Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1/25/1994 - Regular
AN E (~~1X~Y~~ II~ ~~~CxCII~LE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA JANUARY 25, 1994 ia~n o nE aui •n~a Regular Welcome to the Roanoke County Board ° and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 meetings are held on the second Tuesday p.m. Pablic hearings are held at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. NOTE: THE 7:00 P.M. EVENING SESSION HAS BEEN CANCELLED. Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangement in order to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings or other Roanoke County, please contact the programs and activities sponsored 6y uest ~~ ou rovide at least 48- Clerk to the Bs a~~ (70~ ~ ~~~ enwts may be made p hours notce p Pe A, OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. ALL PRESENT AT 3:05 P.M. 2. Invocation: John M. Chambliss, Jr. Assistant County Administrator 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. i BOY SCOUT TROOP 224 DEN 4 FROM BACK CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL,, LED THE PLEDGE B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS PMM ADDED ITEM 8 TO CONSENT AGENDA ECH ADDED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM 2.1-344 A (3) CONSIDERATION OF DISPOSITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS ECH THANKED STAFF AND OTHERS FOR THEIR ASSISTANCE DURING RECENT BAD WEATHER ANNOUNCED APPRECIATION RECEPTION TO BE HELD AT RCAC FEBRUARY 8,, 1994, AT 4:30 P.M. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for Adoption of Proposal to Strengthen Vehicle Decal Enforcement. (Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator) A-125941 HCN MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE CREATION OF POLICE TRAFFIC UNIT CONSISTING OF FOUR OFFICERS AND ASSOCIATED E UIPMENT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT 1'HE'Y WOULD ACTUALLY GO INTO SERVICE AT BEGINNING OF FISCAL YEAR lUI,Y 1ST. PRIOR TO THAT TIlVIF~, POLICE CHIEF AUTHORIZED TO RECRUIT NECESSARY PEOPLE AND GET THEM STARTED THROUGH THE ACADEMY• PLUS A PART TIlVIE CLERK FOR MONITORING SO BOARD CAN RE-EVALUATE ON A QUARTERLY BASIS URC 2. Request for Appropriation of $132,600 to Purchase Two Knuckle Boom Vehicles and Associated Radio Equipment. (Gardner W. Smith, Director, General Services) A-12594-2 FM MOTION TO APPROVE APPROPRIATION OF $132,600 FROM GEN FUND BALANCE URC B T AND HCN EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT SERVICES NOT BE EXPANDED 3. Request to Appropriate $400,000 to the 1993/94 General Services Budget. (Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator) A-12594-3 EGK MOTION TO APPROVE APPROPRIATION OF $400,000 URC 4. Claim by City of Roanoke for Unapproved Charges for Surplus Water. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) A-12594-4 B T MOTION TO DENY CLAIM AND PERMIT CITY TO PURSUE JCmICIAL REMEDY URC 5. Recommendations and Report on Phase I of the Structural Investigation of the Roanoke County Courthouse. (John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator) A-12594-5 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE APPROPRIATION OF $14,000 TO 3 CORRECT BRICK SOFFITS AND PAY FOR STUDY URC JMC WII~L CONTACT TUDICIAL COMMITTEE FOR APPROVAL E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS NONE F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE G. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC I:~ARING AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA B T MOTION TO APPROVE FIRST READING AND SET PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR FEBRUARY 22. 1994 URC WITH EGK ABSENT 1. An Ordinance to Rezone 1.5 Acres from C-2 Conditional to C-2, Located in the 6300 Block on the South Side of Peters Creek Road, Hollins Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of J. Edward Conner and Cary M. and Shirley I. Cunningham. 2. An Ordinance to Rezone 2.43 Acres from C-2 Conditional to C-2, to Allow Retail Uses, Located at 4037 Electric Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of A & M Enterprises LLC. H. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 4 NONE I. SECOND READING OF ORD~~~ ce Authorizing the Acquisition of Easements to 1, Ordinan ct the South Transmission Line. (Clifford Craig, Constru Utility Director) 0-12594-6 HCN Mp-~ON TO APPROVE ORD URC J. AppOINTNIEI~TS 1, Grievance Panel. Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors 3. DESIGNEE g, CONSENT AGENDA S LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT A~ ALL MATTER TO BE ROUTI ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD 5 2, Roanoke Regional Airpo~ Commission. WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. R-12594-7 FM MOTION TO APPROVE RESO FM SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO ADOPT CONSENT RESO WITH ITEM 8 REMOVED URC 1. Request to Appropriate $2,600 for Environmental Assessment Work at Pinkard Court Leisure Arts Center. A-12594-7.a 2. Confirmation of Board of Supervisors Committee Assignments for 1994. A-12594-7.b 3. Request to Appropriate $10,000 to the School Grant Fund as a Supplemental Grant to the Tech Prep Program. A-12594-7.c 4. Request to Appropriate $12,500 to the School Grant Fund for the "High Schools That Work" Project. A-12504-7.d 5. Request to Appropriate $750 to the School Grant Fund for "Understanding United States/Arab Relations" Project. A-12594-7.e 6. Approval of Raffle Permit from Bent Mountain Woman's Club. A-12594-7.f 7. Request to Appropriate Monies for Computer System and Installation for the Department of Social Services. A-12594-7.g 6 8. Donation of Right-Of--Way to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County in connection with Extension of Spring Grove Drive. A-125947.h HCN MOTION TO APPROVE URC WITH BIT ABSTAIN L. REPORTS AND INQiJIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Kohinke: ~1) Displayed picture of recently Purchased unmper tanker for Mason Cove Fire Dent. (21 Attended Ft. Lewis Fire Dept. ban4uet at Salem Holiday Inn which has rebuilt since the fire. Supervisor Nickens: (1) RecLnested that staff contact VACo to recommend that VACo emulate the VML Legislative Package format. Supervisor Tohnson: ~1) Detailed reasons why the airuort was closed. ,~2) Requested that staff bring_forward the recommendation to have three_„year dog tags purchased. (3) Expressed disappointment in Senator Bell's response to LBE's letter concerning school vouchers. Supervisor Eddy: ~1„~equested that staff attend VDOT meeting on February 3, 1994, about mates for I-73. ECH advised that Arnold Covey will attend. HCN asked that staff contact Congressional delegation to strengtthen Position on I-66 and I-73, and that efforts be coordinated. (2) Announced New Century Council presentation tonight at 7:30 p.m. at Virginia Western. M. CITIZENS' CONIlViENTS AND COI~'IlViUNICATIONS NONE N. REPORTS HCN MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE AFTER DISCUSSION OF ITEMS 1 AND 7 UW 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Statement of Revenues and Expenditures as of December 31, 1993 5. Accounts Paid -December 1993 6. Bond Project Status Report 7. Spring Hollow Reservoir Status Report CDC BRIEFED THE BOARD BI.~T REQUESTED THAT CDC MAKE PRESENTATIONS TO ROANOKE REG HOMEBUILDERS ASSOC, CHAMBER OF CONIlI~RCE, AND BOARD OF REALTORS. 8. Proclamation Signed by the Chairman O. WORK SESSIONS 1. Jail Feasibility Study PRESENTED BY SHERIFF GERALD HOLT BOARD CONSENSUS FOR SHERIFF HOLT TO PROCEED WITH PREPARATION OF DOCUMENT TO MEET STATE DEADLINE OF s MARCH, 1994, WITH DECISION ON SPECIFICS TO BE DELAYED FOR TWO WEEKS UNTIL REPORT CAN BE + + D BY BOARD 2. Bond Projects PRESENTED BY TORN CHAMBLISS, AND PROJECT COORDINATORS: SPENCER WATTS -NORTH COUNTY LIBRARY; GEORGE SIlVIPSON - DI~ CAVERNS LANDFILL CLOSEOUT AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN; BUTCH WORIUVIAN -DRAINAGE PROTECTS; ARNOLD COVEY -ROAD PROJECTS; PETE HAISLIP - PARKS & RECREATION PRO TEGTS; BRIAN DUNCAN - VALLEY TECHPARK; AND RON EDWARDS -FIRE HYDRANTS. ECH REQUESTED THAT TOUR OF FACILITIES BE SCHEDULED FOR SPRING P. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (1) Discussion of Personnel Matters; and (3) Consideration of Disposition of Public Property. FM MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6:40 P.M. URC Q. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-12594-8 BLJ MOTION TO RETURN TO WORK SESSION AT 7:45 P.M. AND APPROVE CERTIFICATION RESO URC WORK SESSION COriTINUED 9 3. Budget Work Session on Revenue Projections and Major Expenditures for FY 1994-95 PRESENTED BY BRENT ROBERTSON PUBLIC HEARING TO SET TAX RATES WII..L BE HELD FEBRUARY 221994 LBE REQUESTED THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEMS BE CONSIDERED DURING BUDGET DISCUSSION: (11 CIP BE UPDATED. ECH ADVISED Ii:EVIEW AT FEB 22 OR MARCH 8. X21 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT POLICY. ECH ADVISED WORK SESSION SET FOR FEBRUARY 8. (3) ADD 1'HIItD TIER TO HEALTH INSURANCE - EMPLOYEE AND ONE DEPENDENT. ECH ADVISED THAT RETIREES WANT PAID DENTAL INSURANCE. HCN ASKED THAT MANAGED CARE BE INCLUDED. DDH WILL MEET WITH INSURANCE CONSULTANT ON FRI. (41 ALI.oCATION TO CAMP ROANOKE. ECH ADVISED CIP WILL HAVE ESTIMATE OF COST. (5) FEES FOR RECREATION PROGRAMS. ECH ADVISED THAT A WORK SESSION ON FEES WII,L BE SET LATER (61 LOW BAND RADIO FOR TOURISM. HCN ADVISED HE DID NOT APPROVE BECAUSE NO COST BENEFIT. (71 RECYCLING PROGRAM. ECH ADVISED THAT A WORK SESSION ON RECYCLING WILL BE SET LATER EVENING SESSION DUE TO THE INCLEMENT WEATHER, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS UNABLE TO MEET IN .IANUARY. THE EVENING SESSION HAS BEEN CANCELLED BECAUSE THERE ARE NO ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS. R PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. An Ordinance Authorizing a Special Use Permit for an Accessory Apartment, Located at 4925 Bower Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of io Charles Cooper. (RESCI~DULED FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1994) RESCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1994 2. An Ordinance Authorizing a Special Use Permit to Construct a Church, Located at the Southwest Intersection of Merriman Road and Cartwright Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of Church of the Holy Spirit. (RESCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1994) RESCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1994 3. An Ordinance Authorizing a Special Use Permit to Establish a Retail Sales Facility for the Sale of Mobile Homes, Located at 3727 Challenger Avenue, Hollins Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of CMH Homes Inc. (WITHDRAWN AT REQUEST OF PETITIONER) WITHDRAWN AT REQUEST OF PETITIONER S. CITIZEN COMII~NTS AND COINIlVIiJNICATIONS NONE T. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:15 P.M., BLJ MOTION TO ADJOURN UW ii ~ ROAN ,~,~ ~ • p i~,1f7 6 flE LIE f~~ C~~ixxt~g ~f ~~~xx~~.~.e ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA JANUARY 25, 1994 Regular Welcome to the Roanoke County Board ° and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 meetings are held on the second Tuesday 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. NOTE: THE 7:00 P.M. E'yENl11TG SESSION HAS BEEN CANCELLED. Individuals with disabilities who require assists u e nrisors cmeet- gs o her order to participate in or attend Board of Pe lease co-rtact the programs and act-vitie;~s ~~ 2~5 6 We quest that~ou provide at least 48- Clerk to the Board at ( ) hours notice so that proper a-rangements may be made. A. OPENIlVG CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. ALL PRESENT AT 3:05 P.M. 2. Invocation: John M. Chambliss, Jr. Assistant County Administrator 3, Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. i ®~., ~, SCHOOL LED THE PLEDGE B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS PMM ADDED ITEM 8 TO CONSENT AGENDA C. PROCLAMA'1'IONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS DURING RECENT BAD WEATHER FEBRUARY 8, 1994, AT 4:30 P.M. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for Adoption of Proposal e s SAss stant County Decal Enforcement. (Don C. My , Administrator) A-12594-1 ~/~ .~ ~~ A ~'HRl- 2 BASIS URC 2. Request for Appropriation of $132,600 to Purchase Two Knuckle Boom Vehicles and Associated Radio Equipment. (Gardner W. Smith, Director, General Services) A-12594-2 FUND BALANCE URC EXPANDED 3. Request to Appropriate $400,000 to the 1993/94 General Services Budget. (Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator) A-12594-3 EGK MOTION TO APPROVE APPROPRIATION OF $400.400 URC 4. Claim by City of Roanoke for Unapproved Charges for Surplus Water. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) A-12594-4 jLmICIAL REMEDY URC 5. Recommendations and Report on Phase I of the Structural Investigation of the Roanoke County Courthouse. (John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator) A-12594-5 3 CORRECT BRICK SOFFITS AND PAY FOR STUDY URC E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS NONE F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE G. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND ~RSET~READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES CONSENT HEARINGS FOR FEBRUARY 22 1994 URC WITH EGK ABSENT 1. An Ordinance to Rezone 1.5 Acres from C-2 Conditional to C-2, Located in the 6300 Block on the South Side of Peters Creek Road, Hollins Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of J. Edward Conner and Cary M. and Shirley I. Cunningham. 2. An Ordinance to Rezone 2.43 Acres from C-2 Conditional to C-2, to Allow Retail Uses, Located at 4037 Electric Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of A & M Enterprises LLC. H. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 4 NONE I. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of Easements to Construct the South Transmission Line. (Clifford Craig, Utility Director) 0-12594-6 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE ORD URC J. APPOIlVTMEN'rS 1. Grievance Panel. i.,,~~. ..----- ss~~ --- WHETHER HE WISHES TO SERVE ANOTHER TERM 2. Roanoke Regional Airport Commission. iJi~i% a.v~.Y.~ •----- TERM WHICH WILL EXPIRE FEBRUARY 10 1998. 3. Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors DESIGNEE K. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND 5 WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUUSSION IS DESIRED, OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISC THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FRSE ATItAH TE ONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED R-12594-7 FM MOTION TO APPROVE RESO 8 REMOVED URC 1. Request to Appropriate $2,600 for Environmental Assessment Work at Pinkard Court Leisure Arts Center. A-12594-7.a 2. Confirmation of Board of Supervisors Committee Assignments for 1994. A-12594-7.b 3. Request to Appropriate $10,000 to the School Grant Fund as a Supplemental Grant to the Tech Prep Program. A-12594-7.c 4. Request to Appropriate $12,500 to the School Grant Fund for the "High Schools That Work" Project. A-12504-7.d 5. Request to Appropriate $750 to the School Grant Fund for "Understanding United States/Arab Relations" Project. A-12594-7.e 6. Approval of Raffle Permit from Bent Mountain Woman's Club. A-12594-7.f 7. Request to Appropriate Monies for Computer System and Installation for the Department of Social Services. A-12594-7.g 6 g. Donation of Right-Of--Way to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County in connection with Extension of Spring Grove Drive. A-12594-7.h HCN MOTION TO APPROVE URC WITH BT T ABSTAIN I,, REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supernsor Kohinke: (1) Displayed picture of recent ~. ,~. ~ l~11 A4+nnrlari Ft fire. Su rvisor Nickens: 1 R uested that staff contact VACo to Supervisor Tohnson: (1) Detailed reasons why the airport was __ _ _ _ ~L_ ___..r.,.~.,......1..4.nn to hslVP_ Vlil rv- v~+a ~- --- - - Bell's response to LBE's letter concerning school vouc ers. 7:30 p.m. at Virginia Western. M. CITIZENS' COD~IlI~NTS AND COMMUNICATIONS NONE N. REPORTS ITEMS 1 AND 7 UW 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance Z. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4, Statement of Revenues and Expenditures as of December 31, 1993 5. Accounts Paid -December 1993 6. Bond Project Status Report 7, Spring Hollow Reservoir Status Report CDC BRIEFED THE BOARD BOARD OF REALTORS. 8. Proclamation Signed by the Chairman O, WORK SESSIONS 1. Jail Feasibility Study PRESENTED BY SHERIFF GERALD HOLT s 2. Bond Projects • GEVKIT~ ,uvir~v~. - AND STORMWATER RIG~AN -DRAINAGE GTS• PETE HAISLIP - nTnvrAN _ VALLEY rr~a~nv .~.. ~~...~_____--- - - ~CHp • AND RON EDWARDS -FIRE HYDRANTS. SPRING P. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (1) Discussion of Personnel Matters; and (3) Consideration of Disposition of Public Property. URC Q. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-12594-8 APPROVE CERTIFICATION RESO URC WORK SESSION COr~TINiJED 9 3. Budget Work Session on Revenue Projections and Major Expenditures for FY 1994-95 PRESENTED BY BRENT ROBERTSON 22 VV171 ilea~a.a+s- - WORK SESSION ON RECYCLING WILL BE SET LATER. EVENING SESSION V vau a v ~ ~.--- -- COMMISSION WAS UNABLE TO MEET IN IANUARY. THERE ARE NO ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS. R. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. An Ordinance Authorizing a Special Use Permit for an Accessory Apartment, Located at 4925 Bower Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of 10 Charles Cooper. (RESCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1994) RESCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 22 1994 2. An Ordinance Authorizing atedpeCatl the Southwest Construct a Church, Lo Intersection of Merriman Road and Cartwright Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District, USCHEDUI,ED1OFOR Church of the Holy Spirit. (RE FEBRUARY 22, 1994) RESCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 22 1994 3, An Ordinance Authorizing a Special Use Permit to Establish a Retail Sales Facility for the Sale of Mobile Homes, Located at 3727 Challenger Avenue, Hollins Magisterial District, Upon the Petition of CMH Homes Inc. (WITHDRAWN AT REQUEST OF PETITIONER) WITHDRAWN AT REQUEST OF PETITIONER S. CITIZEN COMII~NTS AND COI~'IMUIVICATIONS NONE T. ADJOURNMENT AT 8.15 P.M., BLT MOTION TO AD`TOURN UW ~~ A-12594-1 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: January 25, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Enhanced Enfor::ement of the County Decal Ordinance. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S_ COMMF,NTS: Recommend adding 1 person to the commissioner's office during the budget process. It is also recommended that the police request be considered at that time. BACKGROUND' This item was presented to the Board at its meeting on January 11, 1994. At that time, the staff was requested to provide more detailed information on Chief Cease's proposed plan. This information has been provided with a cover letter from Mr. Hodge containing his comments on the proposal. SUMMAR OF INFORMATION'_ The Commissioner of the Revenue feels that additional personal property tax collections could be realized if the County decal ordinance were enforced more vigorously. Two alternatives for addressing this matter have been proposed and are summarized below: Proposal 1 (Exclusively for decal ordinance enforcement) Add one person to the Commissioner's staff specifically for decal enforcement. This person would spend full time locating and identifying both vehicles that are not in compliance with the ordinance as well as other equipment subject to personal property tax. The work schedule for this person would be arranged to maximize the opportunity for locating offenders. A significant part of the workday would be spent either before 8 AM or after 5 PM in order to find vehicles in their normal parking place. The schedule would also include alternate weekends. A quarterly report on enforcement activity would be provided to the Board of Supervisors. ANNUAL PROJECTED NET REVENUE Estimated annual revenue $147,200 Estimated annual cost - personnel and vehicle 25.000 Net Annual Increase in Revenue $122,200 A brief summary of this proposal is attached. ~- i Probosal 2 (Decal ordinance enforcement is a component of this proposal, public safety being the primary focus) Set up a traffic unit in the Police Department. This proposal will be brought forward formally as a part of the budget process. Although the primary emphasis is traffic safety, if adopted, it would offer an a The 1 ob ect vef ofm thelnunitlfwouldecbe otargeted enforcement. 7 enforcement in the-areas of: 1. Speed laws. 2. Decal ordinance. 3, Habitual offenders. 4. DUI. 5, Major highways. 6. Parking violations. ANNUAL PROJECTED NET REVENUE Projected: 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year Gross Revenue Cost Net Revenue $190,285.92 190,285.92 190,285.92 190,285.92 $231,706.40 126,643.69 132,975.88 139,624.67 Total Projected Net Revenue for 4 Year Period $(41,420.48) 63,642.23 57,310.04 50 661.25 $130,193.04 This estimate does not include projected increases in revenue from decal enforcement estimated at $147,200. The actual procedure in both proposals is the same: 1. Locate, identify and record the vehicle suspected of being in violation. 2. Commissioner's office does the necessary research on the vehicle to determine if it is, in fact, in violation. 3. If in violation, the Commissioner's office mails a bill. ALTERNATIVES 1. Add one person to the Commissioner's office. 2. Establish a traffic unit in the Police Department. 3. Consider during the budget process. ~-i STAFF RgCOI~II~IENDATION • Since decal ordinance enforcement is primarily the responsibility of the Commissioner of the Revenue, and since that is the sole objective of Alternative 1, Alternative 1 is recommended either now or during the budget process. The proposal for a Traffic Unit can be considered during budget discussions. FISCAL INPACT FOR 1994: Purchase of vehicle Enforcement Clerk (4 months) 1994 Impact Respect ully submitted, ~~~¢/ Don Myers Assistant Administrator Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Motion by. See Below Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens Yes Abs x x x x x Harry C. Nickens motion to authorize the creation of police traffic unit, consisting of four traffic officers and associated equipment, with the understanding that they would actually go into service at beginning of fiscal year July 1st. Prior to that time, Police Chief authorized to recruit necessary people and get them started through the academy; plus a part-time clerk for monitoring so Board can re-evaluate on a quarterly basis. cc: File Don Myers, Assistant Administrator John C. Cease, Police Chief Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue $ 9,000 7,000 $16,000 Approved by, Elm r C. odge County Administrator ACTION VOTE No A-12594-2 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISq*RATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994 ~-~'~'NDA ITEM: Request for $132,600 Boom Vehicles and associated radio ~....,o ~ e MMMFNTS COUNTY ADMIN35ix~l..r for the Purchase of Two Knuckle equipment. Recommend approval. This will work well if we adopt rules that limit requests for brush and bulk pickup to twice monthly and if we keep special requests to a minimum. If we are still unable to recruit part-time help, we may need to address that in the budget process. BACKGROUND' In analyzing the General Servicesa udssuesnor factorsrcome to with General Services personnel, sev r light. In every instance, these factors contribute to the budget concerns regarding the operation of the overrun and to continuing department. These issues are as follows: 1. The need to replace worn out refuse collection equipment. uivalent of 7 full-time people in 2, A shortfall of the eq the Solid Waste Division. 3, A continuing question of how tO deable to do their collectors who are no longer physically job. of using part-time employees to overcome 4. The difficulty the resource shortfall in view of art time pos ti on was restriction. In the past, when a p advertised, 20 or 30 or more applications were usually turnover was not received. Once a position was thated s no longer true. an immediate problem. Today, When a position is advertised, we are fort th Y leave tas applications and when people are hired, soon as they are able to locate a 4 roblempin1the.Solid 32-hour limitation is a serious p Waste Division. 5. The need to re-eva nd brushr method and schedule for collection of bulk a ~/ _~i_~__ ARY OF INFORMATION: The following proposal relates to the method in which we collect bulk and brush, and it Moreover,e in doing e so nit fwill concerns identified above. significantly reduce the budget shortfallannadditionale$400e000 to that regard, we are currently requesting supplement the 1993-1994 budget and expect that, barring changes, the same level of funding would be necessary in 1994-1995. CURRENT METHOD AND COST OF COLLECTING BULK AND BRUSH Bulk and brush is currently collected once per month using rear-loader refuse trucks wiot trucksvwith crews of three eachefor truck. We currently use tw bulk and brush collection. However, with fh 1994 lit isaour plan to remaining automated routes in the Spring add two additional trucks ils of thiso plan werecpresented to rthe of three each. The deta Board in August, 1993. Its cost is shown below: Annual cost of crew (Including benefits at 26%) •,•,•, $ 23,570 1 Motor Equipment Operator I ••••• 42,754 2 Refuse Collectors .•••••• " '••••~~ears) 14,000 Annual amortization for vehicle (7 Y •. 4,500 Fuel ...............................•... 1 Maintenance .••••••••••••'• " '•••~~-~ $102,824 Total annual cost per crew ersonnel) $411,296 Annual cost for four crews (12 p PROPOSED METHOD AND COST osed that bulk and brush be collected by the use of It is prop one Motor two knuckle boom vehicles, each dofv Roanoke hasaimplemented this Equipment Operator II. The City approach successfully. There are 38,000 collection points in the City and the bulk and brush is collected twice monthly on a call-in basis with two trucks and two people. The City previously collected weekly on a regularly scheduled basis. there are 25,000 collection points and, as In our own case, once per month. Under this proposal stated before, we collect only _ we would go to twice per c ~ ved oas a reduction in service (weekly City's change could be per to twice monthly), ours should be perceived as an improvement in service (once monthly to twice monthly). -2- ~~ Annual cost for this proposal is as follows: Annual cost of crew (Including benefits at 26%) $ 24,748 1 Motor Equipment Operator II " '~ ears) hicle (7 Y 8,750 . ••• Annual amortization for 1 ve 10,500 • Fuel ........................... 18 000 Maintenance ..•••••••••••••• " " " " ~~~~ $ 61,998 Total annual cost per crew erators Annual cost for two Driver/Op 123,996 2 Annual Cost for Dispatcher $147,566 Total Annual Cost $ 12,600 One-Time-Cost for Radio Equipment ANNUAL SAVINGS FROM THE PROPOSED METHODS Annual Cost for Current Method $411,296 147.566 Annual Cost for Proposed Method $263,730 Annual Dollar Savings HOW WILL THESE SAVINGS BE REALIZED? As stated, there is currently a shortfall of 7 full-time people in Solid Waste. Th n heave1usehof pa t time and overtime part time. We are also make g Y in the custodial area. Estimates for 1993/1994 are as follows: Part-Time Overtime Total Refuse Collection Custodial $85,000 137,000 $100,000 25,000 $185,000 162 500 $347,500 Total If we chose to be more conservative in our projec the cost ofdthe additional refuse collector to each knuck~54 and the total savings proposed method would be increased by $42, would be reduced to $220an?one Tear payoffland it solvesttheoother in that it has a less-th Y problems discussed earli rso peon each mvehi le torn spite r f the use of an additional p additional cost. Atwo-person crew would be more efficient since the additional person couoldepatorup Secondly ci t wo ld ereducehor in a were missed by the boom p eliminate the risk that a person might sustain an injury remote area with no onekia d thrush nwere collepted would probably Finally, areas where bul be left more tidy with the additional person to help with clean up. -3- ~-~ The proposal being made reduces the need for nine current positions, since twelve are requ~oeosedderAshcanubeeseenefrom the only three under the one being P otential for realizing the full analysis above, there is a clear p savings of $263,730 (or $220,976 if 2-person crews are used) through the reassignment of personnel and the reduction of part time and overtime expense now estimated to be $347,500. OTHER BENEFITS TO BE REALIZED As shown above, there is a solid dollar savings in the proposal. However, the other benefits to be derived are just as important. 1. The immediate need for 7 personnel in Solid Waste is eliminated. Two additional personnel are freed up to help with resource problems in the custodial area. 2. The on-going problem of what to do with dioSbtionsef are collectors is solved because those p essentially done away with. 3. The problem of trying to supplement the permanent work force with part-time personnel in view of the 32-hour restriction is eliminated. 4. The fleet is upgraded since four worn rear-loaders are replaced with new equipment. 5. Improved service for the collection of bulk and brush is provided. PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES In order for this collection method to These rulesewill operating guidelines or rules will be necessary. apply to the size of piles of brush, the number of items of bulk and the schedule of pickups after a call is received. The rules will be similar to those used in the City of Roanoke and we do not anticipate that they would be any more restrictive. (See attached copy of Roanoke City Rules) WHY ORDER NOW? Considering vendor lead time, it will be necessary to order the vehicles quickly in order to realize the full benefit of this proposal during FY 94/95. It is also our strong desire to implement this proposal concurrent with the implementation of automated pickup on the remaining manual routes. This will avoid the need for those citiiod ofo timedmate to two changes in service delivery in a short per -4- ~' a- STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that $132,600 be appropriated two Knuckle Boom d that crews of two be used ~ further recommende R.es~pes~t`fully submitted, ~' ,s~ rdner Smith Director, General Services for the purchase of equipment. It is Approve by, E mer C. Hodge County Administrator ------------------------ - ----------------- -- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: H. Odell Minnix No Yes Abs x Denied ( ) M tion to a rove a ro riatioEddy x Received ( ) c~~ $132.600 from Gen. Fund Johnson x Ba ance Kohinke Referred ( ) Minnix x To ( ) Nickens x - cc: File Gardner Smith, Director, General Services Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Don Myers, Assistant Administrator -5- ~-~ ROANOKE CITY POLICY ~3T_T[ .K ~3RUS~i ~~ B~ 1TE~ coL~.~or~ This is a aurnrnarv oC exist;ing poli.c~ies fox bulk brush and bulk item collecti~on• 1.. Bulk itezn.s and large amo~Yn.ts ul~ brush (b~llakrhprsat 9$182225. scheduled by calling the Publrc ~~orks d sp These materials should be sc.t cut unly after schek trucks da not d to be placed at l.h.F~ Rtr~et i"ar c~c-llection. l he bul service ~lli~ys. Please plc,ce bulk hr. uch <-ncl hr~lk items at the street a e~urliprm .~. Ct.t-c~~ of c,verh~:nd wired>ranches ~.~._- parked vehicles, ~ ' ~~~ thA.n 4i:()() p.rn. they clay before, sc~heclul4d eallectiux~ . 3, itesldents will k~e ~~,ssi~~red ~~ c;~rll~,c:tion date ~ from t oeday5 to refuse collectron, :~It,hou~h the rate can rang two week, Crc~rn thr, tirx~c of their gall. ~{. Six (fi) b~xlk iteiYis <~rca frllr~wed t~; 17F~ set Out at one tune. 5, Large nr small k~rusll ~xmounts must tie ~ nches Sfm lllpi eshof witl-r brandy dii.rmete:rs nc- l~rr~;c~r t:.l,,3n :i ~ brush can bc, set, c,~.~t, wii;i~ l,li~; I,rasl,. aratw l.,ulk~ hru~h, hulk iteztls, trash, And recyClables 6. 1<'lease sE~. when they are placc;cl ~~t 1;h~ street for cullectian. l±;victic-ns t~ncl lar~;c: sLu,r-lr ~;iclc-up will con4xnue to be hsndlad by 7. FZei'use t•`c~ll.er~.t,inn. -6- Resource Analysis ~~~, For Alternate Methods of Collecting ~'~u Bulk and Brush January 24, 1994 Current Method Use rearloaders with crews of 3 each, collect once monthly Number of Vehicles 4 Number of People 12 Proposed Method Use knucklebooms with crews of 2 each, collect twice monthly on a call-in basis Number of Vehicles 2 Number of People 5 (includes 1 dispatcher Impact on Resources A net reduction of 2 vehicles for use in bulk and brush A net reduction of 7 people to collect bulk and brush Re-direction of Resources We currently expend approximately $347,000 annually on overtime and part-time effort in the refuse collection and custodial areas. The 7 people no longer needed for bulk and brush collection under this proposal will be re-directed to reduce those expenses. Service Levels Within Geng4al Services ~~ ~, January 25, 19 Communications Shop # People - 7 regular and 1 part-time Budget - $503,010 Provide installation and maintenance support to all County vehicles Volunteer Emergency Vehicles for some 660 radios. to including Utility Billing, Police, Departments serviced included Utilit Engineering and Inspections, Fire and Rescue, General Services, Planning and Zoning, County Assessor, Animal Control and Sheriff. Installation service includes two way radios, emergency lights, weapons racks, antenna, sirens and light displays. Maintain five communications transmission sites and all portable and mobile 800 mhz and low-band radios. equipment Monitor the Motorola contract for the 800 Mhz console, room and base stations. Coordinate telephone installation and service support for some 900 lus instruments and systems throutinus and bluet pages ordinate the P maintenance of telephone book lis Provide cable installations for computers and networks throughout the County. stem monitoring and control for County Board of Provide PA sy Supervisors meetings. Custodian Services # People - 8 regular and 13 part-time Budget - $370,448 anitorial service to 24 county buildings including Provide daily 7 da -time staffing for the Court House and the Administration y Fire Stations are not included in this service. Buildings. services for 5 Library Buildings and the Monitor the cleaning handled by contract service. Social Services facility now being ecial Weekend custodial coverag ~ ex ensesded upon request for sp events for a fee to recov P 1 Solid Waste Services # of People - 33 regular and 7 part-time Budget - $2,427,153 Provide weekly solid waste collection service to 25,500 residents. rovide back yard collection service to 375 elderly and handicapped P citizens. Provide weekly trash collection sere 1 when backm yard u sere ce was were a carry over from the tim provided. Of these, 2,000 Provide recycle service to some 3,700 resident led, once-per-month are collected by automated vehicles on a comming basis. The remaining 1,700 are sours also providenrecyclebserbvice and are collected twice monthly. W buildings on a monthly basis. to certain County Monthly bulk/brush collection for all resideissbeingcprepared and A complete reporttonthenBoardsinnarfewcweeks. will be provided rovided for some 250 days to individual Free loaders are p residents on a request/reservation basis. Provide weekly bagged leaf collections s Pr v def c 11 t k ng mand until the end of the calendar year. vacuum leaf scheduling service for those citizens requesting collection as provided by private contractors, Provide separate Christmas trThe trees are ground cand the mulch following the holiday period. made available to residents. This contributes to our waste stream diversion effort. Monthly dumpster service is schedules to budget ounty buildings and parks and paid for from the solid w Provide supports for special hernts ec al parkse andV rlecreation Festival in the Park, and of P events. 