court; and, WHEREAS, Section 15.1-482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, requires that such action be accomplished by the adoption of an ordinance by the governing body; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.1-431 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and a first reading of this ordinance was held on August 11, 1992; and the second reading of this ordinance was held on August 25, 1992. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That 120 linear feet of a 10-foot drainage easement located along the southern property line of Lot 3, Block 2, Section 1, Meadow Creek Subdivision in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District of record in Plat Book 9, at page 305, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.1-482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and, ~-I 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. 3. That Robert and Sherry Wagstaff shall record a certified copy of this ordinance with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and shall pay all fees required to accomplish this transaction and in addition, shall be responsible for all costs and expenses associat- ed herewith. 4. That as a further condition to the adoption of this ordinance, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, shall be indemnified of and held harmless from and against all claims for damages to any improvements or structures within the old easement area by them, their heirs, successors, or assigns. c:\wp51 \agenda\vacation\wagstaff ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~ -~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD, OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COIINTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 11, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Approval to vacate a 15 foot Public Utility and Drainage Easement located on the common property line of Lots 6 and 7, Falcon Crest Subdivision and recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 42, located in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The petitioner, Clyde D. Lavender, the owner of lots 6 and 7 is requesting that the Board of Supervisors vacate a 15 foot Public Utility and Drainage Easement as described above by Ordinance, in order to remove the encumbrance on his property. BACKGROUND The northern boundary line of Falcon Crest is common with the southern boundary line of the Falcon Ridge Estates Subdivision. In the development of Falcon Crest it was determined that the best way to serve utilities to this subdivision would be from existing facilities in the Falcon Ridge Subdivision. Therefore, the developer created additional public utilities along the northern boundary of the subdivision and along the eastern boundary line of Lot 7 thus eliminating the need for the 15 foot easement described above. County staff evaluated the easement and determined that it serves no purpose as a drainage easement. G -Z SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Roanoke County staff is requesting that the described Public Utility and Drainage Easement be vacated in accordance with Chapter 11, Title 15.1-482(b), Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by the adoption of the attached Ordinance. Roanoke County staff and the Public Utility Companies have no objections. First reading of the proposed Ordinance is scheduled to be held on August 11, 1992; a public hearing and second reading is scheduled for August 25, 1992. STAFF RECOMMENDATION County Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed Ordinance to vacate the 15 foot Public Utility and Drainage Easement located on the common property line of Lots 6 and 7, Falcon Crest Subdivision and instruct the County Attorney to prepare the necessary Ordinance. MITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ~/~iyru~/ ~o~ o d Covey, Directo Elmer C. Hodge of Engineering & Ins ctions County Administrator --------------------------------------------------------------- Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To ACTION VOTE Motion by: No Yes Abs pc: Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens 2 G -Z METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT REPRESENT A COMPOSITE OF DEEDS, PLATS, AND CALCULATED INFORMATION AND DO NOT REFLECT AN ACCURATE BOUNDARY SURVEY. 15'PUBLIC UTILITY & DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO BE VACATED .E N 6~h933 1~~ e s S'~ N x$'32 27. 7R) ~~sr. 53g•~t' 'Ag. F LOT 7 3 PROPERTY OF CLYDE DOUGLESS LAVINDER ;~ ~N S 84'00'10" E N ., 553.51' L24 LOT 6 3 e N =`~ o 3~SS9F1+ ~ N N 9~9 /y h L25 UNE DIREC110N DISTANCE L22 N 31'34 47 W 51.15 L23 S 50'26 52 W 105.99 L24 N 84'0010" W 110.00 L25 N 75'39 02 W 53.00' L26 N 31'34 47 W 70.00 LOT CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT CHORD BEARING DELTA 7 B 643.53 49.90 24.96' 49.89' S 29'21'30' E 04'26'35" 6 C 523.39' 67.00' 33.54' 66.95' S 35'14 49" E 07'20 03" TAX MAP N0. 95_02_ 1 _2.8 & 2.9 SCALE:_1 ~'° 200' PLAT SHOWING 15' UTILITY & DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO BE VACATED PREPARED BY.' ROANOKE COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE:_ os_o2_sz _ 3 G -2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1992 ORDINANCE VACATING A 15-FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE OF LOTS 6 AND 7, FALCON CREST SUBDIVISION AND RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 42, LOCATED IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Clyde D. Lavender has requested the Board of Superv- isors of Roanoke County, Virginia to vacate a 15-foot public utility and drainage easement located on the common property line of Lots 6 and 7, Falcon Crest Subdivision in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District as shown in Plat Book 10, at page 42 of record in the Clerk's Office of the Roanoke County Circuit Court; and, WHEREAS, Section 15.1-482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, requires that such action be accomplished by the adoption of an ordinance by the governing body; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.1-431 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and a first reading of this ordinance was held on August 11, 1992; and the second reading of this ordinance was held on August 25, 1992. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That a 15-foot public utility and drainage easement located on the common property line of Lots 6 and 7, Falcon Crest Subdivision in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District of record in Plat Book 10, at page 42, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.1-482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and, ~ -2 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. 3. That Clyde D. Lavender shall record a certified copy of this ordinance with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and shall pay all fees required to accomplish this transaction and in addition, shall be responsible for all costs and expenses associated herewith. 4. That as a further condition to the adoption of this ordinance, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, shall be indemnified of and held harmless from and against all claims for damages to any improvements or structures within the old easement area by him, his heirs, successors, or assigns. c:\wp51\agenda\vacation\lavender AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COIINTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1992 ORDINANCE 81192-3 FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE NECESSARY EASEMENTS AND PROPERTY TO CONSTRUCT THE SOUTH TRANSMISSION LINE AND THE STARREY ROAD WATER PROJECT WHEREAS, location plans for the South Transmission Line Project and the Starkey Road Water Line Project have been completed and the projects will require acquisition of property and easements across certain properties; and, WHEREAS, said property and easements are to be acquired to facilitate any future construction of the water line project; 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 July 28, 1992, and the second reading was held on August 11, 1992. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows: 1. That the acquisition and acceptance of the necessary easements and property for the South Transmission Line Project and the Starkey Road Water Project are hereby authorized across the following properties, referenced by Tax Map Number, from the following property owners, their successors or assigns: Tax Map No. Property Owner Acquisition 97.08-01-40 97.08-01-42 97.08-01-41 97.08-01-39 97.08-01-38 97.08-01-37 97.08-01-36 97.08-01-35 97.05-01-26 Mills, Frank E. Easement Casey, James W. Jr. & Margarette E. Fee Simple Mills, Frank E. Easement Webb, William H. & Eva J. Easement Pope, Reuben Eric & Dossie R. Easement Austin, Jennie Easement McConnell, David W. & Cammie P. Easement McConnell, David W. & Cammie P. Easement Taylor, D. M. Heirs Easement Tax Map No. Property Owner Acquisition 97.02-01-10 Palm Hermitage Corp. Easement 97.05-01-06 Guilliams, Lewis & Clyde Easement 97.05-01-04 Stoots, Gary & Susan ~ Easement 97.01-01-06 Hackley, T. R. Easement 97.01-O1-05.2 Knighton, Eugene B. Easement 97.01-01-03 Board, G. H. Easement 97.01-01-1.1 Blankenship, Edward & Lois Easement 97.01-02-17 Beasley, Nicholas H. Easement 97.01-02-09 Kidd, David E. & Virginia L. Easement 97.01-02-05 Steele, T. D. Easement 97.01-02-03 Janosko, George Easement 97.01-02-02 Janosko, George R. & Wanda C. Easement 96.08-01-04 Steele, T. D. Easement 96.02-01-46 Beasley, Nicholas H. Easement 96.02-01-45 Sigmon, Norma J. Easement 96.02-01-39 Gordon, Michael J. Easement 96.02-O1-38 Musgrove, Bruce A. Easement 96.02-01-37 Mormon Church Easement 86.03-04-06 Ridgeway, Robert L. Et Als Easement 86.03-04-04 Muse, Paul T. Easement 86.03-04-03 Muse, Charles M. Easement 86.03-04-02.1 Bauman, Scott W. & Kathy H. Easement 86.03-04-02 Bauman, Scott W. & Kathy H. Easement 86.03-04-01.1 Metheny, Mary M. Easement 86.03-04-01 Martin, Frank W. Easement 86.03-02-09 Draper, Shirley R. & Gladys S. Easement 86.03-02-07 White, Charles E. & J. Kimberly Easement 86.03-02-03 Draper, Shirley R. & Gladys S. Easement 86.03-02-02 Draper, Shirley R. & Gladys S. Easement 86.03-01-38 Bauman, Scott W. & Kathy H. Easement 86.01-03-01 Grisso, Edwin O. Easement 86.01-01-49 Minter, Marie H. Easement 86.01-01-19 Wirth, Verla S. Easement 86.01-O1-17 Poage, Lewis S. Easement 86.01-02-03 Peoples, George D. & Deborah S. Easement 86.01-02-01 Arthur, David M. & Mollie B. Easement 86.01-02-01.2 Neal, Denver D. & Kum Cha Easement 76.03-07-05.1 Wertz, Bennie L. & Jean P. Easement 76.03-04-32 Boone, L. Easement 76.03-04-31 Harman, Richard E. & Margaret P. Easement 76.03-04-30 Harman, Richard E. & Margaret P. Easement 76.03-03-83 Minnix C. E. & Jessie V. Easement 76.03-03-76 Minnix C. E. & Jessie V. Easement 76.03-03-70 Wallace, Jean O. Easement 76.01-01-04 Jamison, V. E., M. A., & D. A. Easement 76.01-01-21 Porter, F. D. & McFarland, J. G. Easement 76.01-01-14 Porter, Frank D., III & Beverly V. Easement 76.01-01-13 Porter, Frank D., III, Et Al Easement 76.01-O1-12 Porter, Frank D., III & Beverly V. Easement 66.04-02-15 Malley, Margaret L. Easement 66.04-02-17 Minnix, Roy W. & Evelyn K. Easement 66.04-02-15.2 Powell, Barbara B. Easement Tax Mau No. Property Owner Acquuisition 66.04-02-15.1 66.04-02-13 66.04-01-11 66.04-01-14 66.04-01-46 66.04-01-19 66.04-01-18 66.04-01-17 66.04-01-16 66.04-01-15 66.01-01-07 Minnix, Roy W. & Evelyn K. Easement Powell, Barbara B. Easement Double R Corporation Easement Swope, John D. & Emily P. Easement Coates, Fred B., Jr., & Rita A. Easement FFE Development Corporation Easement Tetreau, Michael C. Easement Glowers, Jesse Wayne & Brenda Cronk Easement Baron, Maryhelen F. Easement Baron, Maryhelen F. Easement Sears, Merriman Easement 2. That the consideration for each easement acquisition shall not exceed a value equal to 40% of the current tax assessment for the property to be acquired plus the cost of actual damages, if any. Fee simple property acquisition shall not exceed a value equal to 100% of the current tax assessment for the property to be acquired; and 3. That the consideration for each easement shall be paid from the South Transmission Line Project and the Starkey Road Water Line Project funds; and, 4. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish this acquisition, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the ordinance, 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 Clifford Craig, Director, Utility Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment .~ ACTION # ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 11, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Second Reading of Ordinance - Authorization to Acquire Necessary Easements and Property to Construct the South Transmission Line and the Starkey Road Water Project COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : ,/r~T~~~~~/ - A~?~,~,,y~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Board of Supervisors has approved the South Transmission Line and Starkey Water Line Projects along with the appropriate funding. The above projects will involve acquisition of approximately 150 easements and one property. In order to secure the required property in a timely manner, staff will bring a partial list of affected properties for approval by the Board instead of waiting until all properties have been identified. An Ordinance authorizing acquisition of the first group of easements and acquisition of the pump station property is attached. The following is a list of properties involved: TAX MAP PROPERTY OWNER ACQUISITION 97.08-01-40 97.08-01-42 97.08-01-41 97.08-01-39 97.08-01-38 97.08-01-37 97.08-01-36 97.08-01-35 97.05-01-26 97.02-01-10 97.05-01-06 97.05-01-04 97.01-01-06 97.01-01-05.2 97.01-01-03 97.01-01-1.1 Mills, Frank E. Easement Casey, James W. Jr. & Margarette E. Property Mills, Frank E. Easement Webb, William H. & Eva J. Easement Pope, Reuben Eric & Dossie R. Easement Austin, Jennie Easement McConnell, David W. & Cammie P. Easement McConnell, David W. & Cammie P. Easement Taylor, D. M. Heirs Easement Palm Hermitage Corp. Easement Guilliams, Lewis & Clyde Easement Stoots, Gary & Susan Easement Hackley, T. R. Easement Knighton, Eugene B. Easement Board, G. H. Easement Blankenship, Edward & Lois Easement H-I TAX MAP 97.01-02-17 97.01-02-09 97.01-02-05 97.01-02-03 97.01-02-02 96.08-01-04 96.02-01-46 96.02-01-45 96.02-01-39 96.02-O1-38 96.02-01-37 86.03-04-06 86.03-04-04 86.03-04-03 86.03-04-02.1 86.03-04-02 86.03-04-01.1 86.03-04-01 86.03-02-09 86.03-02-07 86.03-02-03 86.03-02-02 86.03-01-38 86.01-03-O1 86.01-01-49 86.01-01-19 86.01-01-17 86.01-02-03 86.01-02-01 86.01-02-01.2 76.03-07-05.1 76.03-04-32 76.03-04-31 76.03-04-30 76.03-03-83 76.03-03-76 76.03-03-70 76.01-01-04 76.01-01-21 76.01-01-14 76.01-O1-13 76.01-01-12 66.04-02-15 66.04-02-17 66.04-02-15.2 66.04-02-15.1 66.04-02-13 66.04-01-11 66.04-01-14 66.04-O1-46 66.04-01-19 66.04-01-18 66.04-01-17 66.04-01-16 66.04-01-15 66.01-01-07 PROPERTY OWNER Beasley, Nicholas H. Kidd, David E. & Virginia L. Steele, T. D. Janosko, George Janosko, George R. & Wanda C. Steele, T. D. Beasley, Nicholas H. Sigmon, Norma J. Gordon, Michael J. Musgrove, Bruce A. Mormon Church Ridgeway, Robert L. Et Als Muse, Paul T. Muse, Charles M. Bauman, Scott W. & Kathy H. Bauman, Scott W. & Kathy H. Metheny, Mary M. Martin, Frank W. Draper, Shirley R. & Gladys S. White, Charles E. & J. Kimberly Draper, Shirley R. & Gladys S. Draper, Shirley R. & Gladys S. Bauman, Scott W. & Kathy H. Grisso, Edwin O. Minter, Marie H. Wirth, Verla S. Poage, Lewis S. Peoples, George D. & Deborah S. Arthur, David M. & Mollie B. Neal, Denver D. & Kum Cha Wertz, Bennie L. & Jean P. Boone, L. Harman, Richard E. & Margaret P. Harman, Richard E. & Margaret P. Minnix C. E. & Jessie V. Minnix C. E. & Jessie V. Wallace, Jean O. Jamison, V. E., M. A., & D. A. Porter, F. D. & McFarland, J. G. Porter, Frank D., III & Beverly V. Porter, Frank D., III, Et Al Porter, Frank D., III & Beverly V. Malley, Margaret L. Minnix, Roy W. & Evelyn K. Powell, Barbara B. Minnix, Roy W. & Evelyn K. Powell, Barbara B. Double R Corporation Swope, John D. & Emily P. Coates, Fred B., Jr., & Rita FFE Development Corporation Tetreau, Michael C. Glowers, Jesse Wayne & Brenda Baron, Maryhelen F. Baron, Maryhelen F. Sears, Merriman A. ACQUISITION Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Cronk H-i ' Staff would recommend that the cost of acquisition for easements and property be based on the following: (1) Acquisition of property for the pump station be based on 100% of the assessed value of the property. (2) Acquisition of easements not to exceed 40% of assessed value of land plus any actual damage to improvements. The first reading of the Ordinance was held on July 28, 1992. FISCAL IMPACT• The cost of easement and property acc~,uisition is included as part of the overall project budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the Ordinance after the second reading authorizing acquisition of easements at a cost not to exceed 40~ of the assessed value plus cost of actual damage and property at a cost not to exceed the assessed value as needed for the South Transmission Line and the Starkey Road Water Projects . SUBMITTED BY: Cliffo r ig, P.E. Utility Director APPROVED: ~!/~i Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens N-I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1992 ORDINANCE FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE NECESSARY EASEMENTS AND PROPERTY TO CONSTRUCT THE SOUTH TRANSMISSION LINE AND THE STARKEY ROAD WATER PROJECT WHEREAS, location plans for the South Transmission Line Project and the Starkey Road Water Line Project have been completed and the projects will require acquisition of property and easements across certain properties; and, WHEREAS, said property and easements are to be acquired to facilitate any future construction of the water line project; 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 July 28, 1992, and the second reading was held on August 11, 1992. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows: 1. That the acquisition and acceptance of the necessary easements and property for the South Transmission Line Project and the Starkey Road Water Project are hereby authorized across the following properties, referenced by Tax Map Number, from the following property owners, their successors or assigns: Tax Map No. Property Owner Acquisition 97.08-01-40 97.08-01-42 97.08-01-41 97.08-01-39 97.08-01-38 97.08-01-37 97.08-01-36 97.08-01-35 97.05-01-26 Mills, Frank E. Easement Casey, James W. Jr. & Margarette E. Fee Simple Mills, Frank E. Easement Webb, William H. & Eva J. Easement Pope, Reuben Eric & Dossie R. Easement Austin, Jennie Easement McConnell, David W. & Cammie P. Easement McConnell, David W. & Cammie P. Easement Taylor, D. M. Heirs Easement H-~ Tax Map No. Property Owner Acquisition 97.02-01-10 Palm Hermitage Corp. Easement 97.05-01-06 Guilliams, Lewis & Clyde Easement 97.05-01-04 Stoots, Gary & Susan Easement 97.01-01-06 Hackley, T. R. Easement 97.01-01-05.2 Knighton, Eugene B. Easement 97.01-01-03 Board, G. H. Easement 97.01-01-1.1 Blankenship, Edward & Lois Easement 97.01-02-17 Beasley, Nicholas H. Easement 97.01-02-09 Kidd, David E. & Virginia L. Easement 97.01-02-05 Steele, T. D. Easement 97.01-02-03 Janosko, George Easement 97.01-02-02 Janosko, George R. & Wanda C. Easement 96.08-01-04 Steele, T. D. Easement 96.02-O1-46 Beasley, Nicholas H. Easement 96.02-01-45 Sigmon, Norma J. Easement 96.02-01-39 Gordon, Michael J. Easement 96.02-01-38 Musgrove, Bruce A. Easement 96.02-01-37 Mormon Church Easement 86.03-04-06 Ridgeway, Robert L. Et Als Easement 86.03-04-04 Muse, Paul T. Easement 86.03-04-03 Muse, Charles M. Easement 86.03-04-02.1 Bauman, Scott W. & Kathy H. Easement 86.03-04-02 Bauman, Scott W. & Kathy H. Easement 86.03-04-01.1 Metheny, Mary M. Easement 86.03-04-01 Martin, Frank W. Easement 86.03-02-09 Draper, Shirley R. & Gladys S. Easement 86.03-02-07 White, Charles E. & J. Kimberly Easement 86.03-02-03 Draper, Shirley R. & Gladys S. Easement 86.03-02-02 Draper, Shirley R. & Gladys S. Easement 86.03-01-38 Bauman, Scott W. & Kathy H. Easement 86.01-03-01 Grisso, Edwin O. Easement 86.01-01-49 Minter, Marie H. Easement 86.01-01-19 Wirth, Verla S. Easement 86.01-01-17 Poage, Lewis S. Easement 86.01-02-03 Peoples, George D. & Deborah S. Easement 86.01-02-01 Arthur, David M. & Mollie B. Easement 86.01-02-01.2 Neal, Denver D. & Kum Cha Easement 76.03-07-05.1 Wertz, Bennie L. & Jean P. Easement 76.03-04-32 Boone, L. Easement 76.03-04-31 Harman, Richard E. & Margaret P. Easement 76.03-04-30 Harman, Richard E. & Margaret P. Easement 76.03-03-83 Minnix C. E. & Jessie V. Easement 76.03-03-76 Minnix C. E. & Jessie V. Easement 76.03-03-70 Wallace, Jean O. Easement 76.01-01-04 Jamison, V. E., M. A., & D. A. Easement 76.01-01-21 Porter, F. D. & McFarland, J. G. Easement 76.01-01-14 Porter, Frank D., III & Beverly V. Easement 76.01-01-13 Porter, Frank D., III, Et Al Easement 76.01-01-12 Porter, Frank D., III & Beverly V. Easement 66.04-02-15 Malley, Margaret L. Easement 66.04-02-17 Minnix, Roy W. & Evelyn K. Easement 66.04-02-15.2 Powell, Barbara B. Easement /-r - ! Tax Map No. Property Owner Acquisition 66.04-02-15.1 66.04-02-13 66.04-01-11 66.04-01-14 66.04-01-46 66.04-01-19 66.04-01-18 66.04-01-17 66.04-01-16 66.04-01-15 66.01-01-07 Minnix, Roy W. & Evelyn K. Easement Powell, Barbara B. Easement Double R Corpora tion Easement Swope, John D. & Emily P. Easement Coates, Fred B., Jr., & Rita A. Easement FFE Development Corporation Easement Tetreau, Michael C. Easement Glowers, Jesse W ayne & Brenda Cronk Easement Baron, Maryhelen F. Easement Baron, Maryhelen F. Easement Sears, Merriman Easement 2. That the consideration for each easement acquisition shall not exceed a value equal to 40~ of the current tax assessment for the property to be acquired plus the cost of actual damages, if any. Fee simple property acquisition shall not exceed a value equal to 100 of the current tax assessment for the property to be acquired; and 3. That the consideration for each easement shall be paid from the South Transmission Line Project and the Starkey Road Water Line Project funds; and, 4. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish this acquisition, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. c:\wp51\agenda\realest\trens.so ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 11, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. Community Corrections Resources Board One year term of Edmund J. Kielty, will expire August 31, 1992. 2. Grievance Panel Two year term of R. Vincent Reynolds will expire September 9, 1992. 3. Industrial Development Authority Four year term of J. Richard Cranwell will expire September 26, 1992. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, ~~, Mary H. Allen Elmer C. Hodge Clerk to the Board County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) Kohinke To ( ) Minnix Nickens J AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1992 RESOLUTION 81192-4 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. that the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for August 11, 1992 designated as Item J- Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 6, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of Minutes - June 23, 1992, July 14, 1992, July 21, 1992. 2. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to Community Corrections Resources Board and the Highway and Transportation Safety Commission. 3. Authorization to Amend Interjurisdictional Pretreatment Agreement. 4. Request for Acceptance of Carriage Hills Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 5. Reallocation of Funds for Well at Hofauger House (Explore). 6. Approval of Amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan adopted July 14, 1992. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the Consent Resolution with Item 2 removed, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None On motion of Supervisor Minnix to approve Item 2 with the confirmation of Robert Johnson to the Highway and Transportation Safety Commission removed, 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 Clifford Craig, Director, Utility Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Timothy Gubala, Director, Economic Development John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator ~~ I June 23, 1992 359 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 June 23, 1992 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday, and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of June, 1992. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Eddy called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Lee B. Eddy, Vice Chairman Edward G. Kohinke, Sr., Supervisors Bob L. Johnson, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, Harry C. Nickens MEMBERS ABBENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Don M. Myers, Assistant County Administrator; Anne Marie Green, Information Officer June 23, 1992 Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None RESOLIITION 62392-1 DECLARING THE WEEKEND OF AIIGIIST 7 - 9, 1992 A8 "THE BATTLE OF SOIITH SALEM" WHEREAS, on June 21, 1864, almost exactly one hundred and twenty- eight years ago today, Confederate forces, under the leadership of Major General Jubal Early, and Union forces, under the leadership of Major General David Hunter, engaged in a battle at Hanging Rock, near the present intersection of Routes 311 and 419 in Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, prior to that battle, there was a skirmish near the confluence of Peter's Creek and the Roanoke River, also in Roanoke County, known as Hunter's Raid or the South Salem Engagement; and WHEREAS, both events were important to the course of the Civil War in Southwest Virginia; and WHEREAS, on August 7, 8 and 9, 1992, there will be a re-enactment of the Battle of South Salem at Green Hill Park in Roanoke County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors does hereby declare the weekend of August 7-9, 1992 as "THE BATTLE OF SOUTH SALEM", and extends its best wishes for an authentic and successful re-enactment of the event. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy June 23, 1992 n. n ~ ~;`?•> encouraged to stay away from the site. ?. Smith Gam Landfill John Hubbard, Chief Executive Officer, Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, gave a progress report on the three sections of the project. (1) Landfill - The clearing and grading has been delayed for approximately 50 days because of rain; however, the constructor indicates the final completion date has not been affected. The bids for construction of the Tipper Building are expected the first week in July. (2) Transfer Station - Verbal approval of the Application Part A from the State has been obtained, and a variance for building in a flood plain was not necessary and has been withdrawn. Plans are to submit the Part B Application to the Department of Waste Management by the end of the month. Bids will be due for this project in August. (3) Rail Spur - This project is on schedule and approximately 50g complete. In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Johnson, P~Ir. Hubbard advised that the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, the County, and the Town of Vinton have agreed to sell bonds through Alex Brown Underwriters. However, the City of Roanoke has not approved this and they have suggested selling the bonds through VRA. Mr. Hubbard stated that according to the RVRA's Bond Counsel, they cannot proceed without the approval of each of the three localities. This issue needs to be decided since there will be two contracts in August for which funds will be necessary. June 23, 1992 4 buses. There was no discussion. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the appropriation. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None 3. Approval of Chance Order Procedure for s~rinq Hollow Reservoir. (Clifford craic, utility Director1, A-62392-4 Mr. Craig advised that staff felt a change order procedure was necessary because this contract was issued by the Board and because the contract is for the largest amount ever issued for a project. Supervisor Kohinke moved to approve the change order procedure. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None IN RE: REQIIEST FOR PIIHLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the first reading and set the public hearing for July 28, 1992. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: June 23, 1992 ~~7 SIIPERVISORB AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM M- 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 June 23, 1992, designated as Item m - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 5, inclusive, as follows: 1. Acceptance of Water and Sanitary Sewer Facilities Serving Duxbury Court. 2. Authorization to Pay Certain Legal Fees for Action Against Grumman Emergency Products, Inc. 3. Donation of Drainage Easements in Connection with the Hawley Drive Drainage Project. 4. Donation of Easements in Connection with the Development of Canterbury Park, Section 9. 5. Resolution of Appreciation to Paul G. Black for his Services on the Roanoke County School Board. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the consent resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None RESOLIITION 62392-5.e OF APPRECIATION TO PAIIL G. BLACK June 23, 1992 <,~ ~ ~ Roanoke County, Virginia, on its own behalf, and on behalf of the children of Roanoke County, does hereby extend its sincere appreciation and gratitude to PAIIL G. BLACK for his many years of service to the Roanoke County School Board, and for his advocacy of quality education for all the students in the County. 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 IN RE: REPORTS AND INQIIIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Nickens• (1) He advised that he received a request from a citizen asking that personal property taxes be discounted for qualifying veterans. Mr. Mahoney was asked to review this request and the 1991 General Assembly amendment which could make it possible. Commissioner of Revenue Wayne Compton was asked to review the fiscal impact of implementation. (2) He discussed a memo containing suggestions for library services from Spencer watts, Director of Libraries. Supervisor Johnson• (1) He announced that the City of Roanoke had approved the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission budget. (2) He advised that he was concerned that members of the Board of Zoning Appeals feel they have no flexibility in approaching problems. He also expressed his concern that the BZA did not have sufficient input into the new Zoning Ordinance. After further discussion, it June 23, 1992 ~ J ~~ At 5:25 p.m., Supervisor Minnix moved to go into Executive Session pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (7) Consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members, pertaining to actual or probable litigation, (a) concerning Dixie Caverns and Roanoke Electric Steel and (b) Roanoke City Water Bill. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF EBECIITIVE SESSION R-62392-6 At 7:03 p.m., Supervisor Johnson moved to return to Regular Session and adopt the Certification Resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None RESOLIITION 62392-6 CERTIFYING EBECQTIVE 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, June 23, 1992 'J v locate within a M-1 district, provided the use is supportive of area industry. The proposed barbershop will be located in a portion of a space originally designated as a construction office. Staff reviewed this request and found no significant impact factors and that adequate parking exists on the site. Mr. Harrington recommended that the permit be granted. Mr. Winnemuth was present and advised that the area industrial plants had no opposition to the permit. There was no further discussion. Supervisor Minnix moved to approve the Special Exception Permit. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None 2. Recuest for Resolution of Intent to Enter Uoon Certain Properties (Rover E. and Sharon M. vest) and Take Certain Rights-of-Way in Connection with Deyelo~ment of the Forest Edce Water System. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) (COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR HAS DEFERRED THIS ITEM UNTIL A LATER DATE ) Chairman Eddy announced that this item had been deferred to a later date. The public hearing was not held. IN RE: FIRBT READING OF ORDINANCES June 23, 1992 3 7- hearing on August 25, 1992. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None IN RE2 PIIBLIC BEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. An ordinance to rezone 24.090 acres from M-2 to M- 3 to construct- and overate an asphalt batch mix lant, located on the south side of Buck Mountain Road, Cave sprint Macisterial District, upon the ey tition of yircinia Asphalt Pavinc company. LTerrv Harrincton, Planninq and Zoninc Director) (CONTINIIED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 22, 1992) Chairman Eddy announced that this item had been continued until September 22, 1992 at the request of the petitioner. ~ An Ordinance amendinc the Roanoke County Code by amendinc section 12-8. Adoption of state Laa. of Article I of Chapter 12. Motor Vehicles and Traffic of the Roanoke County Code. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) June 23, 1992 ~ 7 ~"y- streets, highways, and other public ways within the County. Such provision and requirements, as amended from time to time, are hereby adopted and made a part of this chapter as fully as though set forth at length herein, and it shall be unlawful for any person within the County to violate or fail, neglect or refuse to comply with any such provision or requirement; provided, that in no event shall the penalty imposed for the violation of any provision or requirement hereby adopted exceed the penalty imposed for a similar offense under the state law hereby adopted. The phrase "all of the provisions and requirements of the laws of the state" as used hereby shall be construed to include all amendments to said laws made effective as of the date that this ordinance is itself effective. 2. The effective date of this ordinance shall be July 1, 1992. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None 3. An ordinance to Resone A rogimatel 1.615 Aares loom H-i and R-1 to B-2 to Operate a Net- Car Dealership Located at the Corner of Peters Creek Road and Deer Branch Road Hollins Ma isterial District. Upon the Petition of valley Motorsport. ~errv Harrincton. Planninc and Zoninc Director) June 23, 1992 23, 1992; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on June 2, 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 1.615 acre, as described herein, and located at the corner of Peters Creek Road and Deer Branch Road, (Tax Map Numbers 27.10-5-12 and 27.10-5-13) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of B-1 and R-1, Office District and Single Family Residential District, to the zoning classification of B-2, General Commercial District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of valley Motorsport. 3. That the owner has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts: 1. Within that portion of tract 27.10-5-13 that has been described on a concept plan prepared by Motley and Associates and submitted with the rezoning application, only dusk-to-dawn lights for security purposes will be installed. 2. All non-security light pole fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet. 3. To provide for additional screening, a 6-foot fence beginning at the northwest corner of tract June 23, 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, Eddy NAYS: None 4_ An Ordinance to Reza to B-2 to operate Dispenser, Located Catawba Macisterial Workman oil Comoan~ and Zoning Director one 0.893 Acre from B-1 and B-2 a convenience store with gas at 3202 Peters Creek Road District. IIpon the Petition of ~. (Terry Harrington, Plannins L 0-62392-10 Mr. Harrington advised that this rezoning would permit additional gas dispensers for the convenience store on the property. The petitioner has proffered three conditions. He advised that the Planning Commission felt there were no significant impact factors and recommended approval with conditions. There was no discussion. Supervisor Kohinke moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy June 23, 1992 accepts: 1. The property rezoned to 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 access for ingress and egress to Peters Creek Road for new tract A-1. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: STARTING at a point on the north side of Peters Creek Road at its intersection with the east side of North Lake Drive marked with a chiseled "X"; thence with Peters Creek Road, N. 56 deg. 12 min. 35 sec. E. 154.01 feet to the actual Place of Beginning; thence with the westerly line of the 0.423 acre presently zoned B-2, N. 20 deg. 41 min. W. 105.07 feet to a point; thence continuing with the northerly line of the B-2 zoning, S. 69 deg. 19 min. W. 150.00 feet to a point in the easterly right-of-way of North Lake Drive; thence leaving the B-2 zoning and with the easterly right-of- way of North Lake Drive, N. 20 deg. 41 min. 00 sec. W. 55.02 feet to an old pin; thence continuing with said right-of-way N. 80 deg. 45 min. 00 sec. W. 15.88 feet to a point; thence leaving the right-of-way of North Lake Drive and with the property of New Tract A-2, as shown on Resubdivision for Orange Markets, Inc. by T. P. Parker & Son dated August 3, 1989, N. 67 deg. 34 min. 42 sec. E. 241.38 feet to an iron pin found; thence continuing with said New Tract A-2, S. 11 deg. 08 min. O1 sec. E. 165.87 feet to an iron pin in the northerly right-of-way of Peters Creek Road; thence leaving New Tract A-2 and with the right-of-way of Peters Creek Road on a curve to the right whose radius is 5686.58 feet, whose arc is 38.09 feet and whose chord is S. 56 deg. O1 min. 04 sec. W. 38.09 feet to a concrete highway monument; thence continuing with said right-of-way S. 56 deg. 12 min. 35 sec. W. 13.27 feet to the Point of Beginning and containing 0.471 acre and being the remainder of New Tract A-1 as shown on Resubdivision for Orange Markets, Inc. which is currently Zoned B-1. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or June 23, 1992 ~~~ 5 IN RE: OTHER BUSINESS 1. Approval of Capital EBpense for Roanoke Regional AirQort Commission. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator R-62392-11 Mr. Hodge advised that the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission would like to acquire a 1,500 gallon aircraft rescue and fire fighting vehicle at a cost of $264,089. This vehicle will replace another, and the Commission will be reimbursed by the Federal government for 90$ of the cost, by the State for 5$ of the cost, and the remaining funds will come from the Commission. Supervisor Nickens moved to table the item. There was no vote and he withdrew his motion. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None RESOLUTION 62392-11 APPROVING A SPECIFIC CAPITAL EBPENDITURE FOR THE ACQUISITION BY THE ROANORE REGIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION OF THE PURCHASE OF AN AIRCRAFT R88CUE AND FIRE FIGHTING VEHICLE, UPON CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS WHEREAS, Section 17.(b) of the contract between Roanoke County, the City of Roanoke and the Roanoke Regional Airport `\~ .\ \~ .\ .~ ~\ - July 14, 1992 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 July 14, 1992 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday, and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of July, 1992. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Eddy called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Lee B. Eddy, Vice Chairman Edward G. Kohinke, Sr., Supervisors Bob L. Johnson, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, Harry C. Nickens MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Mary H. Allen, Clerk; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Don M. Myers, Assistant County Administrator; Anne Marie Green, Information Officer IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by the Reverend Phillip Whitaker, July 14, 1992 ,j ~ O WHEREAS, Noel C. Taylor served the City of Roanoke as Mayor from 1975 to 1992; and WHEREAS, during that period, Mayor Taylor has consistently worked for the good of the entire Valley, supporting economic development projects, regional cooperation, and innovative concepts; and WHEREAS, the citizens of Roanoke County have benefitted from Mayor Taylor's kindness, wisdom and dedication to all the residents of the Valley, through his work with agencies such as the Blue Ridge Mountains Council of Boy Scouts, the YWCA, and the American Red Cross; and WHEREAS, throughout his time as Mayor of the City of Roanoke, he has served as a symbol of the Roanoke Valley, particularly through his terms as President of the Virginia Municipal League and Chairman of the National Conference of Christians and Jews; and WHEREAS, Noel C. Taylor has been a good friend and neighbor to the citizens of Roanoke County, and his enthusiasm, dedication and commitment to the good of the Valley will be missed as he retires from his service as Mayor of the City of Roanoke. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on its own behalf and on behalf of the citizens of Roanoke County, does hereby extend its sincere appreciation to NOEL C. TAYLOR for his years of service to the citizens of the City of Roanoke and for his dedication to maintaining the high quality of life for all the people of the Roanoke Valley; and FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of July 14 , 1992 ~ 9 ~ ~~ WHEREAS, therapeutic recreation is accomplished through the provision of programs and services which assist in eliminating barriers to leisure, developing leisure skills and attitudes, and optimizing leisure involvement; and WHEREAS, the Therapeutic Recreation Services of the Roanoke County Parks and Recreation Department was founded 15 years ago to provide these types of activities, and has developed a comprehensive award-winning program to meet this goal; and WHEREAS, the Therapeutics Program allows people of all abilities to experience a variety of indoor and outdoor recreational activities, classes and trips, and also provides services, such as braille translations, sign language classes, and adaptations of other Parks and Recreation programs; and WHEREAS, the National Therapeutic Recreation Society, a branch of the National Recreation and Park Association, originated a week of observance to focus attention on the value of recreation and leisure experiences for all persons, including those with physical, mental, emotional and/or social limitations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby declare the week of July 12-18, 1992 as NATIONAL THERAPEUTIC RECREATION WEEK. 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 July 14, 1992 39 4 County Projects: New Library Branch 1,500,000 Landfill closure 2,750,000 Parks and Recreation (acquisition of land and construction and equipping of improvements)1,750,000 Land acquisition for new high school 750,000 Miscellaneous improvements, including street and road improvements, fire hydrants, economic development, and drainage and flood control improvements 2,534,000 Subtotal for County Projects 9.284.000 TOTAL $17,790,000 The foregoing are estimated amounts and the Board, in its discretion, may reallocate proceeds of the proposed capital improvement bonds among the various capital improvements described above, provided that $8,506,000 shall be allocated to school projects and $9,284,000 shall be allocated to various County capital improvement projects. WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted by the Public Finance Act of 1991, Chapter 5.1, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Act") the Board proposes to call a special election to take the sense of the qualified voters of the County on the following question regarding the issuance of such general obligation capital improvement bonds; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and to issue general obligation capital improvement bonds of the County in the amounts and for the purposes as set forth above. 2. The Board hereby requests the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia to order a special election on November 3, 1992 on the following question pursuant to Sections 15.1-227.12 and 15.1-227.13 of the Act, provided that such date is at least sixty (60) days after the date on which the Court enters its order. The purposes and amounts of the bonds proposed to be issued shall be combined into a single ballot question in substantially the following form: ' July 14, 1992 J ~ ~ - A-71492-4 Ms. Green reported that a committee has been formed to coordinate the activities for dissemination of information to the public about the bond referendum. They are in the process of reviewing the types of informational efforts which could be conducted in-house, and have agreed that professional services should be obtained for preparation of materials and audio/visual elements of the campaign. The cost is estimated at $36,500. Ms. Green advised that staff recommended a full-scale campaign with $18,250 funded from the Board Contingency Fund and $18,250 funded by the Schools. Dr. Wilson has agreed to fund one-half of the cost. Supervisor Eddy expressed concern about the promotional effort being too slick and suggested keeping the effort in-house. Supervisors Johnson and Nickens disagreed. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve $18,250 from the Board Contingency Fund with $18,250 funding to come from Schools. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens NAYS: Supervisor Eddy 3. Consideration of 5320.000 Claim by the City of Roanoke for IIna roved Sur lus water E enditures. Paul M. Mahonev, County Attornev) A-71492-5 DENIAL Mr. Mahoney announced he had received a letter from the City July 14, 1992 X98 Development Fund was recommended toward the cost of the traffic signal at the intersection of Route 419 and McVitty Road, with the condition that the Hobart Companies make payment of their share of the cost ($7,500) prior to Roanoke County expending any funds. Supervisor Minnix moved to approve $30,000 funding from the Economic Development Fund. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Johnson, Eddy 5. Rest for a Recreation Partnership Policy and for an A~~rooriation of 515.000 to Fund the Lightinc of Ball Fields at Green Hill Park. (John Chambliss. Assistant County Administrator) A-71492-7 Mr. Chambliss advised that it has been suggested that staff develop a partnership policy for the development of recreational facilities in which organizations or individuals and the County would share in the cost of such facilities. This policy would be similar to the current policies in Economic Development and Fire and Rescue. Mr. Chambliss explained that the Glenvar Little League is proposing to light three ball fields at Green Hill Park and is requesting $15,000 to assist in the purchase of the light fixtures, bulbs and related electrical apparatus. Staff recommended appropriation of the funds from the Capital Reserve Account, and July 14, 1992 ~ v U NAYS: None Chairman Eddy asked for further interpretation on this section of the Roanoke County Code. 7. Consideration of Claim by Daniel L. Chisom. (Paul M Mahoney, County Attornev) A-71492-9 DENIAL Mr. Mahoney explained that Mr. Chisom is filing a claim in the amount of $75,000 for personal injury from a fall into a storm drain which is owned and maintained by the State of Virginia. He recommended denial of the claim. Supervisor Johnson moved to deny the claim. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None 8. Acceptance of Grant Fundinc for Special Education Program at Roanoke County/Salem Jail Facility (Sheriff Gerald Holt) A-71492-10 Sheriff Holt advised that his office has been selected by the Virginia Department of Education as one of three pilot sites to develop and implement an education program for inmates under the age of 22. The Sheriff's Office will jointly develop the program with the School Board. The $90,000 funding will including one special education teacher and two employees for the Sheriff's Office. July 14, 1992 4 ~ L IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance Amendinq and Readootina Article I "In General" of Chanter 21, "Taxation" of the Roanoke County Code by the Addition of a New Section 21-8 "Administrative Fees for Tax Collection by Legal Action." (Alfred C. Anderson, County Treasurer Mr. Anderson was present to answer questions. There was no discussion and Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the first reading of the ordinance and set the second reading for July 28, 1992. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None 2. Ordinance Authorizing the Conveyance of an Easement to A~Dalachian Power Company. (John Chambliss, Assistant Count Administrator There was no discussion. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the first reading of the ordinance and set the second reading for July 28, 1992. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None IN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1. Community Corrections Resources Board ?. Highway and Transportation Safety Commission 3. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission July 14, 1992 X44 9, 1992. 2. Request for Acceptance of Ashbury Court, Ashbury Drive and Greenmont Court into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 3. Request for Acceptance of Millbridge Road into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 4. Request for Acceptance of Barrens Village Lane, Barrens Village Court, and Deer Branch Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 5. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to Board of Zoning Appeals and Social Services Board. 6. Request to Accept Grant from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for Drug Enforcement Program. 7. Request to Accept Grant from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for Community Crime Prevention Services. 8. Donation of Easements in Connection with the Hunting Hills Road Project. 9. Donation of Sanitary Sewer Easements in Connection with "THE ORCHARDS", Applewood, Section 2 (F&W Community Development Corporation). 10. Acceptance of Donation of Right-of-Way and Easement for the Bushdale Road Rural Addition Project. 11. Donation of Easements from Springwood Associates and Leroy G. Lochner. 12. Donation of a Water Line Easement Situated on Lot 32 and 33, Block 5, Section 3, Waterford. 13. Donation of a Water Line Easement from James R. Crawford and Thelma E. Crawford. 14. Donation of Rights-of Way in Connection with the Fallowater Lane Project. 15. Request from County Treasurer to Destroy Records for Tax Payments Prior to July 1, 1987. 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 July 14, 1992 ~ ~ v right-of-way from the abutting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said drainage easements and rights-of-way for the streets. 3. That said roads known as Ashbury Court, Ashbury Drive and Greenmont Court and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same are hereby established as public roads to become a part of the State Secondary 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 RESOLIITION 71492-12.b REQIIESTING ACCEPTANCE OF MILLBRIDGE 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 Millbridge Road (Route 1168) from the intersection of Millwheel Drive (Route 1167 to the cul- de-sac) to the cul-de-sac to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a July 14, 1992 ~ proceedings herein, and upon the application of Barrens Village Court east of Barrens Village Lane to the cul-de-sac for a distance of 0.07 miles, Barrens Village Court west of Barrens Village Lane to the cul- de-sac for a distance of 0.11 miles, Barrens Village Lane from the intersection of Barrens Road (Route 1832) to the cul-de-sac for a distance of 0.41 miles, and Deer Branch Drive (Route 1882) from end of state maintenance to the intersection of Barrens Village Lane for a distance of 0.07 miles to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said roads has heretofore been dedicated by virtue of certain maps known as Barrens Village, Sections 1, 2, and 3, which maps were recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 83, Page 84 and Page 85 respectively, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on August 13, 1987 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 rights-of-way for the streets. 3. That said roads known as Barrens Village Lane, Barrens Village Court, and Deer Branch Drive and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same are hereby established as public roads to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia July 14, 1992 ~ I Supervisor Johnson moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. 1. General Fund IInappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund IInappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Report on Selection of Auditors. IN RE: RECESS Chairman Eddy declared a recess at 5 p.m. IN RE: RECONVENEMENT Chairman Eddy reconvened the meeting at 5:10 p.m. IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1. Americans with Disabilities Act. R-71492-13 Assistant County Administrator John Chambliss reported that a Committee of County employees is working in three areas to ensure compliance with the various provisions of the act. The Programs Sub- committee will review operations and means of accommodating persons with disabilities for each program. The Employment Practices Sub- committee is reviewing the interviewing and hiring practices of the County, and the Transition Plan Sub-committee will review each facility to identify and mitigate physical barriers which may prevent the convenient use of facilities by all segments. The Transition Plan must be adopted by July 26, 1992 and completed by January 26, July 14, 1992 ~ ~ '= and describe all structural changes and architectural barrier removal projects. This plan will be completed by July 26, 1992. That in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Roanoke County will begin the required self-evaluation of programs, services, and activities to be completed by January 26, 1993. That Roanoke County will develop a procedure to oversee ADA compliance, handle complaints, and seek comments from interested groups and individuals. That Roanoke County shall not discriminate on the basis of disability in any employment action. 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 2. Joint Work Session with Board of Zoninc Appeals Carlton Wright, Chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals introduced the members of the BZA. The purpose of the work session was to discuss two issues; (1) the BZA's comments regarding the proposed zoning ordinance and (2) concerns about the BZA's ability to make decisions regarding variance requests. Mr. Wright asked for guidance and a method in dealing with violations of the setback requirements. He explained that the BZA previously approved most setback variances, but recently have denied many more based partially on a ruling by the County Attorney. Supervisor Johnson suggested that there be more human element in the issue, and each situation should be decided individually. Planning July 14, 1992 LF ~~ t} amount of time a resident would have to resolve an identified sewer problem. Following discussion and questions from the residents in the Penn Forest area, staff was directed to bring back a report on July 28, 1992 to describe the program and to request approval for establishment of an SSE/R Program in the private or residential sector. 6. Noise Ordinance. This work session was continued to a future date. IN RE: TOIIR OF THE SMITH GAP LANDFILL Chairman Eddy declared a recess at 7:20 p.m. to tour the Smith Gap Landfill. IN RE: ADJOIIRNMENT At 9:30 p.m., Supervisor moved to adjourn to 5:00 p.m., July 21, 1992, at the Vinton War Memorial for a joint meeting with the Vinton Town Council. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. Lee B. Eddy, Chairman July 21, 1992 ~ .t ~ Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Vinton War Memorial 814 Washington Avenue Vinton, VA 24179 July 21, 1992 The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Vinton War Memorial, Vinton, Virginia, this being the third Tuesday, and an adjourned meeting from July 14, 1992 for the purpose of a joint meeting with the Town Council of Vinton, Virginia. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 5:03 p.m. Mayor Charles Hill welcomed the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to Vinton and the Vinton Town Council roll call was taken. All members of the Vinton Town Council were present. Chairman Eddy thanked Mayor Hill and the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Lee B. Eddy, Vice `Chairman Edward G. Kohinke, Supervisors Bob L. Johnson, H. Odell Minnix, Harry C. Nickens MEMBERS ABSENT: None July 21, 1992 ~ ~ / At 6:00 p.m. , Supervisor Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The Vinton Town Council also adjourned at that time. Lee B. Eddy, Chairman ACTION NO. A-81192-4.a ITEM NUMBER ~J - Z AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 11, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Community Corrections Resources Board and the Highway and Transportation Safety Commission COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Community Corrections Resources Board Supervisor Eddy nominated Mrs. Chris Pickard to serve another one- year term as an alternate. Her term will expire August 13, 1993. Highway and Transportation Safety Commission Supervisor Minnix nominated Glenn Siverling ~~-R$}a®~~-~el~~sex~ to serve four year terms expiring June 30, 1996. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the above nominees be appointed. Mary H. Allen Clerk to the Board i-,~.. ~V' r~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: H. Odell Minn ix motion No Yes Abs Denied ( ) to approve with confirma tion Eddy x Received ( ) of Robert Johnson to Hig hway Johnson x Referred ( ) and Transportation Safet y Kohinke x To ( ) Commission removed Minnix x Nickens x cc; File Community Corrections Resources Board File Highway and Transportation Safety Commission File ACTION # A-81192-4.b ITEM NUMBER ~~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 11, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Authorization to Amend Interjurisdictional Pretreatment Agreement COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : mot, c~ ~ %~C,~2~-~ ~ ~~~ ~-~-cam-~ ~~~-~``"'~`.~ BACKGROUND' Roanoke County and the City of Roanoke entered into an Interjurisdictional Pretreatment Agreement on March 28, 1989 in order to comply with the conditions of the City of Roanoke sewage discharge permit issued by the Virginia State Water Control Board. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The State Water Control Board has issued the City of Roanoke a Special Consent Order relative to the sewage discharge permit. One of the provisions listed in the Special Consent Orders is to amend the interjurisdictional pretreatment agreement to require Roanoke County to provide reporting to the City of Roanoke on a quarterly basis. The existing interjurisdictional pretreatment agreement requires reporting within two weeks of receipt of relevant information. The attached Interjurisdictional Pretreatment Agreement has been changed to reflect quarterly reporting by Roanoke County. The changes consist of adding the words, "On a quarterly basis," in item 7 on page 5 and deleting the sentence "Roanoke County shall provide the City of Roanoke copies of said reports within two weeks of the receipt or generation of said reports by Roanoke County," in item 7 on page 6. RECOMMENDATION' Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the County Administrator to execute the amended Interjurisdictional Pretreatment Agreement. T- SUBMITTED BY: Cliffor r ig, P.E. Utility Di ector APPROVED: ~J E mer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens No Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson _ Referred Kohinke to Minnix Nickens Yes Abs x ~._ ~_ .~ cc: File Clifford Craig, Director, Utility Paul Mahoney, County Attorney ~ =3 Interjurisdictional Pretreatment Agreement Between City of Roanoke And Roanoke County This Agreement is entered into this day of , 19 between the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County. RECITALS .WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke owns and operates a wastewater treatment system and, WHEREAS, Roanoke County currently utilized this wastewater treatment system pursuant to the Service Agreement between the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County dated March 17, 1972; and WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke has developed and implemented an industrial pretreatment program pursuant to conditions contained in its discharge permit #VA002520 issued by Virginia State Water Control Board; and WHEREAS, Section VII (B) of the above mentioned Service Agreement includes provisions to comply with lawful orders concerning matters of pretreating wastes, and WHEREAS, Roanoke County desires to continue to utilize the wastewater treatment system and recognizes its industrial waste control obligation under 40 CRF 403. 1 ~ =3 In consideration of the following terms and conditions the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County agree: 1. Roanoke County shall adopt and diligently enforce a sewer use ordinance which is identical to the sewer use ordinance adopted by the City of Roanoke. Additionally, Roanoke County shall include a provision in its sewer use ordinance requiring any industrial user responsible for an accidental discharge to notify immediately both the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County. In order that the Roanoke County sewer use ordinance be adequate to administer the industrial pretreatment program within Roanoke County, the City of Roanoke shall explicitly incorporate the following provisions into its sewer use ordinance; (a) a prohibition on the use of dilution as a control technique for compliance with discharge limits except as allowed by Federal Pretreatment Standards; (b) a grant of authority to impose mass discharge limits in lieu of, or in conjunction with, concentration discharge limits; (c) a prohibition against and penalty for the knowing transmittal of false information by an industrial user in any reports they are required to submit; (d) a grant of explicit authority to require the installation of all monitoring and pretreatment facilities. 2 T-3 2. The City of Roanoke and Roanoke County shall periodically (at a minimum of every three (3) years review their respective ordinances and jointly draft and adopt equivalent amendments to their respective ordinances when necessary to ensure the effective administration and operation of the pretreatment program. Whenever either the City of Roanoke or Roanoke County becomes aware of a problem with the pretreatment program which can be mitigated by a change in the sewer use ordinance, the City of Roanoke may adopt an amendment which Roanoke County shall adopt. The City of Roanoke ordinance shall not contain more stringent requirements to be met by industrial users in Roanoke County than are required to be met by industrial users within the City of Roanoke. The Roanoke County sewer use ordinance shall always remain identical to or more stringent than the City of Roanoke sewer use ordinance. 3. The City of Roanoke ordinance shall require that the categorical pretreatment standards promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (promulgated by authority of the Clean Water Act Section 307(B) and (C)) be automatically incorporated by reference into the City of Roanoke ordinance. The identical ordinance adopted by Roanoke County will, therefore, contain those same 3 J r~ provisions. These standards shall supersede any specific discharge limits in the ordinance which are less stringent than the categorical standard as they apply to a particular industry subcategory. 4. Roanoke County shall notify all affected industrial users of pertinent categorical standards and monitoring and reporting requirements contained in 40 CFR 403.12 or included as part of the categorical standard. Roanoke County shall provide the City of Roanoke with copies of all required reports and monitoring documentation for submittal to the appropriate regulatory agencies by October of each year or as determined by the City of Roanoke. 5. The City of Roanoke shall make the final determination as to whether a particular industrial user is classified as a significant industrial user or an industrial user based on information the City of Roanoke may request from Roanoke County. Roanoke County shall control, through industrial discharge permits, industrial waste discharge from each significant user or industrial user discharging into the public sewer. Roanoke County shall provide draft discharge permits to the City of Roanoke for review and incorporate any changes legally required by the City of Roanoke. 6. If there exists any industrial user discharging to Roanoke County public sewer system but located outside the 4 S3 jurisdictional limits of Roanoke County, then Roanoke County shall negotiate and enter into an agreement with this outside jurisdiction. Such agreement shall be substantially equivalent to this Agreement, and shall be jointly executed by Roanoke County, the City of Roanoke and the outside jurisdiction. If the outside jurisdiction refuses to negotiate and execute an agreement, then Roanoke County shall enter into a contract with the industrial user which contains terms and conditions substantially equivalent to Roanoke County industrial discharge permits. 7. Roanoke County shall file with the City of Roanoke a certified copy of its ordinance and any amendments thereto, other interjurisdictional agreements relative to sewer use, each industrial waste discharge permit issued, and any contract entered into for the purpose of industrial waste control within sanitary sewers. In October of each year, Roanoke County shall submit a report to the City of Roanoke which summarizes the pretreatment activities; inspection, sampling, self-monitoring, compliance status, enforcement actions, permit status, and industrial waste survey updates conducted by Roanoke County. On a quarterly basis, Roanoke County shall provide the City of Roanoke copies of all industrial monitoring report including 40 CFR 403.12 compliance reports, self-monitoring reports, baseline 5 S3 reports, records of violations and action taken, and any other monitoring or reporting requirements legally imposed by Federal, State or local regulations. ~ti' ' '- e--rrc~i~T-6~~re-r-c~e3~~-e These reports, records and relevant information shall be maintained for at least three (3) years. 8. Any authorized officer or employee of the City of Roanoke may enter and inspect at any reasonable time any part of the public sewer system of Roanoke County. The right to entry and inspection shall extend to public streets, easements, and property within which the public system is located. Additionally, the City of Roanoke shall be permitted when accompanied by an authorized representative of Roanoke County, and as appropriate, to enter onto private property to inspect industrial waste dischargers. Roanoke County shall make all necessary legal and administrative arrangements for these inspections. The right of inspection shall include on-site inspection of pretreatment and sewer facilities, observation, measurement, sampling, testing, and access to (with right to copy) all pertinent compliance records located on the premises of the industrial user. 9. The City of Roanoke shall review the Roanoke County ordinance and amendments thereto, and any 6 ~~ interjurisdictional agreements for conformance with 40 CFR Part 403, and to ensure inclusion of all other legal provisions mandated by this Agreement. The City of Roanoke shall periodically review the enforcement efforts of Roanoke County to ascertain whether pretreatment requirements are being diligently enforced. 10. If the City of Roanoke determines that Roanoke County has failed or has refused to fulfill any legal pretreatment obligations, the City of Roanoke may develop and issue a remedial plan containing a description of the nature of the pretreatment deficiencies, an enumeration of steps to be taken by Roanoke County, and a time schedule for attaining compliance with all pretreatment requirements. Such plans shall be specifically enforceable in a court of competent jurisdiction. Where Roanoke County fails to satisfy the terms of the remedial plan, the City of Roanoke may, upon thirty (30) days written notice, refuse to accept any industrial waste discharges from Roanoke County. Roanoke County shall reimburse the City of Roanoke for fines or costs stemming from injury to City of Roanoke personnel, damages to the City of Roanoke facilities, disruption of treatment processes or operations, degradation of sludge quality, NPDES permit violations, and other air, water, and 7 ~~~ sludge quality violations proven to have been caused by a failure to Roanoke County to fulfill its pretreatment obligations. 11. Where a discharge to the City of Roanoke wastewater treatment system reasonable appears to present an imminent danger to the health and welfare of persons, or presents or may present an imminent danger to the environment, or threatens to interfere with the operation of the wastewater treatment system, the City of Roanoke may immediately initiate steps to identify the source of discharge, and to halt or prevent said discharge. The City of Roanoke may seek injunctive relief against Roanoke County and/or any industrial user contributing to the emergency condition, and/or may pursue other self-help remedies. 12. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 13. The terms of this Agreement may be amended only by written agreement of the parties. 14. This Agreement will remain in effect so long as the Service Agreement dated March 17, 1972 remains in effect. Termination of the Service Agreement shall also result in the termination of this agreement. 8 ~~~ The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date shown above. County Administrator Roanoke County, VA Attest City Manager City of Roanoke, VA Attest 9 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AIIGUST 11, 1992 RESOLUTION 81192-4.C REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF CARRIAGE HILLS DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the proceedings herein, and upon the application of Carriage Hills Drive from the intersection of Fernway Drive ( Route 1791) to the cul-de-sac for a distance of 0.23 miles to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1- 229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have heretofore been dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Carriage Hills, Section 4, Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 134, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on March 10, 1988 and that by reason of the recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said drainage easements and a right-of-way for the street. 3. That said road known as Carriage Hills Drive 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 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 Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections copy for Virginia Department of Transportation a' 1792 -. .. .+\ 79z 1793 b 1791 ~t 1791 179 Mo/nf ~~~ -~------ ----j . VICINI T Y_ _ __ __ J NORTH ROANOKE COUNTY ACCEPTANCE OF CARRIAGE HILLS DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA ENGINEERING ~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 11, 1992 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Carriage Hills Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Loeb Construction Company the developer of Carriage Hills Subdivision, Section 4, requests that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation requesting that they accept 0.23 mile of Carriage Hills Drive from the intersection of Fernway Drive (Route 1791) to the cul-de-sac. 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 Carriage Hills Drive into the Secondary Road System. ED BY: n APPROVED: --y''''''`'' no d Covey, irecto Elmer C. Hodge of Engineering & Insp ctions County Administrator T- 4 Approved Denied Received Referred to Motion by: ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens 2 1792 -- _ - - - --.\ 1792 1793 J . 179i 17 1791 1790 , or/in~r ~-~J m C.eer _- ., __.. __,_~_- _-------~ VICINITY, ----- ROANOKE COUNTY ACCEPTANCE OF CARRIAGE HILLS DRIVE INTO THE V I RG I N I A ENGINEERING ~c DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 3 ~~f. v2 3- y AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1992 RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF CARRIAGE HILLS DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the proceedings herein, and upon the application of Carriage Hills Drive from the intersection of Fernway Drive ( Route 1791) to the cul-de-sac for a distance of 0.23 miles to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1- 229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have heretofore been dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Carriage Hills, Section 4, Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 134, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on March 10, 1988 and that by reason of the recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said drainage easements and a right-of-way for the street. 4 S-y 3. That said road known as Carriage Hills Drive 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-81192-4.d 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: August 11, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Reallocation of funds for well at Hofauger House, Virginia's Explore Park COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : G~~,.,.~i-r ~~ r'"~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The River Foundation is requesting reimbursement for all project items involving the well at the Hofauger House at a total cost of $7,206.56. BACKGROUND: On April 14, 1992 the Board of Supervisors approved a request for up to $10, 000 of the costs of actual well drilling for the Hofauger House at the Explore project. At the time of the request the River Foundation had estimates ranging from $6, 000 - $11, 000 for the cost of drilling the well. Since the well has been completed, the total cost of the well drilling is $5,269.50. The River Foundation is requesting that the Board of Supervisors reimburse them for an additional $1,938.06 for the cost of the well pump and interior water lines within the Hofauger House. This would make a total project cost of ~,r;-,~-6-~f, which is within the $10,000 limit previously approved by the Board olf Supervisors. FISCAL IMPACT: ~~a~: ~~ ~//y~g~ ~~~~ Funds for this project was previously appropriated from the Economic Development Fund which has an unaudited balance of $100,000. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Reimburse the River Foundation for the total project cost of $7,206.56, as requested. 