2 ~~.~ Build~na Maint~" "'^° Service # People - 5 regular and 1 part-time Budget - $537,469 This Maintain and repair some stab ns andlothersgeneralrpurpose.office includes libraries, f space as well as concession s ~ nor constructoioneis performed ras and Recreation Department. required. and cooling plants as Perform scheduled maintenance on heating required. Provide 24-hour, 7-day-a-week, on-call service for County all buildings. Perform staff analysis and input on engineering and contracting studies and proposals for building construction and modifications. 3 A-12594-3 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~~~ AT A V RGINIA HELDIAT THE ROANOKE DCOUNTY ADM NISTRP,TIONROCENTER COUNTY, I MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Supplemental Funding for the General Services Department. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Recommend approval. In next year's budget, we will still need to address the expense of collecting recyclable materials. We may also incur additional expenses this year related to the extreme weather conditions. BACKGROUND' At its meeting on January 11, 1994, the Booaosal fforupreduc~ng postponed a decision on this item. A p p expenditures in the General Services department is being presented to the Board at this meeting as separate agenda item. However, the benefits to be gained by that proposal will not be timely enough to reduce the need for the $400K supplemental appropriation at this time. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: A detailed analysis of the General Services budget has revealed the need for additional funding for that operation for the 1993-94 fiscal year. The scope of the analysis included a review of the operation for the last three fiscal years, a review of each line item in the current year budget, and a discussion of changes that have taken place or that will take place during the current year that will impact the budget. Based on the analysis, it is our belief that an additional $400,000 will be required to adequately fund the operation. This item was brought to the Board at its meeting on November 30, 1993. After discussion, a majority of the members preferred to have a more detailed explanation of the shortfall before taking action. Meetings for this purpose have now been held with all the members who requested them. As discussed in the meetings, the major items contributing to the shortfall are: an increase in the estimate of tonnage disposed of at the landfill, additional building maintenance and custodial cost resulting from the retention of the former administration building and the Senior Citizens Center and the retention of 5 refuse collectors who are no longer able to perform their duties because of physical limitations. A shortfall of approximately 7 positions in the refuse collection area contributes to the high overtime and ~-3 part time expense. Moreover, the age of the refuse collection fleet continues to result in high maintenance cost as well as contributing to overtime expense related to breakdowns. As discussed in our meetings, we are exploring possibilities for reducing expenses in the operation. Some of the areas to be reviewed are the assignment of personnel, route structure and assignment for refuse collection, maintenance of vehicles, services provided and overall service levels. One proposal for reducing expenses in the collection of bulk and brush has been identified, however, it will not have a significant effect on this year's operations. Barring other significant changes, we feel that the cost of operating the department this year will exceed the budget by $400,000. ~'t'AFF RgCOMMLNDATiON: Staff recommends that $400,000 be appropriated to supplement the General Services Operating Budget for the current year, Respect ul y submitted, t~• K~G~/ Don Myers Assistant Administrator Approved by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved (X ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by : Fd~~ard C Koh? nke ._ Sr D4ot~ on to A~~SnvP Staff ~P~emmendat~on VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy __._~ Johnson ___x_ Koh i nke .x.. Minnix -X Nickens _x cc: File Don Myers, Assistant Administrator Gardner Smith, Director, General Services Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance DENIAL A-12594-4 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ""' AT A REGULAR MEEELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA, H MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Claim by the City of Roanoke for Unapproved Charges for Surplus Water COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: 1 recommend denial of the claim. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' By letter dated January 11, 19 of~ Roanoke int the y amount tof a claim on behalf of the City the Count of $224,417.21 for unpaid charges from the purchase by Y bulk water from the Cite r 1993194 pursuant to2the contract dated three months of fiscal y August 13, 1979. By copy of the same letter, a claim was also submitted on behalf of the City of Roanoke in the amount of $213,876.72 for unpaid charges for the purchase by the County of bulk water from the City for fiscal y suant9to the contract dated August 13 t 1979E fiscal year 1992-93 pur By copy of the same letter, a claim was also submitted on behalf of the City of Roanoke in the amount of $320,353.39 for unpaid charges for the purchase by the County of bulk water from the City for fiscal year 1990-91 and the first three months of fiscal year 1991-92 pursuant to the contract dated August 13, 1979. BACKGROUND' Sections 15.1-550 through 15.1-554 of the Code of Virginia describe the procedure for submitting claims to boards of supervi- sors . No legal actiless and until u h claimo has beenapresented to may be maintained un the board of supervisors. A determination by the board disallowing a claim shall be final and a perpetualf the boardaislappeal d to the circuitccourt unless the decision o within 30 days from the date of decision. ~~~ The Board previously considered and denied the claim for FY 1990-91 charges on July 14, 1992. The City commenced litigation on this denied claim on August il, 1992, in the Circuit Court for the City of Roanoke. Various legal and procedural maneuvers have resulted in the City's finally filing this litigation in the correct court, the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, on January 19, 1993. The Board previously considered and denied the claim for FY 1991-92 charges on March 9, 1993. The City has amended its pending litigation to incorporate this claim. Numerous attempts by the County to negotiate a settlement to these erroneous claims have been rejected by the City. SUNIlKARY OF INFORMATION: This claim is for not only the fiscal year 1992-93 charges but also for the fiscal year 1990-91 charges, and fiscal year 1991-92, which are currently in litigation. Upon the recommendation of Clifford D. Craig, Utility Director, the County will continue to pay the City for bulk water at the rate of $.73 per 100 cubic feet for the portion of the water bill not in dispute. This rate reflects the last agreed rate for bulk water before the City "adjusted" the charges for the disputed capital expenditures. The City calculated a rate of $.88 per 100 cubic feet for FY 1992-93, and estimates a rate of $.98 per 100 cubic feet for FY 1993-94. The County's objections to this claim are the same as the objections summarized in the July 14, 1992, and March 9, 1993, Board Reports. These objections are as follows: 1) the inclusion of capital costs that are of a specific benefit only to particular City neighborhoods, that neither serve nor benefit the County, and that are not necessary to meet the City's obligations under the contract or to meet water quality or treatment standards; 2) the inclusion of capital costs to expand the City system to serve new customers in the City; 3) the inclusion of capital costs for significant long term expansions or upgrades of the City water system, (since the City unilaterally defined "surplus water" and the City retains the opportunity to cancel the contract); 4) the inclusion of capital costs for new services already paid for by new users (charging the County for expenditures for expansions or extensions previously paid by new users); and 5) charging the County for "capital outlay from revenue" from current or prior years' retained earnings, since a portion of these retained earnings were previously provided by the County (City expends funds from retained earnings for "capital outlay from revenue," then adds this expenditure to other costs to calculate ~-~ the actual bulk water rate: in effect charging the County twice). In addition, the County has questioned the validity of the 1979 water contract: 1) the contract is unconstitutional in whole or in part on the grounds that the County, by entering into the contract, incurred debt in violation of its constitutional limitations; and 2) the contract constitutes an impermissible delegation of the Board of Supervisors' legislative powers. FISCAL IMPACTS• If the Board allows the claim, the County would be required to pay an additional $320,353.39 for FY 1990-91, $213,876.72 for FY 1991-92 and $224,417.21 for FY 1992-93 for a total of $758,647.32. ALTERNATIVES• 1) Disallow the claim based upon the objections set forth above. 2) Allow the claim and pay the additional, adjusted amount billed by the City for FY 1991 and FY 1992. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board disallow the claim, and thereby permit the City to pursue a judicial remedy. Respectfully submitted, -rl~~~ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Vote No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Motion by Bob L Tohnson Eddy x Denied (x~ Motion t~ deny .l aim - Johnson x Received ( ) Kohinke x Referred Nickens x to Minnix x c:\wp51\agenda\lit\water.clm cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Clifford D. Craig, Director, Utility Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Mary F. Parker, Clerk, Roanoke City Council, Certified Copy A-12594-5 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~~ 5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OFE T ~~R~ COUNTY UADM NI TRATION CENTOER COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT TH MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Report on Phase I of the Structural Investigation of the Roanoke County Courthouse COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: royal. In addition to the repairs made by this Recommend app action, we know of adsi~ha~afrozekandabursttlastdweekln Weeexpect room area due to pipe that request that to cost as mu~h ather 5impr0oves and we arelable to assess the to you after the damage. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: of the Phase I report as prepared by Attached is a copy Inc. for their structural Sherertz Franklin Crawford Shaffner, investigation of the Roanoke County Counoy°ced•inT variousd w lls conducted as a result of the and also the separation of some of inside the courthouse building the internal partitions from th sultant sr report. (beginning on page the Executive Summary of the con 2) that it is the opinion o~ this time and that the struct ref can that the structure is safe a ublic safety. Specific continue to be occupied with no danger to p concerns that do remain, however, includossible ocorrection aslan soffits which need further review and p immediate maintenance item. The "ASSESSMENT OF TnotesT the preliminarynf ndings of pthe (beginning on page 10) de study. From a long-term perspective, the lack of control joints or inadequate control joints may well be contributing to the cracking we have experienced thus far and should be considered for possible structural repair. Other repair concerns include interior masonry walls which have exposed cracks. While these cracks may not pose structural problems, they do present cosmetic concerns. Efforts to paint, patch or plaster these cracks are short-livewish tohconsiderrdrys reappear. As a permanent solution, we may wall or panel covering of thefk ny rid~omsparticularlysto staff wand become "out of sight, out o visitors. ~j-S The consultant has reviewed many of the original documents used for the construction of the facility and also sought the services of an independent geo-technical engineering consultant to assist in the Phase I stud ilit hewiths County staff a to share sany the condition of this fac y related information and experiences in the ongoing maintenance in the facility. A committee of County staff including George Simpson, Ken Hardesty, Bonnie Preas and I met to review this report with the consultant and recommend the following corrective measures for this facility. 1. Immediately authorize the test of the brick soffits and repair/remove questionable bricks and/or the surfroeect these areas . It for b the e rentaled o ha equipment 7 and costs $8,000.00 corrective actions. 2. To meet with the manufacturing company for the window wall to determine what corrective actions should be taken to relieve the thermal expansion problems currently experienced along this window wall. Thi b d et ofor pthe should be included in the upcoming g Department of General Services. 3, Consider placing a cover material (dry wall, paneling, etc.) over the cracks in the interior cinderblock walls, particularly in high visibility public areas, such as courtrooms. While these walls are not structurally unstable, they do present a cosmetic concern and are much more difficult a ore yairs aisc $8 OOOa 00 which Ecould the costs for thes p included in the 1994-95 budget. 4. To continue to monitor the cracks previously identified to determine if further thermal expansion causes additional cracking or shifting and to consider appropriate maintenance after the next warm season. This would also provide time for the adjustments, if any, to be made to the window wall before removing or repairing the internal partitions which are attachedl~orea tebeen walls. As a further maintenance item, suggested to consider latex caa ti ularly n stairwells for the concrete block walls, p to cover exposed cracks in those areas. FISCAL IMPACT: Staff requests that $14,000 be appropriated from Lne Courthouse Capital Reserve, ($6,000 to cover the cost of the study recently completed and $8,000 to correct the brick soffit problems '~j-S at the Courthouse Complex including the front of the jail) . Monies for the corrections to th troomdoand other publicf areas shouldtbe wall coverings in the cour ear budget. considered in the 1994-95 fiscal y STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Stud bbecpa d for s($6,000mmandathat corrected ($8,000), that the Y ex ansion problems further consideration be given to correcting any P in the window wall and wal ultant li g needed at this timeeel that a Phase II study by the cons Respectfully submitted, >~ ~~u--~ ~ohn M. Chamblis Jr. Assistant County Administrator ACTION Approved (~ ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Ref erred ( ) To Attachment Motion by: Harry C NickensEddy to a rove staff Johnson recommendation Kohinke Minnix Nickens cc: George Simpson Ken Hardesty Bonnie Preas Appr ed b , lmer C. Hod e County Administrator VOTE No Yes x x x x x Abs File John M. Chamblis , Jr., Assistant County Administra or Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance /~( ~} ~y~~~ ~ ~-5 AN (~I ~ l+~ ~({„Lµ+ a SLY l 2 Z a 18 ~~= ~ +EEOUrCENTEMM~'` A BumlfWBsg~~~ STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION OF ROANOKE COUNTY COURTHOUSE FOR The County of Roanoke November 18, 1993 SFCS Commission No. 93326.00 Architecture Engineering Planning S ~ ~ ~ Interiors Sherertz Franklin Crawford Shaffner Inc 305 South Jefferson Street Roanoke, Virginia 24011-2000 1333 Laskin Road Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451-6005 ~~ November 18, 1993 STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION OF ROANOKE COUNTY COURTHOUSE The County of Roanoke Commission No. 93326.00 INTRODUCTION SFCS was commissioned by the County of Roanoke to pew ~e a V~~ a ~e pu~o~ of the existing County Courthouse building on Main Street m, this investigation is to provide a written report outlining causes of apparent structural distress and cracking and to outline recommendations, including cost es~s tes for the correction of these problems. This investigation will be performed m two P Phase 1, for which this report is written, includes: Site visits Identify types and location of structural distress and cracking Installation of crack monitors Review of the original Contract Documents for the structure Structural calculations of several typical structural elements Schedule for monitoring the cracks and for completion of Phase 2 of the investigation Written report of our findings phase 2 (separate report to follow) will include: Results of the crack monitoring Narrative describing the cause of cracking Structural Investigation ~ ~r,- Commission No. 93326.00 November 18, 1993 Page 2 Recommended repair program Cost estimates for repairs By separating this investigation into two phases, it is possible to provide the County with an immediate assessment as to the safety of the structu define the cause and magnitude of the long- term monitoring and assessment program to clearly problems. This report represents the conclusion of Phase 1. This report is based on a limited review of the original Contract Drawings for the courthouse, provided to us by Roanoke County, and our observations at the site. No existing finishes or other destructive testing were performed for the purpose of this report. SFCS performed very limited structural calculations on several typical st ~o~ a andewas beyondathe~ scope of 1us analysis of all members and components was not pe , investigation. Any conclusions drawn or actions taken as a result of this report should be qualified by the limitations of the investigation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on our observations during Phase 1 of this structural investigation, it is apparent that widespread cracking of interior gypsum partitions and concrete masonry partitions has occurred at the facility. Minor cracking of the exterior brick veneer is also apparent, as is settlement of the first floor slab at several locations. We did not observe significant settlement of the main structural elements such as columns and column footings, nor did we observe any failure of any structural element. There is no evidence that any component of the supported floor structural systems or the roof structure is in danger of failure, or that any component is not adequately designed for the intended use of the structure. However, the condition of brick soffits does present an immediate concern, and we recommend that a thorough, close - up review of brick soffits be performed as soon as possible. This can be done as an early part of phase 2 of this investigation. In an attempt to determine the cause of the widespread cracking and first floor slab settlement, we have initiated a monitoring program to determine if structural movement continues and the rate of any such movement. Phase 2 of this investigation will summarize these findings, and will recommend solutions for repairs and corrective measures to prevent future distress. It is our opinion that the structure is safe at this time, and that the structure can continue to be Structural Investigation Commission No. 93326.00 November 18, 1993 Page 3 ~~ occupied with no danger to public safety. During the course of the monitoring program, should we observe rapid settlement or other conditions which might endanger the building occupants, we will notify you immediately. Cracking was observed at many locations, including: • Masonry walls separating courtrooms on the second floor • Masonry walls at the mechanical penthouse on the roof, interior and exterior • Drywall partitions along the South wall, parallelling Main Street. Specifically, where drywall partitions intersect the exterior wall. Drywall partitions run perpendicular the exterior wall. Similar cracking was observed on the North wall, but to a much lesser extent • Drywall bulkheads along the South wall and North wall • Masonry walls at stair towers • Brick veneer at corners of the structure • Brick at soffits Observed cracking has several potential causes, and we believe that the cracking and structural movements observed have different causes, depending on the type of distress and the location of the distress. No single phenomenon can explain all of the observed distress. Through our investigative process, we will isolate causes for each type and location of the cracking ,and outline the options available for necessary repairs. In some cases, repairs may not be required unless the County is interested in performing repairs for cosmetic or aesthetic reasons. In summary, the building is safe, although it does exhibit structural distress at several locations. We are most concerned about the condition of brick soffits and recommend that an early part of Phase 2 of this investigation be a detailed inspection of brick soffits (see "Phase 2 of the Investigation" section of this report). EXISTING CONDITIONS/SITE OBSERVATIONS Existing Construction: The existing Courthouse is a two story structure with brick veneer exterior walls. The brick veneer walls are backed up by light gauge metal stud framing with gypsum sheathing, and a Structural Investigation Commission No. 93326.00 November 18, 1993 Page 4 a~ A gypsum board finish on the interior. Interior partitions are predominately gypsum board construction on metal studs, with concrete masonry unit partitions occurring at high traffic locations such as corridors, public spaces, courtrooms, and mechanical service spaces. Interior partitions are non-loadbearing, and therefore are not part of the structural system. `~' The existing structure is conventional structural steel construction consisting of structural steel columns, steel girders and beams, and composite metal floor deck with concrete fill. The roof is also conventional steel construction with metal roof deck. The first floor is slab on grade construction on original grade and slab on g'sd laced on one to five feet of compacted fillthern and Eastern portion of the first floor slab p while the Northern and Western portion was placed on existing soils. Footings are conventional spread footings resting on existing natural soils or on improved natural soils, ~ based on our review of the original documents and on -site testing reports. Along the north, south and west exterior walls of the structure, a continuous glazing system interrupts the brick veneer with the brick veneer above the glazing supported from the floor and roof structure by structural steel hangers and shelf angles. At the first floor level along the South wall, an earth berm extends approximately three feet above the first floor level. The berm is placed against a masonry foundation wall with sheet waterproofing applied to the exterior of the wall. Lateral loads (wind and seismic loads) are apparently resisted by masonry walls at stair towers and elevator shafts. No specific information regarding the lateral load resisting elements of the structure was obtained from the original contact documents or from our field observations. Site Observations of Exterior: The exterior envelope of the building is generally in good condition with few signs of distress or cracking. Cracking of the existing brick veneer was observed at several locations, however, they did not appear to be directly related to cracking observed on the interior of the building. Cracks in the brick veneer were observed at the following locations: Southwest corners of the structure adjacent to the exit at Storage Room A165 and outside Conference Room 155. Continuous hairline crack two brick courses below the glazing on the South and West walls. Brick soffit on the North face directly above the Northwest corner of the womens toilet (room 101) ~5 Structural Investigation Commission No. 93326.00 November 18, 1993 Page 5 • Brick soffits on the North side of the passage to the jail • Northwest face of the main mechanical penthouse • Brick soffit above Room 119 (northeast corner of the building) • At the upper corners of the window at Room 119 • Above brick soffit at Stair 123 (northeast corner of the building) • Brick soffit above the main entrance Windows and glazing systems appeared to be in good condition with no signs of stress and no visible cracks. It was reported to us by Mr. Phillip Boblett of Roanoke County that several sections of glazing on the South Wall were replaced during the Summer of 1993 after they cracked; however, the actual cause of the cracking was not determined. There is evidence that the glazing has leaked at numerous locations. However, it is not known at this time if leaks still persist. Mr. Boblett indicated that the glazing system was re-flashed since the original installation. No evidence of significant settlement of the exterior walls was evident from the exterior of the building. Cracks in the brick veneer appear to be related to expansion and contraction of the brick; refer to the "Assessment of the Structure" section of this report for a more detailed discussion of the possible causes of the cracks in the exterior wall system. Site Observations of Interior -First Floor: Cracking of gypsum board finishes was widespread along the south wall of the building, especially where partitions dividing individual offices along this wall abut the exterior wall. Cracks were observed in each office along the south wall, ranging in width from hairline cracks to 1/4 inch wide. Typically, these cracks are wider at the window sill height than at the floor line or at the ceiling. This cracking is most pronounced in the offices in the east sector of the building, room numbers 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 209, 226, 227 and 228. It is apparent that the exterior wall, at the window will height, has moved outward, pulling the window system away from interior partitions. Only limited and isolated cracking of the interior partitions was observed away from the exterior wall. Similar cracking and movement was observed on the north wall, but cracking is much less severe. At the stair tower adjacent to office number 137, cracking was observed behind the stair ~j-5 Structural Investigation Commission No. 93326.00 November 18, 1993 Page 6 entrance door. This cracking was significant, with cracks ranging in width from hairline to over 1/4 inch in width. These same cracks appear on the drywall finish on this same wall at the secretarial space immediately north of the stair tower. Settlement of the floor slab is evident adjacent to the column in the secretarial space, evidenced by a depression in the floor finish. Floor slab settlement appears to be isolated to this area, and does not appear to threaten the safety of the structure. Along the southwest wall, in the Judge's chambers area, several minor drywall cracks were noted adjacent to the exterior wall. Observed cracking was generally minor and appears where interior gypsum board partitions meet the exterior wall. Cracks were observed adjacent to the window sill and at gypsum board bulkheads above the exterior window system. No evidence of significant floor slab settlement or foundation settlement was observed. At Storage Room 165, located between the offices along the South wall and the Judges's chambers, cracking was observed in masonry walls at the exterior of the structure, but cracking is minor. Other areas of the first floor appeared to be free of significant structural distress and free of evidence of foundation settlement. Site Observations of Interior -Second Floor: Dividing walls between individual courtrooms on the second floor exhibit cracking of the masonry walls, with the cracks reflecting through the plaster finish. Masonry partitions are supported on the second floor steel framing system, and do not rest directly on the foundation system. Cracking is minor; however, previous attempts to repair the cracks in the plaster have not succeeded. Along corridors, continuous hairline cracks were observed approximately two feet above the - floor level. These cracks are less than 1/8-inch wide, and appear to be non-moving cracks. Along comdors, masonry partition walls are supported from the structural steel framing system, and are not supported directly on the foundation system. Along the south wall, cracking of drywall partitions, bulkheads and exterior wall finishes, similar to cracking notes on the first floor was observed. This cracking was most severe in and adjacent to the Clerks Office (Room No. 209). No other significant structural distress was observed on the second floor, nor was any other distress reported by Roanoke County personnel. ~, ~-5 Structural Investigation Commission No. 93326.00 November 18, 1993 Page 7 Site Observations of Interior -Stair Towers: Stair Towers 7, 6 and 4 have cracking of masonry walls. The most visible crack occurs in Stair Number 6, at the southeast corner of the facility. This crack appears to be related to foundation settlement and will be closely monitored. Other cracks in stair tower walls appear to be non- moving cracks associated with movements of the structure (deflection and thermal). Site Observations of Exterior of Roof: The roof membrane is a loose laid and ballasted EPDM (rubber) roof terminated at the edges at parapet walls capped with a continuous metal coping. Mr. Boblett indicated that several roof leaks have been persistent, but that all leaks are now apparently repaired. The roof membrane and parapet walls did not show signs of structural distress and appeared to be in good condition. The walls of the penthouse do not extend to the foundation, rather, they rest on structural steel supports at the main roof level. One crack was observed in the bricit veneer on the northeast side of the main mechanical penthouse. Expansion of the walls during hot summer months is the apparent cause of this cracking. ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS REVIEW SFCS obtained file copies of the original contract documents for the Courthouse as prepared by WKR, Inc. dated September 28,1982, from the Roanoke County Engineering Department. Some documentation of field modifications, change orders, addenda, specifications, and on site testing of soils was available. SFCS was also able to obtain documentation related to the original Geotechnical Investigation performed by Law Engineering of Greensboro, N.C. This report documents the Geotechnical Evaluation performed at the site prior to any development of the site, and outlines recommended foundation design parameters for the proposed courthouse. We were also able to obtain written reports documenting the testing and inspection of the footing subgrades, compacted fill and earthwork operations during construction. These reports were prepared by Schnabel Engineering Company of Richmond, Virginia on behalf of the County of Roanoke. During construction, Schnabel was hired as an independent testing and inspection agency by the County to observe and inspect the earthwork and foundation installation. Schnabel also made recommendations for the improvement of unsuitable soils discovered during the construction of the facility. The reports of the on-site observations were made available to SFCS by Schnabel Engineering. Structural Investigation Commission No. 93326.00 November 18, 1993 Page 8 ~-5 For the purpose of this structural investigati c of Rooanoken Virginia, dated 28 Sept1982, were Contract Documents prepared by WKR, ~ reviewed: ,,' i~i r S1-Typical Details and Structural Notes S2- Column Schedule S3-Tunnel Foundation Plans S4- Level 1 Foundation Plan West SS-Level 1 Foundation Plan East S6-Level 2 Framing Plan West S7- Leve12 Framing Plan East S8-Level 3 Main Roof & Penthouse Floor Framing Plan West S9- Leve13 Main Roof & Penthouse Floor Framing Plan East S 10-Level 4 Penthouse Roof Plans & Sections S 11-Sections S 12-Sections S 13-Sections S 14-Sections C2- Grading and Drainage C3-Demolition and Erosion Control A1-Architectural Site Plan AS-Floor Plan -Level One West A6- Floor Plan -Level One East A7- Floor Plan -Level Two West A8- Floor Plan -Level Two East A9- Roof and Penthouse Plan A17-Wall Sections A18- Wall Sections A19- Wall Sections A20-Wall Sections A21-Wall Sections The review of the documents listed above was to assist us in understanding the existing construction and to retrace the development of the site, particularly the earthwork and foundations, to determine the type of construction and foundations and to determine possible causes of the distress. A review of the original Contract Drawings for the structure revealed that the structure is of conventional steel construction founded on conventional spread footings. Spread footings were specified to rest on existing, undisturbed soils, with an allowable bearing capacity of 3000 pounds per square foot. The first floor is slab-on-grade construction, with the slab founded on naturally occurring soils to the North and to the West of the site, with the slab on the South and ~~i ]>-5 Structural Investigation Commission No. 93326.00 November 18, 1993 Page 9 East portion of the site resting on new compacted fill soils. The original site was predominately paved for parking. No unusual site conditions prior to development are apparent from the documents. An existing creek runs North and South on the Eastern portion of the site, but does not pass under the structure. The creek been redorted to us that the C'ty of sSalem the parking lot to the east of the Courthouse. It P maintains the creek structure although it passes through the Courthouse property. Our review of the on-site Geotechnical testing and inspection reports revealed that improvement to existing soils under many of the spread footings for the structure was required due to the discovery of soft soils and unsuitable fill soils. The Geotechnical reports document the improvements to most footings; however, not all footings were inspected by the on-site Geotechnical Engineers. Footings which were not inspected were apparently placed on existing soils with no improvements. Testing of new compacted fill soils was also documented by the Geotechnica] Engineer; however, it appears from the documentation that not all new fill was tested for proper compaction. Fill soils that were tested appeared to meet the requirements set forth by the Geotechnical Engineer on site. SFCS performed structural calculations on one typical bay of structural framing along the South wall to determine if the member sizes and footing sizes are adequate to support the imposed loadings. Based on our calculations, the structure appears to have been designed to meet building codes in effect at the time of construction, and the footings sized for the specified allowable soil bearing pressure of 3000 psf. This conclusion is based on a very limited review of the structure. An exhaustive structural analysis of all components would be necessary to verify that the entire structure was designed in accordance with applicable building codes, but this exhaustive analysis is beyond the scope of this investigation. CRACK MONITORING PROGRAM In order to assist in the determination of the cause of observed cracking and distress, and as a part of this phase of our investigation, we have instituted a program to monitor several cracks to determine if they are dormant, or if they continue to move. This is important to understand the nature of the problem, and to implement a repair program in the future. It was determined that the cracking along the south wall, parallel to Main Street, was the most severe and widespread. Therefore, crack monitors were placed in four locations along this wall: • Office No. 138, Window Sill • Office No. 138, Partition Wall • Office No. 139, Window Sill • Office No. 139, Partition Wall Structural Investigation Commission