2. Reimburse the River Foundation only the $5,269.50 for the actual well drilling costs. r, s-~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors consider Alternative 1 and reimburse the River Foundation for $7,206.56 for total project costs. This action meets the intent of the original appropriation by not having the County expend over $10, 000 of funds for the project costs. Respectfully submitted: Approved: Timothy W. Gubal Director mer C. Hodge Economic Development County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to ACTION Motion by: Harry C. Nickens No Yes Abs Eddy x Johnson x Kohinke x Minnix x Nickens x cc: File Timothy W. Gubala, Director, Economic Development Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget ACTION NO. A-81192-4.e ITEM NUMBER ~ ~(~_ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 11, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Amendments to the ADA Transition Plan adopted July 14, 1992 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : ~~~-~~ti~~ ~~^e-~-~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' The original Transition Plan for the County's compliance with the ADA did not recommend modification to the Catawba Recreation Center because the County does not schedule the programming of that facility. Staff has re-visited the site and suggests including the lower level improvements to the facility which makes the building accessible.- The improvements for basic accessibility are estimated at $3,260 and no new appropriation is required at this time. The attached copy of the Transition Plan shows the changes on page 5 which eliminates the language of not modifying the Catawba Recreation Center as well as any reference to attempting to dispose of the facility. This change will allow the modifications to be scheduled with all other buildings incorporated in the Transition Plan to be modified by January 26, 1995. Page 7 of the Transition Plan has also been amended to reflect the anticipated $3,260 cost to be appropriated in the 1993-94 fiscal year. FISCAL IMPACT' No new monies are required for the current fiscal year. $3,260 has been added to the amount which will be requested in the 1993-94 fiscal year to fund improvements to County facilities included in the Transition Plan. Tb RECOMMENDATION• Staff suggests amending the Transition Plan for compliance with the ADA concerning the Catawba Recreation Center as noted above. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, .° , ohn M. Chamblis , Jr. Elmer C. Hodge Assistant Administrator County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred ( ) Kohinke x To ( ) Minnix x Nickens x cc: File John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant Administrator and Coordinator, Americans with Disabilities Act D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources Gardner W. Smith, Director, General Services J-b Revised August 11, 1992 COUNTY OF ROANOKE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT TRANSITION PLAN JULY 14, 1992 SCOPE OF THE COMMITTEE The County Administrator has appointed John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator as coordinator of the County's efforts in the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. A Committee of County employees is working in three service areas to ensure compliance with the various provisions of the Act. The Programs Sub-committee will meet with each department of the County to review operations and our means of accommodating persons with disabilities for each program. Accommodation may be accomplished as easily as providing communications aids to assist the person, by permanently moving a meeting location to an accessible point or providing a point of service on an individual basis which does not violate the rights or ability to participate of the individual. The Employment Practices Sub-committee is reviewing the interviewing and hiring practices of the County to ensure that we are in compliance with the intent of the Act. This review includes the physical examinations or other testing required for the filling of certain positions and the sequence in which the events occur. Also, if a person with a disability is hired, to help ascertain the method of providing necessary accommodations for proper job performance. The Transition Plan is prepared as a review of each facility operated by the County to identify and mitigate physical barriers which may prevent the convenient use of our facilities by all segments of the population. There may be instances where it is not practical to modify structures to allow wheelchair access to all points of the building. Some of these may be accommodated by taking the service to the person. In other instances, programs may need to be relocated. There may also be certain facilities which do not need to be accessible to persons in wheelchairs based on the type of work being performed. TYPES OF FACILITIES County Owned Buildings These buildings are owned and operated by the County and are the responsibility of the County for purposes of complying with the intent of the Act. 1 ~J '- ~p School Owned Buildinas used by the Count Structural improvements to these buildings are the responsibility of the building owner (School Board) and internal adaptations (shelving, counter height, etc) would be the responsibility of the using party. Leased Buildinas Structural improvements to these buildings are the responsibility of the building owner and internal adaptations (shelving, counter height, etc) would be the responsibility of the using party. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS Signaae ADA approved signs utilizing uniform lettering as well as Braille coding for directional signs, informational signs, and points of service for the interior and exterior of buildings. Counters Providing counters and service areas of appropriate height to accommodate persons in wheelchairs as well as ambulatory persons. Doors Maintaining properly adjusted doors which can be easily negotiated by a person in a wheelchair. Thresholds must be level. Doors must be of the proper width and have hardware (such as lever style locksets) which is compatible to a disabled person. Restroom modifications Provide handicap accessible restroom facilities which provide suitable space for negotiating with a wheelchair, have properly mounted hardware (including grab rails, mirrors, tissue and towel dispensers), piping under the sinks insulated to prevent burning by hot water in the pipes, and stalls where necessary for appropriate privacy. Elevator In instances where operations occur above the ground level floors, elevators or lifting devices shall be considered, particularly if the facility is regularly used by the visiting public as well as for potential hires and existing employees who may experience disabilities. In many instances, the need for elevators may be avoided by providing alternative service methods at an accessible location or taking the service to the person. 2 ~~ Handicap parking curb cuts walkways railings, and rampinct Adequate parking spaces for disabled persons should be provided for each facility. The area from the parking area to the building entrance should be smooth and unobstructed. Ramps should have a rise of no more than one inch vertical for each one foot horizontal run with appropriate hand railings. Water Coolers Water Coolers should be mounted to allow ease of use by a person in a wheelchair or there should be cup dispensers available which would allow a disabled person to use this facility. Pathways Areas between the parking area in park facilities and the restroom or picnic shelter should have a pathway suitable for negotiation by a wheelchair or disabled person. The surface should be smooth, unobstructed, and of a suitable grade (similar to the conditions for a ramp). SUGGESTED FUNDING The Board of Supervisors included $25,000 in the 1992-93 fiscal year budget to begin implementation of the plan. Staff suggests that $18,385 of this amount be utilized to install signage, modify telephones, and adjust doors as the first phase of implementation. The balance of $6,615 could be used to make modifications required for newly hired employees or existing employees who may become disabled. Any unused portions of these monies would be used to continue down the list of priorities in the subsequent year. These items should be completed by July 1, 1993. $41,600 was included in the proposed bond referendum to provide access to park related facilities. If the Bond referendum is approved, these monies should become available so as to allow these improvements to occur during the 1993-94 fiscal year. If the referendum is not approved, these monies will need to be appropriated in the subsequent year as well as monies to cover major renovations to the existing Hollins Library facility which have not been addressed within this plan. An estimated $136,886 will be required between July 1, 1993 and January 26, 1995 to complete the repairs to County owned buildings. It is suggested that $56,886 be appropriated for the 1993-94 fiscal year and $80,000 for the 1994-95 fiscal year. This would address all of the improvements except the elevator for the Public Safety Center on Peters Creek Road during the 1993-94 fiscal year. With respect to leased facilities, staff will negotiate with the building owner to mitigate the structural needs of the facilities and staff will address the internal operational items 3 s b (included in the projected costs above). It should be noted that the staff is considering alternative space at the present time and some of the indicated improvements may not become necessary. There are several leased facilities used only one day per year by the registrar's office. Suggestions for improvement to these sites will be forwarded to the building owner for their consideration, however, the buildings in their present condition are adequate for meeting the needs of the voting public through the use of absentee ballots or by having an election official assisting the individual. FACILITIES WHICH WILL NOT BE MODIFIED Outlined below are facilities used by the County which staff suggests not to be modified. We have provided the rationale for making the suggestion and ask for the concurrence of the Board of Supervisors. Roanoke County Administration Center The Procurement Office is not accessible to the handicapped and it would be too costly to equip this one area with an elevator. Arrangements will be made to meet with disabled persons in the Community Room or in a vacant office. Also, public meetings such as bid openings will be scheduled in accessible locations. Each of the three floor levels are accessible from ground level entrances, however, there is no elevator to travel from floor to floor. It is suggested that we consider deputizing other employees to accept payments or transact business to minimize the amount of travel between floors by disabled persons. Public Service Center (Kessler Mill Road) The offices of the Department of General Services are not accessible from the outside and require travel through the building. Monies are included to improve this condition, however, the hiring of a disabled person may require more extensive renovation including another handicap restroom. The communications shop would require extensive renovations including excessive ramping and handicap restroom accommodations. No modifications are requested at this time. ** Public Safety Center (Peters Creek Road) An elevator is suggested for the 1994-95 fiscal year to allow disabled persons access to the second floor. This facility contains Police, Fire and Rescue, Communications Dispatchers and Data Processing personnel. Should the County hire a person for one of these positions earlier, we may need to modify this plan or provide for the elevator earlier to accommodate this need. 4 S- ~, Jail Upstairs restrooms are not handicap accessible, however no modification is suggested as handicap provisions are located elsewhere in the building. Sheriff's Office (Clay Street) The entire area beyond the front reception area is not accessible and because of the location of load bearing walls, it is not practical to alter the space. Accommodation can be made by meeting with the individual in other parts of the building or in other facilities. There are no handicap restroom facilities. Headquarters Library Building (419) The second floor of this building is not accessible to disabled persons . Meeting rooms and office areas on the ground floor could be utilized for disabled patrons or employees to accommodate this need. Mt. Pleasant Library There are no restroom facilities or water coolers located in the space occupied by the Library. Restrooms and other structural alterations would be the responsibility of the building owner (School Board). Hollins Library This facility has not been included in the survey because it is included in the proposed bond referendum. Should the bond referendum fail, extensive renovations would be required to bring this facility into compliance. Oaden Recreation Center The rear building of this complex is not accessible to the disabled. No programming will be scheduled in this facility which requires such access and no structural modifications are suggested in this plan. The facility condition does not warrant the capital outlay that would be required to bring this facility into compliance. Health Department - Vinton Office This building is owned by the Town of Vinton and is leased to the Health Department. Hallways and doors are too narrow, access is not available to the second floor except by stairs, and there are numerous other modifications which would be required to make this facility come into compliance. Staff will discuss its findings with the building owner for consideration. 5 v~~ Social Services (Leased Space at Salem Bank and Trust Buildings) The elevators in this building are too small and may not be practical for renovation. The restroom on the fourth floor has double doors making it difficult for a disabled person to enter. These conditions will be discussed with the building owner for appropriate action. Public Safety Building #11 - Back Creek The second floor of this building is not accessible to the disabled and it is not cost effective nor is there demonstrated need to provide an elevator for this access. Public Safety Building #7 - Clearbrook The restrooms, water cooler, and second floor area are not accessible to the disabled. Staff feels that it is not cost effective nor is there a demonstrated need to make these areas accessible at this time. Rescue Building #3 - Cave Spring Access to the second floor available only by going outside. Staff does not suggest an elevator to make interior access available. Public Safety Building #10 - Mason Cove The restrooms are not accessible and there is not enough room to modify them. Also the meeting room which is used by the Community has not been included in this survey. Public Safety Building #3 - Cave Spring Fire The second floor is not accessible to the disabled and it is not cost effective nor is there a demonstrated need to provide an elevator for this purpose. Public Safety Building #5 - Hollins The Day Room and office area is located on an elevated area and the meeting room is in the basement. Disabled persons do not have access to either of these facilities. Disabled persons would not be performing normal daily functions for the Fire and Rescue Service from this facility and other meeting space is available in the immediate area. It is not cost effective nor practical to make these areas accessible. Public Safety Building #8 - Bent Mountain Major structural renovations and modifications would be required to make this facility fully accessible and there is not a demonstrated need to make this costly change. Public Safety Building #9 - Fort Lewis The Day Room and office area is located on an elevated area and the meeting room is in the basement. Disabled persons do not have access to either of these facilities. Disabled persons would not be performing normal daily functions for the Fire and 6 b Rescue Service from this. facility and other meeting space is available in the immediate area. It is not cost effective nor practical to make these areas accessible. Oak Grove Park Restrooms are not handicap accessible and cannot be modified due to the physical size of the structure. Do not suggest modifications to this site. Mt. Pleasant Park Restrooms are not accessible by wheelchair due to location at top of hill. Do not suggest modification of this facility. COSTS AND FUNDING Current appropriation 1993-94 appropriation 1994-95 appropriation Bond Referendum Revised $ 25,000 60,146 80,000 41,600 ~-z5--o~Q rr6-; 88-6 $-A ; A-A9 ^^ ~Q Total County Share of Costs $206, 746 ~'c-,~4 7 3-~ RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of this Transition Plan as presented. The request for appropriation for subsequent fiscal years and the monies included in the bond referendum will be requested in the normal budget process. Staff also suggests adoption of the Resolution of Intent to Comply with the Provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act to show the County's good faith efforts to comply with the legislation. Copies of these documents will be available through the Office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Questions or complaints may be addressed to the Coordinator for the implementation of the provisions of the Act (Assistant County Administrator). Future information to be presented to the Board of Supervisors includes the appointment of a local Disabilities Services Board as soon as the provisions are promulgated by the State. This Board needs to be appointed by November 1, 1992. Periodic updates will be provided to apprise the Board of progress towards the completion of this Transition Plan as well as implementation efforts in the areas of Programming and Employment Practices. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~ ~~~~ John M. Chambliss, Jr., Coordinator Implementation Committee Americans with Disabilities Act 8 ~I -l COUNTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE ~ of General~l> Amount Fund Expenditures Beginning Balance at $4,041,917 5.60 July 1, 1992 (unaudited) Balance as of August 11, 1992 $4,041,917 5.60 Submitted By Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance Note: On December 18, 1990 the Board of Supervisors adopted a goal statement to maintain the General Fund Unappropriated Balance at 6.25$ of General Fund expenditures ($72,151,291). M-Z COIINTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA CAPITAL FIIND IINAPPROPRIATED BALANCE Beginning Balance at July 1, 1992 (unaudited) Addition to Capital Reserve from original 1992-1993 budget July 14, 1992 Lighting of Green Hill Park Ball Fields ~15,000~ Balance as of August 11, 1992 $ 8,511 114,760 $ 108,271 Submitted by ~~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance M -3 COUNTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY Beginning Balance at July 1, 1992 $ 50,000 July 14, 1992 Information Program for Bond Referendum (18,250) July 28, 1992 Roanoke Regional Housing Strategy (2,OOOZ Balance as of August 11, 1992 $ 29,750 Submitted by Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance ACTION NO. /~A L~ ITEM NUMBER !YI ~ ~` AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 11, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Report on Personal Property Tax Penalty Refunds COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This is just a brief report to keep the Board of Supervisors informed on the refunds for personal property tax penalty. To date, the County has received almost 30 requests for penalty refund, and the cost has been approximately $300.00 ~~,.