No. 93326.00 November 18, 1993 Page 10 ~.5 A wide crack was observed in the stair tower adjacent to Office Number 137. A crack monitor was placed at approximately 12 feet above the first floor, in the northwest corner of the stair tower. Roanoke County personnel placed crack monitors at the following locations on Sept. 9, 1993, soon after the cracking along the south wall was first observed by County employees: Office No. 138 Office No. 141 ,, These monitors have been left in place to assist in the monitoring program. We recommend that the crack monitors be left in place for the next 8 to 10 weeks, and at the end of this time, the monitors be observed. Monitors should also be observed on intermediate dates to confirm that conditions are not changing which might endanger building occupants. Based on this observation, we believe we will be able to document the probable causes of distress and to recommend a repair program, which will be incorporated into Phase 2 of this investigation. ASSESSMENT OF THE STRUCTURE Based on our observations at the site and on our review the original Contract Drawings for this structure, it is our opinion that the structure is safe and that the structure is generally in good condition. Cracking observed at several locations cannot be attributed to one factor. Some of the cracking observed on the exterior of the structure is most likely caused by thermal movements of the brick veneer and an inadequate amount of movement or control joints in the brick, especially at corners of the structure. Cracking at the stair towers maybe attributable to foundation settlement and to thermal movements. Cracking of the south wall along the window sill is most likely caused by thermal expansion of the continuous window system. The window system is over 80 feet in length, with solid restraint on each end by direct attachment to the brick exterior wall. As the temperature of the window system increases, the system expands. Since the system has little to no provision for expansion, the thermal stresses may have been relieved by the system moving outward. This outward movement is very obvious in Office Nos. 137, 138, and 139. Cracking of interior, non-loadbearing masonry walls at corridors, mechanical spaces, courtrooms, etc. is most likely caused by a lack of control joints or slight movements or deflection of the supporting structure. These cracks are not endangering the safety of the structure, but are an aesthetic concern. ~~ Structural Investigation Commission No. 93326.00 November 18, 1993 Page 11 Cracking observed at the brick soffits poses the most immediate safety concern. We have been made aware, by County personnel, that on at least one occasion, soffit bricks have fallen off. This is a serious concern, and the only immediate safety concern. We recommend that further investigation of the brick soffits be undertaken immediately to determine if any of the bricks are loose or in danger of falling. See the "Phase 2 of the Investigation" section of this report for further recommendation for review of the brick soffits. None of the observed cracks appear to P will belab e, eto better unde~sPandlthe cause of they the instituted crack monitoring program, we distress, and develop appropriate solutions for each area. This will be accomplished during Phase 2 of this investigation. PHASE 2 OF THE INVESTIGATION Phase 2 of this investigation, which should begin immediately following Phase 1, will include: • Monitoring of cracks and movements • Narratives describing the probable cause of each type of crack • Recommended repair program with prioritization of necessary repairs Cost estimates for repairs We recommend that cracks be monitored for a period of not less than 8 to 10 weeks. Intermediate monitoring should occur every three to four weeks to confirm that conditions are not changing such that building occupants would be in danger. In order to recommend an appropriate and cost effective repair program, it is necessary to understand the root cause of distress. In addition to crack monitoring during Phase 2, we may deem it necessary to perform some observations behind existing finishes or brick veneer. If necessary, we will have to remove s ntractor~or s ual fled Coun~ personnel to assas us in ay require the help and sernces of a Co Q gaining access, to provide necessary tools and to replace finishes once our investigation is complete. r Structural Investigation Commission No. 93326.00 November 18, 1993 ~~S Page 12 The proposed repair program can taken one of two forms. We can outline types of repairs required and locations, with no detailed documents for use by a qualified Contractor, or, we can produce a detailed set of contract documents suitable for bidding or negotiating with qualified Contractors. Further discussion of the repair program will take place during Phase 2 of this investigation. Cost estimates will be prepared after the extent and type of repairs are clearly defined. Of immediate concern is the safety of the brick soffits. We recommend that the brick soffits be closely inspected as an immediate part of Phase 2 °acclessit ethe soffits FEach section of f this inspection, scaffolding or a lift v~nll be required o brick soffit should be visually inspected and should be "sounded" with a small hammer to determine the condition of the brick and the condition of the adhesive holding the brick to the supporting structural steel. As a precaution, we also recommend that the box culvert for the creek to the east of the structure be inspected for signs of leaking during Phase 2 of this investigation. Excessive leaking of water or leaking of soils into the culvert may cause settlement or softening of the existing soils and may cause building settlements. r ^ r ~ ~,S ATTACI~~vIENTS • SITE PLAN • GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTATION r =e a r d G C 7 ~" W W H N Z ~-5 z W V H NABEL SC E N G I N E E R I N G S O C I A T E S ~-5 A S 2601 SOUTH MAIN PHONE 703 9 3E 239 • ~ 703 953-3863 RGINIA 24060-6627 STEVEN E. CONNER, P.E. JAMES J SCHNABEL, P.E. RAV E. MARTIN, Ph.D.. P.E. - Tecember 21, 1993 Sherertz, Franklin, Crawford and Shaffner, Inc. 305 South Jefferson Street Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Attn: Tye Campbell, P.E. Contract 933584, Geotechnical Engineering Consultation, Subject: Roanoke County Courthouse, Main Street, Salem, Virginia Gentlemen: P.E. of Schnabel Engineering Associates met Tye Campbell, P.E. of SFCS 1993 to observe evidence of building Steve Conner, at the Roanoke County Courthouse on December 6, , e buildin which was constructed in 1983 and 1984 is fon m~ my WaallsWbPoken distress. '1~ g rade. We understand that cracks footings and has a slab on g indows and displaced window frames were first noti ~ wall ands outheast corner of the w 1993. Most of the distress is evident along the sou building, and is noticeable only from the interior of the building. ' i of the cracks in the masonry block walls, and the displacement of windows The mayor ty ear to be related to differential foundation or floor slab along the south wall, do not app y ossible that this settlement, or lateral earth pressure induced al le mansioneand contraction, and inadequate building distress is due to factors such as therm p expansion joints. ossibl related to differential The only area of building distress that appears to block walls in the stair tower at the foundation settlement is the cracking of the masonry >cal indicators of southeast corner of the building. The stairstepped earco oboe he inside, and not on the differential settlement. However, the cracks app y uildin .This corner of the building is adjacent to esere loration, ea annot outside of the b g erformin a subsurfac xp through an underground pipe. Without p g ssible causes of settlement, or whether settlems ble Inc ude compres son of assess the po factor. Possible settlement m°e lhntos h adjacent underg ound pipe through joints and/or foundation soils, and loss of s . It is also possible that the cracking is related to an insufficient number of expansion Y \ cracks re. RECEIVED B joints in the structu ~. *, nct__ R~pM ~~'C' - GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS _ ,~~ BETHESDA,R HMOND I VAR HAMPTONNV~A • BLACKS URG, VA ESTER, PA " ~ •V Printed m rorycbd paper ./ .. We have repared this report in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical P ty, ressed or implied, is made as to the engineering practices. No other warran exp professional advice included in this report. °' We are leased to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning P this report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, SCHNABEL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Steven E. Conner, P.E. Associate .~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ Ray E. Martin, Ph.D., P.E. Principal SEC:REM:mkf Schnabel Engineering Associates Contract 933584 /December 21, 1993 -2- ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~ I AT A REGULAR MEETIN AT THE RO OKE OCOUNTY RADMIONISTRAT ON C LATER COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Requests for Public Hearing and First Reading for Rezoning Ordinances Consent Agenda COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND' The first reading of these ordinances is accomplished by adoption of these ordinances in the manner of cons ant royal aof ethe The adoption of these items does not imply actions, rather substantive content of the requested irenents of the County approval satisfies the procedural re ublic hearing and second Charter and schedules the required P and ublic hearing reading of these ordinances. The second reading P on these ordinances is scheduled for February 22. 1994. The titles of these ordinances are as follows: 1, An ordinance to re 0 block ofrthef south s de of P tersoCreek located in the 630 on the petition of J. Road, Hollins Magisterial District, up Edward Conner and Cary M. and Shirley I. Cunningham. 2. An ordinance to rezone 2.43 acres from C-2 Conditional to Cave to allow retail uses, located at 4037 Electric Road, Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of A & M Enterprises LLC. MApB ARE ATTACHED; MORE DCLERR'S OFFICE ~TION IS AVAILABLE IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: 1. That the Board approve and adopt the first reading of these rezoning ordinances for the purpoforoFebruaryl22g the second reading and public hearing 1994. 1 ~ i-a enda be, and hereby is, 2, That this section of the ag approved and concundre2 linclusive,cand that theaClerk is forth in Items 1 a law to set authorized and directed where required by forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this action. Respectfully submitted, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Ref erred to _-. Motion by Vote No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Nickens Minnix 2 G-i 4 •I I NORTH r 17 ~ ~ ~~ y. ' ,: ~ ~ :- 0 ~ O 7 ~~ . ~ P . .. .~ 18 \ ~\ 9 'yr, Nurthmont ,••:' ' ° r~ b• • 1 ~, \,I) \\ 8 e ~„ 1130 ~. o \ \ \ "- 18 19 _ \ ~h •L j ° \\7 ~J O i ~- ~ - \ a T o ~, 2 ~~ ° a O 1 ' or~~ 0 \\ c, / 6 ~ ~ I ~o rs 1 ?] ]II ]IIl ~~ \ /~ /1 ~- 6 \ ` ~ : • a `~ \ \ 4 \ ~ '' , ,e 31 30 „29 ~ 28 0 \ ~i ''•~ ~ ~ r ' a ~C.`.s~ r 7 ry `L `/ Jj I '',` ~ ~3 •1r ~ L• / °~ _ ~ ~~ ~o ~ y~ A ~ i. o ,'~\ C2c ~,~, 4T =~ ~~• 4.06 At \ \ ~ \ \ ~ \ ,\ \ ~ ~ 5 \ ~ \ \~ \ \ \~ 6 \ ~ ~ 6.66Ae \ ~ \ \ ~ \ \` ~ \ ~ \ \ ~ \ ~ . ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ \ ~ ~ \ \ ~ \ ~ ~ \ \ \ ~. ~ 4 ~ \ \ ~ \ ---------- •N DEpp,R~~ pF PLANNING PETITIONER: J. Edward Conner/Gary M. & Shirley Cunning am . REQUEST: Rezone C-2c to C-2 11, -12, -33, -34, P/O 27.13 - .` AND ZONING TAX MAP: 27.13 - 5 - 8, -9, -10, - 27.13 - 5 -13, -14, -30, -31, P/O 27.13 -5 -32 . - . u ~CROFT~~, 0 ax 1409 ~ do 1 o 1 9o'fE. PIF~~~~ y .c :`, pUAiLVALC! :COND 0400 ~ ~ ~ ' ! .~ 1 C~-a Q - _ ~ ~,~~ o SLI . v 'o ~~ z / _ ' 6y I ~ p a•~2 c ~ Dt~ a .. ~, G~P~c ~ ~ 52.: . ~ N w/ ~ . Ql\ , A~ - 1.10 Ac \ . ~ 1 ~ ~ .OSAa ` f-D ~ / 49`,`Mi`~• ~ ~ 'off ~/ ~ptg ~ ~ie~ ~t (, ., ~ a _ J1•,s M 3956 ` ~ L~G / red' • a O ~ r..te ~ 7~0j 44.1 •~~C - ...• ` ~ ~qi 204 7y ~a Bj ood ~~ o k'y ~ - ~' - /. -: /9~ j - \ 38 - .' J9J9 ~ / ~°o~s 'i a;~ ~ so?l43 2 og ac (ol - 3,a2 Ac ICI z ~ .:X ~ . '~ vovJ ~~ 36 ~2 - , ' CZ~. 30 ~ ., - ~ C 2G - ~_. .. ~~F ~ ~a - crr ac - y / ~~ a,~ ~ - ~ ~, ~ - 31 ~ 31.1 • I.as Ac 34 (~ r . ///~~~p, i `DTI e< . - t O IJ06 220 d- _ -~p 32 .ti~ ~~ie* ray _ f.69 Ac 33 - 2.GS Ac '- - ~ 24 - 2 26 Ac - _ ~ 'j~s - Let Ac "' ~ 32.1 -~ raii _ 322 5.36 ac ~ . ' 4• ~.. - - _ 21 "• 4 - l .. ~. PETITIONER A&_ rp ses, Ll t :.. ~ - . •~ OF PLANNING '` ' ~ - DEPARTIMEN'r ~ f ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~; ~: REQUEST: Rezone C-2c to C 2 _. _ -; - ', ~ _ _ R AND ,-, K ,~~ M 9, -40, - 87 07 1 3 4 • ~- ZONING AP: _ _ _ . .: _ 7 .,.: _ a, ... r ^~ r.r. ; a - ~ _ .. _.--- ,--- ~- t AT A REGULAR MEETING OF $H ROB1I1pREOCOBUNTYRADMINISTRATIONO CENTER Y, VIRGINIA, HELD AT TH ON TIIESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1994 ORDINANCE 12594-6 FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE HEE SOUTH TRANSMISSION LINEERAND THE OSTARKEY T 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 easements across certain properties; and, WHEREAS, said 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 January 11, 1994, and the second reading was held on January 25, 1994. 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 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: Property Owner Acquisition Tax Map No. Bohon, Judith & Shirley M. Easement 65.00-02-34 Easement 66.04-04-06 FFE Development Corp. Easement 66.04-04-07 FFE Development Corp. Easement 73.00-02-34 Michael Greene Easement 73.00-02-35 Michael Greene Easement 74.00-01-02 George W., Jr. & Carol Drewry 74.00-02-11 Steven M. & Sandra B. Huffman Easement 74.00-02-12 Steven M. & Sandra B. Huffman Easement 74.00-02-13 Steven M. Huffman Easement 74.00-02-14 Steven M. Huffman Easement 74.00-02-15 Steven M. Huffman 77.00-01-46 Brown, William E. & Darlene K. 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; 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: Brenda J. H ton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Clifford D. Craig, Director, Utilities Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 2 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~_ AT A REGULAR MEETDNGATOTHEHROANOKE COUNTYEADMINISTRATIONNCENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA HEL MF.F.TTNG DATE:_ January 25, 1994 ~~~ AGENDA ITEM: Second Reading of Ordinance - Authorization to Acquire Necessary Easements to Construct the South Transmission Line GOtTNTY AD*17ur~mRATOR' S rn~rNrFNTS: BACKGR The Board of Supervisors has approved the South roa riate fundinge and Starkey Water Line Projects along with the aPP P oximately 150 The above projects will involve acquisition of er i es in a timely easements. In order to aecuartial listiofdaffected praperties for manner, staff will bring a p approval by the Board instead of waiting until all properties have been identified. An Ordinance authorizing acquisition of the third group of easements is attached. The following is a list of properties involved: PROPERTY_OWNER 65.00-02-34 66.04-04-06 66.04-04-07 73.00-02-34 73.00-02-35 74.00-01-02 74.00-02-11 74.00-02-12 74.00-02-13 74.00-02-14 74.00-02-15 77.00-01-46 Bohon, Judith & Shirley M. FFE Development Corp. FFE Development Corp. Michael Greene Michael Greene George W., Jr. & Carol Drewry Steven M. & Sandra B. Huffman Steven M. & Sandra B. Huffman Steven M. Huffman Steven M. Huffman Steven M. Huffman Brown, William E. & Darlene K. ACOU S~ dN Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement ~- I Staff would recommend that the payment for acquisition of easements otiated with the property owner not to exceed be in an amount neg lus any actual damage to e~p$ of assessed value of the Count p assessment records or an improvements as ea~abndependent appraiser retained by the County. appraisal made by The first reading of the Ordinance was held on January 11, 1994. ,c~Ter~L IMPACT: The cost of easement acquisition project budget. is included as part of the overall ~"' ;FF RF^nMnaFNDATION 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 to improvements as established by County assessment records or an appraiser retained by the County as needed for the South Transmission Line. SUBMITTED BY: C Cliffo ra ~ P•E• Utility Di ctor APPROVED: Elmer C. Hod e County Administrator ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Motion by: Eddy Denied ( ) Johnson ~ --- Received ( ) Kohinke Referred Minnix to Nickens - +~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF TE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRAT ONOCENTER NTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT TH ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1994 ORDINANCE FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE NEEE SOUTH TRAM MISS ON LINES AND THE OSTARKEY TH 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 easements across certain properties; and, WHEREAS, said 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 January 11, 1994, and the second reading was held on January 25, 1994. 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 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: Acquisition Tax Map No. Property Owner Bohon, Judith & Shirley M. Easement 65.00-02-34 Easement 66.04-04-06 FFE Development Corp. Easement 66.04-04-07 FFE Development Corp. Easement 73.00-02-34 Michael Greene Easement 73.00-02-35 Michael Greene Easement 74.00-01-02 George W., Jr. & Carol Drewry Easement 74.00-02-11 Steven M. & Sandra B. Huffman Steven M. & Sandra B. Huffman Easement 74.00-02-12 Easement 74.00-02-13 Steven M. Huffman Easement 74.00-02-14 Steven M. Huffman Easement 74.00-02-15 Steven M. Huffman 77.00-01-46 Brown, William E. & Darlene K. Easement s 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; 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\doc\agenda\pmm\trans.3 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~ "~ AT A REGULAR MEETINT THE ROANOKE COUNTY UADMINISTRATIONRCENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD A MEETING DATE• January 25, 1994 AGENDA ITEM• Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUNIl~IARY OF INFORMATION 1, Grievance Panel The three year term of Kenneth W. Lussen will expire February 23, 1994. 2. Roanoke Regional Airport Commission The four year term of Bob L. Johnson will expire February 10, 1994. 3. Total Action A ainst Povert Board of Directors The two year term of Bob L. Johnson will expire May 5, 1994. Supervisor Johnson has been advised by Mrs. Elizabeth W. stokes that she is willing to serve another term as his designee on this Board. It is requested that Supervisor Johnson be re-nominated and appointment of Mrs. Stokes as his designee be confirmed on the February 11, 1994 Consent Agenda. Respectfully submitted, ,~ Mary Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board Appro d by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ~~-3 Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by: VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens r K I ~- ~ AT A REGULAR M];ETINEG D AT T8E ROANORE COPIINTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER COIINTY, VIRGINIA, H ON TIIESDAY, JANIIARY 25, 1994 RESOLUTION 12594-7 APPROVING AND CONCIIRRING IN CEREgvISORS AGENDA FOR THIB DATgTDESIGNATED AS SUP ITEM R - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for January 25, 1994, designated as Item K - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 7, inclusive, as follows: 1. Request to Appropriate $2,600 for Environmental Assessment Work at Pinkard Court Leisure Arts Center. 2. Confirmation of Board of Supervisors Committee Assignments for 1994. 3. Request to Appropriate $10,000 to the School Grant Fund as a Supplemental Grant to the Tech Prep Program. 4 ~ Grants Fund fort the atHigh 2Schools That SWorkl Project . 5. Request to Appropriate $750 to the School Grant Fund for "Understanding United States/Arab Relations" Project. 6, Approval of Raffle Permit from Bent Mountain Woman's Club. ~. Request to Appropriate Monies for Computer System and Installation for the Department of Social Services. g. Donation of Right-of-Way to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County in Connection with Extension of Spring Grove Drive. 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 Minnix to adopt the Consent Resolution with Item 8 removed, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt Item 8 on the Consent Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Johnson A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. Hol on, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Dr. Bayes Wilson, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools Dr. Betty McCrary, Director, Social Services A-12594-7.a ACTION NO. .. ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD O OUNTY ADMINISOTRATIONOC N'TERN~~ VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE C MEETING DATE: January 25, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: Appropriation for Environmental Work COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The environmental work has been performed at the Pinkard Court Building in preparation of the donation of this building to TAP. We have received an invoice for $2,600 related to this work. These funds need to be appropriated from the Capital Fund unappropriated balance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriating $2,600 from the Capital Fund unappropriated balance to pay for the environmental assessment work at Pinkard Court Leisure Arts Center. Respectfully submitted, Appro d by, ~~"~' ~ ~ °~-- Elmer C. Hodge Diane D. Hyatt ~ Director of Finance County Administrator VOTE ACTION No Yes Abs Approved (~: Motion by: H Ode11_Minnix x Denied () to approve - Eddy - -. - x Johnson - - Received () Kohinke X - - - Referred () Minnix x To ( ) Nickens ._ x - cc: File Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance A-12594-7.b ACTION NO. ~- ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR gELDIAT THE ROANORE COUNTY UADMINISTRATION CENTER COUNTY, VIRGINI MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Board of Supervisors Committee Assignments COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At the January 11, 1994 meeting, the Board of Supervisors made the following committee assignments: Vir inia Association of Counties Liaison Chairman Lee Eddy will serve as the County's liaison. Economic Development Partnership Chairman Eddy automatically serves on this organization as the chairman. Clean Valley Committee Supervisor Minnix will fill the unexpired two-year term. This term will expire June 30, 1995. Additionally, the Salem Cablevision Negotiating Committee was omitted from the 1993 list. Supervisors Nickens and Kohinke were appointed to serve on the Negotiating Committee on October 12, 1994. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the attached list of 1994 Committee Assignments for the Board of Supervisors be confirmed Submitted by: Mary H. Allen Clerk to the Board Approved by Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator K-~ ------ ---------- - ------------------- ACTION --_ VOTE No Yes Abs Approved (x) Motion by: u ~~P>> M'nn'X Eddy x Denied ( ) Johnson x Received ( ) Kohinke x Referred ( ) Minnix x To ( ) Nickens x cc: File Committee Book Salem Cablevision Negotiating Committee File K~ BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS 1994 LEE B. EDDY -- Fifth Planning District Commission (3-year term expires 6/30/96) -- Recycling Advisory Committee -- Virginia Association of Counties Liaison (As Chairman) -- Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership (As Chairman) EDWARD G. ROHINRE -- Audit Committee ear term expires -- Fifth Planning District Commission (3-y 6/30/95) -- Salem Cablevision Negotiating Committee BOB L. JOHNSON -- Audit Committee -- Roanoke Regional Airport Commission (4-year term expires 2/10/94) ear term -- Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors (2-y expires 5/5/94. BIJ appointed Mrs. Elizabeth Stokes as his designee.) H. ODELL MINNIR -- Clean Valley Council (2-year term expires 6/30/95) -- Roanoke Regional Airport Commission (4-year term expires 2/10/95) HARRY C. NICRENS -- Cablevision Committee -- Court Community Corrections Policy Board (3-year term expires 12/31/94) ear term ex fires 8/1/94) -- Social Services Advisory Board (4-y P -- Salem Cablevision Negotiating Committee A-12594-7.c ACTION # ITEM NUMBER MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Appropriation to the School Grant Fund COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: lemental grant has been awarded to the BACKGROUND: A $10,000 supp Roanoke area Tech Prep Consortium for which the Roanoke County School System is the fiscal agent. This grant will be used the place teachers from the or threectoofiveldays to gain some g eal- consortium in a business f The grant money world experiences in their instructional area. will be used to pay for substitute teachers. FISCAL IMPACT: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriation of the $10,000 to the School Grant Fund. i d, Director Elmer C. Hodg Garland J. County Administrator Vocational & Adult Education ------------------------------ --------------- VOTE ACTION No yeS Abs H. Odell Eddy x Approved ( x) Motion by:, rove Johnson x Denied ( ) Minnix motion to aPP Kohinke x Received ( ) Minnix x Referred ( ) Nickens x To CC: cc: File erintendent, Roanoke County Schools Dr. Bayes Wilson, Sup Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance FROM THE MINUTES OF THEON AT T7 P M 000N JANUARYF 13~A 19 9 4 INUTHE MEETING IN REGULAR SESSI BOARD ROOM OF THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, SALEM, VIRGINIA. RESOLIITIOCHOOL~U GRANT FUNDOASO A ASUPPLEMENTAL TO GRANT TO THE TECH PREP PROGRAM. WHEREAS, a $10,000 supplemental grant has been awarded for use with the Education in the Work Force phase of the Tech Prep program whereby substitutes are engaged to allow teachers to go into the business community; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the County School Board of Roanoke County on motion of Barbara B. Chewning and duly seconded, requests the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to appropriate $10,000 to the School Grant Fund for the Tech Prep Program. Adopted on the following recorded vote: AYES: Jerry L. Canada, Barbara B. Chewning, Charlsie S. Pafford, Maurice L. Mitchell, Frank E. Thomas NAYS: None TESTE• ~~ ~ %~__-,, Clerk A-12594-7.d ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~~ MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994 Request for an Appropriation to the School Grant AGENDA ITEM: Fund COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND Burton William Byrd High Scho ed for ca ograntlto integrate lacademic and Technology Center apple roach. vocational education A esugech PrepoConsortibm is t ative,pschool Begun under a Roanoke ether along with parents, based teams at both sites will work postsecondary institutions, business/industry representatives, Consortium to William Byrd Middle School, and the TechsP ategies to create restructure c that Work"r tgboth a d eSive R structuring of general "High Schools time, cooperative learning, the education offerings, joint planning rd High School, addition of Principles of Technology at William By ment, interdepartmental teaming, educators in the staff develop learning, student involvement, integrated workforce, quality learning, building partnerships, and program awaositive astudent examples of initia ro ee texpected to deliver p outcomes from this p j SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1, 1994 - June 30, 1994, Roanoke County For the period January Schools has received from the Virginia Department of Educatip nt $12, 500 grant for the sagh eriodl and a grant award will bee issued project is for a five y P each year. FISCAL IMPACT: 50o match required. Funds are available in the school operating budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends an appropriation of $12,500 to the School Grant Fund for the period January 1, 1994 - June 30, 1994. ~~C'~ ~ Elmer C. Hodge Garland J. dd, Director County Administrator Vocational Adult Education K-y -2- VOTE ACTION No YeS Abs Eddy x Approved ( x ) Motion by: x Odel 1 M___ i i nix_ Johnson ~- Denied ( ) motion to a r Kohinke ~- Received ( ) Minnix _x- Referred ( ) Nickens ~_ To CC: cc: File Roanoke County Schools Dr. Bayes Wilson, Superintendent, Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance KY FROM THE MINUTES OF THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY MEETING IN REGULA SCHOOLIADMINISTRA ION BUILDINGY SALEM9VIRGINIAE BOARD ROOM OF THE RESOLUTION REQUESTING AN APPROPRIATION OF $12,500 TO THE SCHOOL GRANT FUND FOR THE HIGH SCHOOLS THAT WORK PROJECT. WHEREAS, a $12,500 grant, known as High Schools That Work, has been received from the Virginia Department of Education for William Byrd High School and Arnold R. Burton Technology Center to integrate academic and vocational education through a school site-based team approach; BE IT RESOLVED THAT the County School Board of Roanoke County on motion of Barbara B. Chewning and duly seconded, requests an appropriation by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County in the amount of $12,500 to the School Grant Fund for the High Schools That Work project. Adopted on the following recorded vote: AYES: Jerry L. Canada, Barbara B. Chewning, Charlsie S. Pafford, Maurice L. Mitchell, Frank E. Thomas NAYS: None TESTE : ,~ ~~ ~ - Clerk A-12594-7.e ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~~ 1994 MEETING DATE: January 25, AGENDA ITEM: Request for Appropriation to the School Grant Fund COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: School Board has received a grant in BACKGROUND: The Roanoke County the amount of $750.00 fro for the pro ect "Understanding United Humanities and Public Po11CYThe purpose of the grant is to support States - Arab Relations. on April 13, 1994 entitled Changing workshop the teacher training the Arab World Times and Attitudes Toward the Middle Easotf Roanokeg ounty teachers in Secondary Schools. The accessibility ro ram. to the workshop will enhance the international studies p g FISCAL IMPACT: None. Revenue ud eet ed llnoffdset expe ditureds budgeted in the school operating b g Staff recommends appropriation of the STAFF RECOMMENDATION: $750.00 to the School Grant Fund. Elmer C. Hodge David M. Wyme County Administrator Supervisor of ocial Studies ----------------- ----------------- --- VOTE ---------- ACTION No Yes Abs Motion by:u n~Pll Minnix Eddy ~- Approved ( x) Johnson ~- Denied ( ) Kohinke ~_ Received ( ) Minnix ~_ Referred ( ) Nickens ~_ To CC: cc: File Dr. Bayes Wilson, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance K-5 FROM THE MINUTES OF THE CAT T7 P M OOON BOANUARY 13~A 19 9 4 INUTHE MEETING IN REGULAR SESSION BOARD ROOM OF THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, SALEM, VIRGINIA. REQUEST FOR AN APPROPRIATION OF $ 7 5 0 . 0 0 TO THE SCHOOL GRANT FUND FOR UNDERSTANDING UNITED STATES/ARAB RELATIONS PROJECT. WHEREAS, the County School Board of Roanoke County has been granted $750.00 by the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities and Public Policy for the project "Understanding United States - Arab Relations," and WHEREAS, the grant money will be used to support the Times teacher training workshop on April 13, 1994 entitled Changing and Attitudes Toward the Middle East: Teaching the Arab World in Secondary Schools; BE IT RESOLVED THAT the County School Board of Roanoke County on motion of Barbara B. Chewning and duly seconded, requests an appropriation by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County in the amount of $750 to the School Grant Fund. Adopted on the following recorded vote: Jerry L. Canada, Barbara B. Chewning, Charlsie AYES: S. Pafford, Maurice L. Mitchell, Frank Thomas NAYS: None TEST --" Clerk A-12594-7.f ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR HELDIAT THE ROANOKE COUNTY UAUMINISTRp,TIONRCENTER COUNTY, VIRGIN MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994 AGENDA ITEM• Request for Approval of a Raffle Permit from the Bent Mountain Woman's Club COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Bent Mountain Woman's Club has requested a perm 1 cat on has raffle in Roanoke County on April 12, 1994. This app been reviewed roved he The appl cation ise on ufile dinethecClerkas that it be app Office. The organization has paid the $25.00 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the application for a Raffle Permit from the Bent Mountain Woman's Club be approved. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: / / /~ Mary Allen Elmer C. Hodge Clerk to the Board County Administrator ------------------------------ Approved (X) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by: ~ nr3P 1 1 M; nn; x VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy x Johnson x Kohinke x Minnix x Nickens x cc: File Bingo/Raffle File PERMIT APPLICATION _~, RAFFLE ~ Application is hereby made for a raffle game permit. This application is made subject to all County and State laws, rules, ordinances, and regulations now in freed to bha the y undersigned hereafter and which are hereby ag Y applicant and officers of the organization and which shall be deemed a condition under which this permit is issued. Raffle games are strictly regulated by Title 18.2-340.1 et. se of the criminal statutes of the Virginia Code, and by Section 4-86 et. se of the Roanoke County Code. These laws authorize the County Board of Supervisors to conduct a reasonable investigation prior to granting a raffle permit. The Board has sixty days from the filing of an applica evoke the perm tdofyanyeorganization found not tonbe suspend, or r in strict compliance with county and state law. U I ~~ S Name of Organization `~~rl,~ ~~10v ~~~:1 +~^ ~M~c '" C` V ~~,~;-~ ~l`-Nn ~~ Mailing Address City, State Zi Code , When was the organization f,punded? ~'~- 13~ y Purpose and Type of Organization 1 c~ Yt ~ ~ ~ C Has the organization been in existence in Roanoke County for two continuous years? YES ~ NO Is the organization non-profit? YES / NO Is the organiz tion exempt under §501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code? YES ~ NO Attach copy of IRS Tax Exemption Letter. (If applicable) Does your organization understand that any organization found in violation of the County Bingo and Raffle Ordinance or Section 18.2- 340.10 et. se of the Code of Virginia authoriersonthshareholder, subject to having such permit revoked and any p agent, member or employee of such organization who violates the above referenced Codes may be guilty of a felony? ~ e S Does your organization understand that it must maintain and file complete records of receipts and disbursements pertaining to Raffle games and that such records are subject to audit by the Commissioner of the Revenue? y ~ 5 COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA POANOKEOVA 24018 COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE R l Does your organization understand th arson 1 or firmatiag ociation~ enter into a contract with any p organization (other than another qualifi a tnershipt or corporation _ § 18.2-340.13 of the Code of Virginia), p he ur ose of organizing, of any classification whatsoever, fir fit, p P managing, or conducting Raffles ? DESCRIBE THE ARTICLES TO BE RAFFLED, VALUE OF SUCH ARTICLES: Article Description Fair Market Value ~~ 1~1ue. ~~~'u~=~ G DATE OF RAFFLE l~ ~p c-~ ~ ~ ~` ~ ` `~ If this application is for an ANNUAL RAFFLE PERMIT, list below all t dates raffles will,be•held. Any organization holding a permit to conduct bingo games or raffles shall use twelve and one-half percent (12.50 of its gross receipts from all bingo games or raffles for those lawful religious, charitable, community or educational purposes for which the organization is specifically chartered or organized. (County Code $4-101) Statensdetail the plannedeorrintendedruseRoffthe proceedse used. List i Use estimated amounts if necessary. S~--h ~u ~ S~~ ~ c~ ~ ,~ ~.~,, : C:a <~ COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIItGINIA P.O. BOX 20409 COMNIISSIONER OF 1'HE REVENUE ROANOKE, VA 24018 a Specific location where Raffle drawing is to be conducted? Ot'ficers of the Organization: President: ~ ~C~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~~ y ' Phone: G~~1 - ``~ ~~ 4 Address: ~~ &, Phone : ~~`7 - y ~ I C~ Vice President: (je~~c~ ~ ~ ~~ - Address: ~ ~ ~u ~C ~ ~ ~Pr~{- VYI-~h l~ !~ ~~~C~ ~~7 t , Phone : `1 r~~1 ~ y ~ ~ Secretary ~: C ~`t h P ~" ~~ ~- ~~~ ~% ~ n Address : (`~ !~ ~ " , n Phone : R,~~~ - ~ `~ C~_C- Treasurer : i- it ~ ~ Y, ~ ~" ~"~c~~~ Address: Member authorized to be responsible for Raffle operations: Name : ~~ ~~ ~' ~~ lam, (~ ~ '(~~~~-~ . ~ A ~~ ~~ Home Address ~,~" ~~~} r~cY ~~ Phone ~~~ ~~ ~~~~~,_ Bus Phone Member responsible for filing financial report required by the code if your organization ceases to exist: Name : [, ~ ~ , vi ~. !~",~ ~~ - -, ~_ ~ ~ ~~ ~ C3.5`7 r~ (~~~~_~ ~~~~,~ u~ Home Address ~;~# ~~ ~- c; ~ r ~~ Phone ~~~~i - `~ ~ C~ Bus Phone Does your organization understand that it will be required to furnish a complete list of its membership upon the request of the Commissioner of the Revenue? ~ S Has your organization attached a check for. the annual permit fee in the amount of $25.00 payable to the County of Roanoke? / IF ALL QIIESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED, PROCEED TO NOTARIZATION. COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA P.O. BOX 20409 COr~IlVIISSIONER OF THE REVENUE ROANOKE, VA 24018 3 NOTARIZATION THE FOLLOWING OATH MUST BE TAKEN BY ALL APPLICANTS: K-(a swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury as set I hereby forth in §18.2 of tto the best of my knowledge,ainform t ona and statements are true beliefs. All questions have been answered. I further 18eZr340a1 I have reaf the CoderofaVirginiatandhSectione4-86 etc•se of the et. se o Roanoke County Code. Siqned by: ~~t~~ L°,,h,c..v r mca,n ~ ~~I Uhl o~ b Sri . ~- dYle~.n~ ~aa~ d~~a~ VV~ ~ -~ Title Home Address da of J N 19 9~ in the Subscribed and sworn before me, this 13r~ Y _1--- of FLDyD , Virginia. County/e~'tY My commission expires:.Ti.~_y .~/ 1995 r Publ' NOT VALID UNLESS COUNTERSIGNED lication, having been found in due form, is approved The above app and issued to the applicant to have effect until December 31st o this calendar year. ~~y~ ~ ~ Date ommiss oner of t Revenue The above application is not approved. Date Commissioner of the Revenue COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA P.O. BOX 20409 COM1VIIgSIONER OF THE REVENUE ROANOKE, VA 24018 4 A-12594-7.g ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~~ AT A REGULAR HELDIAT THE ROANOKER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIONRCENTER COUNTY, VIRGIN MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994 AGENDA ITEM' Request to Appropriate Monies for Computer System and Installation for the Department of Social Services COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ,1~~u~y+ 0~ BACKGROUND' The County of Roanoke's Department of Social Services will be participating in the ADAPT program which automates many of the data functions of the Social Services programs. The cost of wiring and installing the proposed computer equipment is $20,832 which will be reimbursed 100% by the state. The State has also recommended that the computer used for the Food Stamp Employment and Training Program (FSET) needs to be upgraded at a cost of $4,000 which is also 100$ reimbursable. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the upgrade to proceed for the FSET program and also allow the installation of the ADAPT system since it requires no additional County monies. FISCAL IMPACT' None. The ADAPT cost of $20,832 and the FSET amount of $4,000 is 100 reimbursable from the State. ALTERNATIVES' No. 1 - Authorize staff to proceed with the installation of the ADAPT system and upgrade the computer of the FSET program. No. 2 - Do not participate in the upgrade program. In the case of the ADAPT program, we may have to bear the total cost if the installation occurs at a different time. K-'1 RECOMMENDATION• Staff rou°ts of $201832nand $4 000 which are 00$ reimbursable mentioned am by the state and authorize the work to be performed. Respectfully submitted, Approv d by, ~ ~~~ _ ''~ ohn M. Chambli , Jr. Elmer C. Hodge Assistant Administrator County Administrator ------- -----------------------ACTION -- VOTE Motion b H Odell Minnix No Yes Abs Approved (x) y' Eddy x Denied ( ) motion to a~rrnve Johnson x Received ( ) Kohinke x Ref erred ( ) Minnix x To ( ) Nickens x cc: File John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant Administrator Dr. Betty McCrary, Director, Social Services Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance ACTION NO. A-12594-7.h ITEM NO. AT A VIRGII~NRIA EHELDGATFTHEEROANOKEOCOUNTYRADMINISTRATIONOCENTER COUNTY, MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Donation of right-of-way to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County in connection with extension of Spring Grove Drive. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This consent agenda item involves the donation of the following parcel of land in connection with extension of Spring Grove Drive for development of Hills of Spring Grove Subdivision in the Vinton Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke. a) Donation from C & S Development Corp., a Virginia corporation, of the fee simple interest in a parcel of land within the future street extension being shown on the plat made by Buford T. Lumsden & Associates, P.C., Certified.Land Surveyors, dated May 7, 1981, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, in Plat Book 9, page 191, as a cross- hatched area between Parcel "C" and Parcel "D", a partial copy of which is attached hereto. County staff has inspected the location and dimensions of the property and has approved the same. FISCAL IMPACT' No county funding is required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the donation of right-of-way for extension of Spring Grove Drive. Res a tfully submitted, is ie L. Hu ma Assistant County Attorney Action Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Harrv C' NirkanG Vote No Yes Abstain Eddy x Johnson x Kohinke x Nickens x Minnix x cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy Action No. 12594-7.h for donation of right-of-way to the Board visors of Roanoke County in connection with extension of Spring Drive, adopted by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors by a unanimous recorded vote with one abstaining on Tuesday, January 1994. .. ~~ ~. Brenda J. lton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of of Super- Grove 25, b C~2 In -I _. - e-i `~ xr ~ ~ ? Z ;" .t ~ ~h ~ ~ ~ v U N z°~> W'~s ~~y Jj `` ~~ ~~a ~~ °y,t - - W i W ~ i vi 2 i 7,/ ~' 'w xti 5 w tVA ~ - iV~• sm¢~QyyW SG ~uZ / „ lQ `•O` " 3Y J( a' WW( JOS. J I , d t •~ W ~ ` 6~ ~? V .,' 1 t we`d \ ~ k :1 ".~ \ ~ ~ v V ~ ,hjyn . a/ ! o ~~ a. ~ I V ~ .~!~~~ .sr~l ~ ~~s1 ~ X1:51• r W J ,; ~ ~ \•: /, c, / _ u~° oar ° .,, /`!~ ~ h ,: \ ~;ff• l;' i~ay~ . ~ 51 15, t•, r` Y ~ ~ 1 ~ L.Y~ ! ' 1:1 Ya /~ ~r~" f.~ ` it ~~~° ~~\d If RPJS e ; a ~ ~"•~' ~ ~ ° f~ c ~~_ W ~. ~ I/ ,~ ~ ~ _I ~ Q iii `•/'~ 2~ , V ~ t v \ V ti l~ ~ \"J %~ \' i v 1 i~ 5l 1 t r f- w ti'. a_ .1 ti \' 'I\ j ~j ~ ~~) ~ I\~ . ~ %j' ~ ~" Od ,~ ''~.r if J ~t ~ ~ r t ~ Q I ~: \ ~ a' iQ ~ Z .~ '. iu, fM wr ~f~ ~ /ice 1~. OJ~ _ . o I ~ ~~ , ~ ,': r < fr3`s o` ~~ . ~ rs~.5y" 5;11/ ~ - ~ •.._ _ ~< ~~ a ~, ~ .i -- .._ N-i COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BAI-ANCE Amount Beginning Balance at $6,936,009 July 1, 1993 (Audited) Original 1993-94 Budget Addition to reserve 80,668 August 24, 1993 VDOT Revenue Sharing Match (25,000) October 26, 1993 Purchase of ladder truck 203,733 January 3, 1994 IDA -acquire 15 acres from 500) (272 Friendship Manor , January 11, 1994 IDA donation -balance of land acquisition from Friendship Manor and water line installation (190,000) January 11, 1994 IDA donation -Jack Smith Park 99 189 land acquisition Balance at January 25, 1994 6 226 255 Submitted By Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance % of General Fund Expenditures 8.__. Note: On December 18, 1990, the Board of Supervisors adopted venues $77,411,447)maintain the General Fund Unappropriated Balance at 6.25% of General Fund re N-a July 13, 1993 COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE Beginning Balance at July 1, 1993 $136,635 (Audited) Northside High School Ball Fields 62 000 Balance as of January 25, 1994 $---4_ 5 Submitted by ~,L_CX.rrv Yom,'. ~`~~2~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance ~f COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY $100,000 Beginning Balance at July 1, 1993 (26,400) July 13, 1993 Clerk of Circuit Court New Position 6 500 October 26, 1993 Codification of County Code $6, Balance as of January 25, 1994 Submitted by Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance ..• Y_ ~. w r n O 1~ O P~ ~ N 1'1 q O H c• 0 0 W 1- n N d 7 C M d G~ >\ N d ..1 !r M G •ti.+N ro ~• ~ O ~.. r W > ur ¢¢ C1 av Y C LL_ OroO C rov[n O d ~ r ro 1 4- E p •.a Z r F• N ~ rWO C ~ ~ 4- O O J U Q rv c «, d H E LL. d r J' ro o N N d 7 C 4- d O r > d d \ O~ C 'O ro 7 O m F- N r ro V d d N U •.+ C .+ ro ro d ro L m C N d F T Z C 0 v C 7 rt L y c m ca o i Cr '' O ~ w tL F~aaavaaavv - - - - I 1 d' .O U l M 0 h o 0 ,,~~~CCJ 0 o h h h Q+ O+ O gq0DD ~ o 0 Q+ o N ..o 6+ T r- O M ~O Lf1 0+: 00 ~ I I c+ M c+ o+.N ~ M v N O+ ' N ~D a+ 'im' o, tfY h M ~ ~ L!1 I11 ~ M N M7~~ M N ~O ltl I ~ T N V' ?~'~t 7 V J V i 1 1 1 O OD ~ ln: O 00 Q+ N : ' J I 1.. J~ V V' u I I h N OD Ch 'O lfl N •+ I • O. h. (" l11 M I I Op h 0D .-.- O: h •- 7 F U 06 +.? 0.t ~ - h ` a,-o oN ~oN NTt Mltttti o M O~ o I ~tnh 111M ~ M h NC+•- Mo h M •- ~ CJ o r~ ~ tT h . ~ l M 'tl• .0 00 f~- ^ N 1i1 t~• OD ao ~ N 1 01 ~ M 1 .- h OD I r..- ~~ 1 ho o o M d• .a V1 oNN NN N N . M a+ I .. ~ N o+ M ~n o N M -- t" .~ N M I ~ .- I ~.. N 1 NN ~ ..- I o+ ~ M 7 u1 M a o h- O0 N o u1 aD ~ Lr h l1Y .- CO D UY +C o M o o .- ~ v o .- h M V' h •- ~t o M U1 h I~• N I .- N •- odc0 N 06 t!1 N N M ~^ M ~-. 00c0 kU N a wo CnCU o h 00Lfta0Q'Ifl h Mh -- MV'N G.~J I V'o00 ~ 1n00M . ^ i ^ ~ M ^ Lf1 h Ul ~ LL1 h Ul O+ , + .6 N 1 :: 00 N ~ NM N N ~ 06 M•000 -- M 111 h oONN . . c Nr- ~OhO I~ i!1 to V V O ~ M 100 a0 ~ ^ I M7~ m ~~ N ~ I ,~ .- 1.~ f I .- '..: •- '.. .- .-00 •~i~ •-G+~' 070.~ 1 Nd•O+V'N W MI`-V c ~~ 1 aD~o~tMmo? oo ~ w M --~^ I'1 h N V N h o N o~ h lh 1 :. C+ M o6 I!l h c~ Mljl.,- ~ o G, 1 h M o N c, ~ N h G.. .- ~ o -- u O0 V t11 Ltl N N E ~ .. I , p MCJ Nt,1M ^--~'~ N~ ^~ F ~ O N }~ ~ . . M V ' F 7 i. tl1NNIV M ,N d 1- - : I r l C d > d C= N d d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0:.0 0 0 0 N N o ap ~ o 0 0 111 c ~~~ 1. 1 000 000 000 000 000 .000 00 .000 0'0 OO 00 UI CD 00:.. hoco Fro oo No lf1 a+^ F. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OO O O O 1 ' ^ ^^ r v I _ _ • ^ . CY+ GO M M o.> ~~N Cho Ul In NUi UN c+ 1 '. 0 0 Ul O o o o 0 0 • Itl o tJ 0 o It1 o N l71 t . J 7 W M M ftl - V• ~ N h O I o o N st m o o M : V h . ; . 1, :. p+ o N N V' M N OD t ~ •- M .-. C 1 lfi N ~ t M N ~,-. ~ I M .- ~ O d L- I ~ m d a m a ~ ~ E r ro ~ c am' m., :.. v d y °; ~ ¢ N C: N d 3 N C O OU+ N L I N ..+ U N Nr O.d x LL. ~ d x N N E 0 ... > ro•~ U> ..a d •p U d ro x L r:.N x " d ro v ~ ~ d v-'V d N - N N E C+ ~ L •.r L ro ••• L N O N F- . ro x N.C I- O d N LL N L O O d ro C ~ d d L d L ¢ 7 F- p . d ::. 1- ro C O x O . d d 7 U U L N ••~ to r o N d o L L '+-• F d .•, ro ELL. N T O d O T V F ~ C W d •~ N. N> •+ O d '+ r d r+ d ro O~ d r U r r d ro O , , O d O' ~ L 1J L K N ~•- ~ N N U Y r ro tL U x L C ~.. x •.•~ N J V d. C: d , .y 'D v L 4, d 7 d r... ro d •.. I ro •.~ 1 •.1 C + ~ .ti ro : 4 .-i L ro L E E to d .N N U U ~ 9 L •~ U ~ : F d U .: •.~ F. •.~ d x N. O .. C ' ~t oo o v ti oo C O 6. •. . O ~ o.~ .~~ ruro -~u da d L~ L t_ L L d O (U l _ d (A ¢ d Cn ~+ C d L> N~ ••, i- U; d U r d N r~ `O U LL. 4-' !.~ O O L d O LL r d ro •.. G` •~+. O L d C Sr ~°- d y~ °: aJ dt ~Ea x o T•O wv- ro'cv' xw c:row ~ ~ ~ +,'+in•~+ N L N N d:C.. roU.'O N O Oro d.N N NN•a L..~W d ~+h..N ULL d N N~rU7 d N•.+>O W I F'tiro~ U~~ d d l .rd rov L r L v- W C U C` - E d t +' <.,, .x O N C:C O~ CT J1 d'>.U d ro ro L ro L L N p..+.•+ dr+ 7 C U L•N:•n ti N L N ~ N'+ N;E.N N •~ C O::d ~-+ d d d E'0..E N L r d d d L L E U O.l L'+- U d;4- d d C T U C UI ro r:,:x .•y r x t •.+ C: L d d O G>> ro ro •.+ N U C ro .r O L ^~ 1= L ro ro L 1J C .••~ L •~ d: Ar L .G d ••+ d O L d 'O r d r r L d d 3 v ro'a o~ L o:ro'+, o ro r c ro_d d ~ ~O_ a d. D_:.-! U m tL ~ F- ~ x F- O¢ J a LL U 0. [i."K tY U U~ E [K 2 to 3 W O 3 O O F- o~NMV'Q•-NM'Q'111wh W Q,o,-`N 'Tf`-ODCno.-NO•~o.-.a o.- V'hMONJNM --NNNNNNNNNCUMMMMMMM~'~•~ `t'1f1~~lll`D`ab.nho3ODao~'~' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J / p ~. N A p g O N 0 0 N N N N N N N N M N I'1 n n 0) ai n 1'1 N A Y f C M m O 1 •- ~ ~ •~ ~ •~ G~ CtJ P' o r~ . e\ - o ~ 0 0 WW '~ [9 F- 6 Q a c~ N a 7 C 4- C a o+~ r > a I a~rnl ~ v I b 7 I. o m 1 N F UI I y } b I V a m > ~ d a 1 N U I ." `V .~ ~ .' y ~ . p„' I"1 ..a C 1 .. ~ ... N .,rol m ., t +n r ~ ,~ ~ a ~0 1 c C 1 N +, W I Ul ~l U ~ ~ I G1 I N t~~ V C lL N I U1 N Ul N N o a l 3 I ^ W Q C1 C I F- a l V` ~ `~ ~ r> I W W.~ ~ rol al ~ 'n C E ..+ S 1 N ~ +~ h- N Z Y Y O W g N I i1' M ~ M_ y,,, T a I Ul Ul O J .+ 7 t C I 1 p'~ M Ul U1 C to C > I ... aH ' 1 C ~ E U_ E0. a I ~ ~ ~ o I v u~ v ,. I 1 h, a] ~. ~ G a i ti a r- 7 1 C .-. m I ^ . ti ~, 1 I ~ '.. ~ d G' N C' o 0 ~ ' Z U_ J Q J F- o r F l7 F- O z a ~ 4 V' Z 7 W I; c I J ~~ n P C p.. N N Y P pIM a PRIN O O W H Q N C O ro L a O L d M a~ ¢ ^ •O M '. rtt C \ •M ro N C •- ~ N W d t- ... U ¢ C Cl ro L lL 1] O E O 7 N U ¢ C O W 1 + _ N F- W Z L O 7 E J b ¢ C v d vi a •-~ x u. W y.. o O y V ~ C 3 7 ~ 4_ N L ~ ~ ~ v v c~ 1 ~ 0. I d O I L E +~ 1 i~~ a 1 rt U Q~ I U C ro V I W 7 I ] N (L• I - eb ro I I ~ 1 0' I L d I y U I d C I E N 1 ..~ I U ro 1 C CI I y 1 C I N d 1 L J] 1 7 E 1 Y 7 I •.+ U Q 1 v cr 1 CWY- I y I a~ 1 x W I e4 C U 1 •n C I ~ A I C L 1 ro 17 i Y E 1 N 7 1 ++ : U I 7 C I O W 1 N N I L 1 7 I '+ V 1 t .N I ~ V I C G I o a. I ~aI x W I I ~ I al UI L I 7 1 [L i I 0 A Z i 7 lt. N N [~ 01 N'1 ~ ^ A PI v `~ o.WUlho 41N~]cr' N~c+M41^ c.om m:d 'V'o?oaDCUu D o~ CU _o N^ c6aDLC1a0Q ' a MIfY.-oD W h N^^A100 .-NM~~Il1 V' V' [r ~7 ' T V' W ~ O ~ M ~ ~ UI '~Y V•N . h Ul l11 N V 41 ~ t t11 _ N M Gi.-.ahoV' NN hc+oh W M W o0d•`~oa oD7M1l1ha0 o sr .~ . J' V Mh o u M o a+tlyo.-p+......o o U1 ' NppC-or- ^ .- h U1 cr ... o a0-N M^ to ^ N . N .n ~nh o r o h N h h N d .. .. ~ _ ~ ~.' ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h a' .a ^ V' W Ifl ~ ~ 00 o .- oD r- st M h N N c c N N ~,,, N o N ~ o o c~ ^ ~ N ~ N M M N ^ ^ Ifr N ^ ~ M ~ m - ~ 4l V' V M ,a C W o7 G+ N M CU o J M o M o ' G+ Ui V .- ~ hMMOD ~- h IfY o} o h N 111 m o ,- o~ o ~J hM o II 7 OD ^ V r. .- f r~ a0 ^ o h M o o c~ c~ N h WN V N t!1 M~ ~N`~ ~' M oG~ M o ~ LAN06 oD u'E nM N how.-M ~' .- r- ^ h m M i + .-- v CU ~~ ,.. _.M .- .- .~ ~- M ^ N 7 ~ 7M7G+ ~ _. ~NII1O N V N Ve N ur ~p h .- 00 V' 41 ~7 .. ~ ° M W M V .n W •- . ,n N N N--. N w. d . . y ~ N •- N ^ v ~ ~" t~ .- sr M h 1.. 4l ,- op c• c+ h h 'Q' M a o h g c OJ! NoMtlr V'r r- ^o o N cP CPh~- P'TODoo~ c o 0 NNNM h ^ c~ X47 Utt~• c N f U^ o v oW o CU M N d' (UN h h M', NG6 u . ~ ~ o o ~ .p M a7r- N _ MuM ~ alN11RN,c• WM^d• o I`• M UIoO1J, N er V W ^ h N N N -- ' o h M Lfl o ~ N to ^ N h •~ N h Lfl f a0h•~ M M h u h N • h u7NMMw - •- tt1 . ~-NO.- N Mh In o to V' o M o} M N N N :. C U ~` h h M ti h u h L~ N c~ G+ Ul •- V- o N PJ ~ M G+ o ? M ~ ,~ 4l N N N N ~- v' N N ~ yE N E c' ro ~ ~ w L ¢ 0 J ++ N L H C ro C 1.... •.. •.. N ~ ?F E U E C dF D V •.. G ~ O N W 6 0. L T ,~ N W Z V- ~ O m > d C +' ~ .Y L N O I L C O Q~ L + F- to U ~., .+ - ~ C U ` ¢ CU ro L N ¢ N ~ q.+ ro 7 x ~ tL N,~ Z O ~ ... o lL m a C t o ~ u «. i' C a rn a n .-~ .-~ •.. c UI C E .. 7 ro. ro~ ~ N O . . +,, 7 N C ye .b .r c9 ~ ¢ F' N ro N 3 o ~ o y ° ~ I o ro 0 o CO •Ei N N ro ,~ N C U o S'Y .~, .. y " ro z o ~ U p E ~.. o B L E W + . 7 G a V- • Q~ L C N E U L L .. .ti O C N . 7 C q Q+ C ro -. M 7 ' ..~ ~ W V o In o o lfl N o o U1 0 lfr t11 0 My N N o 00 N M ~NM p--.. , N N - . . N MM <t:C' lfl.Ut lfl lfl 7 o ^^ M M M N N o 0 0 . 0 0 0 °o 0 0 0 p o o O o N -b' _ ---~`p ~ NIA Y~OI~` ~ p p~N N ~ l~I1S N iV IV~N w/ A AiA A ~ •~ •~ • _ -. N A .t A O M m O N:~ e, l I I ~~ l i ._ I d ill ~ II'I I o:o+ 0O p 00 o ~ ;N 0 0o u- i M N v N7 vo c,Mo oo o0 0 G N.- ^ d 7 \ a I ~ M ~. ~• ° ~ ~ ~ 7 _ M ~ C o Ifl ~° x U O ~ I 1 M W G ro 1 I W 7 I' p N 1 'F - W ro - 1 r 'O i ~ 1 _ P ~ ~ ~' ~ I ~ ~ sTM~i 1 ~ ' O ~ ,.9 O+ OCO V• [O lfl N Mu ~ N ~ a 1 0 V p ' ~ o . - ^ ~o ouo NM N N moo' v .^ G O ' d d U 1. G I cti^ Mtl1N V ~ I :, ~ ~ . :., O ~ + ~ .0 v3 I !1 7 UY 7 lJl. 0 0 o o ~ N. M W .,, E ro I ~ N l!1 'd' Q+ ~ o ~ . O} I~ ~r- V N .n N : Ul ~ aD ^ 7 I o N N t~ U1 ^ ~ to N ~ N O W .- O ro ,~ U ro l r,. N ~' N o ,- M M ~ C I ^ y cJ• .D ~ a v I ~ _. o G I d M N o? m o c~J I o0 v 5 u M1 J -- 00' o N j u ~ m ~ ~ r ~ ~ ¢ L d I ,, i aLl L~ W N C ~;. ° 07 o ~ N O+ o N: `7 i~J f`- o o \ ~ E I V ~ i M N OD L(Y ]j I r, M _ ~ M r 7 . . U i 1 ~,' ~ h1. N N Ut °!.. ^ r• ~ ~ {.J . N p ' t!t I`1 C N I ~ In In I ~• N 1.. ro C\ . :.. oD o W to r` o t!1 M ' . - ~ M M ~ .. : G W I N . ~lJ v~ ~ V aD m ^ C ~ y ! i I - •- ^ , ~ N W O. 'b ~ F~J ~ 4.: W F W I Ul Lfi I •~, UQ 7 C^ Ot a ~ EnO M MN m o o ~ N ' M ro ~ G i ^ N ~- oD m bJ ^ v v '" 'O ro I o N 01. ~ G+ ~ ~ o o N vr` `o 6~. L O x E G 'b L: I i o N h-: M N F ~J t ~ M I i Q C ' R N O 7 r E 7 N N N V C U Q N 7 1 r O W 1 r U l .. it 7 G I i I ^ 2 O I i i I 4- N t- O WZ N ~:• ~.~o ul M~ , N G~ ~ ~ o N V' ~ 7E I ~ I ~ SYmo ~ O~ UI G N a+o v -' c~ M r- T 7 I ,J NN M l!1 M ~ ~ i ~ ~ oD M M o cj ' : ~n (`1 N 1 ~ N M ~ 7 'O ¢ L .. I ~ v. M M ^ J ^ ,. N .~ U O N' I M ... N M M 0.~ ~ d I x W xI f w ~ 4' o itl L(5 M ~- M~ o r N a' o: N M 7: o GD q• O o 0 0 O 7 0 N I. •a ~ .- • N •' M ~' N ~ W N M 0p C j M : v m v VI f- liY a6 ` , . n Of` N o •N.N ~ ~J O? 1~•C,o . ov~o N M o m o N O6 rt a I . a NNp , M ~` ~ ~ o : No t!1 O ttlCO V'U l M N7 M - - M C ~ O~ I _ Ift •- ai h ao - m N •- oN - U7 N N : M a N N 0 N ~ N ^ u1 .o a0 l!l M R 4~ ~ 7 ~ W •p I ~ I : M v~m~-NN o ~ .~ N ^ N. s{ • - yr (y v f'1 7 N ^ ,- a + ~ c0 T U N ~: N ••+ 7 a a a N E C U N C C ro ~ o 7 ro = rn , eb c. E y° .U, o a ... 1 L LO G. O i O. ,.,~ U ~ ..r C N a L N N •,~ r ..~ G O G O a N W Y ~- ~ T U r a U N r L I o 4 3 p N G N a +- N; ~ N 0~ Q~ G E N a' T N C .. c a c N r c v~ 4 V 0 .b •~ •. i E O E tr C d d r U r r N L r • a L -. 1 •• x ro G ro 1 > 1 N :.r 'C r L •~+ r O L L- T •.r C •r J W •O O + N••+ O a C 1 d L.. :ro . Q U G x.r O. N O W a 4O 7 a N " N .+ a ro.~ ~~ fI1 U a U ~•, a N ... ,c N > NN ~ E C G:. ~ W 4 L f C V- F T ` ..~ .~:,::!- O G . d a C M E a L . i 0\ . Q d V O > ~ N VU, W n6 W>^ ro~ O 0] a N w Q d ro' U ~ ' ~n o: °b T '9 ~ o c ro •., .., N o a v ..... ro •-~ a G ~ ~ rn o o W~ 7- G r ~ . , - C W O •.+: O O aD T O a': a~ O N.~ ` N ~ ro N. _ ro N~ 7 h G a r o G ~ o .-~ ~.+ ... o d 7 E •+ a _. Y •.. o:' . f- •,, *' ' . r, N O 4 L r. N [1 x x Oi ,.+ G. > r 4- G . ^ U L 0 L N C : m •.~ N O .-. 0 U~ 3 :..+ 7 E •-i :• ip d F- tr C d a O: ~~ U .+ "'~ N t1 J Q U i d U W N= c W Ll ,, 0 000 o LOo111O° alfl UlollY ONo ~ ~ ~ :.. {fy - -1 M V' lt l ~ ql OD OD W W Q+[`~ d+ O+ G+ O+ 0+ T 4~ O+ 0 ' O O: lfl r -IN ~" ~ i` 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 W I, 1 I R ^ ~^ d. M I I N 7 V' o~ a0 r 7 O N L d 4- Q N Z ro w 1- Q J o I- ~ O ~ 0 H O ACTION # ITEM NUMBER~_ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF N~ ADMINISTRATIONOCENTER NTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COU MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid -December 1993 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Payments to Vendors: Payroll: 12/03/93 12/17/93 12/29/93 $ 586,271.29 545,371.18 527,539.48 $3,713,782.23 1 659 181.95 $5,372,964.18 A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. SUBMITTED BY: Diane D. Hyatt ~ Director of Finance APPROVED: ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE Motion b No Yes Abs Approved () y' Eddy - - Denied () Johnson - Received () Kohinke - Referred () Minnix - TO () Nickens - - - ACTION NO. A, ITEM NUMBER IY '~ AT A REGULAR HELDIAT THE ROp,NOKE~DCOUNTY ADMINISTRP,TIONRC LATER COUNTY, VIRGI MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Bond Project Status Report COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Attached is narrative overview of the bond projects approved in the 1992 Btonal React v ty (Aoftac~hent `A)r a u a Work llcomponents projected/ac (Attachment B). FISCAL IMPACT' None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Questionssted onethe t me 1 ine worksheethor John Chamblissct coordinator li Respectful],y submitted, Appr~ved by, ~~ ~-~ .~_ Jahn M. Chambliss, Jr~;/ Elmer C. Ho e Assistant County Administrator County Administrator VOTE ACTION Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Kohinke Ref erred ( ) Minnix To ( ) Nickens ..~ BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment A January 25, 1994 1992 BOND REFERENDUM PROJECTS PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS NORTH COUNTY LIBRARY Construction documents were completed and reviewed by the designated members of the Engineering, General Services and Library staffs. The construction manual has been completed. Requests for construction bids were issued December 15, 1993. A pre-bid conference will be held January 7, 1994 at the project site. Sealed bids will be opened on January 18, 1994. Interest in the project has been good with a number of firms requesting copies of the construction documents. DRAINAGE PROJECTS Sierra Drive and Fenwick Drive -Several options are now being considered. When staff receives estimates for all options, each option will be presented to the Board for approval. Nottingham Hills -The project is complete. Mt Vernon Heights -Project is 95% complete. The weather has caused some delays. FIRE HYDRANTS This project has been put on hold until spring. Through the end of November, 50 of the 70 listed hydrants have been installed in the County. Due to the increase in materials costs, new DOT requirements and other unexpected expenditures, this project will not meet the goal anticipated. When the weather is suitable, probably in April, some additional hydrants will be installed according to the priority list with the remaining appropriated funds. Attached is a list of the locations for the 50 new hydrants. Roanoke County Fire Hydrant Installation Project PHASE I NORTHWEST: r-~ #50 Boxley Road and Northway Drive # 7 Waterfall Drive and Sundance Circle #31 Hugh Avenue and Peyton Street #36 Hugh Avenue and Estes Street # 6 616 Commander Drive vs. Williamson Road and Commander Drive #34 Greenway Drive and Middleton Street #18 Plantation Road and Santee Road #25 6321 Nell Circle #28 Hollins Road at Roanoke Fish & Oyster #43 602 Magnolia Street and Meadowcrest Street #19 Whipledale Avenue and Twilight Road #33 North Lake Drive and Eastdale Circle #40 5265 North Spring Drive #42 5431 North Lake Drive and Deer Park Drive vs. Deer Park Drive and Heather Hill Drive #51 Eveningwood Land and North Lake Drive #52 Twilight Road and North Lake Drive #59 Deer Park Drive and Sweetfern Drive #60 Summer Drive and North Garden Lane #63 North Lake Drive and North Spring Drive #41 5416 Plantation Road and Vista Avenue #53 Vista Avenue and Meadowcrest Street #64 Vista Avenue and Oakland Boulevard SOUTHWEST: #55 York Avenue and Westmoreland Drive vs. Williamson Road at Enon Baptist Church #29 Starkey Road and Eden Lane # 2 1887 Electric Road at Good Shepherd Lutheran Church #48 Garst Mill Road at Hollowdale Road #62 6335 Roselawn Road vs. Willetta Street and Hasting Street # 1 2505 Electric Road at Our Lady of Nazareth Church #13 Colonial Avenue and Overdale #14 Manassas Drive and Antietam Drive #15 Manassas Drive and Bunker Hill Drive #23 Valley Forge Drive and Bunker Hill Drive #26 Manassas Drive and View Drive #35 Overdale Road and Parkwood Drive # 3 Colonial Avenue and Ogden Road SOUTHWEST CONTINUED: N~V #32 3203 Woodland Drive and Colonial Drive #27 Sugar Ridge Drive and Old Barn Circle #30 Canter Circle and Lakeland Drive #11 3428 Richards Boulevard vs. Colonial Avenue and Girard Drive #58 Forest View and Orchard View vs. Brambleton Avenue and Old Cave Spring Road # 5 4203 Electric Road -Ogden Road and Electric Road #10 2730 Ogden Road at Crestar Bank #57 3434 Electric Road at K-92 Radio Station VINTON: # 8 Washington Avenue (Route 24) and Baker Drive entrance of William Byrd High School #16 Washington Avenue (Route 24) and Maplewood Drive #17 Washington Avenue (Route 24) and Lindenwood Drive at Spring Grove subdivision #20 Finney Drive and Cambridge Drive #21 Beaver Lane and Montgomery Circle vs. Pedigo Lane and Cambridge Drive #24 Hardy Road and Finney Drive SALEM: #9E West Main Street and Allegheny Drive at Richfield Retirement Center ry -L BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment B January 25, 1994 NORTH COUNTY LIBRARY BUDGET CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE S 64,351.70 S 1,500,000 .......~..r .-...,enr~~rro- SPENCER WTTS ACCOl111T CODE: 104030 COMMENTS: Construction documents were completed and reviewed by the designated members of the Engineering, General Services and Library staffs. The construction manual has been completed. Requests for construction bids were issued December 15. A pre-bid conference will be held January 7, 1994 at the project site. Sealed bids will be opened on January 18, 1994. Interest in the project has been good with a number of firms requesting copies of the construction documents. N~~ BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment B January 25, 1994 DIXIE CAVERNS LANDFILL CLOSEOUT BUDGET CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE S 2,750,000 PROJECT COORDINATOR: GEORGE SIMPSON ACCOUNT CODE: 104040 TASK 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 BUDGET OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP SELECT PLANNED CONSULTANT ACTUAL PRELIMINARY PLANNED ENGINEERING ACTUAL NNED PREPARE PLA CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ACTUAL ADVERTISE PLANNED FOR BIDS ACTUAL AWARD CONTRACT PLANNED ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION PLANNED ACTUAL SUBSTANTIAL PLANNED COMPLETION ACTUAL PROJECT PLANNED CLOSEOUT ACTUAL TOTAL PLANNED ACTUAL COMMENTS: BOND PROJECT UPDATE ~~~ Attachment B January 25, 1994 DRAINAGE PROJECTS -SIERRA DR/FENWICK DR CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE BUDGET S 90,000 PROJECT COORDINATOR: BUTCN YORKMAN ACCOl1NT CODE: 104050 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 TASK BUDGET OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP DESIGN PLANNED CTUAL A MEET WITH PLANNED CITIZENS ACTUAL B1D, PRE-BID PLANNED CONFERENCE ACTUAL AWARD PLANNED CONTRACT ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION PLANNED ACTUAL TOTAL PLANNED ACTUAL PLANNED ACTUAL COMMENTS: Several options are now being considered. When staff receives estimates for all options, each option will be presented to the Board for approval. 3 BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment B January 25, 1994 DRAINAGE PROJECTS -GREEN VALLEY BUDGET S 75,000 CONTRACT S 97,500 EXPENDITURES TO DATE 522,000 COMMENTS: n-~ ....,..err rnroni Y~T(~+ BUTCN NORIQIAN ACCOUNT CODE: 104050 BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment B January 25, 1994 DRAINAGE PROJECTS -NOTTINGHAM HILLS AREA BUDGET 5 45,000 COMMENTS: Project is complete. CONTRACT 5 EXPENDITURES TO DATE 545,000 N-6 oorL~FCT rmRDIMATOR: BUTCH YOR10111N ACCOUNT CODE: 104050 ~~ BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment B January 25, 1994 DRAINAGE PROJECTS - MT. VERNON HEIGHTS BUDGET CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE S 20,000.00 S 20,000 PROJECT COORDINATOR: BUTCH YDRKMAN ACCOUNT CODE: 104050 TASK 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 BUDGET OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP DESIGN PLANNED ACTUAL MEET WITH PLANNED CITIZENS ACTUAL HOURLY PLANNED CONTRACT ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION PLANNED ACTUAL TOTAL PLANNED ACTUAL COMMENTS: Project is 95Y complete. The weather has caused some delays. 6 BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment B !_ ~~" Y January 25, 1994 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE BUDGET S 300,000 ACCOUNT CODE: 104050 PROJECT COORDINATOR: GEORGE SIMPSON 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 TASK BUDGET OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP RFP PLANNED ENGINEERING SERVICES ACTUAL D NN LA P SELECT CONSULTANT ACTUAL PRELIMINARY PLANNED ENGINEERING ACTUAL PREPARE PLANNED 41ATERSHED PLANS ACTUAL REGIONAL PLANNED POLICY ACTUAL REMEDIAL PROJ. PLANNED INVESTIGATION ACTUAL REMEDIAL PROJ. PLANNED CONSTRUCTION ACTUAL TOTAL PLANNED ACTUAL COMMENTS: BOND PROJECT UPDATE ~ ~ Attachment B January 25, 1994 PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS BUDGET CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE S 1,750,000 Expenditures: E382,153 Encumbered: E233,917 ACCOUIIT CODE: 104209, 104201, 104203 PROJECT COORDINATOR: JOHN CHAMBLISS 104204 N =ENCUMBERED EXPENSES 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 TASK BUDGET OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 41ALROND PARK PLANNED 31 000 IL16I:: ` ~ ~E1lN: <?~ <`> :3:>:<>: SOCCER FIELD ACTUAL ~ <»>:% :< `>$:~#~<>; : :» > :>~~13~:: < 8~#X~~ WALROND PARK PLANNED 62,000 E£it1~ ~t~N`< :: ~ :>:::>::> 2 BASEBALL FIELDS ACTUAL N27 253 <:::»>_ <1Iif3» >: >:::> < >~~1X> >: ~~~' NORTNSIDE PLANNED 52 000 : ~ %»>:=:: REALIGN FIELDS ACTUAL 52,538 ::>:::>::: G~!!#f[> »:: : ? K> > <>~~~>; BONSACK PARK PLANNED 20 000 ~ ~> < ? BALL FIELD ACTUAL 27 549 >»:~:>~ €g.~~i<: :>:>» <'>: ::~4Ei:>: :: : >: :::G~N:: BONSACK PARK PLANNED 15,000 :<~s: ~ :>:: : PICNIC SHELTER ACTUAL 9,516 :~:>:>:>s >i~:iitH€:: >:' >: > <:1t~<:: :< :>OOfi:»`: BONSACK PARK PLANNED 10,000 ~ ~>: » PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT ACTUAL >>:i~:< <~I1xs'• ?:<> >>< >>?~~D~~> : ~:: > ~~~~~ VINYARD PARK I PLANNED 62 000 : » : :> <:<:>::< 2 BASEBALL ACTUAL ~:::>::>:> >:~?~G:: : : : >> :::>~~E~r:'< :>fE1~G:< : FIELDS VINYARD PARK I PLANNED 150 000 ........... ............. ............ . ER CC SO HT IG TUAL A 43 096 :::~:::>;::> s: >::~::< ::. .:::::::::.: ::. :::::: :::::::::::.:::::: ;•:~:. ?1!f'~~~>~~ ::::::::::•:::::::•:::::.....::::::: . FIELD :::: . TOTAL PLANNED 402 000 ACTUAL 259,952 COMMENTS: Northside Ballfields -The contractor has finished Oh C9SadiThea~ khup touthehwateremain wedll occur with the ldevelonpmentlof once the bids have been awarded for the fencing p j the Forensics Lab adjacent to our property. Bonsack Park -Grading for the development of the baseball field, entrance and parking area has been completed. The picnic shelter has been purchased and construction will be finished during the month of January (weather permitting). The community is continuing to work with staff to finalize specifications for the play apparatus. This will likely be installed during the winter months or early spring. ualrond Park -The County has awarded the contract for the excavation work necessary to finish the development of the baseball fields and soccer field at this site. Work should begin in January, 1994. BOND PROJECT UPDATE ~ / Attachment B January 25, 1994 PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE BUDGET $ 1,750,000 ACCOUNT CODE: 104204, 104210, 104212 PROJECT COORDINATOR: JOHN CNAI~LI SS ~~~~ 104207 N =ENCUMBERED EXPENSES 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 TASK BUDGET OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP VINYARD PARK I PLANNED 25 000 : <~1!~" ~ :» <:? : '~~~`~ ~'~ ::::>:~;::: ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ PARKING ACTUAL ? ::>::::s>> <~ii[Ci» < : >: :>:: ~>~~`?> > > < ~N~:: VINYARD PARK I PLANNED 25,000 . ............ ............ ............ RESTROOM UTIL ACTUAL <:?>::>:: >::~t~ECi<: ;>~~>:>::<:: ~T~~::> :>;:><:>»: :;~~E~r::> VINYARD PARK I PLANNED 50,000 [:::~1~~~> '~~~~`> .. ><~~~`%> > .. '< ~~~ >'~Ci~ll~€ LIGHT BASEBALL ACTUAL ARK I VINYARD LANNED 5 000 '1=~LG'> : l~i> :> '> ~'iD'>> ': 'CI}N... <~`OH~ ...~ ; CONCESSION/ <::::: >~ ~~~ > : s: : ~ ~~~'' STORAGE ACTUAL MT. PLEASANT PLANNED 40 000 ~k~~ >fl~Tx:: <: PARK BALL FIELD ACTUAL :><z::> <~£•1'ICr' :>>«:': :~1~PI~~: ............ <:>< ~IfQ STONEBRIDGE PK PLANNED 25,000 ::~~#G:::: :::~i~G ... ::~~h:;: ... ~< :CiSll :.: »C~ .::......... `s .. RESTROOM UTIL. ACTUAL BYRD SCHOOL PLANNED 60 000 : : LIGHT BASEBALL FIELD ACTUAL N64,840 :>::::>:<> >C~1FL< »:::z:>::» :::':'.GQN: >:z :»>: :>> :?.>~4~N::: NHISPERING PLANNED 31,000 »>: : ~ PINES PK. - BASEBALL FIELD ACTUAL 1,928 :>::<?: ~1~~G >«fi:> ~?!Ef+' : ; : < i>E~I'i.> TOTAL PLANNED 281 000 ACTUAL 66,768 COMMENTS: Lighting - The contracts for lights at the Career Center, Byrd Baseball Field and Starkey have been awarded and work should begin in January after the poles have been received. Vinyard Park -The engineering for the baseball fields, parking and related facilities at this site have been submitted for review and are being forwarded to the City and County Engineering offices for comment and approval. Construction should occur during the winter of 1994. 9 BOND PROJECT UPDATE ~.,~ Attachment B January 25, 1994 PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS BUDGET CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE S 1,750,000 PROJECT COORDINATOR- JOHN CHAIBLISS ACCOll11T CODE: 104207, 104211, 104206, - 104213, 104202 N =ENCUMBERED EXPENSES TASK 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 BUDGET OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP ............ WHISPERING PLANNED 60,000 `<~1~~»~>1w1#G~~>~~~~~~ `~~'~~~~~ ~~~~ PINES - LIGHT BALLFIELD ACTUAL WHISPERING PLANNED 25,000 PINES - ~~'"` RESTROOM UTIL ACTUAL '~~~~~ WHISPERING PLANNED 36 000 :>:~~:» PINES -TENNIS/ ;:~~:~>:??>:<# ::~>:»»:»:: s»»»:<#>: BASKETBALL CT ACTUAL '.>?~1[6EEE>:~~1ff'<:z>~1~~%'' ................... >? GREEN HILL PK PLANNED 30 000 "~EEG~?~??~I~Gz;s#$~0_._ 2 PICNIC >::>:::>>::><::>:::i::':::>::::>::< SHELTERS ACTUAL N21,316 G~3F~z:;;:;:::GRAN::::>>GWN> GARST MILL PK PLANNED 124,000 LIGHT 2 BALL ''~'>~ FIELDS ACTUAL ['r<6~RX:: WINDSOR HILLS PLANNED 50 000 AREA PURCHASE LAND ACTUAL WINDSOR HILLS PLANNED 62 000 t~Et'r<~"~~::: AREA - 2 BALL FIELDS ACTUAL STARKEY PARK PLANNED 62 000 2 BASEBALL FIELDS ACTUAL TOTAL PLANNED 449 000 ACTUAL 21,316 COMMENTS: Whispering Pines Park -The engineering work has been completed and has been submitted to the County's Engineering staff in late November or early December. This work includes a new baseball field, combination basketball/tennis court, and a study on the feasibility of restrooms at this site. 10 BOND PROJECT UPDATE r Attachment B January 25, 1994 PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE BUDGET S 1,750,000 ACCOUNT CODE: 104202, 104214, 104218, PROJECT COORDINATOR: JONN CHAINILI SS 104220, 104219 N =ENCUMBERED EXPENSES 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 TASK BUDGET OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP STARKEY PARK PLANNED 31 000 ~I~.If`,# E~#fl'<: <: :> ~ ~ > 1 BASEBALL FIELD ACTUAL 67,995 : »: : ~>~~~~~~> »: : ' ; ~< STARKEY PARK PLANNED 62,000 LIGHT 1 FIELD ACTUAL N43, 245 ~t~N ~'~;`s ~'r STARKEY PARK PLANNED 25,000 ::::~1~~~» '%<~~~#` >~~~~~' ~ . ~~ ...£ RESTROOM UTIL ACTUAL TENNIS COURT PLANNED 210,400 <~~~~> RENOVATIONS ACTUAL 1 000 ::::: '~~ """' <1*~~i`' BALL FIELD PLANNED 62 000 s11~C,~`• ~ %~~~0<~ >«:> : FENCING ACTUAL :»`<?::::> <>BiQ:> :: :<>»> <:1~~~i3<:: _ : >: :8:~~'<~ CILITY PLANNED 41 000 PAI CRAIG AVENUE CTUAL A 38 791 ~~fi? »:.; :.:.:::::::::::. .:.;:.;:<.:::::. .::::::::::: :.::::::::: ::: :::::::.:::: ::::::::::::: .:::::::::.;~: ..:::::.:::: :: . FACILITY PLANNED 11 000 .......... . . RS PAI RE CTUAL >:H~D:: >H:~::>: ::<~:<:>• . ~ <:(>zz.. ::.......... ~>s ........... > .. LEISURE ARTS FACILITY PLANNED 4,500 ........... ............ ...... S AIR EP R b1ALROND OFC. CTUAL ,115 ::G~:~:;:~ >:~::>:> ::::::.1!1::`<:> ::P::>:z:<:: ;:G~:<~::~ :::~:1+:~:~>~ » ~: z<:T?:~>:.. ... ~< TOTAL PLANNED 446 900 ACTUAL 153 146 COMMENTS: Tennis Court Renovations -The consultant has completed the study and prepared the specifications to allow the repairs to the various facilities. Ball field Fencing -Technical specifications have been prepared and the inventory of fencing needs has been established. The bid has been awarded and now the schedule is being prioritized. 11 BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment B January 25, 1994 PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE BUDGET S 1,750,000 ACCOl1NT CODE: 104221, 104216, 104217, 104208 PROJECT COORDINATOR' JONN CNMBLISS N =ENCUMBERED EXPENSES 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 TASK BUDGET OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP ADA ACCESS PLANNED 15 100 ~~QN<: ACTUAL GROUND COVER PLANNED 42 000 z~L161 ............................ FOR PLAY- EQUIP ACTUAL ......... z::>:»>:>:>::>:::>~:>: N22 255 ::~>~~1•x:;::>»:O~A~:i:~:~~~1#~> . GROUND zs: > INFIELD SURF. LANNED 4,000 >~1~>>~~~»><Fji11 :.;:;.:.;:.>:~;:.;:.;:.;:. :» ~> :> : : : . . `. £ ::....i~..... ~>~::::::::::::::. :.;:.;:.;:.;:<.;:.:<.:.:::._::: MATERIALS FOR : :.; : »>: >: »:< :< BASEBALL FIELDS ACTUAL »::>:::z>:> :>~»>::>:.>:>::::> 37, 625 `:?Gt~l1` ~DEI_ ~GfN CAREER CENTER PLANNED :::... 60 000 ~:~::~l1:~~:<:~~<`~ REPLACE LIGHTS ACTUAL >:::z::::::<:::>:::::::~s~'~:::: N55, 008 ~~AN?:> :£4~i~`::: <`?GAIN::>: TOTAL PLANNED 171 000 ACTUAL 114,888 COMMENTS: Infield surface materials have been purchased and are being spread. Ground cover materials for use around play apparatus has been bid and will be installed by County staff. 12 BOND PROJECT UPDATE ~~ Attachment B January 25, 1994 ROAD PROJECTS CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE BUDGET S 500,000.00 E 500,000 S 1,000,000 PROJECT COORDINATOR: ARNOLD COVEY ACCOl1NT CODE: 104070 TASK 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 BUDGET OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP VDOT PLANNED ADVERTISES ACTUAL VDOT AWARDS PLANNED CONTRACT ON ALL PROJECTS pCTUAL ............ . NNED PLA ECTS PROJ ALL CONSTRUCTED & COMPLETED ACTUAL TOTAL PLANNED ACTUAL COMMENTS: All plant mix projects completed except Sierra Drive which will be completed this coming spring (1994). Incidental projects (4 projects) - Deed preparation has been completed for Ridgelea Road. Documents have yet to be signed by property owners. VDOT is working on the deed preparation on Willow Branch Road, Eveningwood Lane arxJ Cove Road. VDOT plans to begin construction on all projects this coming spring. 13 BOND PROJECT UPDATE ~~~ Attachment B January 25, 1994 VALLEY TECHPARK CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE BUDGET $ 75,957.04 $ 750,000 PROJECT COORDINATOR: BRIAM T. DUNCAM ACCOUNT CODE: TASK 1 9 BUDGET OCT NOV 9 DEC 3 1 JAN FEB MAR 9 9 4 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP MASTER PLAN PLANNED ACTUAL LAND PLANNED ACQUISITION/ EXCHANGE ACTUAL DETAIL PLANNED ENGINEERING ACTUAL INDUSTRIAL PLANNED ACCESS REQUEST ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION PLANNED BIDS ACTUAL ~:::::.::::.:~ :::::::::.:::::::::::: START ROAD, NNED PLA UTILITY CONSTRUCTION ACTUAL TOTAL PLANNED ACTUAL COMMENTS: 14 BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment B January 25, 1994 FIRE HYDRANTS BUDGET CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE S 184,000 J. P. Turner S 156,687.69 COMMENTS: N~~ This project has been put on hold until spring. Through the end of November, 52 of the 71 listed hydrants have been installed in the County. Due to the increase in materials costs, new DOT requirements and other unexpected expenditures this project will not meet the goal anticipated. When the weather is suitable, probably in April, some additional hydrants will be installed according to the priority list with the remaining appropriated funds. 15 ooruFCT r1Y1QDINATOR: RON EDYIIRDS ACCOUNT CODE: PROJECT UPDATE ~'~~ BOND Attachment B January 25, 1994 PURCHASE OF LAND FOR HIGH SCHOOL BUDGET CONTRACT EXPENDITURES TO DATE S 240,121.01 S 750,000 COMMENTS: 16 ACCOUNT CODE: 155140 PROJECT COORDINATORS: JOHN CHAIBLISS AID HOMER DUFF 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: January 25, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Spring Hollow Reservoir Status Report COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Attached is an interim report from Cliff Craig, Director, Utility Department, on the progress at the Water Treatment Plant, Pump Station, and Reservoir. Ap r ved by, ~ ~~ Elmer C. Ho ge County Administrator ----------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) Kohinke To ( ) Minnix Nickens MEMORANDUM ~V~7 Tp; Elmer Hodge, County Administrator ` FROM: Clifford Craig, Utility Director DAZE: January 12, 1994 gjJgJF.('I: Spring Hollow Reservoir As you know we decided not to start pumping into Spring Hollow Reservoir on January 5, 1994 as originally planned. Since some people may interpeasonslforstheedelaylin anaeffort to keep~youwand to document the the Board fully informed. In October 1993, we decided to do the initial "post fiThe schedule from within the reservoir just above the pond spring. for the pond spring grouting indicated completion prior to Christmas. Due to delays caused solely by inclement weather, the pond spring grouting will be completed on January 20, 1994. Although this operation was delayed due to weather, the cost will be well under the estimated amount. After the completion of the pond spring grouting, two other items need to be completed prior to starting the pumping operation. They are cleaning and testing of the pipes under the dam and start-up and testing of the pumps themselves. The piping under the dam must be pressure tested after the dam is constructed and the connection to the intake tower is made. These same pipes were used to drain water through the dam during construction and caused a large quantity of silt and debris to accumulate in the piping. This silt and debris had to be removed prior to testing. The contractor has cleaned the pipes over the last monthext tweek.la he p pe wi is them be pressureotested and cleaning n ready for use. The five pumps at the pump station are currently being completed. The pumps had several manufacturer defects that are being corrected at this time. The pumps\motors drive shafts shipped were not correct or identical and some drillings on the final adjustment nut were not correct. The pump manufacturer has sent correct shafts and is currently correcting the drillings. The pumps should be ready for operation within two weeks. We have not been satisfied with the performance of the pump manufacturer, Layne & Bowler, and will not accept their products on future projects until such time they can assure us they have corrected their quality assurance\quality control problems. N-7 Elmer Hodge, County Administrator Page Two January 12, 1994 Although we could start pumping around the first of February, the engineers and I have agreed to wait until after Substantial Completion of the Project (a contract term that means the project can be used by the owner and warranty period s begins)3 to 9egin pumping. Our scheduled date to bect~pumminu 1 Although not directly affecting the pumping operation, the roofing sub-contractor, McNeil Roofing, caused a 4 to 5 week delay in the pump station electrical work because the roof was not installed in a timely manner. The performance of this sub-contractor has been less than satisfactory. None of th Theb contra toraisesti lh with n nthe contract t me for reservoir. completion. We still plan to fill the reservoir in stages to evaluate the reservoir leakage. During the evaluation we can determine the cost effectiveness of additional grouting. The evaluation will also be used to recommend an initial operating level of the reservoir. After staff and the engineer complete the leakage evaluation, we will present the results and options to the Board for consideration. The pond spring grouting has been very successful. The spring flow itself has been reduced by 90$ indicating that leakage in the opposite direction will be acceptable. One of the reservoir filling stages will be just below the pond spring grout curtain in order to obtain an exact leakage prediction for this area. As we near completion of the project, I will try to keep you updated more frequently since any normal delay such as weather or river conditions will affect the exact start-up date. mh PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 1994 AS AMERICAN MUSIC MONTH WHEREAS, Music, often descrfbed as the unhrersal language, is one of the great arts; and its value is recognized as a sounre of enrichment for our lives; and WHEREAS, The annual Parade ofAMERICAN MUSIC, sponsored by the National Federation of Music Clubs, is featured throughout the month of February with the design to give due recognition to America's music traditions and to encourage and support worthy United States composers; and WHEREAS,, the Thursday Morning Music Club and the Virginia Federation of Music Clubs are component parts of the National Federation of Music Clubs and join in the Parade with its notable purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, 1, Lee B. Eddy, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, in recognition of the United States' creative musical artists and America's music tradition, do hereby proclaim the month of February, 1994, as AMERICAN MUSIC MONTH in Roanoke County; and urge all citizQns to join in the observance of Amerfcan Music Month through appreciation and enjoyment of American music. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the County of Roanoke to be affixed this the 20th day of January, 1994. ~~ Lee B. Eddy, Chairman ATTEST: /~~ ~1 ~~tA~~ Brenda J. Ho on, Deputy Clerk ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~ ""' AT A RGIN A HELDIAT THE ROANOKER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIONRCENTER COUNTY, MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Jail Feasibility Work Session SUNII~IARY OF INFORMATION Attached is a summary of information provided by Sheriff Holt regarding the expansion to the jail. I have reviewed this information with the Sheriff and recommend that we proceed with Phases II, III, and IV. Regarding Phase I, I would prefer the less expensive approach of proceeding with the completion of the unfinished floor and adding one more floor. It may be necessary to begin the addition adjacent to the existing building at a cost of two to three million dollars. Neither of us think that we can justify the full project at this time. We will need approval to submit a request to the state by March to have any possibility of getting funding in this year's General Assembly. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, ~r ~~ Y ~ ~~ G~ra1d 9. Holt Elmer C. Hodge Sheriff County Administrator ----------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Eddy Denied ( ) Johnson Received ( ) Kohinke Referred ( ) Minnix To ( ) Nickens p1_2p_199~1 16 = ~3 Correetions 387.8303 Barry L. Taylae, Captain Stephen Hutt, Lt. Covert garvicas 387137 Charles R. Heft, Captain 7p3 387 6203 ~,~. ~~ Q~ GERALD Cot 5~~,_ 1~ JAIL FE.+o+y~----- ---- January 25, 1994 X139 ON P . OBI o-t r.,~,s~t nP~~~r~ Michael (3. Winston 387-6346 P.O- 90: B10 Salem, VA ?~l163 Re ort and summarize the feasibility study to renovate and add to ntY'0 DSE: p the Roanoke County/Salem Jail retract for the study was awarded tIna ug architectural efirmrtoeperform The co Mattern, and Mattern, the Hayes, Seay, k of detex'mining the maximum utiliaffi members sofa the Roanoke aCounty the tas of Salem. St and its site in the City estions and answers Sheriff's Office weren8vaand lcompliancercwithcttheorminimum standards as related to operatio determined that a The study established by the Department of Corrections. Sin Street in the City,af mate o ulat~-on count of 514 can be ~asteM in compliance with current total in P P minimum Thi®dcanabetaccompli had by a total of four phases of construction Salem. and implementation: the study, would lae a new ar~di ti nn and p~,A~e z, as recommend4d by which would bring the total rel~t~ renovation to the existing facility, roximately 3~ monthr~ inmate capacity to 33a. The time £ramo would be app roximately from planning to completion at ~- coat estimated to be app $13,727,000. ~ bod late the cxieti17g sixth floor into a 6- Phase would be to Comp roximately $350,000, dormitory for direct supervision at a cost of app which wUUld increase the capacity to 340• 'ail facility vhaee iII would be tv a4d addingn64 dp~^~111tory bade i for a~total inmate at a cost Of $1,200,00 , population of 414. in the sew iri~g~1V would be to double bunk approximately 100 cells . 'on at a cost of approximately $30,000, bxinging the total inmate additi capacity to s~4. ro act, we wax's discussing double bunk~.ng of When we began discussing this P ~ ~ r,-il.hout substantial renove-txon or the existing fail to increase the capacity construction costs. This was found to be e alternative eo solving the inmat cf these existing cells would be a nonviabl 1 bunking RK.E CNTV SHERIFF'S OFFICE Roanoke County/Salem Jail. Doub e p~ TH,~ ©1-2©-199-F 1G ~ ~3 r ©3 30 r G2©~'+ RKC CNTY r,l ICF2I rr' .^r Orr I CC P. ©:, work session ~--~ January 25, 1994 Page Z outside of the minimum standards as they are established currently by the Department of Corrections in square feet of apace. In addition to the space problem, double bunking does not qualify Roanoke County for additional state funded staff positions to supervise the inmates. Inmate population projections and forecasts provided by the Department of Corrections in 1988 projected that by the Year 1997. the average inmate population is projected to be 252; and by the Year 2000, Roanoke County will have an average inmate population of 309 These projections were made five years ago, and we find that the projections for 1993 were accurate within plus~minug 4 percent of the actual population. The meat recent forecast available for the purpose of this study was compiled and completed by the Department of Criminal Justice Services in 1993. Their forecasts, while not specific to Roanoke County, are for statewide inmate populations; and they indicated that the ratio of state responsible inmates to local. responsible inmates will. remain approximately the same through the Year 2002 with the same current continued population growth. After having reviewed the results of the study with all the Sheriff's Office ptaff poreorinel and the County Administrator, it ie believed at thiA time that the beat action the Board of Supervisors could take would be to divide Fha-se I irxto two portions, A sad $. Phas® I-A would be to complete the new addition and all related renovations through the fifth level as suggested on the scaled model, which would inareaee the inmate aapaeity to X46. Completion of Phase I~A would be expected to be in the Year 1997, at which time the tc~recaet population midpoint range indicates a52 inmates. Phase I-A needs to be completed in order to meet the minimum standards of programs space prior to any changes in the existing jail, as suggested in the study's Phases II and III, acid also allow for expansion of the kitchen facility in food preparation. We are currently serving in excess of 16,000 meals per month from the kitchen facility, and the study indicates it would be impossible to increase beyond this capacity without additional space and equipment. In addition to solving the inmate population problems, we will oleo be building adequate administrative office space and training facilities within thip addition/renovation that would address other needs, such as parking, court services operations, expansion of medical services operations, and meet the space needs standards as required by the Department of Corrections. Phase I-H would be the completion of Phase I, a new addition to tk~e existing facility. Phases I-B, II, III, and IV can be completed at minimal cost for future expansions ae the population increases. ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~~ ~ AT A REGULAR HELDIAT THE ROANOKE~ COUNTY ADM NISTRATIONRC LATER COUNTY, VIRGIN MEETING DATE• January 25, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Bond Project Work Session COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' Project Managers for the various bond projects will be present during the work session to provide an update to you on the various projects. Inclement weather has caused some delays in the scheduled work, however, most projects seem to moving ahead. Also, most of the project categories are being accomplished within the allocated budget. One particular concern should be the on-going impact to the operating budgets beginning with the 1994-95 fiscal year. Several parks, the expanded library, etc. will be brought on line during the new fiscal year and will be included in our proposed operating budgets. Questions may be directed to the respective project manager during the work session time period. Respectfully submitted, Appro ed by d~ .fir ~,'~ ...~1~.-: John M. Chamb iss, Jr. Elmer C. Hodg Assistant Administrator County Administrator ---------------------------------------- TE Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Ref erred ( ) To ( ) ACTION VO Motion by: No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens i~ ti `_> 3 U O Z V O ~ U W V ~ O ~ ~-- ~ O ~ Q J . - z ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ` °d ~ , v . ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ o c 0 a~ U '~ w-. Q ~ -p O ~ G ~ Q w r Z p ~ W~ W o ~ ~ ~ a ~ W o ~ ~ ~ a W~~J w o ~ ~ c, ¢ ~ww W o ~ ~ ~ ¢ w0w w o ~ ~ ¢ w~w w ~ ~ a ~1 w ~ ~ ¢ W~ w ~ ~~- a {0~ Uw, o~ ~ ¢ .~ N U ~ ~ O ~_ U W (,/) o }- z zO~ ~`~ ~ F... ~ ~zz ~-~~ W W ~ v'~Q ~ ~ W Q ¢ U ~ Q Z w~ Q ~- ~ ~oz O w Z Quo ~ ~ W ~mU o ~ ~ to w g W Y o ~ ~ ~ c7 Z ~ ~ ~ ~ a a " ~j > ~ Q ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ s G~7 ~ -' ~ Z cg m ~ U C ~ ~ @ ~ Q Z O v ~ ~ c~ o :~ ~ a ~' ~~ ~ ~ ~ a t~- ~>j o z ~ ci ~ ~ o cv O Z I v 0 U v w Z O a ° `~ - ~ ~ J .~ Z .--~ Q p~ Q d Z ~ d ~ ' F- A U Q W J U j ~ J V ~ Q ~ J U ~ Q ~W._. J W ~ ~yQJ F-- J W ~ W~ F-- J W ~ ~yOJ F- Q W ~ 0 U Q ~ ~ N C +N+ N Q Z W ~ W ~ ~ }-- ~ ~ -~ F- ~ F' Q '~ U ¢ ~ V ¢ ~ U (n ~ ~ 0.' Q °" ~ Q a d' Q ~ p.' ¢ a d Q ~ ~ ~ ~ Z m O ~= .,.., c ~ U 0 tom/) o ~ ~ m ~ z ~' ~ Is ~ ~ ° z .. .. o~ ~ z r~ cn ~ z a w - °-oQ Z W ~ ~ z ~ ~..._, `~F-W dQV w w ~ ~] ~ F ~ ~ Z W --~ ~ Q Z w~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j w ~ Qa_o ¢~o ~ ~ d s ~ o O w z ~ D W pmV ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~. a ~ ~ e ~, ~ ~ v U S W d D... ~ I Z O F-- U W a- °o (~ o ~- Z E-- - o ~r ~~~ '~~ Z Z 1- ~ U z ~~~ w- oa w ~ zQF- ~ Z ~ ~ Q Q a ~ w~ w - O W Z - D Z 1 QUO ~ p W nmU U O Z V O J d- Z Q d Z Q ~ ~ Q ~- Z ~ ~ p W ~ ~ ~ U ¢ ~ W ~ ~ = U a ~ W W ~ ~ J ~ a ~ 0 W W ~ a _1 ~ Q ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ J }__ Q ~ h- ~ ~ J ~ ¢ ~ .I r"" ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ¢ ~ 1- ~ ~ a- J Q ~ ¢ ~ 1 r" ~ ~ o- ...! Q w C1 w F-- z w W w Y O ~~j N F c~ S U d. m U d a Q ~Z O F- Z w O U f-- d v W -7 O ~- ~ ~ to Z O _ ~-- ~ W (n o >-- Z ui ~ p Z z ~° U z W- o~..~~ OQ Y~W aQ~ O ~ w -~ t-- Owp ~°o ~ D W °mU CV O Z U O a J O O O _ ~ r~i ~ ~ v ,c c ;~ ~ m 3 4' ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ .}' ~m~ ~ r ~` rn~ .n 0 f .o l o ~~ ~ o ~ .~ a a. Sri cfl ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ c `~ c ad ~, ~ ~ c ~ c rt °~ ~ N a ~ ~ ~' p ~~ G -~~g Z ~ ~ T: ~ ~N '~ O Q ~~ ~ p ~ W J ~ J O W Q ~ ~ ¢ = ~ U J Q ~ V J ¢ W U W J 4 ~ CJ ~ 3 ~ Q Z ~ W ~ W ~ W ~ W ~ W ~ ~ F -- ~ ~ W7 ~ Q 7 Q ~ ~ ~ ~ }' O U O Q ~ Q ~ Q ~ Q fr ¢ ~ d ~ ~ ~ a~ c~ .~ c o ~ ~~N ° ~ ~-_ a ~ ~ ~ za a ~ 5 ,--~ cJ r~i F- ~ ~ F W ~'] V W = N = h~-- J a ~ N ~ ~ o °- ~ ~ ° o ~ ~ S @ ~ U ~ ~ m Q ~ OPTIONS SIERRA/FENWICK DRIVE 1. Do nothing and maintain basic maintenance. Monitor during storm events and pump when private homes are threatened. Cost to Roanoke County ------------------- $ 2,000/year 2. Install storm sewer system 42~~ - 240 feet 40" - 1370 feet 7 - structures Pavement restorations seeding ----------------- Cost to Roanoke County ---- $250,000 ----------------- 3, Purchase two (2) homes ------ --- $150,000 000 30 Flood Proof two (2) homes ----- --- --------- , --- 120,000 Resale two (2) homes ------- Cost to Roanoke County ----------------- -- 60,000 homes ---------------- 4. Purchase two (2) ------------- ---- $150,000 50,000 Relocate --------------- -- -------- ---- 30,000 Land two (2) lots ----------- Foundation/grading and restoration __ 30,000 of old lots ____________ _____________ --- ___ 10,000 Water & Sewer --------- - --------------- --- 120,000 Re-sale --------------- Cost to Roanoke County ---------------- --- 150,000 5, Assuming current property owners would allow Roanoke County to flood proof without purchasing the property: ----$ 30,000 Cost to Roanoke County------------------ 100,000 6. Construct permanent pumping station________-$ _____ 2,000 Yearly operations ----------- Stand-by Monitoring during floods Assume VDOT will allow discharge into existing storm sewer system. 7. Determine percolation rate and re-design based on percolation rate of sink-hole, which may reduce the required size of pipe. ACTION NO. (~ -3 ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Budget Work Session on Revenue Projections and Major Expenditures for FY 1994-95 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside for a budget work session to discuss preliminary revenue projections and major expenditures for Fiscal Year 1994-95. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, ~~ W. Brent R e tson Elmer C. Hodg Budget Manager County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) Kohinke To ( ) Minnix Nickens (~ -3 January 25, 1994 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board: The primary goal of this budget work session is to bring the Board up-to-date on the status of the FY1994-95 budget process. At this time we want to focus on preliminary revenue projections and major expenditure items as they relate to the Board's goals and objectives for the upcoming year. PROJECTED REVENUES A preliminary revenue projection summary is attached which shows that local revenues are expected to increase almost 4.5% or $2,952,500. At this point, we estimate overall revenues from the Commonwealth of Virginia will decrease slightly by 0.7% or $38,550. Federal revenues should remain relatively unchanged. In total, General Fund revenues can be expected to increase by approximately 4.0% or $2,918,950. While this increase is consistent with many published reports about economic growth, a conservative approach has been employed in formulating these projections. Information on local revenues is currently being accumulated to provide a more precise estimate, as well, state revenues are difficult to anticipate at this time. These items will be closely monitored and the Board will be advised as to changes during the course of the budget process. MAJOR EXPENDITURES County departments are currently preparing their budget requests for FY1994-95; therefore, specific expenditure requests are not known at this time. However, there are several significant expenditure issues that should be identified: • $500,000 will be needed to cover the increase in tipping fees for refuse collection. This figure is "net" of a projected $100,000 credit given to participating localities. • $380,000 is needed to meet operational needs in the General Services area. --~ Health Insurance costs are expected to increase at the County level. The dollar amount of the increase is not known at this time. $225,000 would be needed to provide a 1% salary increase for County employees. Bond projects currently under construction will require operational budget increase considerations upon completion. Gam' ~~~ wksnl-25.WK4 O1 /20/94 02:53 PM Real Estate Tax Personal Property Tax Sales Tax Business License Tax Utility Consumer Tax Meals Tax Public Service Corp. Tax Motor Vehicle License Tax Other Local Taxes Other Local Revenues Total Local Revenues Revenue From the Commonwealth (Does Not Include Schools) Revenue From The Federal Government Total New Revenue Available Catagorical Revenues: 1-andfill Host Locality Fee E-911 Surcharge Total Net New Revenue Available Tipping Fees (net of projected credit) General Services Operations Salary Increase--1 % Market Survey__annualized coverage Bond Projects--Operational Increases Health Insurance Increase County of Roanoke Budget Projection Summary FY 1994-95 Budget January 25, 1994 $35,100,000 $36,300,000 $1,200,000 12,500,000 13,000,000 500,000 4,x,000 5,150,000 550,000 2'400,000 2,500,000 100,000 3,450,000 3,650,000 200000 1,950,000 1,9~~000 (~~~~ 1,625,000 1,650,000 25,000 1,370,000 1,450,000 80000 2,330,000 2,515,000 185,000 1,691,236 1,828,736 137,500 67,016,236 69,968,736 2,952,500 5,307,550 5,269,000 (38_SSm $2,918,950 (75,000) (15,000) $2,828 950 500,000 380,000 225,000 920,000 ~"' 3.4% 4.0% 12.0% 4.2% 5.8% -1.3% 1.5% 5.8% 7.9% 8.1% 4.4% -0.7% I 0.3% wksnl-25.WK4 01/20/94 02:54 PM "`~ County of Roanoke Proposed State Budget FY 1994-95 January 25, 1994 ABC Profits Motor Vehicle Carrier Taxx $245,000 $215,000 ($30,000) -12 2% Compensation Board Reimbursements 50,000 3 260 000 50'~ 3 0 . 0.0% State Board of Elections , , ,315,000 55,000 1 7% Welfare Grant 35'~ 855 000 34,000 8 (1,000) . -2.9% Housing State Prisoners , 55,000 0 0 0% Library Grant 70'~ 70,000 0 . 0 0% 599 Funds--Law Enforcement 135,000 135,000 0 . 0 0% Other State Revenues 597'550 540,000 (57,550) . -9 6% 55,000 50,000 5,000 . -9.1% Total State Revenues 5 302 550 5 264 000 38 550 -0.7% Summary of State 'dg~Pi4posals Revenues: Recordation taxes-fully funded (recorded in " Estimated distribution of ABC rofit Other Local Taxes") 150 000 p s , (30,000) Expenditures: Solid Waste Disposal Fee: $10/ton $3.50/ton (300,000) 599 Funds--Law Enforcement (105,000 (57,550) Other Potential Impacts: Social Services: ADAPT Progam Funding for increases iri AFDC caseload State employee/Teachers salary increase of 2. M 25%--effective 12/ 1 /94 ethodology change in SOg calculation--effect reduces bas d ll e o ar amount. AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORB COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TIIESDAY, JANiTARY 25, 1994 RESOLIITION 12594-8 CERTIFYING EBECIITIVE MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the Certification Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. Ho on, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Executive Session M E M O RAN D U M i To: Board of Supervisors ~~ ~ ~`~t~,~ From: Elmer C. Hodge _ .~-~ ~ Date: January 21, 1994 Subject: Additional staff for decal enforcement rovided by Chief John Cease to Attached is the cost/benefit analysis p support additional. staff for decal enforcement. As you will see, the Chief makes a good point, additional'ections are based aon traff c violationsysuch increase in expenses. The pro? as DUI, speeding, etc. This ment 1 emlhasiseon decal enforcement an be realized from the overall depart P I find myself in the enviable position of having a he ateful and w lalgladly staff rather than having to make the request g accept additional staff in the Police Department or the Commissioner's Office, or both if you so choose. I would, however, offer the following thoughts: 1. I generally prefer to add staff during the budget process unless there is a very good reason to do otherwis of Julw of we advert ise for personnel and enforcement could begin the first Y equipment in advance of that date. 2 . The Commissioner's Off ice can get a person on the street ~, nin r tro rams Police Departmeno more than thirty days to hire ane employee and purchase a It should take n vehicle. 3. As other police activity inc to higher priority calls and thereemaylnot Department will have to respond g be enough time to check forte nvau of a the addition of four off cers and a Chief Cease will, on their o , 7 Y clerk. 4. In the budget process, we intend to ask the Board to increase the 9-1-1 surcharge to add dispa of f icers d andldetectives wi 11 also be needed, such as DARE officers, patrol I am sending this to you individually rather than in an agenda request because of the sensitivity of the material. I still prefer Ins ectorns person in the Commissioner's Office (or perhaps the Zoning P office if that is a better fit) for decal enforcement and take a comprehensive look at the needs of the Police Department during the budget. Again, thank you for your support of either method. We can use the additional revenue and the staff. Attachment cc - Mr. Donnie C. Myers Mr. John H. Cease ~ {t A 3568 Peters Creek Road ~ Roanoke County Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Office: 703/561-8071 ~, ';,P°a"°~~'~ ~ ~ Police Department - Fax: 703/561-8114 , POLICE ~ i iICOUN~~J ~,. John H. Cease Chief of Police ROANORE COIINTY POLICE DEPARTMENT M E M O RAN D II M TO: Don Myers Assistant County Administrator FROM: John H. Cease Chief, Roanoke County Police Department DATE: January 14, 1994 gUBJECT: Traffic I have had my staff put together all the information in relation to the proposed traffic unit. All the information is attached to this memorandum for your review. There is an additional memo in regard to traffic crashes in Roanoke County which you have not previously received. You should find this information helpful in preparing your staff report to the Board of Supervisors. If there is any additional information or help you may need, feel free to call on me or my staff . A NATIONALLY ACCREDITED AGENCY 'j' ",~~ ~~ ,,~. ~~ ~~ ,FIRST IN SOUTHWESTERN VIRGINIA" ROAN O KE C OUNT Y P O L= C E D E PARTMENT STAFF PROJECT: TRAFFIC UTtIT PROPOSAL The staff of the Roanoke County Police Department researched and developed several reports in relation to the staff project for determining the needs of a traffic component within the Police Department. This proposal contains copies of those reports and other pertinent information necessary to determine the need for a traffic component. Included is a report detailing start up costs for this unit, with projected revenues and costs for a four year period. A report on the methodology used to determine projected revenues is also included. Additional reports for review include: information on receipts from traffic fines; the duties and responsibilities of the traffic unit as outlined in the proposal ; and two memos , one on county decal enforcement and the other on traffic crashes in Roanoke County. It is estimated that it will take approximately 120 days for the start up of the unit once approved. This includes the time necessary to hire qualified personnel and acquire equipment. RCPD TRAFF=C UN='=' PROPOSAL (4 Grade 19 officers, 1 Part Time Traffic Records Clerk) START UP COST OF ~ T COST FOR UNIT' COST PER OFFICER' Officer Salary and Benefits = $ 26,933.19 00 871 107,732.76 = $ 58,484.00 Vehicle = = . 18, 592.87 1 = 6,369.88 Vehicle Fuel and Maintenance = , 640.00 4 _ - 18,560.00 Radios = , 879.50 = 3,518.00 Firearms = 556,00 1 = 6,224.00 RADAR Unit = , 300.00 1 = 5,200.00 VG II Unit _ , 2 592.16 = 10,368.64 Vehicle Equipment _ , 1 934.68 = 7 738'72 _ Personal Equipment , 299.00 56 225,196.00 SUBTOTAL , Salary f or one traffic - 6 '~ ~ = 6 510 .40 records clerk (Part Time) - 62,809.40 = $ 231,706.40 T OTAL ~ $ PROJECTED ANNUAL COST OF pRT~LERK~FFIC UNIT (4 OFFICERS, / 1st year costs= $ 231,706.40 2nd year costs= 126,643.69 3rd year costs= 132,975.88 4th year costs= 139,6.24.67 TOTAL COST FOR FOUR YEARS = $ 630,950.64 *' * The projected cost for the four year period was obtained by increasing the annual salaries and benefits of ea e r ffp~nualnc sts annual salary of the part time clerk by 5~ per y also include vehicle fuel and maintenance at an estimated 5$ increase per year. T,~,~r•+r+Fn Fr~,.:,..~ ~srvQlJiiF FROM - - m~7~FFIC F INE PE 4 OFFIC 'FO R UNIT: 1st year projected revenue = $ e = 47,571.48 = 571.48 = 47 $ 190,285.92 190+2$5 92 2nd year projected revenu e = , 571.48 = 47 : 190, 3rd year projected revenu e = , 571.48 47 = 19= 4th year projected revenu , TOTAL PROJEC'T'ED P:E FOR FOUR YEARS = $ 761,143.68 ANNUAL PROJECTED NET OF TRAFFIC UNIT TO ROANORE COUNTY F ~ROJECT..D REVENUE - COST (_) NET' '_st year $ 190,285.92 - $ 231,706.40 $ (-41, 63, 420.48) 642.23 2nd year 190,28.92 2 126,643.69 = 975.88 - 132 57, 310.04 3rd year 190,285.9 28.92 190 , _ - 139,624.67 50 661.25 4th year , TOTAL PROJECTED NET REVENUE FOR FOUR YEAR PERIOD c l~n 193.04 The total projected revenue does not include any increase ro e~~x assessments or any increase of collections of personal p p Y tax. This has been estimatedten bon of7the0Boa d ofCSupervisors by Revenue as brought rs dated November 16, 1993. This figure is for a memo from Don My one year only. No projection of any additional revenue from taxes has been made in reference to this proposal. The projected revenue will decrease the first year by 1/12 for each month that the proposed traffic unit is not performing enforcement duties. This will happen if the unit is delayed due to traiforgthe nvt being able to hire certified police officers . The delay unit should not be longer than six months due to training. The decrease in revenue will be lesevelaoflmanpower fork a shortuperiod able to operate at a reduced 1 of time . METHODOLOGY 1. A random selection was made of one court date for the months of July, August, September, and October of 1993. Compiling the information available from the court in reference to fines for county charges, an average fine was arrived at for the different violations as indicated below: r OF CONVICTIONS TOTAL FINES AVERAGE FINE CHARGE 8 $ 4,400.00 $550.00 DUI 215 10,647.00 49.52 SPEEDING MOVING VIOL. 41 1,260.00 30.73 SUSPENDED OL 12 2,150.00 179.17 COUNTY DECAL 26 680.00 26.15 2. An inquiry was made with Roanoke City Police Department to ascertain the average number of tickets per month that a traffic officer writes. I was informed by Lt. Bower that the average will vary between 60-100 depending on the numoer of a~..~.,~..G••.. investigations that the traffic officer has to complete. The Roanoke City traffic officers are responsible for investigating all personal injury accidents, which would be different for a Roanoke County traffic officer responsibe for investigating only serious personal injury crashes. 3. To arrive at the estimated revenue the traffic unit would generate in fines, a low monthly average of 60 tickets per officer per month was used. Using data provided by the courts, a percentage of the total charges was derived for each individual type of violation. Using the percentage, the 60 tickets would break down as follows: Speeding-43 charges, DUI-2 charges, Moving Violations-8, Suspended OL-2, and County Decal Violations-5 charges. 4 . Using the above breakdown and the average fine per charge type , the revenue was projected as follows: Speeding- $2129.36, DUI- $1100, Moving Violations- $245.84, Suspended OL- $358.34, and County Decal Violations- $130.75. This is a total of $3,964.29 for the total of the 60 tickets written. 