•-~- Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Johnson Received ( ) Kohinke Referred ( ) To ( ) Minnix Nickens ,~ . ACTION # 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: August 11, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session - Water System Capital Improvement Program COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The Utility Department has had a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for water project since 1983. A work session was scheduled to discuss the process used to prioritize projects for the CIP. DISCUSSION' The following criteria is used to establish the priority in which the existing water systems are upgraded. 1. Water Quality 2. Adequacy of pressure and volume. 3. Cost of maintenance. 4. Provide flow for fire protection. In addition, any water system located within the right-of-way of a highway construction project is evaluated for upgrade in conjunction with the highway construction. Funding for the water system upgrade is provided by the funded depreciation concept. The existing revenue plan that is a part of the 1991 water revenue bonds provides approximately $350,000 per year for the replacement program. Once a water system improvement is prioritized, the projects are scheduled and constructed using funds available in the replacement fund. N- ~ The current priority for upgrade of existing water systems along with their estimated is: Sugar Loaf Farms $114,000 Geiser Road/Grander $ 26,000 Crescent Heights $ 50,000 Wendover Drive $ 52,000 Western Hills $ 48,000 Woodland Drive $ 46,000 VDOT Road Projects $ 10,000 Farmingdale $ 52,000 Castle Hill $110,000 Brambleton 1 & 2 $233,000 VDOT Road Projects $ 40,000 Exit 43 Water System $200,000 Sunnybrook $ 45,000 Berwick Heights $ 84,000 Summerdean $ 73,000 VDOT Road Projects $ 40,000 Delaney Court $ 53,000 Chaparral $ 50,000 Hidden Valley #5/#8 $ 40,000 Avenham/Rt. 220 $ 70,000 VDOT Road Projects $ 40,000 Wooded Acres $ 26,000 Layman Lawn $ 48,000 Starmount $ 83,000 Homewood $ 47,000 VDOT Road Projects $ 50,000 SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: ($300,000 OSF) (1992 Maintenance) ~~~- ~~zn Clifford .E. Elmer C. Hodge Utility Director County Administrator ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER N_2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 11, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session - Bulk/Brush Collection ;7 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ~ S COMMENTS : . ~ ~ „~ , ~ ~~ ,~-~ ,'Z~~'c~~ (X,n ~.v( .~ ~ cr,.cK~(.ti~ .,t:.~^~ C,~y,,-. ,~r~-~,t-s-c~s (,t,~2Yt~~~',,,,,~V' ~ y ~j~ p-LI./ C~.Y ~ "/~~i CA~'vi c~~GzL ~^~i-ti+~Lc'Lr ~YZ•2Y-~~ n'~,~dQ` _~(, fu~'tc .~.~(.~v~.,,~~C^'v.~ vGL~ . ,c,~GL-+v~ -/L''~..`t y~.C~y.-~.t.Z-~T' -/~"t""'~,`_' - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Solid Waste Division instituted twice monthly bulk/brush collection for the first 6,600 automated homes. In the next phase, staff tested once a month bulk/brush. After several months of testing there was no significant complaint or request for additional service. Once a month collection, which was the practice County-wide, was adequate to handle the volume. On December 17, 1991, with the recommendation of a staff report, the Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to return all automated customers to once a month bulk/brush service. Since January 1992, the residents in some areas, where twice monthly collection was discontinued, have complained about the need for more frequent pickup for grass and other yard waste. This is not a County-wide problem. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - Citizen concern over size of container led to twice monthly service. This was to allow residents to become gradually accustomed to automation. - The two methods (once monthly and twice monthly) were tested with once a month being, on the whole, more efficient and cost effective. Success hinges upon proper and repeated notification of schedule. - The residents began implementing other alternatives to simply setting the materials at the curb, such as recycling and grasscycling. - Due to past experience, variable scheduling of collection NZ (twice monthly only during heavy volume seasons) was deemed prohibitive in terms of cost as well as ability of citizens to adhere to constantly changing schedule. - More frequent pickups of any nature would require additional manpower and equipment. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Continue once a month collection of bulk/brush. Fiscal impact: None 2. Implement twice monthly collection, in automated areas only, during the months with heaviest volume of materials; April - December (to include leaf season). Fiscal impact: $392,000 3. Discontinue regular monthly bulk/brush collection. Set up four to five regions and service a different region each day of the week on an on-call basis only. Implement weekly collection of bagged yard waste and monthly collection of other bulk/brush to run from April through mid January. Fiscal impact: $784,000. 4. Implement a fee based system. Fiscal impact: Unknown See attachments A and B for a more detailed discussion of alternatives suggested to staff and programs utilized by two other municipalities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #1 with additional emphasis to remind the citizens that they can buy additional carts for $65.00 each. 80 ED BY: dner W. S ith, Director epartment of General Services ACTION Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To Motion by: APPROVED: .~, /'~~ Elmer C. Hodqe County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Rohinke Nickens Minnix z 0 qo q U ss ° h W ~ ~~ $ ~ ~, a a O ~ ~ ~, O O U w~ ~ ~ ~~ v ~ ~ ~ Z ~ U ~ !~.. W ~ y~ 1~ ~ h ~ a $ V ~ v ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ v 0 0 ~ ~ 1 U ss a ~ ap ry ~ "~. ~ ~ O ~ h ~ h 09 Y ~ ~ Y Q ° O ~ ~ ~ Q O sy N a "' ao ~~• ~ ••V• {jj Q ? ~ a 69 N R j y C '\ r '~ Leo (~y y .~ 'tl O 3 ° bt 3 ~' o a ~ U ~~ a ~ c r r ~ ~~ C C v ~ `O C C y .Q obi ~ w Oa Or . ~i w ~ ~ C V ~ V V `~ ~ ~' O ~yuU~ y•~S•~0°J°ha () Ow• • • ~W• • '~•~ h O U ti ~ ~~ W ~ -• h o A ~~ a ~~~ •~~ U V ~~ ~ w ~ y r ~ ti > Z o • .~ v ~ F, ~g ~ ~ - Q a 6 ~ ° y .O Lv ~ 6 y C y C Vw y ~~~ ~ 3 W fY, w • 3 • • c Lwz, r N-2 N2 COURSE OF ACTION #1 CONTINUE COLLECTION AS IS Once a Month Collection of Bulk/Brush. Those customers who have requested another container and whose household needs more volume have been issued a second container. Residents may also purchase a second container. Both conditions of issuing a second container are dependent upon availability of supplies. Two rear loader trucks, one collecting brush the other collecting bulk, work on a full-time basis on the Bandit routes. These trucks and crews service 3,300 automated residences per week. Those residences receiving regular rear loader trash service are able to include some brush or bulk on their regular collection day unless the quantity exceeds a pick up truck load. Large quantities of brush on regular rear loader collection routes are picked up once a month also. All County residents receive once monthly bulk/brush service. Most complaints on frequency of bulk/brush service have come from those residents who were changed from twice monthly to once a month service. Cost of current operations for bulk/brush in automated areas includes a requirement for two rear loaders and six personnel. Below is the cost per vehicle: $20,000 (one $100,000 vehicle deprec. over 5 years) $22,000 (one operator @ $22,000 each) $36,000 (two collectors @ $18,000 each) $20,000 (vehicle fuel/maintenance est. $20,000 per year). $98,000 Estimated total cost per year (vehicle and crew) SEASONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SOME OVERTIME A-1 N-z COURSE OF ACTION #2 TWICE MONTHLY BRUSH/BULR COLLECTION Twice monthly collection in automated areas April - Mid-January Including the grass, leaf, and Christmas tree seasons The suggestion to the staff was to increase the collection during the grass cutting and tree trimming seasons. Staff currently has special collection for leaves closely followed by Christmas trees. Therefore, special collection would run for nearly 3/4 of the year. In the past, the County has rented two rear loaders and hired six temporary collectors to handle the leaf collection program. The availability of rental trucks became a serious problem last year and we anticipate rental service may not be possible this year. In order to cover the County in the frequency proposed, the staff would require two additional trucks and an equal number of three- man crews. All automated County residences would receive twice monthly bulk/brush service. The cost for twice monthly collection operations for bulk/brush in automated areas is two additional rear loaders and six personnel. Twice monthly collection requires a total of four vehicles to meet the service requirement. Below is the cost per vehicle: $20,000 (one $100,000 vehicle deprec. over 5 years) $22,000 (one operator @ $22,000 each) $36,000 (two collectors @ $18,000 each) $20,000 (vehicle fuel/maintenance est. $20,000 per year). $98,000 Estimated total cost per year, one vehicle and crew (We would need two of these) TWO ADDITIONAL TRUCRS AND CREWS @ $ 186,000 A-2 N-2 COURSE OF ACTION #3 HANDLE BULB/BRUSH ON-CALL ONLY DIVIDE COUNTY INTO REGIONS (4 OR 5) Monthly collection of Brush in automated areas Monthly Collection of Bulk April - Mid-January Omission of regular monthly bulk/brush pickup service to four or five regions with each region serviced on a different day of the week. Establish a regular weekly bagged grass clippings pick up for those residences who need it, and use separate vehicles for collection of waste that can be chipped and recycled. Separate collection of all yard waste would entail extra expense in sorting and processing. The County currently collects bulk and brush on a regional basis. However, it takes two trucks four days to collect one region. For example, Monday collection is one region, and it takes all week (the first full week of the month) to collect Monday bulk and brush. Therefore, in order to collect one region, in the manner described above, in one day, it would take six more trucks and crews. This course of action also discontinues a collection process that is totally successful County-wide. On-call service is the most inefficient method to service the County unless trucks, crews, and personnel are unlimited. 6 MORE TRUCKS AND CREWS @ $588,000 A-3 N-Z COIIRSE OF ACTION #4 IMPLEMENT A FEE BASED SYSTEM Implement a system based upon a charge per collection, the charge being based on whether it is bagged material or bulk material. The course of action was not considered seriously because the Board has continuously ruled out reestablishing the collection fee. Staff experience is that if fees are installed for bulk and brush that the incidents of dumping will immediately increase. At this time, all Valley refuse collection departments have set the same rules in terms of bulk/brush pick up to prevent dumping being transported from one municipality to another. A-4 N-2 Virginia Beach Yard Waste Pickup Virginia Beach currently services 110,000 residents in a 328 square mile area with once weekly collection in a four day work week. The collection is automated. A rear loader and knuckleboom truck follow to pick up items such as yard waste, white goods, tires, etc. Virginia Beach requires that all refuse, with the exception of yard waste, go into the automated container. This is to encourage participation in the recycling drop-off facilities. Residents are allowed to purchase as many automated containers as they choose for a price of $75. Yard waste must be put into clear bags for collection. They are limited to brush piles no larger than four feet in any direction (4' X 4' X 4'); this is only for brush too heavy to put into clear bags; items must not exceed six inches in diameter. Brush piles, white goods and tires are collected on the regular trash day only if the resident calls into the Solid Waste office 24 hours before her or his collection. Virginia Beach has an automated work order system that automatically prints out the day's schedule with all the additional pickups. All yard waste (including grass) is taken to an unpermitted mulching site operated by the Southeastern Public Service Authority (SPSA) for a reduced tipping fee. The mulch is available for all residents. Residents are allowed to screen the mulch for a higher quality product. When Virginia Beach made the switch in May 1991, several tax increases had just been passed and the new ordinance requiring all yard waste to be in clear bags was not popular. The City of Virginia Beach made a commitment to sticking with this program and not bending to the complaints until the system had a chance to prove itself. A local advertising firm donated $56,000 of advertising and consultation. Virginia Beach also spent an additional $8,000 on advertising. They are picking up everything once a week and currently run 43 routes per week and collect around 64 loads of yard waste. B-1 N-2 Virginia Beach averages about 800 tons per day of all types of refuse. They have 20 employees working full-time on yard waste collection trucks. The mulching site operated by SPSA is at the City of Virginia Beach Landfill. They bring in-about 40,000 tons per year of yard waste at a tipping fee of $25/ton. The tipping fee for regular garbage is $29.50/ton for localities. They do not have a problem with the odor usually associated with grass because they save the leaves from the fall to mix with them. When they run out of leaves, they use brush. They are able to give away 75~ of the mulched product. The remaining 25~ is taken to a permitted composting site in Suffolk, also run by SPSA. The best quality mulch consists of leaves and grass. SPSA is working in conjunction with VDOT on a wetlands mitigation project using leaf mulch. B-2 N-Z FAIRFAX COUNTY YARD WASTE PROGRAM Fairfax County has approximately 300,000 households and covers over 410 square miles. Fairfax County has banned brush at all County Sanitary Disposal Facilities. They are implementing a mandatory County-wide separate collection of yard debris for recycling. Fairfax County operates Yard Debris Recycling Centers at their landfill and transfer station. These are mulching sites. Residents can get mulch free of charge and the remainder is used by County agencies. Fairfax County's garbage is collected entirely through private haulers. There are over 63 private haulers that carry garbage in Fairfax County. Because residents of Fairfax County pay directly for their garbage pickups, they have a financial incentive to reduce their waste stream through backyard composting programs and yard waste separation programs. The tipping fee for brush loads is $20 per ton. The County reduced this fee from $43 to assist haulers in offsetting some of the cost associated with separate brush collection. Fairfax County sponsors a backyard composting program called YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard). This program encourages residents to reduce their waste stream by composting the majority of their yard wastes in backyard composters. They distribute free composting bins to citizens that attend composting seminars. Fairfax County has an annual Christmas tree recycling program that requires residents to utilize drop-off facilities for their old Christmas trees. Fairfax County has a leaf vacuum program in the fall. They also sponsor a pilot collection program utilizing kraft bags collected by private haulers and drop-off sites for residents to self-haul their leaves to. Fairfax County processes about 3,000 tons of yard debris per month. B-3 .-' AT A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1992 RESOLUTION 81192-5 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 Nickens to adopt the certification resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. len, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Executive Session AT A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1992 RESOLUTION 81192-6 CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the certification resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: .\. C~~ ~ / Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Executive Session O O ~ W a O U ° S ~ 64 ~ ~ ° ~ o o rr ti o o 0 ~ DO °o 0 ao N ~ o 0 o ti ~ ~~ 0., og ~ h ~O O °O o°~p h ~ O ~ n h ~ O O ~ N ~r "' o0 ~ ' U $ v o ~ o ~' °o y a > ~ > ~ a ao b4 N !F ~ ~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h. o~ ~' oyi °' ~ ~ ~ v O ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ o o °~' o ~ o o~ o ~ .o W ~g'~~; ~~~~d~~ zg~ ~~ 4' W M ~ o O U ~ ~ ~ ~ oVi '' '" ~ .