5. The proposed traffic unit would have four officers assigned to it. Using the monthly average of $3,964.29 per officer, the unit would generate $15,857.16 per month and $190,285.92 per year. The estimated revenue over a four year period is 5761 143.68 6. Another factor to consider but cannot be included in the estimated revenue is the amount of additional tax assessments that will result because of the traffic unit performing selective decal enforcement . PROPOSAL RCP D TRAF F= C UN 2 T DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: A : ~ssicmment : ' The four officer traffic unit will be under the direction of a traffic coordinator. The officers of the unit will not be used to supplement manpower for the three permanent shifts in the Uniform Division. The traffic officers will respond to Priority I and II calls as a back up officer only when absolutely necessary. The traffic officer will be relieved by an uniformed division patrol officer as soon as possible in order for the traffic officer to resume his duties. B , p~r-~, dent In~ra~t i Qation : The traffic officers wil l be trained in advanced traffic crash investigation as well as other pertinent traffic related courses. To the extent possible, the officers will be responsible for investigating all traffic crashes involving fatalities or life threatening injuries. The traffic officers' duties will not include responding to the many minor traffic crashes that occur within the county. The regularly assigned district patrol officer will be responsible for investigating the minor traffic crashes occurring within the assigned district. One of the duties of the traffic unit will be to analyze traffic crash data to determine the major causes , locations , dates , and times of the crashes. With the information developed, traffic officers will conduct necessary targeted enforcement in an effort to reduce the total number of crashes, which should reduce fatalities and injuries. C. Duties: The duties of the tra the need arises throughout the year different assigned tasks Priorities duties in order to make the traffic obtaining their goals. Some of the anticipated are as follows: ffic officer will vary as to accomplish the many will be assigned to the unit more effective in duties and assignments 1. Targeted Speed Enforcement: Many complaints are received from citizens by the police department as well as the members of the Board of Supervisors in reference to speeders in residential areas. One of the duties of the traffic unit will be to assign traffic officers to monitor these complaints and to identify other areas in residential subdivisions needing traffic enforcement. Attention will also be given to School Zones by providing increased traffic enforcement at the beginning of each school year. The traffic unit will be able to identify any traffic problems in the school zones throughout the school year and address them accordingly. 2. Targeted Enforcement (County Decals): An additional priority of the traffic unit will be to identify those individuals who have not paid their personal property tax and purchased a county decal for their vehicles. It is estimated that as of November 1, 1993 there is approximately $147,200 dollars in uncollected personal property tax in Roanoke County. Through targeted enforcement, traffic officers will be able to locate and issue summons to drivers/owners of vehicles not complying with the ordinance. This will be done by conducting road checks and stationary observation point in heavily travelled areas such as apartment complexes, major shopping areas, and major roads in Roanoke County subdivisions. 3. Targeted Enforcement (Habitual Offenders and Drivers DMV has recently with Revoked/Suspended Operators Licenses): provided the Roanoke County Police Department with a list containing the names of 63 persons declared an Habitual Offender in Roanoke County Circuit Court between January 1, 1991 and June 30, 1993. The list for Roanoke city contains 125 names and the list for Salem contains the names of 22 persons. This is a combined total of 210 persons in the Roanoke Valley that were declared an Habitual Offender within the above time period that have three or more convictions for DUI. Besides the names on the lists provided by DMV, there are many other persons operating motor vehicles who have been declared habitual offenders or have had their operators licenses revoked/suspended. Many of the serious traffic crashes that have occurred recently have involved drivers with suspended operators licenses. The traffic unit will target those drivers who continue to drive in violation of court orders, making the highways unsafe for the public. 4 . Targeted Enforcement ( DUI) : Traffic officers will be assigned to targeted enforcement in an effort to identify and arrest drivers operating motor vehicles while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. Of the traffic crashes investigated by Roanoke County Police Department for the first three quarters of 1993, 95 involved alcohol. These accidents resulted in 47 injuries and 2 of the 3 reported fatalities in Roanoke County. By making the DUI enforcement a priori`..y, it is hoped that the injuries and fatalities resulting from traffic crashes involving drinking drivers will decrease. (Note that as this report is being prepared that there has been another fatal traffic crash in Roanoke County resulting in one death and two injuries. This crash also involved alcohol.) 5. Targeted Enforcement on Major Highways: There are a number of major highways traversing Roanoke County. Targeted traffic enforcement will be conducted on these highways to insure the public's safety. Targeted enforcement will be for any moving violation that may lead to a traffic crash. 6. Targeted Enforcement (Parking Violations): Although not the top priority, traffic officers will have the responsibility of enforcing parking violations on the streets and parking areas within Roanoke County. If needed, the traffic officer can set up a stationary observation location in an attempt to dissuade violators and issue parking tickets. The traffic unit will be able to provide stricter enforcemen~ of the many fire lanes and handicapped parking spaces located throughout Roanoke County. D, STD,TT$TICS: There are many facts and statistics available to support the need for a separate traffic unit within the police department. Some of these facts and statistics are broken down as follows: 1, 2*RAFFIC CRASH FACTS: Statistics show that in Roanoke County, during 1992, there were 1457 reportable traffic crashes to the DMV that resulted in 4 fatalities and 782 injuries. During the first three quarters of 1993, Roanoke County Police investigated 1495 traffic crashes, 79 reportable to DMV, that resulted in 3 fatalities and 370 injuries. The 1992 figures come from the Virginia traffic crash facts booklet provided by DMV. The 1993 figures are based on information from the Roanoke County Police Department records section. Utilizing information from the Virginia traffic crash booklet provided by DMV , and taking the estimated economic cost per accident from 1991 and applying that figure, without any inflation factor, to the traffic crash information for Roanoke County during 1992 shows a large estimated economic cost. With 4 fatal crashes at an estimated economic cost of $504,301.08 per crash, the total is $2,017,204.32. The total estimated economic cost for 782 personal injury crashes at $30,178.23 per crash is $23,599,375.86. The 671 property damage accidents at a cost of $4,200.62 per accident _esults in a total estimated economic cost of $2,818,616.02. The total estimated economic cost for the 1457 traffic crashes reported to DMV for 1992 is X28 435,196.20. This figure does not take into- account the many minor traffic crashes resulting in property damage estimated to be below $1000.00 at the time of the crash. 2. Targeted ENF'URCEI+IEN'P RESIILTS: On occasion the Roanoke County Police Department has been able to use overtime funds to do targeted traffic enforcement. The latest was a special county decal enforcement program. This program was conducted between June, 1993 and July 31, 1993. Police officers worked 173.5 hours of overtime at a cost of $1931.90. They wrote 174 charges while working this detail, 93 county decal violations and 81 other traffic charges. There were 114 convictions resulting in $4472.00 in fines collected for Roanoke County. The Commissioner of Revenue also estimates that $13,449.69 in additional taxes was assessed. Taking into account the additional taxes assessed and fines generated, less the overtime cost, the net gain to Roanoke County is $15,986.79. D, RECORDS: The traffic unit is expected to increase the amount of paperwork generated for the records section to enter into a data bank and file. The current records section has the equipment and site available to do the work. Apart time traffic records clerk to work approximately twenty hours a week is essential to alleviate the burden of the additional paperwork. This clerk will be dedicated to traffic related matters only. This clerk will also be available to enter traffic data generated by patrol officers assigned other duties. ` ~ , gTn~~tY : At present the traffic enforcement duties are assigned to the Uniform Division to be performed by officers assigned to districts. Unless it is a serious accident, traffic enforcement receives a lower priority than most of the officer's other duties. Zt is difficult to respond to citizen complaints of traffic related problems occurring during specific periods of the day because the patrol officer is constantly being reassigned to calls having a higher priority. The results and effectiveness of the random traffic enforcement by regular officers assigned patrol duties are minimal. With a traffic unit in place, targeted traffic enforcement in Roanoke County should become more effective. The traffic officers will have time to listen to complaints from citizens, review data, and compile information. With traffic enforcement being their primary function, the traffic officers, by effectively performing their duties, should make the highways through Roanoke County a safer place to drive. Reducing economic cost is secondary to the ultimate goal of reducing the number of injuries and fatalities resulting from traffic crashes in Roanoke County. A traffic unit within the Roanoke County Police Department will be a big step towards that goal. RCP D R E C E= P T S FROM TRAF F 2 C F= N E S July 1, 1992 Thru September 30, 1993 (Monthly Postings to Acct. # 000100-0390) DATE' FINES: INTEREST' TO 07/92 $ 20,963.49 $ 294.26 $ 21,257.75 08/92 28,320.56 147.96 28,468.52 09/92 21,157.71 442.26 21,599.97 10/92 24,004.81 185.29 24,190.10 11/92 32,281.40 247.00 32,528.40 12/92 35,028.07 115.76 35,143.83 01/93 32,943.31 456.74 33,400.05 02/93 32,243.95 802.37 33,046.32 03/93 25,546.44 377.14 25,546.44 04/93 26,672.39 520.19 27,192.58 05/93 23,479.23 662.82 24,142.05 06/93 26,112.80 484.50 26,597.30 SS FY 92 93 $328 754 16 S4 736 29 5333=490.45 07/93 27,585.43 629.16 28,214.59 08/93 31,348.97 481.58 31,830.55 09/93 26,511.20 431.14 26,942.34 SIIB~~ 51541 88 586,9A7.48 7/Q3 9/93 585 4aS 50 7~/92~9/93 S414 199 7 6 $6 278.17 5420 -477.93 ROANORE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: J. H. McCORKLE CAPTAIN ~~ S . B . TURNER ~ /~ ~~ ~ ~~ LIEUTENANT November 17, 1993 Results of Decal Enforcement 1993 Selective traffic enforcement was conducted between June 12, and July 31, 1993 throughout Roanoke County in an attempt to identify those persons not obtaining their required Roanoke County decal for their vehicles. The results of the selective traffic enforcement as reported under step code 10 are as follows: No County Decal 53 Expired County Decal 40 State Inspection Violations 40 Expired Vehicle Registration 11 Habitual Offender 02 Rev/Susp. 0 L 02 No 0 L 04 Other Violations 2? Total Violations 174 COURT RESULTS: Of the 93 tickets written for County Decal in fines . violations, there were 60 convictions resulting in 615 Of the 81 tickets written for other violations, there were 54 convictions resulting in 52812.00 in fines . The total fines for the charges written during the special decal enforcement program were 54472.00. TAX COLLECTED: As a result of this program the Commissioner of Revenue estimates that 513.449.69 in additional taxes was assessed. PROGRAK COST: There were 173.5 hours of overtime paid for this program at a cost of S1931.90. Factoring in the amount of fines paid to the county as a direct result of this program and the additional taxes assessed, less the actual overtime cost, the program resulted in a net gain of Si5 986.79. ROANOKE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO : CHIEF J . H . CEASE \~,~ ~ , ~jt,Iv , w~ FROM : LT . S . B . TURNER ~, ~ /~',t/...~E~ti ~~ ,I ~, ~~ a~ DATE : January 13 , 1994 ~~~ ~. SUBJECT: Roanoke County Traffic Crash Data After reviewing the traffic crash data that was available from the Records Section, I was able to gather information to prepare this report. This report will show the number of calls received by the Roanoke County Communication Center to which a police officer responded to investigate a report of a traffic crash. The report will further indicate how many of the calls received were responded to by Roanoke County Police Officers and how many calls were referred to the Virginia State Police for investigation. TRAFFIC CRASH DATA ROANOKE COUNTY YEAR TypE Investigated by Investigated by Roanoke County Virginia State Police Police 1991 Property Damage 1074 Unknown Unknown Personal Injury 413 ~.r~ 1487 1992 Property Damage 1291 108 X 1 Personal Injury 476 2. 1.9 Z,O,r~ 1767 1993 Property Damage 1366 90 Personal Injury ~ 187 TOTriL 1869 There has been an increase in the number of traffic crashes investigated by Roanoke County Police Officers each of the reporting years. The total for 1992 shows an increase in the accidents to be 280 which is an 18.8 increase over 1991. The year 1993 showed a smaller increase, 102 more accidents, which is an increase of 5.8~ from the prior year. The numbers above show an increase for both the total number of investigated traffic crashes and the number of traffic crashes investigated by Roanoke County Police. The Virginia State Police show a decrease in the number of accidents that were referred to them by the Roanoke County Communication Center. During the year of 1993 there were a total of 2056 traffic crashes received by the Roanoke County Communication Center. The Virginia State Police were referred 9~ of the traffic crashes which is down from 11% for the year of 1992. I have spoken to First Sergeant Duffey of the Virginia State Police about their manpower for Roanoke County. He informed me that their are 12 allocated slots for Troopers to be assigned to Roanoke County. One of the Troopers has been temporarily (past three months) assigned to Montgomery County. Another Trooper has been reassigned to Richmond effective January 16, 1994. It is unknown when or if the two slots will be filled. This indicates that there is a possible chance for a further reduction in allocated State Police manpower for Roanoke County. As you can see from the figures contained in this report, the Roanoke County Police Department has been responsible for investigating an increasing number of traffic crashes as well as an increasing proportion of the total reported traffic crashes. From the information provided by First Sergeant Duffey, it appears likely that for the year 1994, the Roanoke County Police Department will continue the trend of being responsible for an increasing portion of the total reported traffic crashes. • In 1992, drinking was a factor in about 15,777 fatal crashes in the U.S. For every age between 6 and 33, traffic crashes are the greatest single cause of death, and alcohol is involved in 45.1 % of these. Highway crashes involving drivers (and pedestrians) who are impaired by alcohol and other drugs are not "accidents." Prevention works to save lives. • Approximately 17,700 Americans died in these preventable crashes in 1992, about one third of them under the age of 25. • In spite of the minimum legal drinking age now set at 21 in all states, in 1992, 34.2 of fatally injured drivers under 21 had known blood alcohol concentrations,of .O1 or above. Intensive efforts have significantly reduced alcohol crash involvement for this age group. • Teenagers are at high risk for alcohol-related highway crashes. According to a March 1989 report, nearly half of 10th graders and a third of 8th graders reported riding during the past month with a driver who had used alcohol or other drugs before driving. • Impaired drivers with a BAC of .15 are 26 times as likely to have a fatal crash as sober drivers. In 1992, the average BAC of those arrested for alcohol impaired driving in Virginia was 0.1597.. • The amount of alcohol consumed by people arrested for driving under the influence is usually very high. On average, their BACs register the pure alcohol bloodstream equivalent of 10 to 12 drinks in a four-hour period, or BACs greater than .15. • In addition to saving lives and avoiding injuries and property damage, preventing impaired driving reduces the costs. of private insurance and health care, frees IQw , enforcement personnel to counter other threats to the community's well-being, and relieves over-burdened court and prison systems. • Alcohol is a factor in 45.1 % of all fatal traffic crashes and one-fifth of all crashes involving injury. As a result, a large portion of the economic costs of traffic crash injuries is attributed to crashes where alcohol is involved. • In 1990, alcohol-related traffic crashes cost about $46 billion, based on an average of approximately $800,000 per fatal crash and $14,500 per non-fatal crash. A signifi-. cant portion of the $46 billion, approximately $37 billion, is associated with medical . costs, lost productivity and property damage incurred as a result of alcohol-related crashes. • Alcohol-related highway crashes are the leading cause of death for adolescents and young adults in the U.S. `- ~ ~ ~ Cclendar Average DUI DUI Conviction % of Alcohol Related % of Alcohol Related Year BAC Arrests Rate Crashes Fatalities 1988 0.1633 46,044 84 % 13 % 49 1989 0.1620 46,977 86 % 12 % 48 1990 0.1607 49,601 85 % 13 % 50 1991. 0.1599 45,309 85 % 12 % 46 1992 0.1597 40,107 85 % 1 1 % 45 Virginia Driving Trends Summary: X983 X992 eiYtr G tMtiCtlht TOd Alodte EilrlMM" ~ D ~rM1 lkhkir Rtitb' Rsgl~nr Llow>.rr Dtivws Con ~l rttntottl0~r' MlhrOe'~ Ctatttrr FsIrI1tIM InItr9M Crartw F a1dMM IrtMr~" Yettr t 983 2.20 ].925593 3.711206 2.861.4 at .920 t t 3.672 900 63264 t 9.694 376 359 t 5.191 t 5 123 1984 2.30 4.099966 3.772441 3.019) aa.904 t 233x6 1.014 69306 7x 565 t 9371 19381 479 . tt.m0 1985 2.10 a.29ZT49 ].819563 3.t21D 17.928 133325 4 980 1 118 . 79 168 t 9944 x112 t Sd34 1986 2.20 x.51 1377 3.9Si626 32tSD S 1.725 4 t x05 . . 114 18 878 at6 15.014 1987 190 4.660.657 1.070.041 3.4459 J4.63t 1x5.473 1.022 60. . 522 ta 1T! 1988 t .88 4.752311 a. t 46.101 3510.0 ~7.t53 t x4319 1.069 %~ .735 18.064 x80 . 17341 1969 t 72 a 867b07 1249563 3.5269 `-9.737 t~.155 999 ?9310 17.051 535 t a t3r0 t 990 t 82 a .985.438 1 x04.722 3.4812 =0.1 T8 t 14 S05 t .071 '6.436 + 7,237 x29 . t 2167 t 991 t '.6 5.021.679 •+ 429.424 1.5103 ; t .099 t 22.515 938 ~ 0.899 +x.694 379 t 1 493 t 992 1.13 , 5.121916 1.771565 3.615b 63274 t 22.887 839 76.615 t ].830 . •Pat 100 mdtttst mwas.r+tn 1992 ~stnt~a "'in mrors tentn 1992 mrsa rAettttlea °tn mrnns wntn 1992 estuttatttl0. '--~etemtnea tang meos>r uarttnsr a~a n aooRton 10 oaw nraons 17egR1ftfRJ ~ fD63. Deaths on Mayor Holidays I ~nerr Na 401 al Ns LaDar Ila Tlfenler Ns CT btttttr l Na Dtttlttl Nrw YerPr' N` Orly Orp Ottryr JtJp Dttr~ Orq Ottrr 9ltrlno Qa1~ Y n Ysr 1963 10 3 10 a t0 4 t5 a 7 4 7 y Z a 1964 7 3 a i t6 1 18 a ~ 2 2 2 t965 9 1 t0 a 9 7 t1 a 6 tt a 20 4 1966 tt 3 2t 3 21 ] t5 a a 9 a t2 4 1967 t3 3 tt 1 t7 ] t7 9 ] 10 3 1986 t6 3 t5 3 tH ] 7 a a t0 1 t0 3 1989 t6 3 2T a t5 1 6 a t5 a t2 • 1990 t7 3 7 t t3 3 tt 7 2 2 2 1991 13 3 21 • t5 3 t7 a a 10 4 1992 9 3 9 3 8 3 5 a t o NQiE: amts ar+ for tnal~ tyatls ttnoe~0 teas ~ 1a>a es ttass d t!» Qtt~oeort9 mY• '198692 NtM rrrs tool r Wait mmaa» o aMas cars gZea Oue 1o wrtges to aotsrng ptoosotar. 15 1992 Virginia Traffic Crash Facts What Ha~pened_in DMV Districts~in~ 1992: in 1992: ~o..w. h~ ot+ra• 'Mitd1e~ on.ti. F.~.. ,r~.w•. °"~.` P iZT4 .t~rt..• 39,sT. ~~ 4 ~ OMV OhtrQ t t0A4T 9T i76 T~ 11.191 2~9 ~ ;~ 14118= 1 SStl7S , 01A ouvomra: iT93T ,~ te~- ~,10e S4 Z37Z . ~T os ol~votattaa xs~ Yj~tt t ~ ,ata 32lS ,ta T3 zasi I~A6 t .09-~ , au Ot1AV 0f~ 4 TT6 ~ 172 2t.~T3 3.417. , 393lfa OMV Oisltta S 1Z Ott of ~ t1~o~es ~ Not Slmo 3 t9 9 ~ 4ts T4 ToW 122347 eai . 'Odtt ~ t>tr tooo vgna ro...o awes. 7 1992 Virginia Traffic Crash Facts , PERCENTAGE OF ALCOHOL RELATED ACCIDENTS AND FATALITIES Calendar Years 1983 - 1992 60% 50% 40% ' 30% 20% 10% 0% ~ _ I ~-- 7- `~ -------------------------- -A/R Accidents - -A/R Fatalities '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 AVERAGE BAC OF TESTED DRINKING DRIVERS Calendar Years 1983 - 1992 ., 0.1750 0.1700 0.1650 '0.1600 0.1550 0.1500 C ~. ~: ~; ~. _ '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 ''89 '90 '91 '92 VIRGINIA ~ 0.1705 0.1709 0.1685 0.1684 0.1641 0.1633 0.1620 0.1607 0.1599 0.1597 DUI ARRESTS Calendar Years 1983 - 1992 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 n DUI CONVICTION RATE Calendar Years 1993 - 1992 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91- '92 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 O~ ROAN ~.~ ~, z p ~ O ~ ;,; ~? 1838 (~~~xx~#~ ~# ~.~rxx~~~~ P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 January 28, 1994 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERIAL DSSTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 Ms. Mary Walker 8224 Poor Mountain Road Bent Mountain, VA 24059 Dear Ms. Walker: At their regular meeting on Tuesday, January 25, 1994, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the request of the Bent Mountain Woman's Club for a raffle permit. The raffle will be conducted on April 12, 1994. The fee has been paid and your receipt is enclosed. You may consider this letter to be your permit, and I suggest it be displayed on the premises where the raffle is to be conducted. The State Code provides that raffle and bingo permits be issued on a calendar-year basis and such permits issued will expire on December 31, 1994. This permit, however, is only valid on the date specified in your application. PLEASE READ YOUR APPLICATION CAREFULLY. YOU HAVE AGREED TO COMPLY WITH STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND REVOKING OF YOUR PERMIT. YOU MUST FILE A FINANCIAL REPORT BYDECEMBER I OF EACH CALENDAR YEAR PLEASE SUBMIT A NEW APPLICATION AT LEAST 60 DAYS PRIOR TO DATE OR DATES YOUR ORGANIZATION PLANS TO HOLD BINGO OR RAFFLES. PERMITS EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 31 OF EACH CALENDAR YEAR If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 772-2003. Sincerely, Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Enclosures cc: Commissioner of the Revenue Commonwealth Attorney County Treasurer ® Recycled paper s -.~ ~F ROANp,I.~ a z ~ ~z C~~~~# .~~ ~~xxY~ ~ 1838 P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 January 28, 1994 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HIW4 MAGISTERAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON NOWNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERALL. DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 Ms. Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE Roanoke City Council 215 Church Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Ms. Parker: Attached is a copy of Board Action No. 12594-4 concerning claim by the City of Roanoke for unapproved charges for surplus water. This claim was denied by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, January 25, 1994. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, /'C7' °`~-f' "rte/ Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Attachment cc: Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Clifford D. Craig, Director, Utility Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance ® Paper O~ ROAN MF L ~ p a C~ rYlxrttt~ ~ ~ ~~~~~.K.~ P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS January 18, 1994 LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR.. VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERUL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOWNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELLFUZZY" MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERUIL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 Ms. Elizabeth Stokes 5421 Sweetfern Drive, NW Roanoke, VA 24019 Dear Elizabeth: During our discussions at the investiture ceremony, you indicated a willingness to continue service to Roanoke County as a member of the Board of Directors of Total Action Against Poverty. As you are aware, my position on that Board of Directors expires in May of 1994. I have discussed with my fellow Board members the possibility of re-nomination for that particular Board position, and designating you to serve in that capacity. They have unanimous agreed and you will be added as the designee to our Consent Agenda for the next Board Meeting. I appreciate very much your willingness to continue to serve Roanoke County in this capacity. If I can be of any assistance during your tenure, please feel free to call. Again, thanks so much. BIJ/bj h cc: Board Reading File Siryderely, Bob L. ohnson Roano ounty Board of Supervisors ~Iol s agisterial District ® Pam c~~~ ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR HELDIAT THE ROp,NOKERDCOUNTY ADMINISTRP,TIONRCENTER COUNTY, VIRGINI 1994 Establi, ~-20r17 ~ I)+lb ~r ~f Equali /' ~ T . ~-- ~ ~~ d- r~~- ~, ~~- ~~~.,~ , , ~~~ "~ (~J1 t }~ t I v ~ j ~G ~ F3 ~s~~ U~~ ,fo ~ ~.~ ~t effectiv ~C~ ~ 6 r r ~r ,,,...~rs will ~~,~r_.~'' ~tinw-~ :d 1 G V L G W J yy i V l l 1.11 G L v G l and February 4, 1994 . If the prop eal tc ~' `~'~ ~~`~~ ~ !i[~ - `' with the valuation, he/she may app Pursuant to the provisions of Section 58.1-3370 of the Code of Virginia, the Board of Supervisors has requested that the Circuit Court appoint a Board of Equalization of Real Estate Assessments for 1994. Each member of the Board of Equalization shall receive compensation to be fixed by the local governing body as set forth and established by Section 58.1-3375. Neither the number of hours nor days that the Board of Equalization meets can be controlled by either the Assessor or the public officials of a locality. A survey of neighboring localities concerning compensation of their respective Board of Equalization has been completed and is attached for your consideration. The Roanoke County Board of Equalization held twelve meetings in 1991, fourteen meetings in 1992, and eleven meetings in 1993. FISCAL IMPACT' None. $10,000 has been included in the County Assessor's Budget to cover this compensation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff suggests that the salary of Board members not be based on an annual salary, but on atherfollowing lis recommend d• After study of the enclosed survey, 125.00 Per diem for attended meetings $ 000.00 Cap per Board member not to exceed - $ 2, Total budgeted for salaries - $10,000.00 Res ctfully subm~;t ed, Approved by, ~ ~> /ohn Birckhead Elmer C. Hodge ~~ County Administrator ~.` County Assessor _____ ______________ VOTE ACTION Motion b No Yes Abs Approved ( ) y' Eddy Denied ( ) Johnson Received ( ) Kohinke Referred ( ) Minnix To ( ) Nickens Attachment r n n n xn n xn x n nn nn v o n ° n rt n E rt ~ H A 7 n ~ n y n e n rt rt r r a w (D M R M ~< M M M M M M O M '{ M a r ~ ° a c o ~ a . c y o o m ~ G a r ~ n Sd '^ r ; rHi, E 'O tai W 7 'd F. G O a M N B O O O ~• R. ~ R r ~ o ~' ~ X R C p rD 'rtC m x ,y to ~ ~ m w ~ ] ~ a w n y ~ G G G ~ r G G G G G G r r N ~ N N G N r r W N N G a r r r, F, xox ~ M N W W W W N W N W W !n 0 f0 N W „ O f, N r N b x ro m r N ~ ~+ w ~ N f, ~ N O o ~ r m o 0 w rt rH VI O ~1 J O N m O ~ Dl O M R~ W R V1 R r a G r R 7• r R V1 R d R W R O (p O N a G N R ~1 R r R O R r RO R OX RO R N UlN N R N O RO R O R<n ty ro ,pC O W0 O p R R W 'R\ 77'\ na 7a ^a On Y•RO a ' 7a ~\ o\ 7cna Oa a 7\ a 7 a m m ~ a K aK aw aw w a a` C ~ r R K to H 7 ~ K R~ p w a r r rt rt R'< K n o r n t + O n R O~ O~ 0~ n R a a ~+ O ~ O ~ ~ tD xC O~ O i N a7 R+ rt ~' mw O y.~. p i W W O~ tq3 to as ' ~ W 3 IpG W 3 fDG W 3 (DG p n g ' N• N G N 3 N 3 h R N G N 3 ~ I r O R N R N R N 0 R R R N RR RN r Rb R R R R+ ~ O (D R N N roR .q R w ro a a ro roR a ° M R a a a w a ,.. Y. m In w a "• % n Y. Y. ~ a r. a a a M ro m R "• a a °' m v a a m a ~< z O 3 A O d b E r ° ° ro tY .'d N - N tD r b • 7• M. 7 nl no ~ ro~ ro o '"'m <r". no RM< rtK R`< < . O 5 O 3 < O N N. 'C7 H R < 7 C 7 0 Y• I D N ~ (D N r- ~ ro rD ro m w roR n rt H E Y n R IDR m nG, £ ~ yH ~ oI D 7m a ~ cHrg n r E rtO w r m `C fD f tD r- `C rv r •~ O `C D b K ' r ` Y '< 0 ( N H a q tD < < ° 0 D O O G Y. r ° 0 nE n ~ ~' ' < ro E ~°.m n< <. r t<.. r. m G m rD r. 3 E E r D ~ H 0 Y. Y' n ~< N Ul K O R 'j ~~ K N N Y- rt rt ~ H K N N Y. r. O R R a Y' O M y ~S R ~ R myz N o "x ~• ro a W N N Y J O~ lb N UI N N ~ n r M J Vf 10 v ~ J O RID ~ m N ~] ~O 01 O .P N J ~P N ~ N O~ N O~ N W 0 N M ,p m N O m /n J A O N N In r b d y~ N l ~ ~ N ' N b N b N b N b M m M R N O ~.•p ~ M!D N ID b ro n O ~ N 'O N ro N 'O N ro M fd O R W (D ~ (D M mro m R M N fD IOR (D roR ~ :' wo wo a o w na a m n IDO tt K N ro • • _ 0 N R tp a n w R H• rt O N E rt N• O W M N d N N N N y y N 0 a W M O N O 3 O r• O a O N ~ I,• (D Y- N w ~ M n '.7 M tf f0 ~'4 ~ K ~S ~ '1 N h K .'O F{ ~ ~'S b• K lY ~S ~ fD N R ~4 R N O N ~ a N N R r• R, Y. 5 n n p < a+ n o o 0 w n n ~, x o x ~ (0 M i r i r n r O w r ~ ° ~ o rt m q tr+ w ~ o O w w vI r I K m ~ ~ ~ A r ~ N m w r r G r ~ O R r ~ W N N r O ~ O O W !P O N O b7 O n O G W O ~ O ~ O O N ` O N O O O O O O O .7 O R F' `O p p r 0 O O O m O Ll i ~ O O O ~ _ i ~n W n R Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. Hrru~r~ ~ ~~~~ ••~~~ ~~~ • -- THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ws v ws v ws v 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan Application fee Consultation `.;~ Proffers, if applicable 1va'h!'i Application ~. Metes and bounds description ro ert owners . Water amend ewer application Adjoining p p Y Justification ~~~~ l hereby certify that / am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and co^ nt of the owner. Owner's Signature: ~` Fns staff use only ~~~i; For staff use only Is the application complete? Please check if encloses. farr~~~.r+~ ~~~~ •••--- •-- THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ws v ws v ws v 8 1 /2" x 11 " concept plan Application fee Consultation Proffers, if applicable Application ~} Metes and bounds description ~"" ro ert owners ~.:. Water and sewer application Adjoining p p Y Justification l hereby certify that l am either the owner of the properly or the owner's spent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent the owner. ~~ ;~ Owner's Signature. Foi Staff Use Only: Case Number Applicant The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the zoning ordinance. THIS REQUEST FOR REMOII ER MORE FLEgIBILITYIINOP OYIDING A RUET~AILT SERVICE WOULD ALLOiI ~ FUTURE OR COMMERCIAL FACILITY SERVING THE COMMUNITY- Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. TfIIS REQUEST IS IN ~~ U~ RETAIL AND SERVICE BUSCOINFSSFS ON gEYPARTERIAL PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT 0 Q HIGHWAYS SERVING A LARGE AREA• . Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation, and fire/rescue. THIS REQUF~T WOULD HAVE NO ADVANCE IMPACT ON ADJOINING PROPIItTIFS, THE GENERAL AREA OR THE PROPERTY ITM ~ • ~~~ ~F iF<TT<TRE DEgE1,OPMENT - ~ OF ZONING IN THE AREA AND PERMIT ~' For Staff Use Only: Case Number Applicant CARY M. & S)EIIR?-~ I . CUNNINGHAI~I The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Section :iU-:il as well as ~~~C purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the zoning ordinance. THIS REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF PROFFERED CONDITIONS FROM Tfi1E SUBJECT PROPERTY iiOULD~ALLON ONTIGUO SP)~iTIDC027~~5T~~ B~SID~R A COl"I!'IERCIALGPRINTING BUILD FIRM SERVING THE C01?4i[TNITY . Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. THE. REMOVAL OF PROFFERS FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY MILL ALLOW TIDv OWNERS ~ ~~ ABO~VE~ THIS US IS RECO~iDED BYSROATNO TCOUNTY' S COl"!P'REE~IISIVE OUTLINED PLAN FOR THE AREA. Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation, and fire/rescue. AREA THIS REQUF~T HAS NO I!U'ACT ON THE PROPERTY , THE NEIGHBORS . OR THEAA INCONSISTII~iT WITH DESIRABLE USES OF SAME. FURTHERMORE, IT HAS NO EE';r~CT ON MIINICIPAL SERVICES, SCHOOLS, Ei'C. G-~ For Staff Use Only Proposed Zoning: C-2 Use Type: Proposed Land Use: Retail Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? YES X NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES X _ NO __ IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? YES NO X Variance of Sectionls) N/A of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ws v ws v ws v 8 1 /2" x 11 " concept plan Application fee Consultation ~'~4~ Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable Application Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners Justification ~~~ l hereby certify that l am either the owner of the propeity or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. Owner's Signature: -~ c,.. ~s~ff ilea nnly Foi Staff Use Only: Case Number ~..,::~. ~fT Applicant A & Enterprises, LLC The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the zoning ordinance. The property is presently zoned C-2 with conditions. The applicant desires to remove the pautomobileoncollisionh repairr facilitySeand the property to an resonably incidental and related purposes. The proffered conditions provide for a more intensive use of the property. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. The removal of the existing proffered conditions will allow the district classification to conform to the general guidelines zoning Comprehensive Plan. and policies as outlines in the Roanokin ~ieyCore area. General The property is identified as being C_2) meets the land use Commercial District Zoning Classification guidelines and policies for Core areas. 'lease describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, ana the ~u~ ~ v~~ ~~~~.y area, as dell as the impacts on public services and facilities, including waterlsewer, roads, schools, ~arkslrecreation, and fire/rescue. The removal of existing proffered conditions will impact positively on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as wellles col lsion rep re fac'a i y listlnot The use of an automobi nei hborhood. compatible to the surrounding g ~ ZISI~~Y3 '>` e m I v, _~ S _! 4Mf 10 / w -- U ~ s I ~ ~ O ! ~ ~ ~ I = ~ ~L U t .~ 1 s ` iE '"~---~ __ I ~ I I I! I ~ i ~ r rr~ ^ I , ~ i 1+~+ I ~ I : ~ ~ I I i 0 ~ y i '' = ...i I- ~ ~ N T ~ v ~" ~ O ~ ~ I ~' o I I% j ' i ~ 14. ~. :~ ff, ~. • 4.f f\~ ---bf -~,~ ~'4 ~ h.f •\~'h W~ ` ~ ~~~ y `~`. `+ 4 `~I'~+++~+d ~~~11 R»N+IPpog 4~~1'N~Md'H ~1~a + r a U E f . ;'~ \~ :., \ ,: U d a o~+ L •~ ~ .~ ~ N W ~ C C y q~CC A [~'`ii iota; ,,' '-I{`+-i +~~,+~ :i+i:f +'+t- • ~~ u x Y d'1'~IR+N flfM G -~- M E M O RAN D U M To: Board of Supervisors ~~//~ ~/ ~\i4~~ From : Elmer C . Hodge ~~!~~~ ~ Date: January 21, 1994 Subject: Additional staff for decal enforcement Attached is the cost/benefit analysis provided by Chief John Cease to support additional staff for decal enforcement. As you will see, the Chief makes a good point; additional officers can generate the revenues to pay the increase in expenses. The projections are based on traffic violations such as DUI, speeding, etc. This does not include the revenue that can be realized from the overall departmental emphasis on decal enforcement. I find myself in the enviable position of having the Board offer additional staff rather than having to make the request. I am grateful and will gladly accept additional staff in the Police Department or the Commissioner's Office, or both if you so choose. I would, however, offer the following thoughts: 1. I generally prefer to add staff during the budget process unless there is a very good reason to do otherwise. New decals will be issued in May and enforcement could begin the first of July if we advertise for personnel and equipment in advance of that date. 2. The Commissioner's Office can get a person on the street quicker than the Police Department because they do not require a lengthy training program. It should take no more than thirty days to hire an employee and purchase a vehicle. 