~ ~ o ~ o QO U Ow• • • ~w• • ''•"' ~w• 3• • ~ rwy W Q U ti ti 1 RETREAT AGENDA TEAMWORK IN ROANOKE COUNTY: MAKING THE TRANSITION I. KICK OFF {Mr. Hodge} II. INTRODUCE PRESENTERS Define each presenter's role and responsibility within the meeting -- Don Myers -- Assistant County Administrator -- Steve McGraw -- Clerk to Circuit Court --Jeff Balon -- Parks and Recreation -- Karen Dacosta -- Parks and Recreation -- Anita Hammerstrom -- Human Resources I11. DEFINE MEETING OBJECTIVES IV. ICE BREAKER EXERCIS E V. REVIEW CONCEPT OF TEAMWORK -- Theory and benefits VI. WHERE THE COUNTY WAS A YEAR AGO The restructuring of government. VII. TEAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS -- Circuit Court Clerks Office -- Parks and Recreation -- Human Resources VIII. WHERE TO GO FROM HERE Review seven steps of: Making The Transition to a Teamwork Environment. Define accomplishments and develop a plan for implementing each phase. IX. CONCLUSION A PRESENTATION TO BE MADE TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT THEIR AUGUST 11, 1992 MEETING IN REGARD TO TEAMBUILDING IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROANOKE COUNTY The teambuilding process in any organization is dependent upon one concept - trust. If the supervisor does not have trust in his employees, and if the employees do not have that same trust in their supervisor, the building of an effective team relationship will not occur. With this in mind as I began my campaign for the office of Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, I determined that the employees in the Clerk's office - the deputy clerks - should never be used as "pawns" in the election process. This was my fourth political campaign on my own behalf, and I had worked in a number of other campaigns over a twelve year period. In previous Sheriff's races in particular I was very concerned about the feelings of, and pressures upon, Sheriff's deputies during intense political campaigns. I did not want to see this situation repeated in the Clerk's race. To this end, I was careful not to make references to the staff of the Clerk's office or to level any specific criticisms at them, but eventually some of my statements were incorrectly interpreted to mean that I was critical of the deputy clerks. Add to this the negative feelings that were spread to the deputies between the time of my election victory on November 5 and my taking office on January 1, and you can understand why I felt I had to begin the process of "teambuilding" as soon as possible. I initiated a series of discussions with the Clerk's office staff in mid-November, meeting first with the entire staff as a group. At that meeting, I attempted to dispel a number of rumors that I knew had been circulated during the campaign. I gave the deputies copies of my resume', talked a little about my background and exeriences, and answered a number of questions that they had about their jobs and my approach to the Clerk's office . Over the next several weeks, I had individual meetings with the deputies on a number of occasions. I eventually determined that nine of the eleven employees would be retained in the Clerk's office. I informed all of the deputies of my decisions as soon as I could, and I conferred with some of them as many as a dozen times before I took office. Staff members knew that they were welcome to call me at any time at home or at my real estate office, and several of them did so. It was important to me to get to know all of them as soon as possible and to let them know that I was concerned about them and their feelings as we travelled together through the transition process. Little things, such as sending all of them Christmas cards, were very important to me. On January 1, we all met at the Clerk's office. I furnished the pizza and soft drinks for a little luncheon get-together with the deputies and the two new employees that I brought into the office with me. We had a swearing-in ceremony and then we were off to the races! The first thing that came to my attention was the lack of a professional looking appearance to the office environs. Signage was hand-done and pasted on walls and countertops with Scotch tape. Most employees did not have their names or job titles on their office doors or cubicles, and one deputy (who had been an employee for nine years) had not been allowed to have a telephone at his desk. These situations were rectified immediately. I placed a bulletin board outside my office and it is used constantly to communicate with staff. I also devised a check-off system so that printed information important to the staff could be circulated throughout the office quickly and efficiently. Two suggestion boxes were placed in the office; one for patrons and one for staff. I believed that if employees needed something or wished to communicate with me anonymously, this would give them the opportunity to do so. However, within a few weeks, no one was using the employee suggestion box - they were coming directly to me with their suggestions and concerns. And there were many. Just to list a few, these requests were implemented over the past six months: a change in lunch hours to allow certain staff members to go to lunch together, the use of "posted notes" instead of scrap paper and Scotch tape, computer courses (ten staff members, including me, have taken a total of 16 computer courses to date), a new refrigerator with an icemaker, a second computer terminal (linked to the County system) at the front counter, self-inking rubber stamps, electric staplers, telephones in the conference room and the microfilm room, expanded desk and worktable space in offices and cubicles, carpet on a table and wall to reduce the noise made by a printer in one employee's office, larger worktables in the office common area, multiple repairs to the telephone system which turned out to be not necessarily defective but merely in need of routine maintenance, two additional computer terminals and an additonal printer in the record room, trays on desks and doors for storing paper and placing mail, etc., in staff offices, a message spindle and a work light at one deputy's desk, a change in the general office layout to better suit specific task functions, staff breakfasts every Friday morning, staff meetings to discuss changes, problems, etc., further staff training by state supreme court staff in the case management and financial management computer systems, computer terminals for one employee who had never been allowed to have them even though he is very much involved with purchasing and budgetting, changes to old and outdated internal office forms, a fax machine, expanded printing capability for the microfilm readers in, the record room, increases in certain fees for patrons and decreases in fees for internal "County" use, removal of ominous old portraits from staff offices and work areas, comp time, permission to take vacation time two weeks in a row if desired, a new electric pencil sharpener, new "County seals" to emboss official documents, anew time clock for recording the official time of documents at the front counter, repairs to broken windows, doorstops and coathooks, a telephone message center, "employee only" signs on staff restrooms, and the list goes on and on. If you are concerned about the cost of all these "improvements," put that to rest. We completed the fiscal year with a $30,000 surplus, even after state and county budget reductions. I have rolled this money over into this year's budget. This money will be used to improve a sadly lacking HVAC system which is allowing high humidity to destroy older records while creating an imbalance within the courthouse office complex, the result of which means having to operate the cooling system during the winter! Communication with the staff is immediate. When one employee resigned several months ago without giving prior notice, the staff was informed of this development within a matter of minutes, and they pitched in "automatically" to work together until a replacement was hired. And the hiring of the new person was handled very "publicly" with the staff. They had suggestions for the type of person they would like to see in the vacant position. These suggestions played a significant role in my consideration for what the office needed in the way of a new employee. The staff members have joined together admirably to train the new employee since she began working on June 1. When a lawsuit was filed against me recently, I informed the staff of it as soon as I was called by the news reporter and before they had a chance to read about it in the newspaper. And when the legal papers were brought to me at the clerks' office, I circulated them to the staff the same day and discussed it with anyone who wished to express his or her concerns or opinions. Staff members have been given maximum flexibility in their work schedules. They know they are expected to get their own jobs done and to help others do theirs. Comp time was a strange, new concept in the clerk's office. Initially, there was a surge in the amount of comp time earned and taken, but that is now virtually non-existent. Most deputies are able to get their jobs done within the normal workday, but they know that comp time is available anytime they need it. There are still problems which I believe are rooted primarily in personnel practices and old feelings from the past. This will not be resolved quickly. The employees have begun to develop a sense of trust in me. They know I will go to bat for them at any time for anything they need to help them do their jobs better and to make their workplace as pleasant and productive as possible. Initially, there were a number of complaints from the staff and from the general public being served by the clerk's office. The staff were given a considerable amount of freedom to make their own decisions. This, of course, resulted in the requirement for more responsibility on the part of the deputies for their own decisions - quite a change from the past. Beginning in February and then diminishing by May, several staff members were off on lengthy sick leave for various ailments. This appears to have resulted from a culmination of the changes I had instituted, which were unsettling to some employees, combined with having the feeling that they could take time off without the fear of losing their jobs. In other words, they had begun to relax. When the office "settled down," especially after the new employee came on board, the number of compliments we have received about a more pleasant atmosphere in the office, smiling faces at the front counter, and "smiling voices" on the telephone has increased dramatically. Frequent users of the record room were critical of some of the changes I had initiated or proposed to implement. They had begun to use the staff as a sounding board for their complaints about me, and this did not sit well with me at all. After making sure that record room patrons understood how protective I was of the staff, we were able to talk to each other and resolved several of the long-standing concerns that we identified together. Also, the attorneys, paralegals, and other patrons of the record room have made a number of suggestions for changes and improvements with which I have concurred. Criticism of fee increases and other changes is now practically non-existent, and the staff knows that they will not be placed in the middle between me and the public. Just three weeks ago, I began to get groups of employees together to discuss their interpersonal problems. These sessions have been conducted in the privacy of my office, have been very intense and emotional, but have begun to sort out old negative feelings which inhibit the deputies' ability to work together as a team. Once we have brought to the surface these problems, then the process of building trust, where there has been suspicion and resentment, will begin. Certain employees have already begun to rise to the occasion, making specific requests for further training and even coming into my office to let me know what I'm doing wrong without any fear of retribution. The environment is considerably healthier, and team-building as a natural process is beginning to occur. As the employees build trust in one another and develop it for me, the final stage of "intentional" team building will evolve. This will entail encouraging employees to determine specific ways to work with one another and put these plans into action. I' 1 /// 4 ~~ \.~ °nr1:rOKE vnrr ;rmv nnEc•c ~~,. RE~REATIO '. y iri~VV~r'V Mil ~~.. ~. ~.-. moa°al.; 1!: u:iu'u~..^I F':. History: ,~ y~a^ c ,-.r.,o~:;~~ ~ - ~e ul u^ ."'~`;..^~-..~....., .,.tee,...: y .. ~~. TV ., i - iu~vrr ~... . ... ... ~.._ ~ . ~ ._ .. ~y ~•v.: ii ~uv+~" .~~°•.iev ~.e~ .~i 2' ue*'~i ~°.. i~ Jai ie Dui vv+i. ~°. Y\ ` ~ ~ry.a _ .~ ...ate.. <°..: p~ ~. ~ ONO.. ~~ n Y~ `mfr LJ mC~w.le ~~ 'Y~^~MJ °•~ :c~ o~~~ aav..+....iu~.... ... „~~ 1.~...aa.~..=:~~.~u~i vv v~u~F - ~.__u-._~, o.-+o fir-, o`c~ _ - va ~+.,u :.°._.: ~" .A.~.~ ,,...w ~~~_~±~. ,u ~. ~. .~ ~.. ~. 1. r V ~ 1 a• 1.L 1 u v u 4 a a 1 ~... v ~.. J _. .~ J ~ ~ ~ ``~ -~ L~ ~^ - .r`r t - ~.1• aJl++.1~• • v ~. .~~_~ r ~ ~. V ~-...• l.r•. ~.L1_ / - V V 1u~J n ~ r'~ !'l ~n 1~....! ` t V l ... .v u u i ~ .J iA 1. e-` .._ .,a,.. ...._ L. .. _._~ `.;` Ji t. ~ " .. ~ _._ ~.,~....... .. .. .. _ ~ .. _ ~ .y r ~: _~... „ems;°: ..eL.:°O,e:.:.~'~~..._, °=..::.~~ O~ aaa.°.ei:y. C~-v. o AA -, ~ ~h~.. ~~~'... ~ v r... -... u+.. v.. +..v ~_.<,._ n :`J u.::: .~ .._ a.:~y'.'_~ e `^..'~= y_Q -._.:.`~,.^' v'i`~:.v v° .. °Ni...~~i ~u:iva. u..u ^y.^,:u:Le .~.aeNUi ~:ue :~ r ,= .~ ,. ~ , ~, ~ - et^..a:a ~:_u..i.~ `r.ei: ~v ..=.c.a..a,~ ~.~. C"....1..>~.,....~..~ ..`...°.`,..:.^>ui j7 ~,i_.wa _,°" ....i ~.a .aac:...~, n Soto _~. `c- - ~' :~" - F a~ rv i ~ ~`a N:.~: ...'~.. ~~u... v :uii .:~ .~ u ...ante. .. ~ N.N .. .~~... ... ~.l ~ ti.,.~ ~ u.,, `7 ~y~n~ D VJtl1 _ ~~ ~i'_ to _. \v V V ~..a ~+ V~ Y.~ a_ ~L..aa ~/ .. "`°± `; m..,-.o ~~ °'~" °u:: ' °u .C r~~-a„+ mom rn~,..-,,.o..,~,-,+ v e - r 4 D n L ^ l ~ V t L l~ r• L ~~.. 4a M J .1V.iaaaatA u.. 1. 1t. .r V ~..i r. ... ~tiu~ I".~ D 1•.C.+ r D v `~.C..~~.1 ~v~.a.aV ...eL ~.~i \a u~i•ci J.~aVl. ~~J V V V .aVaw CAJlu •.V YV 'fi ... a.• • ~ v ~ J _ ~ J ~' SNVOL.VF,N1EIVrl' SN TF~1M MPiNAGEMEN'I' Jur~.e 1 6, 1 932 L\\.l t11aV1 V ~..l1.LY - N Lll. ~,-L L+V11 A. Overview All f ive tea~.Is agreed t hat "e: :petiaer,,,ert" deeded to be revie:ved ~.,a t111 to r evlJe LT ir.t +t,~ l~w.. +J Ly \.Lll,.. , ` ~~ ~ i i ~; ~~ 1114. V ~ •wll L 1 V e ~ams / the S+ Ito,. L11,. Ly 1c h; ; ,•. ^ay ~ + ~;nerl ~ me-,.., c~or ~ ul.. prop ~~~ a e~t~' tur: ~ +ro r ~ ~ uc L 1ng oL 1.11. "e ent" .l.rlccaerm. seams , a ~... ~LL_~ _...~ ...,., .. ~: g .:ac appr.,,, .,.rar...:..c~sly cn .,u111.. .,, i ~~L~.. mhe pre vlC'u.~i fi~v'e tec°,. •'iti i'ce'. :'e ~ti'i°ei': ,. enlaced uj'j merged lity f ;,.~ ne.. , "Tea... :~larage ;:e^t" ttia^;s Parks ~ F.ecrea ~ i o{1 Lei sure Services Teal:. replaces I.,~.i.~.~ur e SeL „ices Team Parks a'Ci' ::°creu'tivli i.ipllr'i:'ee nuL~i.~ivrY~ T°a,^.2 replaces implcyee Ac,; 1~1,r;; mea:: Parks Opera ~ i ons T°u.:. mew yew, ~. aces _ 111,~1~ a ~c.ls , Peru _1,1_~ .. . ~ ~ _ _._.- rLaticn arld Asset :':ainterance for Paris ~;^=sicr po ...o~+-, n.,,~,~-,+, a.1.. tit-. 1411 V1i ~/1../6..L tAll~tLJ 1~1AlIl merges; p'°^~~ DMh, ..°1e' ti.,1_s, C_ ..u}it,1 ~'• Cct,rdi- re 1La1it_J _ ~~c 1 _ i~ .~ L_k ti Vri grid Asset MC~..;~iteia ice ~o"''~°ci ea+~v.. ~_v~syor s B. Team Structure and Proposed Mission Statements 1. Four Team Management Teams and Strategic Management Team a . Parks ~ P.ecrea ti c : Leisure Servi c°s Teal:. 1~ CV V a11. V. AJY VJ~` tAr1\J ~.Lll..t VLL \.. ~-r ~.. {.allVrL JL~LL 2; mission: To effectively coordinate all programs, services, resources and issues that require action on the part of the Department involving all divisions of the department; administrative, parks and recreation. To insure effective and responsive departmental coordination, communication and 'appropriate action in regard to public park and recreation services. Determines measures to be taken to improve external relations and marketing of services which impact on all divisions. goals: The Parks ~ Recreation Leisure Services Team reviews Capital Improvement Prcgrams ~CIP;, Planned Improvement Programs (PIP}, and Bond Improvement Prcgr~ms TD1 .~it.c.~ it n ttir nr~or-~~!-i me a nd i.+ud et t B1L ~ • A~JI pill Je L •. 1llg VL.J V. L, to V.1 V1'1lJ priVr 1t1eJ fCr Vr1e depar tmelit • FLvai M~t eJ eLit er 11a1 relations with other coanty departments the ccmmurlity, the media and cther organizations. Serves as the coordinating team for such events as the Annual Polc Match Crestu_ Sc., T .1 ~ - ^rel Li urrLtAlll ~. rl L , V i v I~C.L.. ll\... erlac LlllerL L arlu liluJ or ~. v eaa \. .> u.l. r+c- Dail (.'rich ~.aitr a-depar tmerltal r v''/'~uiu au~iC i~~~~c. c~ ° r, v.o~r~.. r+.~oc+ T1~° +co p yl }.l l.J / ~-V~1\. ~~r L1J Ulalw Y VI.IY VI..J. 11Lw.~ \~,. Ui V o11J1V tJ VY Jtlwff fY VII. tltl~.. CT1 l~•LM irals Lra L1V° D>„t „~ v / 41 1zJ aLl\.. ~.. V 1 L 1 I T V s s r .".11 ~ 1J. tnuil~:~ \~i` ~°~i °u>~i vLi iii~ly Yr~~- r11 V~1.:i vai j'' 1°u~ i% C'7-Chc>..ii ed l}'..Y [i ile ~u=~~s u::C.. v~C ~°Ci'eut ivr staff 2; mission: To maintain and improve effective and timely employee communicaticn, staff development opportunities and to provide staff the opportunity to be actively involved in the development of departmental policy. To provide staff with a forum for discussing their concerns and to maize reccmmendations to deal with e:r.ployee issues and concerns. goals: The ~' , ° _J.. ~ews L~alp iVY\°..V LT'ldv 1~Y Tet:: re`v en:p jyy eV COrcerr;> u.l.... ..t..u_ _ pC~,C1e.~ .... ;d :: ales Y e...,..l...end :Hors to the Strateylc ^'; :rag e:rert Tea... .L rl Y ey^a~ \~.. ~C e.^.:p10^~•'°`. ~.~~..\~..~. / ueref 1t~ \..rd CCrCe~ rJ . The 1D.+i~io~'ee c"id`v'1 J\~.JLY Teu:.l pars a \'a.. ~, .. ~. ~"CJ,. .'a ala rev C::'ap 7cY°° tL: ~' ~' fCr +>fy mt~° to .~. ..y; de veivpilaent vppvi . .Y yes ."i~uY ~a1L. l ~,vu ..v :.. v f " ` a ~ f ~ ,..., ,., > l l + L, ,.. e e d ' ., fi ` h ~ D o ,,. -„~ +,., ° .. + c. T J lY V... U11 L111 1V~.J1 V.aJ Vr 1V N(wi L..l \...1~, c-3 di.Liiii."itra ~ i v ° Do...bc >r+rl D°.-,..a>+; r I V / 41 a\J , tAlavi 1\\. L.Y 6w ~VLa . V . 411\J V~~1 t>A L 1V1aJ ~L°C11/t ~ j Cv-.^_.hayred w j' lyric aDar icy s ~a~ ~ 2; mission: To protect, conserve and maintain designated Roanoke County public parks, lands and associated environmental resources. To provide safe, cost effective and responsive park services to meet the needs, attitudes and interests of County residents through effective coordination of resources, pclicies, services, communication, equipment and materials within the division. goals: The Purizs Operaticns Tear.: evaluates e~~isting eperatiorlal practices, services, rescurc°~ and pclicie~ arld malzes reccmmendaticns tc the Strategic Marlage,..ent Tea... o n needed rescurces, improve:.Lents cr 1SSVLes. Deals with maintenance- and cperational issues cf parizs, buildirlg grourlds, restrocros, shelters, and par.z imprcvements and deals with par.z safety arld health issues relating to parizs and public lands. The Parks Operations Team gives e...plcyees cf the Parizs Division the opportunity to make recommendations crl policies, procedures and practices relating to the responsibilities of their divisicr.. The tear. ccnsists mainly of staff from the Parks.Divisicn. d. ~ P.ecreatio:L Operations Tea1~ 1 ~ cc-charred by tt•YV Recl ea L 1011 Staf f 2; mission: To m~ ingful leisure interest of coordination communication, the division. iintain quality, cost effective and mean- services to meet the needs, attitudes, and County residents through effective of recreation resources, services, policies, activities and programs within goals: mho po,,...o-, `; n., ,.,u+ • m~~,,, o i +o~. o +i ~- ~.~ u 1ciL vNes. ~iviL~ ~..uu. ~.`v>>ui:;aaw~._...> ~,iia~~ ng Jer v icGS, Yrv('>,n m ' n ~ V ~ 1~ .~. pnl,;, ,nnc1 !^ a~~r.{ Il Raw ~~eJ t a.i.J ate. L 1 ~ t ~ L.J [^-.ai~4 ~JV ~.1i ~`J reco^:r.:endaticrs tc t':e Strategic ""anagement Te4:.{ .,1L ,.e ~ed^ q uaiity ~vn tr vi u..`_'. ac..ur `:~, i."-~.^_av u..~ a.~ .~, ...uJv~ ~r vgr a.:{ chaLigev a.id i.evv pr vgr uTii develepn:e.i ~ . The De.^_.r eat iv n ~N~-+ i~..++J . ~..vva iaaa a_y i.a ~ ...~ .>ivaa4i recreat1.,1L service) tc ma~~i::ize resources. Conducts ~ur~'eY~ }C deter"'i'^e 1°i ,^ °.•°,.•vi~°~ LaeedS '~ •,^+o..ort~ ~ . ._ J~at a J`a an4 1aa L~.l l..J L f 1 ~..~ Cv;.u i~in~ Y ~ C^v: Sl.~ ~J ..a J ul L _;.^.uri frees the yecreuticn divis~~a.. e . Stra tegi c Mu:.agem~n t Teu... ~, ..{44e ,:p .,~ ei77~~yL eu~ ~.,-chay~pers~..~, .•.~.c ~yc'_s.u.__ iireCtcr .~ a nd .lir ectvr 2; mission: To guide and challenge the department's Total Quality Management teams to improve and provide quality service, parks and programming for the citizens of Roanoke County. To facilitate and manage the Department through employee involvement, review and self-assessment of services and castomer service practices. Consists of the Department Director, Assistant Directors and the elected co-chairpersons of each employee team. goals: pev 1ePJJ 1JSU~J ~.r esealted by tetA.{LJ as vaell aJ the 4erJar t.l{ent' U J!{1JJiVa1 a11d ~~ ~ J ~ eval~:ates department of f ectl V e13e ~]y V11 ~11 /1+/e,,ye 1J ~ k~+er a1{1~aeU depal t/~i,~`.Li~ pclilileJ based Vn tea:: recVll.tteLldatlcLaJ, prVVideJ a fOr'a,^.: for effective co:.{::{unicaticn to all staff about Ccunty- wide clicies ^rc,.~a„re 'mac~~ c ~r~ e~ >y, / ~ ~.44t ~, 1JJ{AeJ i+{L14 VVll//^i,,erlaJ~ JerV J as a f~r~am t~ d1JCKJJ 1JSUes WhiVY`L need tV be addressees Y,+t> ICY, ^~,ntT, pY,+ t.+e ~j /~ mp~ri~ 1 i at tLLe CO;.:L. ti Y 1./4.. {~.a {. {,,.,, ,. .Le V .. _ . 2. Responsibilities of Co-Chairpersons a. organize fccus groups b. call meetings as requested by department staff c. n ctify all ^taff of meetings C. Positive Aspects 1. Fewer Meetings - :.a~etlillJ~.J V.1~1 w° :°.:C",. ..,a~Y uS ;,~°~°::; u;:Y Stuff iia`y' re~.S'.,'a°~~ •-•7.~~; ~.. t~.o+ u m + 'r~r. loo ro l l ..7.. ~, .- t~i° upprvprlute t~uii a. .r -.. 1.. .a..~ u. E'e ~iaay a~~ L. iA11e (~i \.a .~rJV UJJ U ~(At tl~uyar 1JJ U~ 2. Increased Departmaent-Wide Decision-M.a~ing stuff v'vyii is iA 'v~ Nvi Luai.a.~ tv ut ~~°i,.~.a V Vis iaa4V ~~ +nn` a.iiai: NV tnJJ ~ ri l~~..~ tv V, ` +~ ' ~ i tCf SNL'C~ tu:11 ~, t^v ~:.~ ~°„~. .....~ :~ :yS :~~":°~ ~. ....~~,...~.~. ±~-.o~, ui ° CS:':CS~'~SC ti'v ~ ", u ~ u e"' ~ ~~u . _ . ~a.y uui . . ; ~~<.: ..i yr .,may p~~~i rr .a ..,_ ...,. Cr,°'~ foruT f: ~ V0~4'°^'°';t th k ~ ~ ya, .,,_ °, l _. i1J1V 1,-i~al.a~\1 ;y r.:0~.~~,~ 3. Better Representation z - - - -. .. ._ . sp°cifi.. fccu.s .J„ ~ ~. .,.~„~.~y.~„ .a~~.~ ~ _ ,., u`.pur till ~.r,t v'viii va' i°~r °~~:: ~:`~~.. Li Y' tt'~° Dui ~:~ .'Cw' ate. .°__-i ~..:±s va_ r .°.1~'u'rv .C.~r v'i ~~.a T°caaia .:.: .`a,. ~4r ,~."i w ~o.-i °.~. t.i ..,, uaii"~ ao n~`vi~v^r' ~- N s v Y'..., a-a u i 1. T~u'~ia~ 4. More Focused - ...eetings wiil b~ ,a .a,..e~-~.oa . ~ l l o„ ut.a \.ai JJI.. ...a~ J,ltAl.avi spVV:fWVa uVt4'.a.a?V~ D. Election Process held „~~, ;~~,.o ;.,,~.t uo 1 V l~-4J ~:. V K~J ,Y..77Y~ awJ`\w V (.ate V V{~l~ l yJa ~: vJ°.".. t.c.~ ~ i° C.iep ar tiiae:itai pu:iipi:i~,+ 1 ~ ~ 1. Nominations for Co-chairs of Four Team Management Teams 2. Vote 3. 1-year Term (recomsaended) 4. Counting of Votes/Welcome New Co-chairs E. Transition Process 1. Transition Meeting u. July 23, 1992, &:3~sm -- Pub1~c Service Center 1) first official (new) Strategic Ma :agea:ent Teaxa raeetir.g 2) fernier tea:aas' chairpersons will r.:eet with cc-chairs of Tea... Manage;aaent tea:.as to puss .,,, details of outstanding projects~;1 co-chairs will turn these projects over tc focus groups ~~ AN~- F ~~ ' ~ 2 a ~ 38 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 August 14, 1992 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HIWS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWEUI 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 Mr. W. Robert Herbert Roanoke City Manager 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 Dear Mr. Herbert: Attached is a certified copy of Resolution No. 81192-4 and Action Report No. 81192-4.b concerning authorization to amend the interjurisdictional pretreatment agreement between Roanoke County and Roanoke City. This resolution and board report were adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, August 11, 1992. Also attached are two copies of the agreement. Please execute both of these agreements, retain one for your file, and return the other to my office. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~i»ccs.~ f, jd L2.c.e.c.~.~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Attachment cc: Mary F. Parker, Clerk, Roanoke City Council Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Clifford Craig, Director, Utility ® Recycled Paper o`'aaN~, F ~~ p Z ~. 2 a ,, C~~~xxY~ ~~ ~~xxY~.C~e P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 August 12, 1992 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE B. EDDY. CHAIRMAN MANDSOR MILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN GTAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL'FUZZY' MIN NIX GVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERAL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 Mrs. James A. (Chris) Pickard 5460 Stonebrook Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Mrs. Pickard: The members of the Board of Supervisors wish to express their sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Community Corrections Resources Board. Citizens so responsive to the needs of their community and willing to give of themselves and their time are indeed all too scarce. I am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, August 11, 1992, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint you as an alternate member of the Community Corrections Resources Board for a one-year term. Your new term will expire on August 31, 1993. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, or 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 Conflict of Interest Act. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely, Lee B. Eddy, Chairm n Roanoke County Board of LBE/bj h Enclosures cc: Mr. Jim Phipps, VASAP Supervisors ® Recycled Paper o~' ~ aN ~F ~. Z p ~ ~ o a s COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 August 12, 1992 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOW NS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERAL DISTRICT P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 Mr. Glenn A. Siverling 3736 Hummingbird Lane, SW Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Mr. Siverling: (703) 772-2005 I am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, August 11, 1992, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you as a citizen-at-large member of the Highway and Transportation Safety Commission for a four-year term beginning June 30, 1992, and ending June 30, 1996. 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, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors LBE/bj h Enclosures cc: William G. Rosebro, Chairman Art LaPrade, Police Department ® Recyded Paper of a aN ~.~ h ~ _ ?I ~ 2 a ~.o~zx~#~ ~:f ~.~~x~.~.~.e P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 August 12, 1992 `~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE B. EDGY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL, DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR.. VICE-CHAIRMAN GTAWBA MAGI57'ERU1L DISTRICT B09 L. JOHNSON MOWNS MAGISTERIAU- DISTRK7 H. ODELL'FUZZY' MIN NIX GVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGLSTERIAL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 Mr. Leo Trevor 543 Petty Avenue Roanoke, VA 24019 Dear Mr. Trevor: The members of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors have asked me to express their sincere appreciation for your previous service on the Highway and Transportation Safety Commission. Allow me to personally thank you for the time you served on the Commission. Citizens responsive to the needs of their community and willing to give of themselves and their time are indeed all too scarce. Roanoke County is fortunate indeed to have benefitted from your unselfish contribution to our community. As a small token of appreciation, we enclose a Certificate of Appreciation for your service to Roanoke County. Sincerely, Le ~`~~ e B. Eddy, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors LBE/bj h Enclosure cc: William G. Rosebro, Chairman Art LaPrade, Police Department ® ReLycled Paper O~ ~ AN ~F r; % Z A o a COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 August 12, 1992 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERUIL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE. $R., VICE-CHAIRMAN GTAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOW NS MAGISTERUL D4STRKT H. ODELL-FUZZY MIN NIX GVE SPRING MAGISTERLLL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERUIL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 Ms. Charlotte Lichtenstein 4873 Brookwood Drive, SW Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Ms. Lichtenstein: The members of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors have asked me to express their sincere appreciation for your previous service on the Highway and Transportation Safety Commission. Allow me to personally thank you for the time you served on the Commission. Citizens responsive to the needs of their community and willing to give of themselves and their time are indeed all too scarce. Roanoke County is fortunate indeed to have benefitted from your unselfish contribution to our community. As a small token of appreciation, we enclose a Certificate of Appreciation for your service to Roanoke County. Sinc rely, Lee B. Eddy, Chai an Roanoke County Board of Supervisors LBE/bj h Enclosure cc: William G. Rosebro, Chairman Art LaPrade, Police Department ~~ P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 ® RecyGed Paper O~~ ANA F ti • p z a r s ;' ~;, P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 Rev. Gordon Grimes Cave Spring Baptist Church 5133 Brambleton Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERIAL DLSTRICT H. ODELL'FUZZY" MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 Dear Reverent Grimes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS August 12, 1992 On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, 1 would like to thank you for offering the invocation at our meeting on Tuesday, August 11, 1992. We believe it is most important to ask for divine guidance at these meetings and the Board is very grateful for your contribution. Thank you again for sharing your time and your words with us. Sincerely, Lee B. Eddy, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors LBE/bjh ®Recyded Paper `~ ~ 4 1 ~~~ C~~ ~f ~~J~ J~~~,,~ !..- ~ 4 ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ Y'om'' ' f Ja Sw ~U" ~, w ~~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~-- ~~ J ~ ~./) -~~z-- ~ f/ ~ ~ ; ~ r ,. J ~ .. ~ ~ ~~.~ Roanoke County Department of Economic Development 772-2069 M E M O RAN D U M TO: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator FROM: Timothy W. Gubala, Director ~~-~ DATE: July 28, 1992 SUBJECT: Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Roanoke River Parkway We have received the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Roanoke River Parkway. New Alternative #4 is the Parkway access road that connects Explore with the Blue Ridge Parkway. Other alternatives for routing a 10-mile Roanoke River Parkway and having a "no-build" alternative are presented. Staff recommends that the Boar upervisors reaffirm its support for Explo st 11, 1992 Board meeting. There will not be an ~rtunty or a ma presentation on the EIS so I will prepa a Board report and resolution of support that serve as Roanoke ounty's officio].--comment to the EIS. Please contact me if there are questions about the EIS and Explore project . sbo c Members of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County ~ ~~~~~v MEMO - 7/16/92 To: Paul Mahoney From: Lee B. Eddy p-~~-"'"- Subject: Personal Property Tax Exemption or Classification For Disabled Veterans Thanks for the memo of July 14, 1992 on this subject. The data appear to be very complete, and I thank you for making a clear staff recommendation. By copy of this memo to Mr. Hodge and Ms. Allen, I will ask them to place this matter on the agenda for our next Board meeting. copy: Board Reading File Wayne Compton Elmer Hodge Mary Allen * - With copy of PMM memo Gc MEMORANDUM T0: Board of Supervisors ~~ m~ FROM: Paul M. Mahoney DATE: July 14, 1992 SUBJECT: Personal Property Exemption or Favorable Classification Disabled Veterans At the meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held on June 23, 1992, the Board directed the County Attorney to research a recent amendment to State law providing a favorable personal property tax classification for disabled veterans and requested the Commissioner of the Revenue to report to the Board concerning the fiscal impact of implementing such an amendment to the County Code. The 1991 session of the Virginia General Assembly (Chapter 247) amended Section 58.1-3506 of the State Code. This section of the State Code authorizes the governing body of any county, city, or town to levy personal property taxes on the various separate classes or classifications of tangible personal property enumerated in this section. There are 18 separate classes or classifications of tangible personal property listed in this section. By letter dated June 17, 1992, Mr. Robert R. Mitchell, Jr. requested Supervisors Eddy and Nickens to consider sponsoring the necessary ordinance to allow disabled veterans to receive a reduced personal property tax rate. It is my understanding that Mr. Mitchell has also contacted the Commissioner of the Revenue by telephone concerning this issue. This provision of the State Code lists specific items of property and declares them to be a separate class of property constituting a classification for local taxation separate from other classifications of tangible personal property taxation. The amendment describes this classification of tangible personal property as follows: One motor vehicle owned and regularly used by a veteran who has either lost, or lost the use of, one or both legs, or an arm or a hand, or who is blind or who is permanently and totally disabled as certified by the Department of Veterans Affairs. In order to qualify the veteran shall provide a written statement to the commissioner of revenue or other assessing officer from the Department of Veteran Affairs that the veteran has been so designated or classified by the Department of Veteran Affairs as to meet the requirements of this section, and that his disability is service-connected. For purposes of this section, a person is blind if he meets the provisions of Section 46.2-739. Of all the various separate classifications and exemptions to personal property taxation authorized in the State Code, I am aware of only two exemptions that the County has exercised its discretion to apply: • an exemption for household goods and personal effects (authorized by Section 58.1-3504); and • an exemption for farm animals, grain, and farm machinery and tools (authorized by Section 58.1-3505). The County has created a separate classification for taxation for mobile homes; however, the rate of taxation for mobile homes is not reduced, rather the rate of taxation is identical to the real estate tax rate. Subject to certain limitations, the governing body may levy a tax on the various classifications of personal property enumerated in this section at different rates from the tax levied on other tangible personal property. The Commissioner of the Revenue has provided me with a listing of those individuals receiving from the Commonwealth free Disabled Veteran license plates for motor vehicles. There are approximately 90 vehicles on this list. There are approximately 30 vehicles on this list for POW license plates. Members of the National Guard are entitled to one-half fee license plates (approximately 120 vehicles). Disabled veterans and POWs are currently exempt (National Guard pay one-half) from the County license (decal) fee, see Sec. 12-28(e) of the Roanoke County Code. If the Board decides to adopt an ordinance creating a special classification(s) for tangible personal property, and adopts a reduced rate for taxation, the revenue loss would depend upon the tax rate. Using an average personal property tax bill of $200.00 per vehicle for 90 disabled veteran's vehicles would result in a revenue loss of $18,000, if the tax were eliminated. Expanding the number of preferential treatment classifications for personal property taxation would result in a significantly greater revenue reduction. It is suggested that this request for preferential treatment for purposes of personal property taxation be analyzed within the broader context of all the fees and taxes levied by the County and the possible petitions for similar treatment by the various other special 2 interest classifications. There are 18 separate classifications authorized in Section 58.1- 3506; this request is but one of the classifications. Use value assessment for real estate (agricultural, horticultural, forest and open space uses) and real estate tax exemptions for elderly and handicapped/disabled persons are significant, existing programs for County residents. The Board last year adopted an ordinance authorizing the reduction of water rates in hardship situations for elderly or handicapped disabled persons. The latter two programs are based upon certain gross income and financial worth criteria. The requested preferential classification for personal property is not subject to any "needs" (income or net worth) analysis. Finally the Board should consider this request within the context of the various requests for tax exempt status for purposes of real estate taxation. Over 9% of the total assessed value of real estate in Roanoke County is currently tax exempt. Accordingly, staff recommends that this request be denied. PMM/wr 3 M E M O R A N D U M To: Supervisor Edward G. Kohinke, Sr. From: Elmer C. Hodge ~i ~~`'t~`~ Date: July 24, 1992 Subject: Wooded Acres/Red Lane Water Supply This is to let you know that Cliff Craig and I have reviewed the water line breakages in the Red Lane area and agree with you that something has to be done. Our water operator had reported the most recent breakage and we had received several phone calls, so we were aware of the problem. We feel that we simply must repair this system and will proceed next week to do so. This will cause some minor delay in other Utility projects, but we feel it is necessary. I have scheduled a work session with the Board for August 11 to review the entire Utility CIP. ECH/meh cc - Board of Supervisors Mr. Clifford D. Craig Ms. Mary H. Allen MEMO - 7/16/92 To: Paul Mahoney From: Lee B. Eddy Subject: Personal Property Tax Exemption or Classification For Disabled Veterans Thanks for the memo of July 14, 1992 on this subject. The data appear to be very complete, and I thank you for making a clear staff recommendation. By copy of this memo to Mr. Hodge and Ms. Allen, I will ask them to place this matter on the agenda for our next Board meeting. copy: Board Reading File Wayne Compton Elmer Hodge Mary Allen * - With copy of PMM memo