3. As other police activity increases, the new traffic unit in the Police Department will have to respond to higher priority calls and there may not be enough time to check for invalid decals. The projections provided by Chief Cease will, on their own, justify the addition of four officers and a clerk. 4. In the budget process, we intend to ask the Board to increase the 9-1-1 surcharge to add dispatchers and equipment. Other police personnel, such as DARE officers, patrol officers, and detectives will also be needed. I am sending this to you individually rather than in an agenda request because of the sensitivity of the material. I still prefer to add one person in the Commissioner's Office (or perhaps the Zoning Inspector's office if that is a better fit) for decal enforcement and take a comprehensive look at the needs of the Police Department during the budget. Again, thank you for your support of either method. We can use the additional revenue and the staff. Attachment cc - Mr. Donnie C. Myers Mr. John H. Cease ~ ROA I~ POANO~F POLICE cOUN'~~ John H. Cease Chief of Police 3568 Peters Creek Road Roanoke County Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Office: 703/561-8071 Police Department Fax: 703/561-8114 ROANORE COIINTY POLICE DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D II M FROM: John H. Cease Chief, Roanoke County Police Department DATE: January 14, 1994 TO: Don Myers Assistant County Administrator SUBJECT: Traffic I have had my staff put together all the information in relation to the proposed traffic unit. All the information is attached to this memorandum for your review. There is an additional memo in regard to traffic crashes in Roanoke County which you have not previously received. You should find this information helpful in preparing your staff report to the Board of Supervisors. If there is any additional information or help you may need, feel free to call on me or my staff . A NATIONALLY ACCREDITED AGENCY i~- h '~ j,. "`~ :1~~~~; ~~~•rt ~ "FIRST IN SOUTHWESTERN VIRGINIA" ROANOKE C OUNT Y PO L= C E D E PARTMENT STAFF PROJECT: TRAFFIC UNIT PROPOSAL The staff of the Roanoke County Police Department researched and developed several reports in relation to the staff project for determining the needs of a traffic component within the Police Department. This proposal contains copies of those reports and other pertinent information necessary to determine the need for a traffic component. Included is a report detailing start up costs for this unit, with projected revenues and costs for a four year period. A report on the methodology used to determine projected revenues is also included. Additional reports for review include: information on receipts from traffic fines; the duties and responsibilities of the traffic unit as outlined in the proposal ; and two memos , one on county decal enforcement and the other on traffic crashes in Roanoke County. It is estimated that it will take approximately 120 days for the start up of the unit once approved. This includes the time necessary to hire qualified personnel and acquire equipment. RCP D TRAF F = C UN = T PROPOSAL (4 Grade 19 officers, 1 Part Time Traffic Records Clerk) START UP COST OF UNIT COST PER OFFICER' Officer Salary and Benefits Vehicle Vehicle Fuel and Maintenance Radios Firearms RADAR Unit VG II Unit Vehicle Equipment Personal Equipment SUBTOTAL Salary f or one traffic records clerk (Part Time) T OTAL _ $ 26,933.19 = 14,871.00 = 1,592.47 = 4,640.00 = 879.50 = 1,556.00 = 1,300.00 = 2,592.16 = 1 934.68 56,299.00 = 6 510.40 $ 62,809.40 COST FOR UNIT' _ $ 107,732.76 = 59,484.00 = 6,369.88 = 18,560.00 = 3,518.00 = 6,224.00 = 5,200.00 = 10,368.64 = 7.738.72 225,196.00 = 6.510.40 _ $ 231,706.40 PROJECTED ANNUAL COST OF PROPOSED TRAFFIC UNIT (4 OFFICERS, 1 P/T CLERK) 1st year costs= $ 231,706.40 2nd year costs= 126,643.69 3rd year costs= 132,975.88 4th year costs= 139,62.4.67 TOTAL COST FOR FOUR YEARS = $ 630,950.64 *' * The projected cost for the four year period was obtained by increasing the annual salaries and benefits of ea earffAnnualncosts annual salary of the part time clerk by 5o per y also include vehicle fuel and maintenance at an estimated 5~ increase per year. PROJECTED REVENUE FROM 'i`R~FFTC FINES PER OFFICER' FOR LTN~T_ 1st year projected revenue = $ 47,571.48 8 = $ 190,285.92 285.92 190 2nd year projected revenue = ue = 47,571.4 571.48 = 47 , 190,285.92 3rd year projected reven = , 571.48 = 47 190 285.92 4th year projected revenue , TOTAL PROJECTED REVE NUE FOR FOUR YEARS = $ 761,143.68 ANNUAL PROJECTED NET OF TRAFFIC UNIT TO ROANORE COUNTY PROJECTED: REVENUE - COST (_) NET: 1st year $ 190,285.92 - $ 231,706.40 _ $ (-41,420.48) 642.23 63 2nd year 190,285.92 92 - 126,643.69 - _ = 975.88 132 , 57,310.04 3rd year 190,285. 285.92 190 ' = - 139,624.67 50 661.25 4th year , TOTAL PROJECTED NET F;EVEIdiJE FOR FOUR YEAR PERIOD ,~ 130 193.04 The total projected revenue does not include any increase in tax assessments or any increase of collections of personal property tax. This has been estimated to be $147,200 by the Commissioner of Revenue as brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors by a memo from Don Myers dated November 16, 1993. This figure is for one year only. No projection of any additional revenue from taxes has been made in reference to this proposal. The projected revenue will decrease the first year by 1/12 for each month that the proposed traffic unit is not performing enforcement duties. This will happen if the unit is delayed due to training by not being able to hire certified police officers. The delay for The unit should not be longer than six months due to training. decrease in revenue w r abcedelevelaoflmanpower fork a shortuperiod able to operate at a of time . METHODOLOGY 1. A random selection was made of one court date for the months of July, August, September, and October of 1993. Compiling the information available from the court in reference to fines for county charges, an average fine was arrived at for the different violations as indicated below: CHARGE # OF CONVICTIONS TOTAL FINES AVERAGE FINE DUI 8 $ 4,400.00 $550.00 SPEEDING 215 10,647.00 49.52 MOVING VIOL. 41 1,260.00 30.73 SUSPENDED OL 12 2,150.00 179.17 COUNTY DECAL 26 680.00 26.15 2. An inquiry was made with Roanoke City Police Department to ascertain the average number of tickets per month that a traffic officer writes. I was informed by Lt. Bower that the average will vary between 60-10o depending on the number of accident investigations that the traffic officer has to complete. The Roanoke City traffic officers are responsible for investigating all personal injury accidents, which would be different for a Roanoke County traffic officer responsibe for investigating only serious personal injury crashes. 3. To arrive at the estimated revenue the traffic unit would generate in fines, a low monthly average of 60 tickets per officer per month was used. Using data provided by the courts, a percentage of the total charges was derived for each individual type of violation. Using the percentage, the 60 tickets would break down as follows: Speeding-43 charges, DUI-2 charges, Moving Violations-8, Suspended OL-2, and County Decal Violations-5 charges. 4. Using the above breakdown and the average fine per charge type, the revenue was projected as follows: Speeding- $2129.36, DUI- $1100, Moving Violations- $245.84, Suspended OL- $358.34, and County Decal Violations- $130.75. This is a total of $3,964.29 for the total of the 60 tickets written. 5. The proposed traffic unit would have four officers assigned to it. Using the monthly average of $3,964.29 per officer, the unit would generate $15,857.16 per month and $190,285.92 per year. The estimated revenue over a four year period is 576 143.68 6. Another factor to consider but cannot be included in the estimated revenue is the amount of additional tax assessments that will result because of the traffic unit performing selective decal enforcement. PROPOSAL RCP D TRAF F = C UN = T DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: A: pssictnment: 'The four officer traffic unit will be under the direction of a traffic coordinator. The officers of the unit will not be used to supplement manpower for the three permanent shifts in the Uniform Division. The traffic officers will respond to Priority I and II calls as a back up officer only when absolutely necessary. The traffic officer will be relieved by an uniformed division patrol officer as soon as possible in order for the traffic officer to resume his duties. B , Accident Inv~~igat~ ~ The traffic officers wil l be trained in advanced traffic crash investigation as well as other pertinent traffic related courses. To the extent possible, the officers will be responsible for investigating all traffic crashes involving fatalities or life threatening injuries. The traffic officers' duties will not include responding to the many minor traffic crashes that occur within the county. The regularly assigned district patrol officer will be responsible for investigating the minor traffic crashes occurring within the assigned district. One of the duties of the traffic unit will be to analyze traffic crash data to determine the major causes, locations, dates, and times of the crashes. With the information developed, traffic officers will conduct necessary targeted enforcement in an effort to reduce the total number of crashes, which should reduce fatalities and injuries. C. Duties: The duties of the try the need arises throughout the year different assigned tasks Priorities duties in order to make the traffic obtaining their goals. Some of the anticipated are as follows: ~ffic officer will vary as to accomplish the many will be assigned to the unit more effective in duties and assignments 1. Targeted Speed Enforcement: Many complaints are received from citizens by the police department as well as the members of the Board of Supervisors in reference to speeders in residential areas. One of the duties of the traffic unit will be to assign traffic officers to monitor these complaints and to identify other areas in residential subdivisions needing traffic enforcement . Attention will also be given to School Zones by providing increased traffic enforcement at the beginning of each school year . The traffic unit will be able to identify any traffic problems in the school zones throughout the school year and address them accordingly. 2. Targeted Enforcement (County Decals): An additional priority of the traffic unit will be to identify those individuals who have not paid their personal property tax and purchased a county decal for their vehicles. It is estimated that as of November 1, 1993 there is approximately $147,200 dollars in uncollected personal property tax in Roanoke County. Through targeted enforcement, traffic officers will be able to locate and issue summons to drivers/owners of vehicles not complying with the ordinance. This will be done by conducting road checks and stationary observation point in heavily travelled areas such as apartment complexes, major shopping areas, and major roads in Roanoke County subdivisions. 3. Targeted Enforcement (Habitual Offenders and Drivers DMV has recently with Revoked/Suspended Operators Licenses): provided the Roanoke County Police Department with a list containing the names of 63 persons declared an Habitual Offender in Roanoke County Circuit Court between January 1, 1991 and June 30, 1993. The list for Roanoke city contains 125 names and the list for Salem contains the names of 22 persons. This is a combined total of 210 persons in the Roanoke Valley that were declared an Habitual Offender within the above time period that have three or more convictions for DUI. Besides the names on the lists provided by DMV, there are many other persons operating motor vehicles who have been declared habitual offenders or have had their operators licenses revoked/suspended. Many of the serious traffic crashes that have occurred recently have involved drivers with suspended operators licenses. The traffic unit will target those drivers who continue to drive in violation of court orders, making the highways unsafe for the public. 4 , Targeted Enforcement ( DUI) : Traffic officers wi 11 be assigned to targeted enforcement in an effort to identify and arrest drivers operating motor vehicles while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. Of the traffic crashes investigated by Roanoke County Police Department for the first three quarters of 1993, 95 involved alcohol. These accidents resulted in 47 injuries and 2 of the 3 reported fatalities in Roanoke County. By making the DUI enforcement a priority, it is hoped that the injuries and fatalities resulting from traffic crashes involving drinking drivers will decrease. (Note that as this report is being prepared that there has been another fatal traffic crash in Roanoke County resulting in one death and two injuries. This crash also involved alcohol.) 5. Targeted Enforcement on Major Highways: There are a number of major highways traversing Roanoke County. Targeted traffic enforcement will be conducted on these highways to insure the public's safety. Targeted enforcement will be for any moving violation that may lead to a traffic crash. 6. Targeted Enforcement (Parking Violations): Although not the top priority, traffic officers will have the responsibility of enforcing parking violations on the streets and parking areas within Roanoke County. If needed, the traffic officer can set up a stationary observation location in an attempt to dissuade violators and issue parking tickets. The traffic unit will be able to provide stricter enforcement of the many fire lanes and handicapped parking spaces located throughout Roanoke County. D. STATISTICS: There are many facts and statistics available to support the need for a separate traffic unit within the police department. Some of these facts and statistics are broken down as follows: 1. TRAFFIC CRASH FACTS: Statistics show that in Roanoke County, during 1992, there were 1457 reportable traffic crashes to the DMV that resulted in 4 fatalities and 782 injuries. During the first three quarters of 1993, Roanoke County Police investigated 1495 traffic crashes, 79 reportable to DMV, that resulted in 3 fatalities and 370 injuries. The 1992 figures come from the Virginia traffic crash facts booklet provided by DMV. The 1993 figures are based on information from the Roanoke County Police Department records section. Utilizing information from the Virginia traffic crash booklet provided by DMV , and taking the estimated economic cost per accident from 1991 and applying that figure, without any inflation factor, to the traffic crash information for Roanoke County during 1992 shows a large estimated economic cost. With 4 fatal crashes at an estimated economic cost of $504,301.08 per crash, the total is $2,017,204.32. The total estimated economic cost for 782 personal injury crashes at $30,178.23 per crash is $23,599,375.86. The 671 property damage accidents at a cost of $4,200.62 per accident results in a total estimated economic cost of $2,818,616.02. The total estimated economic cost for the 1457 traffic crashes reported to DMV for 1992 is S28 435,196.20. This figure does not take into account the many minor traffic crashes resulting in property damage estimated to be below $1000.00 at the time of the crash. 2. Targeted ENFORCEI~NT RESULTS: On occasion the Roanoke County Police Department has been able to use overtime funds to do targeted traffic enforcement. The latest was a special county decal enforcement program. This program was conducted between June, 1993 and July 31, 1993. Police officers worked 173.5 hours of overtime at a cost of $1931.90. They wrote 174 charges while working this detail, 93 county decal violations and 81 other traffic charges. There were 114 convictions resulting in $4472.00 in fines collected for Roanoke County. The Commissioner of Revenue also estimates that $13,449.69 in additional taxes was assessed. Taking into account the additional taxes assessed and fines generated, less the overtime cost, the net gain to Roanoke County is $15,986.79. D, RF.CnR~S: The traffic unit is expected to increase the amount of paperwork generated for the records section to enter into a data bank and file. The current records section has the equipment and site available to do the work. Apart time traffic records clerk to work approximately twenty hours a week is essential to alleviate the burden of the additional paperwork. This clerk will be dedicated to traffic related matters only. This clerk will also be available to enter traffic data generated by patrol officers assigned other duties. E , grn~+tA~tY : At present the traffic enforcement duties are assigned to the Uniform Division to be performed by officers assigned to districts. Unless it is a serious accident, traffic enforcement receives a lower priority than most of the officer's other duties. It is difficult to respond to citizen complaints of traffic related problems occurring during specific periods of the day because the patrol officer is constantly being reassigned to calls having a higher priority. The results and effectiveness of the random traffic enforcement by regular officers assigned patrol duties are minimal. With a traffic unit in place, targeted traffic enforcement in Roanoke County should become more effective. The traffic officers will have time to listen to complaints from citizens, review data, and compile information. With traffic enforcement being their primary function, the traffic officers, by effectively performing their duties, should make the highways through Roanoke County a safer place to drive. Reducing economic cost is secondary to the ultimate goal of reducing the number of injuries and fatalities resulting from traffic crashes in Roanoke County. A traffic unit within the Roanoke County Police Department will be a big step towards that goal. RCP D RE C E= PT S FROM TRAF F= C F I N E S July 1, 1992 Thru September 30, 1993 (Monthly Postings to Acct. # 000100-0390) DATE• FINES: INTEREST: TO 07/92 $ 20,963.49 $ 294.26 $ 21,257.75 08/92 28,320.56 147.96 28,468.52 09/92 21,157.71 442.26 21,599.97 10/92 24,004.81 185.29 24,190.10 11/92 32,281.40 247.00 32,528.40 12/92 35,028.07 115.76 35,143.83 01/93 32,943.31 456.74 33,400.05 02/93 32,243.95 802.37 33,046.32 03/93 25,546.44 377.14 25,546.44 04/93 26,672.39 520.19 27,192.58 05/93 23,479.23 662.82 24,142.05 06/93 26,112.80 484.50 26,597.30 S~~AI, FY 92 93 5328 754 I6 S4 736 29 5333.490 07/93 27,585.43 629.16 28,214.59 08/93 31,348.97 481.58 31,830.55 09/93 26,511.20 431.14 26,942.34 SIIBTOTAL 586 987 7/93 9f9 3 $85 445 6U S1 541 88 7~/92~9/9 3 S414 199 76 S6 278.17 5420.477.93 ROANORE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: J. H. McCORKLE CAPTAIN S. B. TURNER LIEUTENANT ~' ~~~ ~ =~«~ ` ~~ November 17, 1993 Results. of Decal Enforcement Selective traffic enforcement was conducted between June 12, 1993 and July 31, 1993 throughout Roanoke County in an attempt to identify those persons not obtaining their required Roanoke County decal for their vehicles. The results of the selective traffic enforcement as reported under step code 10 are as follows: No County Decal 53 Expired County Decal 40 State Inspection Violations 40 Expired Vehicle Registration 11 Habitual Offender 02 Rev/Susp. O L 02 No O L 04 Other Violations 2? Total Violations 174 CODRT RESULTS: Of the 93 tickets written for County Decal violations, there were 60 convictions resulting in 51615 in fines. Of the 81 tickets written for other violations, there were 54 convictions resulting in 52812.00 in fines. The total fines for the charges written during the special decal enforcement program were $4472.00. TAX COLLECTED: As a result of this program the Commissioner of Revenue estimates that 513.449.69 in additional taxes was assessed. PROGRAt+i COST: There were 173.5 hours of overtime paid for this program at a cost of 51931.90. Factoring in the amount of fines paid to the county as a direct result of this program and the additional taxes assessed, less the actual overtime cost, the program resulted in a net gain of $15.986.79. ROANOKE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: CHIEF J. H. CEASE ~~~ n FROM : LT . S . B . TURNER ~ ~ ~ // ~~ ~ ~ '~ DATE: Januar 13, 1994 ~ ~r 'a Y ~~ ~, SUBJECT: Roanoke County Traffic Crash Data After reviewing the traffic crash data that was available from the Records Section, T was able to gather information to prepare this report. This report will show the number of calls received by the Roanoke County Communication Center to which a police officer responded to investigate a report of a traffic crash. The report will further indicate how many of the calls received were responded to by Roanoke County Police Officers and how many calls were referred to the Virginia State Police for investigation. TRAFFIC CRASH DATA ROANOKE COUNTY YEAR TYPE Investigated by Roanoke County Police Investigated by Virginia State Police 1991 Property Damage Personal Injury TOTAL 1992 Property Damage Personal Injury TOTAL 1993 Property Damage Personal Injury TOTAL 1074 413 1487 1291 476 1767 1366 503 1869 Unknown Unknown 108 ~~ 219 90 97 187 There has been an increase in the number of traffic crashes investigated by Roanoke County Police Officers each of the reporting years. The total for 1992 shows an increase in the accidents to be 280 which is an 18.8% increase over 1991. The year 1993 showed a smaller increase, 102 more accidents, which is an increase of 5.8o from the prior year. The numbers above show an increase for both the total number of investigated traffic crashes and the number of traffic crashes investigated by Roanoke County Police. The Virginia State Police show a decrease in the number of accidents that were referred to them by the Roanoke County Communication Center. During the year of 1993 there were a total of 2056 traffic crashes received by the Roanoke County Communication Center. The Virginia State Police were referred 9% of the traffic crashes which is down from 11% for the year of 1992. I have spoken to First Sergeant Duffey of the Virginia State Police about their manpower for Roanoke County. He informed me that their are 12 allocated slots for Troopers to be assigned to Roanoke County. One of the Troopers has been temporarily (past three months) assigned to Montgomery County. Another Trooper has been reassigned to Richmond effective January 16, 1994. It is unknown when or if the two slots will be filled. This indicates that there is a possible chance for a further reduction in allocated State Police manpower for Roanoke County. As you can see from the figures contained in this report, the Roanoke County Police Department has been responsible for investigating an increasing number of traffic crashes as well as an increasing proportion of the total reported traffic crashes. From the information provided by First Sergeant Duffey, it appears likely that for the year 1994, the Roanoke County Police Department will continue the trend of being responsible for an increasing portion of the total reported traffic crashes. Alcohol-related highway crashes are the adolescents and young adults in the U.S cause of death Highway crashes involving drivers (and pedestrians) who are impaired by alcohol and other, drugs are not "accidents." Prevention works to save lives. • Approximately 17,700 Americans died in these preventable crashes in 1992, about one third of them under the age of 25. • In spite of the minimum legal drinking age now set at 21 in all states, in 1992, 34.2 of fatally injured drivers under 21 had known blood alcohol concentrations~of .O1 or above. Intensive efforts have significantly reduced alcohol crash involvement for this age group. • Teenagers are at high risk for alcohol-related highway crashes. According to a March 1989 report, nearly half of 10th graders and a third of 8th graders reported riding during the past month with a driver who had,used alcohol or other drugs before driving. • Impaired drivers with a BAC of .l 5 are 26 times as likely to have a fatal crash as sober drivers. In 1992, the average BAC of those arrested for alcohol impaired driving in Virginia was 0.1597. • The amount of alcohol consumed by people arrested for driving under the influence is usually very high. On average, their BACs register the pure alcohol bloodstream equivalent of 10 to 12 drinks in a four-hour period, or BACs greater than .15. • In addition to saving lives and avoiding injuries and property damage, preventing impaired driving reduces the costs. of private insurance and health care, frees Ic~w , enforcement personnel to counter other threats to the community's well-being, and relieves over-burdened court and prison systems. • Alcohol is a factor in 45.1 % of all fatal traffic crashes and one-fifth of all crashes involving injury. As a result, a large portion of the economic costs of traffic crash injuries is attributed to crashes where alcohol is involved. • In 1990, alcohol-related traffic crashes cost about $46 billion, based on an average of approximately $800,000 per fatal crash and $14,500 per non-fatal crash. A signifi-. cant portion of the $46 billion, approximately $37 billion, is associated with medical . costs, lost productivity and property damage incurred as a result of alcohol-related crashes. • In 1992, drinking was a factor in about 15,777 fatal crashes in .the U.S. For every age between 6 and 33, traffic crashes are the greatest single cause of death, and alcohol is involved in 45.1 % of these. • • Colendar Average DUI DUI Conviction % of % of Year BAC Arrests Rate Alcohol Related Alcohol Related Crashes Fatalities 1988 0.1633 46,044 84 % 13 % 49 1989 0.1620 46,977 86 % 12 % 48 ~ 990 0.1607 49,601 85 % 13 % 50 1991. 0.1599 45,309 85 % 12 % ,, 46 1992 .0.1597 40,107 85 % 1 1 % 45 ~. ,, Virginia Driving Trends Summary;19831992 Desttl+t tklflews Lkxtrwel Gaselietr tAeltkzrsr Tot•1 Aloeho FAsiells/~ Ra/s' Rsgtttisreo OrMrs Cor uuelotloet- Mllsapa'~ Crastrr FetaYfiM Inka9M Crasew f efalMlss Inwlsti Yesr t 983 2.20 3.975593 3.711106 2.861.4 a t .920 t t 3.672 900 63184 t 9.694 336 t 5.131 i 984 2.30 4.094966 J.772441 3At3.7 x.904 t 23356 1,014 64308 t 9371 359 15.125 t 985 2.10 4192,749 3.819563 1.1210 x7.928 t 33326 980 74,585 t 9.381 479 t 4.N0 t 986 2.20 4.514377 3.953628 3145D 51.725 t x0544 t ,t 18 79.188 t 9.944 492 t 5~ 1987 190 4.660,657 s.070.04t 3.4459 :4.834 145.473 1,022 80.114 18.6'18 416 15D14 1988 1.88 4 752331 x 148.101 3510.0 5?.453 1x4319 1.069 77.735 18.064 522 14,172 1969 t 72 , x,887.607 , x.249.563 ].526.9 59.337 1x,7.155 999 ?9.310 17.051 480 13311 '990 t 82 x.985.438 x ap4.7ZZ 3.4831 ^0.178 134505 1.071 76.436 17337 535 1x.070 1991 t 56 5.02].679 x a29.42a 3.5103 51.099 122516 938 %0.899 14.894 x29 iZ.187 1492 1.13. 5.124916 =.771.565 3.615.b 63274 t 22887 839 76.615 1 ].830 179 t t,49J 'Per 100 million mhos w+tn f492 eststtatsc. '°in mrors rrltn 1992 mhesgs estntsasti "in mhlats wttn 1492 estrnatea. ~ ~ ""Detemtnea tesrtg meo~l atcarttner aatl n aOCrtcn b Dace neoorts toegsstnq n 1965. Deaths on Major Holidays R Aaenorsl N4 am d Na. Labor No. TTlsetk~ Na Na NsMr N- Daly Dare Jt~ Dars DtsV Dabs gltArsD Dare C ttttsbne DatA YeaH' Olds Yaa- 1983 10 3 10 4 10 4 15 4 7 3 7 3 1964 7 J a t t6 3 16 t Zp a 9 4 t98S 9 1 t0 a 9 3 tt a 6 2 2 2 1966 it 3 24 3 23 J t5 4 tt a ~ a 1987 t3 3 it J t3 J t7 a g a 12 a 1986 16 J i5 3 18 J 7 a 9 J 10 7 1989 t6 3 27 a 15 J 6 d t0 3 t0 J 1990 13 3 J t t3 3 tt a t5 a t2 4 1991 13 3 2t a t5 3 t7 a 7 2 2 2 1992 9 3 9 J 8 3 5 4 1 a a 10 a NotTE:'Deaas are for ttnase oars Hams tolls tltte Itlt sa mass of tits orsoteortg aa1r. '196692 Now rears teas s not mrt>ttsaols to torar4ts rears oasa Duo o to!tartc~ss n oot+mtq procears. 15 1992 Virginia Traffic Crash Facts What Happened .in DMV Districts:. irr 1992 In 1992: o..w Aloer, orn.w.. ~..... ~r9+.-- ~,,~ . t t om.. ~- ,,urladl~lon cn.l+a+ titillrr. tr,w.w.. aaa+,.~ r rrr.~ es a. ~~. ~~ Ot,AY t7ntra t 10,047 91 r~c4 tsr~ ss ~ t.19o t s'73 ~~ 01~ OAIrVautna! 17937 iTd 11.191 Y~9 166 9 58 . 7322 t.SSt93S ~ 0~ oMtr ~l a 94973 tse te3e4 . 9~s t t9 us1 geoa4: ose oMV ~tnn. 2T~t1 t 16.104 z1 ~n 9.617 ~ t9 ~~ t.099~5 0.16 oMV o~nc s 92776 m . 39:f6b Out d State Ra~oins Nat Steno 9 49 9 6 ~ V~p~ 140 ms~ 4 tt~ t>i.~ts 19990 Sts t1~ , Total t~7 'DasA ray oat 1.000 YR)era Yoater0 ocTM«L 7 1992 Virginia Traffic Crash Facts PERCENTAGE OF ALCOHOL RELATED ACCIDENTS AND FATALITIES Calendar Years 1983 - 1992 60% 50% 40% ' 30% 20% 10% 0% ~ .~ ~ ~~~I ~~~ ---------------------------- -A/R Accidents - -A/R Fatalities '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 AVERAGE BAC OF TESTED DRINKING DRIVERS Calendar Years 19$3 - 1992 0.1750 0.1700 0.1650 '0.1600 0.1550 0.1500 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 ''89 '90 '91 '92 VIRGINIA ~ 0.1705 0.1709 0.1685 0.1684 0.1641 0.1633 0.1620 0.1607 0.1599 0.1597 DUI ARRESTS Calendar Years 1983 - 1992 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 DUI CONVICTION RATE Calendar Years 1993 - 1992 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 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: January 25, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Second Reading of Ordinance - Authorization to Acquire Necessary Easements to Construct the South Transmission Line COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND' 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. In order to secure the required properties 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 third easements is attached. The following is a list of properties involved: TAX MAP N0. 65.00-02-34 66.04-04-06 66.04-04-07 73.00-02-34 73.00-02-35 74.00-01-02 74.00-02-11 74.00-02-12 74.00-02-13 74.00-02-14 74.00-02-15 77.00-01-46 PROPERTY OWNER Bohon, Judith & Shirley M. FFE Development Corp. FFE Development Corp. Michael Greene Michael Greene George W., Jr. & Carol Drewry Steven M. & Sandra B. Huffman Steven M. & Sandra B. Huffman Steven M. Huffman Steven M. Huffman Steven M. Huffman Brown, William E. & Darlene K. group of ACQUISITION Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Staff would recommend that the payment for acquisition of easements be in an amount negotiated with the property owner not to exceed 40~ of assessed value of the land plus any actual damage to improvements as established by County assessment records or an appraisal made by an independent appraiser retained by the County. The first reading of the Ordinance was held on January 11, 1994. FISCAL IMPACT' The cost of easement acquisition 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 to improvements as established by County assessment records or an appraiser retained by the County as needed for the South Transmission Line. SUBMITTED BY: c Cliffo ra g, P.E. Utility Di ctor APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens ~,,M r"' D2 - Recommend pproval. This will work well if we adopt rules that limit re ests for brush and bulk pickup to twice monthly and if we keep pecial requests to a minimum. If we are still unable to recr part-time help, we c~ address that in the budget process. ~ ~:~,~v?,,~ D3 -Recommend pproval. In next years budget we will still need to address t expense of collecting recyclable materials. We may also incur dditional expenses this year related to the extreme weather nditions. /D5 -Recommend approval!Y! In addition to the repairs made by this action, we know of a~tional work that must be done in the court room area due to p' es that froze and burst last week. We expect that to cost as ch as $75,000 or more and will bring that request to you after t e weather improves and we are able to assess the damage. 01 -Attached is a summary o~''information provided by Sheriff Holt regarding the expansion to,~fie jail. I have reviewed this with the Sheriff and we are pre~~~red to recommend the lesser expensive approach of proceeding,~t'ith the completion of the unfinished floor and adding one more ~' It may be necessary to begin the addition adjacent to the existing building at a cost of two to three million. Neither,~nf us think we can justify the full project at this time. We will need approval to submit a request to the state by March to have any possibility of getting funding in this years General Assembly. ,~' ©1-2©-199 1G:~1 7©3 3G7 G2©3 RKC CNTY ,iIICRIrr'^ Or!-ICC ~,~ O~ ~~~ Sxr ~.~1 Cnrrectlarte 367.8303 Barry L.'ihy+loe, Captain ~ ~ ~~~~~ 1 Covet Services 387.613? Charles R. Hut, Capdr~n P. p1 ttE~' ~-~= ~ sc.H-et~u~ES ~nl cx~urlrY 703.387• {~p~~ ~ ~ , F~ ~~~ ~N T ~ ~ ~~-~i-~~f ~~~ 7 ~'~ Lt ~ T~~~ ~ ~ -~- L~ t~~ is RJR R PI+E71B' DRLIV=R 7 h ~ ~~ P CC~Cv~LI.IS.J ~ d 4~/ LacxzYa~r~ (?c,. ~Q L t~ ME iG~o~ ~.~d~ ~ y~.~ - rt-~~K , _.~----~ Ir0C71TI0Yt PAZ 1PtTKB~As ~ ~ ~- ~~ ~ RP8CI71L IZI~TBDCTt0I18 s ..-nom y~,e,a-, ~-:ki ~zc~~. .-~-+~.r ~ ,c~~zd-~- ~~ /~~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~~ ~~ f Ids// /~'o./ y~]"' / t ~"V ~f/'[~ •~~~J4~~R a ~~,.M.~4~'~ "'9 ~/]'6(K / l~ ©1-2©-199'-4 1 G :•+2 r Dv 3C1 r G2©3 RICC CNTY .^.,I ICR I rr' ~ OfT I CC P • ©~ ACTION N0. ITEM NQ. AT A RTG[JT•nv MfifiTINf3 Q~ TkIE HQARD OF BUpERVI30AS OF ROANOitfi COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE GOUNTX ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994 nr,FNnA ITEM: Jail Feasibility Study BACKGRO[miD: Discussion of results of feasibility study to renovate and add to the Roanoke County/Salem Jail $tTNIIKARY nF TNFnRtrta,TION: See attached ALTF!~xrnTrvfrc ; see attaeYied e~~'Ar'F RECOMMENDAT~ : See attached Res ctfu].ly submitted, Gerald S. Holt Sheriff Approved by, Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. County Administrator ".~ ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ~. I ~ ~- AGENDA JANUARY 18, 1994 WORK SESSION: 3:30 P.M. (BERNARD DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR) WORK SESSION: A. Call to Order B. Approval of Agenda C. Approval of Minutes: December 1, 1993 D. Consent Agenda: February 1, 1994 filin ointl to 1. Petition of J. Edward Conner and Cary M. and Shirley I. Cunningham, g j Y.~ rezone appro 6300 block onrthe souh side of Peterd1tCreek Road, Hollins Magisterial located m the District 2. Petition of A & M Enterprises LLC to rezone a 2.43 acre parcel from C-2 with conditions to C-2 with no conditions to allow retail uses located at 4037 Electric Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. `' ` E. Election of Officers F. Request to Evaluate Height Limitations in the I-1 and I-1 Zoning Districts G. Planning Commission Objectives -- 1995 Comprehensive Plan H. Off-Site Impact Fees I. Zoning Ordinance: 1-Year Assessment J. Roanoke County Secondary Road System 6-Year Construction Plan K. Comments of Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff L. Adjournment DINNER WII.L BE PROVIDED ~ - a ~ cL~,,en~, M E M O RAN D U M TO: Elmer Hodge County Administrator FROM: John M. Chambliss, Jr. '~`"~ Assistant County Admini trator DATE: January 5, 1994 -~ -T 5 SUBJECT: Phase I Report of the Structural Investigation of the Roanoke County Courthouse Attached is a copy of the Phase I report as prepared by Sherertz Franklin Crawford Shaffner, Inc. for their structural investigation of the Roanoke County Courthouse. This study was authorized as a result of the cracking of various walls inside the courthouse building and also of the separation of some of the internal partitions from the exterior walls. You will note in the Executive Summary (beginning on page 2) that it is the opinion of Sherertz Franklin Crawford Shaffner that the structure is safe at this time and that the structure can continue to be occupied with no danger to public safety. Specific concerns that do remain, however, include the condition of brick soffits which need further review and possible correction as an immediate maintenance item. The assessment of the structure section of the report (beginning on page 10) denotes the preliminary findings of the study thus far. From a long-term perspective, the lack of control joints or inadequate control joints may well be contributing to the cracking we have experienced thus far and should be considered for possible structural repair. Other repair concerns include interior masonry walls which have exposed cracks. While may not pose structural problems, they do present cosmetic concerns. Efforts to paint, patch or plaster these cracks are short-lived and then the cracks reappear. As a permanent solution, we may wish to consider dry-wall or panel covering of the key rooms so that these cracks will become "out of sight, out of mind", particularly to staff and visitors. The consultant has reviewed many of the original documents used for the construction of the facility and also sought the services of an independent geo-technical engineering consultant to assist in the Phase I study. The consultants have also discussed the condition of this facility with County staff to share any related information and experiences in the ongoing maintenance in the facility. Memorandum to Elmer Hodge Page 2 January 5, 1994 Our committee of George Simpson, Ken Hardesty, Bonnie Preas, and I will meet again on Wednesday, January 12, 1994, to determine the scope of Phase II of the consultant study and will report to you our findings and recommendations after that time. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. JMC/mwr Attachment cc: George Simpson Ken Hardesty Bonnie Preas AN a S _ 2 1 B ~.: 88 fE+DUICtNTtMM~~~ A Burti(ulBsgiadw~ f~mxn#g ~f ~~.v~ STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION OF ROANOKE COUNTY COURTHOUSE FOR The County of Roanoke November 18, 1993 SFCS Commission No. 93326.00 Architecture Engineering Planning S ~ ~ ~ Interiors Sherertz Franklin Crawford Shaffner Inc. 305 South Jefferson Street Roanoke, Virginia 24011-2000 1333 Laskin Road Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451-6005 November 18, 1993 STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION OF ROANOKE COUNTY COURTHOUSE The County of Roanoke Commission No. 93326.00 INTRODUCTION SFCS was commissioned by the County of Roanoke to perform a Structural Investigation of the existing County Courthouse building on Main Street in Salem, V'uginia. The purpose of this investigation is to provide a written report outlining causes of apparent structural distress and cracking and to outline recommendations, including cost estimates for the correction of these problems. This investigation will be performed in two phases. Phase 1, for which this report is written, includes: • Site visits • Identify types and location of structural distress and cracking • Installation of crack monitors ~~ Review of the original Contract Documents for the structure • Structural calculations of several typical structural elements • Schedule for monitoring the cracks and for completion of Phase 2 of the investigation Written report of our findings Phase 2 (separate report to follow) will include: • Results of the crack monitoring • Narrative describing the cause of cracking Structural Investigation Commission No. 93326.00 November 18, 1993 Page 2 Recommended repair program Cost estimates for repairs By separating this investigation into two phases, it is possible to provide the County with an immediate assessment as to the safety of the structure, while implementing an appropriate long- term monitoring and assessment program to clearly define the cause and magnitude of the problems. This report represents the conclusion of Phase 1. This report is based on a limited review of the original Contract Drawings for the courthouse, provided to us by Roanoke County, and our observations at the site. No existing finishes or other destructive testing were performed for the purpose of this report. SFCS performed very limited structural calculations on several typical structural members. An exhaustive structural analysis of all members and components was not performed, and was beyond the scope of this investigation. Any conclusions drawn or actions taken as a result of this report should be qualified by the limitations of the investigation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on our observations during Phase 1 of this structural investigation, it is apparent that widespread cracking of interior gypsum partitions and concrete masonry partitions has occurred at the facility. Minor cracking of the exterior brick veneer is also apparent, as is settlement of the first floor slab at several locations. We did not observe significant settlement of the main structural elements such as columns and column footings, nor did we observe any failure of any structural element. There is no evidence that any component of the supported floor structural systems or the roof structure is in danger of failure, or that any component is not adequately designed for the intended use of the structure. However, the condition of brick soffits does present an immediate concern, and we recommend that a thorough, close - up review of brick soffits be performed as soon as possible. This can be done as an early part of phase 2 of this investigation. In an attempt to determine the cause of the widespread cracking and first floor slab settlement, we have initiated a monitoring program to determine if structural movement continues and the rate of any such movement. Phase 2 of this investigation will summarize these findings, and will recommend solutions for repairs and corrective measures to prevent future distress. It is our opinion that the structure is safe at this time, and that the structure can continue to be Structural Investigation Commission No. 93326.00 November 18, 1993 Page 3 occupied with no danger to public safety. During the course of the monitoring program, should we observe rapid settlement or other conditions which might endanger the building occupants, we will notify you immediately. Cracking was observed at many locations, including: • Masonry walls separating courtrooms on the second floor • Masonry walls at the mechanical penthouse on the roof, interior and exterior • Drywall partitions along the South wall, parallelling Main Street. Specifically, where drywall partitions intersect the exterior wall. Drywall partitions run perpendicular the exterior wall. Similar cracking was observed on the North wall, but to a much lesser extent • Drywall bulkheads along the South wall and North wall • Masonry walls at stair towers • Brick veneer at corners of the structure • Brick at soffits Observed cracking has several potential causes, and we believe that the cracking and structural movements observed have different causes, depending on the type of distress and the location of the distress. No single phenomenon can explain all of the observed distress. Through our investigative process, we will isolate causes for each type and location of the cracking ,and outline the options available for necessary repairs. In some cases, repairs may not be required unless the County is interested in performing repairs for cosmetic or aesthetic reasons. In summary, the building is safe, although it does exhibit structural distress at several locations. We are most concerned about the condition of brick soffits and recommend that an early part of Phase 2 of this investigation be a detailed inspection of brick soffits (see "Phase 2 of the Investigation" section of this report). EXISTING CONDITIONS/SITE OBSERVATIONS Existing Construction: The existing Courthouse is a two story structure with brick veneer exterior walls. The brick veneer walls are backed up by light gauge metal stud framing with gypsum sheathing, and a Structural Investigation Commission No. 93326.00 November 18, 1993 Page 4 gypsum board finish on the interior. Interior partitions are predominately gypsum board construction on metal studs, with concrete masonry unit partitions occumng at high traffic locations such as corridors, public spaces, courtrooms, and mechanical service spaces. Interior partitions are non-loadbearing, and therefore are not part of the structural system. The existing structure is conventional structural steel construction consisting of structural steel columns, steel girders and beams, and composite metal floor deck with concrete fill. The roof is also conventional steel construction with metal roof deck. The first floor is slab on grade construction on original grade and slab on grade construction on compacted fill. The Southern and Eastern portion of the first floor slab was placed on one to five feet of compacted fill, while the Northern and Western portion was placed on existing soils. Footings are conventional spread footings resting on existing natural soils or on improved natural soils, based on our review of the original documents and on -site testing reports. Along the north, south and west exterior walls of the structure, a continuous glazing system interrupts the brick veneer with the brick veneer above the glazing supported from the floor and roof structure by structural steel hangers and shelf angles. At the first floor level along the South wall, an earth berm extends approximately three feet above the first floor level. The berm is placed against a masonry foundation wall with sheet waterproofing applied to the exterior of the wall. Lateral loads (wind and seismic loads) are apparently resisted by masonry walls at stair towers and elevator shafts. No specific information regarding the lateral load resisting elements of the structure was obtained from the original contact documents or from our field observations. Site Observations of Exterior: The exterior envelope of the building is generally in good condition with few signs of distress or cracking. Cracking of the existing brick veneer was observed at several locations, however, they did not appear to be directly related to cracking observed on the interior of the building. Cracks in the brick veneer were observed at the following locations: Southwest corners of the structure adjacent to the exit at Storage Room A165 and outside Conference Room 155. Continuous hairline crack two brick courses below the glazing on the South and West walls. • Brick soffit on the North face directly above the Northwest corner of the womens toilet (room 101) Structural Investigation Commission No. 93326.00 November 18, 1993 Page 5 • Brick soffits on the North side of the passage to the jail • Northwest face of the main mechanical penthouse • Brick soffit above Room 119 (northeast corner of the building) • At the upper corners of the window at Room 119 • Above brick soffit at Stair 123 (northeast corner of the building) • Brick soffit above the main entrance Windows and glazing systems appeared to be in good condition with no signs of stress and no visible cracks. It was reported to us by Mr. Phillip Boblett of Roanoke County that several sections of glazing on the South Wall were replaced during the Summer of 1993 after they cracked; however, the actual cause of the cracking was not determined. There is evidence that the glazing has leaked at numerous locations. However, it is not known at this time if leaks still persist. Mr. Boblett indicated that the glazing system was re-flashed since the original installation. ~""' No evidence of significant settlement of the exterior walls was evident from the exterior of the building. Cracks in the brick veneer appear to be related to expansion and contraction of the brick; refer to the "Assessment of the Structure" section of this report for a more detailed discussion of the possible causes of the cracks in the exterior wall system. Site Observations of Interior -First Floor: Cracking of gypsum board finishes was widespread along the south wall of the building, especially where partitions dividing individual offices along this wall abut the exterior wall. Cracks were observed in each office along the south wall, ranging in width from hairline cracks to 1/4 inch wide. Typically, these cracks are wider at the window sill height than at the floor line or at the ceiling. This cracking is most pronounced in the offices in the east sector of the building, room numbers 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 209, 226, 227 and 228. It is apparent that the exterior wall, at the window will height, has moved outward, pulling the window system away from interior partitions. Only limited and isolated cracking of the interior partitions was observed away from the exterior wall. Similar cracking and movement was observed on the north wall, but cracking is much less severe. At the stair tower adjacent to office number 137, cracking was observed behind the stair Structural Investigation Commission No. 93326.00 November 18, 1993 Page 6 entrance door. This cracking was significant, with cracks ranging in width from hairline to over 1/4 inch in width. These same cracks appear on the drywall finish on this same wall at the secretarial space immediately north of the stair tower. Settlement of the floor slab is evident adjacent to the column in the secretarial space, evidenced by a depression in the floor finish. Floor slab settlement appears to be isolated to this area, and does not appear to threaten the safety of the structure. Along the southwest wall, in the Judge's chambers area, several minor drywall cracks were noted adjacent to the exterior wall. Observed cracking was generally minor and appears where interior gypsum board partitions meet the exterior wall. Cracks were observed adjacent to the window sill and at gypsum board bulkheads above the exterior window system. No evidence of significant floor slab settlement or foundation settlement was observed. At Storage Room 165, located between the offices along the South wall and the Judges's chambers, cracking was observed in masonry walls at the exterior of the structure, but cracking is minor. Other areas of the first floor appeared to be free of significant structural distress and free of evidence of foundation settlement. Site Observations of Interior -Second Floor: Dividing walls between individual courtrooms on the second floor exhibit cracking of the masonry walls, with the cracks reflecting through the plaster finish. Masonry partitions are supported on the second floor steel framing system, and do not rest directly on the foundation system. Cracking is minor; however, previous attempts to repair the cracks in the plaster have not succeeded. Along corridors, continuous hairline cracks were observed approximately two feet above the floor level. These cracks are less than 1/8-inch wide, and appear to be non-moving cracks. Along corridors, masonry partition walls are supported from the structural steel framing system, and are not supported directly on the foundation system. Along the south wall, cracking of drywall partitions, bulkheads and exterior wall finishes, similar to cracking notes on the first floor was observed. This cracking was most severe in and adjacent to the Clerks Office (Room No. 209). >~ No other significant structural distress was observed on the second floor, nor was any other distress reported by Roanoke County personnel. Structural Investigation Commission No. 93326.00 November 18, 1993 Page 7 Site Observations of Interior -Stair Towers: Stair Towers 7, 6 and 4 have cracking of masonry walls. The most visible crack occurs in Stair Number 6, at the southeast corner of the facility. This crack appears to be related to foundation settlement and will be closely monitored. Other cracks in stair tower walls appear to be non- moving cracks associated with movements of the structure (deflection and thermal). Site Observations of Exterior of Roof ! The roof membrane is a loose laid and ballasted EPDM (rubber) roof terminated at the edges at parapet walls capped with a continuous metal coping. Mr. Boblett indicated that several roof leaks have been persistent, but that all leaks are now apparently repaired. The roof membrane and parapet walls did not show signs of structural distress and appeared to be in good condition. The walls of the penthouse do not extend to the foundation, rather, they rest on structural steel supports at the main roof level. One crack was observed in the briclt veneer on the northeast side of the main mechanical penthouse. Expansion of the walls during hot summer months is the apparent cause of this cracking. ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS REVIEW SFCS obtained file copies of the original contract documents for the Courthouse as prepared by WKR, Inc. dated September 28,1982, from the Roanoke County Engineering Department. Some documentation of field modifications, change orders, addenda, specifications, and on site testing of soils was available. SFCS was also able to obtain documentation related to the original Geotechnical Investigation performed by Law Engineering of Greensboro, N.C. This report documents the Geotechnical Evaluation performed at the site prior to any development of the site, and outlines recommended foundation design parameters for the proposed courthouse. We were also able to obtain written reports documenting the testing and inspection of the footing subgrades, compacted fill and earthwork operations during construction. These reports were prepared by Schnabel Engineering Company of Richmond, Virginia on behalf of the County of Roanoke. During construction, Schnabel was hired as an independent testing and inspection agency by the County to observe and inspect the earthwork and foundation installation. Schnabel also made recommendations for the improvement of unsuitable soils discovered during the construction of the facility. The reports of the on-site observations were made available to SFCS by Schnabel Engineering. Structural Investigation Commission No. 93326.00 November 18, 1993 Page 8 For the purpose of this structural investigation, the following drawings from the original Contract Documents prepared by VVKR, Inc. of Roanoke, Virginia, dated 28 Sept 1982, were reviewed: S1-Typical Details and Structural Notes S2- Column Schedule S3-Tunnel Foundation Plans S4- Level 1 Foundation Plan West SS-Level 1 Foundation Plan East S6- Leve12 Framing Plan West S7- Leve12 Framing Plan East S8-Level 3 Main Roof & Penthouse Floor Framing Plan West S9- Level 3 Main Roof & Penthouse Floor Framing Plan East S 10-Leve14 Penthouse Roof Plans & Sections S 11-Sections ,,,~ S 12-Sections S 13-Sections S 14-Sections C2- Grading and Drainage C3-Demolition and Erosion Control A1-Architectural Site Plan AS-Floor Plan -Level One West A6- Floor Plan -Level One East A7- Floor Plan -Level Two West A8- Floor Plan -Level Two East A9- Roof and Penthouse Plan A17- Wall Sections A18- Wall Sections A19- Wall Sections A20- Wall Sections A21- Wall Sections The review of the documents listed above was to assist us in understanding the existing construction and to retrace the development of the site, particularly the earthwork and foundations, to determine the type of construction and foundations and to determine possible causes of the distress. A review of the original Contract Drawings for the structure revealed that the structure is of conventional steel construction founded on conventional spread footings. Spread footings were specified to rest on existing, undisturbed soils, with an allowable bearing capacity of 3000 pounds per square foot. The first floor is slab-on-grade construction, with the slab founded on naturally occurring soils to the North and to the West of the site, with the slab on the South and Structural Investigation Commission No. 93326.00 November 18, 1993 Page 9 East portion of the site resting on new compacted fill soils. The original site was predominately paved for parking. No unusual site conditions prior to development are apparent from the documents. An existing creek runs North and South on the Eastern portion of the site, but does not pass under the structure. The creek is contained in a box culvert as it passes under the parking lot to the east of the Courthouse. It has been reported to us that the City of Salem maintains the creek structure although it passes through the Courthouse property. Our review of the on-site Geotechnical testing and inspection reports revealed that improvement to existing soils under many of the spread footings for the structure was required due to the discovery of soft soils and unsuitable fill soils. The Geotechnical reports document the improvements to most footings; however, not all footings were inspected by the on-site Geotechnical Engineers. Footings which were not inspected were apparently placed on existing soils with no improvements. Testing of new compacted fill soils was also documented by the Geotechnical Engineer; however, it appears from the documentation that not all new fill was tested for proper compaction. Fill soils that were tested appeared to meet the requirements set forth by the Geotechnical Engineer on site. SFCS performed structural calculations on one typical bay of structural framing along the South wall to determine if the member sizes and footing sizes are adequate to support the imposed loadings. Based on our calculations, the structure appears to have been designed to meet building codes in effect at the time of construction, and the footings sized for the specified allowable soil bearing pressure of 3000 psf. This conclusion is based on a very limited review of the structure. An exhaustive structural analysis of all components would be necessary to verify that the entire structure was designed in accordance with applicable building codes, but this exhaustive analysis is beyond the scope of this investigation. CRACK MONITORING PROGRAM In order to assist in the determination of the cause of observed cracking and distress, and as a part of this phase of our investigation, we have instituted a program to monitor several cracks to determine if they are dormant, or if they continue to move. This is important to understand the nature of the problem, and to implement a repair program in the future. It was determined that the cracking along the south wall, parallel to Main Street, was the most severe and widespread. Therefore, crack monitors were placed in four locations along this wall: • Office No. 138, Window Sill • Office No. 13 S, Partition Wall • Office No. 139, Window Sill • Office No. 139, Partition Wall Structural Investigation Commission No. 93326.00 November 18, 1993 Page 10 A wide crack was observed in the stair tower adjacent to Office Number 137. A crack monitor was placed at approximately 12 feet above the first floor, in the northwest corner of the stair tower. Roanoke County personnel placed crack monitors at the following locations on Sept. 9, 1993, soon after the cracking along the south wall was first observed by County employees: Office No. 138 Office No. 141 These monitors have been left in place to assist in the monitoring program. We recommend that the crack monitors be left in place for the next 8 to 10 weeks, and at the end of this time, the monitors be observed. Monitors should also be observed on intermediate dates to confirm that conditions are not changing which might endanger building occupants. Based on this observation, we believe we will be able to document the probable causes of distress and to recommend a repair program, which will be incorporated into Phase 2 of this investigation. ASSESSMENT OF THE STRUCTURE Based on our observations at the site and on our review the original Contract Drawings for this structure, it is our opinion that the structure is safe and that the structure is generally in good condition. Cracking observed at several locations cannot be attributed to one factor. Some of the cracking observed on the exterior of the structure is most likely caused by thermal movements of the brick veneer and an inadequate amount of movement or control joints in the brick, especially at corners of the structure. Cracking at the stair towers may be attributable to foundation settlement and to thermal movements. Cracking of the south wall along the window sill is most likely caused by thermal expansion of the continuous window system. The window system is over 80 feet in length, with solid restraint on each end by direct attachment to the brick exterior wall. As the temperature of the window system increases, the system expands. Since the system has little to no provision for expansion, the thermal stresses may have been relieved by the system moving outward. This outward movement is very obvious in Office Nos. 137, 138, and 139. Cracking of interior, non-loadbearing masonry walls at corridors, mechanical spaces, courtrooms, etc. is most likely caused by a lack of control joints or slight movements or deflection of the supporting structure. These cracks are not endangering the safety of the structure, but are an aesthetic concern. Structural Investigation Commission No. 93326.00 November 18, 1993 Page 11 Cracking observed at the brick soffits poses the most immediate safety concern. We have been made aware, by County personnel, that on at least one occasion, soffit bricks have fallen off. This is a serious concern, and the only immediate safety concern. We recommend that further investigation of the brick soffits be undertaken immediately to determine if any of the bricks are loose or in danger of falling. See the "Phase 2 of the Investigation" section of this report for further recommendation for review of the brick soffits. None of the observed cracks appear to pose an immediate danger to public safety. Through the instituted crack monitoring program, we will be able to better understand the cause of the distress, and develop appropriate solutions for each area. This will be accomplished during Phase 2 of this investigation. PHASE 2 OF THE INVESTIGATION Phase 2 of this investigation, which should begin immediately following Phase 1, will include: • Monitoring of cracks and movements • Narratives describing the probable cause of each type of crack • Recommended repair program with prioritization of necessary repairs • Cost estimates for repairs We recommend that cracks be monitored for a period of not less than 8 to 10 weeks. Intermediate monitoring should occur every three to four weeks to confirm that conditions are not changing such that building occupants would be in danger. In order to recommend an appropriate and cost effective repair program, it is necessary to understand the root cause of distress. In addition to crack monitoring during Phase 2, we may deem it necessary to perform some observations behind existing finishes or brick veneer. If necessary, we will have to remove small sections of finishes and/or brick veneer, and we may require the help and services of a Contractor or qualified County personnel to assist us in gaining access, to provide necessary tools and to replace finishes once our investigation is complete. Structural Investigation Comrtvss~on No. 93326.00 November 18, 1993 Page 12 The proposed repair program can taken one of two forms. We can outline types of repairs required and locations, with no detailed documents for use by a qualified Contractor, or, we can produce a detailed set of contract documents suitable for bidding or negotiating with qualified Contractors. Further discussion of the repair program will take place during Phase 2 of this investigation. Cost estimates will be prepared after the extent and type of repairs are clearly defined. Of immediate concern is the safety of the brick soffits. We recommend that the brick soffits be closely inspected as an immediate part of Phase 2 of this investigation. For the purpose of this inspection, scaffolding or a lift will be required or access to the soffits. Each section of brick soffit should be visually inspected and should be "sounded" with a small hammer to determine the condition of the brick and the condition of the adhesive holding the brick to the supporting structural steel. As a precaution, we also recommend that the box culvert for the creek to the east of the structure be inspected for signs of leaking during Phase 2 of this investigation. Excessive leaking of water or leaking of soils into the culvert may cause settlement or softening of the existing soils and may cause building settlements. ATTAC~IIvviENTS SITE PLAN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTATION d c c r ZE i- w w t- N QZ Z z Q d W V/ i~ ,~ SCH NABEL E N G I N E E R I N G ASS O C i A T E S 2601 SOUTH MAIN STREET • SUITE 303 • BLACKSBURG, VIRGINIA 24060-6627 PHONE 703-953-1239 • FAX 703-953-3863 JAMES J. SCHNABEL. P.E. STEVEN E. CONNER, P.E. RAY E. MARTIN, Ph.D., P.E. December 21, 1993 Sherertz, Franklin, Crawford and Shaffner, Inc. 305 South Jefferson Street Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Attn: Tye Campbell, P.E. Subject: Contract 933584, Geotechnical Engineering Consultation, Roanoke County Courthouse, Main Street, Salem, Virginia Gentlemen: Steve Conner, P.E. of Schnabel Engineering Associates met Tye Campbell, P.E. of SFCS at the Roanoke County Courthouse on December 6, 1993 to observe evidence of building distress. The building which was constructed in 1983 and 1984 is founded on shallow spread. footings and has a slab on grade. We understand that cracks in masonry walls, broken windows and displaced window frames were first noticed by the occupants in September, 1993. Most of the distress is evident along the south wall and southeast corner of the building, and is noticeable only from the interior of the building. The majority of the cracks in the masonry block walls, and the displacement of windows along the south wall, do not appear to be related to differential foundation or floor slab settlement, or lateral earth pressure induced wall movement. It may be possible that this building distress is due to factors such as thermal expansion and contraction, and inadequate expansion joints. The only area of building distress that appears to be possibly related to differential foundation settlement is the cracking of the masonry block walls in the stair tower at the southeast corner of the building. The stairstepped cracks observed are typical indicators of differential settlement. However, the cracks appear only on the inside, and not on the outside of the building. This corner of the building is adjacent to a stream that is channeled through an underground pipe. Without performing a subsurface exploration, we cannot assess the possible causes of settlement, or whether settlement is indeed a contributing factor. Possible settlement mechanisms that could be responsible include compression of foundation soils, and loss of soil into the adjacent underground pipe through joints and/or cracks. It is also possible that the cracking is related to an insufficient number of expansion joints in the structure. RECEIVED BY` GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANY~ BETHESDA, MD • BALTIMORE, MD • LANDOVER, MD • WEST CHESTER, PA r ~ ~~;`~ RICHMOND, VA • HAMPTON, VA • BLACKSBURG, VA ~`' Pnnt•tl on recycb0 PePe~ .~ ` We have prepared this report in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. We are pleased to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, SCHNABEL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Steven E. Conner, P.E. Associate ~~ Ray E. Martin, Ph.D., P.E. Principal SEC:REM:mkf ^ a Contract 93358 /December 21, 1993 -2- Schnabel Engineering Associates N'` ~t •~ U. S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT : ~ INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE ~ DISTRICT DIRECTOR ~~4 VILA .~~ 400 NORTH EIGHTH STREET RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23240 June 8, 1967 1. R. CODE .Bent Mounta~.n Woman's Club Bent Mountain, Virginia- -- 24059 ~- Me3damec = IN REPLY REFER TO Form L-179 430- SECTION 5011C1, ~t ~ I ADDRESS INQUIRIES AND FILE RETURNS WIT DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENU Richmond, Virginia 2_1 ACCOUNTING PERIOD ENDING Decea~er 31 On the basis of Yom' w 11 onfom to those prop sed in your ruling appipeationnwe have ctoncluded evidenced to date or that you ate exem abotoe Any changes intoperati ons from those descrhbed,torninl your character or section indicated purposes, must be raporte Yo n'musttalso report Dny cha ge intyour name or addressf their a ect upon your exempt st You are not re sub ect toll a taxton unrelated businesssincome amposed by sect on 511 oftthe Code, unless you a 7 in which a annuail on or befo a the115th day9of the f fth month aftert he close of your atnnual ~n~ Form 990, Y - accotmting-period .indicated above. You are liable for thQ t ~ ssed under theeFederaldUnemployment TaxnAct if you have fouraor morety taxes); and for the po individuals in Your employ. Any questions concerning excise. employment or other Federal taxes should be submitted to this office. This is a determinatfor. letter. 1 Very truly yours, 'y,2~i ~~'=-~ u- ames p. Boyle District Director FORM L • 179 16-s~1 ~ R ANp~, F ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ _ G'1 C~~~~j~2 a OFFICE OF DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS 526 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE SALEM, VIRGINIA 24153 January 17, 1994 Mary, Enclosed are three items for the January 25, 1994 supervisors' agenda. Mr. Wymer and Mr. Kidd or Jerry Weddle will attend the meeting for the respective items. Thank, ~` uth c: Mrs. Diane Hyatt Mrs. Penny Hodge Dr. Jerry Hardy County of Roanoke Department of Planning and Zoning Memorandum TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Terrance L. Harrington, AICP Director of Planning DATE: January 7, 1994 RE: Postponement of the Special Use Permit Request Filed By Charles Cooper; Bower Road Accessory Apartment The Planning Commission canceled its January 4, 1994 meeting due to the inclement weather. The public hearing on Mr. Cooper's request for a Special Use Permit for an accessory apartment in his residence located at 4925 Bower Road was postponed, with his consent, until February 1, 1994. The Board's Second Reading on this request will be rescheduled for February 22, 1994. c: Brenda Holton C: \W P51 \MEMOS\pOSTPONE.IIOS j/~~f~ 5 1 _ f Number 341006 Posted: 01/10/94 11:21 Type: Regular Message Received: Subject: -> From: MHA - Mary Allen To: DDH - Diane Hyatt Diane: ECH said to go ahead and send the Audit letters to the Volunteers. Send a copy of the letters to ECH and to the Board Reading File. Also plan on preparing a report for the Jan. 25 Board members on the audit. Call Elmer if you have questions. Mary Allen 1- ~ 5 ~ ~-~-~ ~j ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~' ~ - ~~ ~ ~- _ ~-` M ~ ~G THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, AT A REGULAR VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTS MEETING DATE: January 11, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Status of Volunteer Fire and Rescue Squad Audits COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In August 1993 of the Volunteer Stationsnt It was determined at Chiefs to begin work on coordinating audits for each that time that the Volunteer Stations operated on a calendar year rervi orsawas sent t e eachsVol steer upon this information, the attached letter from the Board of Sup Station notifying them that we were releasing their funds tf onstfor the year ended December 31e understanding that they would obtain an audit of their opera 1993. These audits should be submitted to the County Fin heir SOlaC 3 status. June 1, 1994. In addition, the County staff will assist the stations in obtaining ( ) During the month of January 1994, I will be sending a reminder letter to the Volunteer Stations to make sure that they are in the process of obtaining auditors ionsre ackets ofunformoation that w leneed 1993 year end. I will also at this time distribute to the stat p to be completed in order to obtain their 501(C)3 status. Approved by, Respectfully submitted, ~~'n r '~~ Elmer C. Hodge Diane D. Hyatt County Administrator Director of Finance ACTION Approved () Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy _ - - Johnson _ _ - Kohinke _. _. -. Minnix _ _ - Nickens _ _ -. O~ ROANp~.~ • ;.. ~ ~ ~J _- a rsaa P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 COU NTY ADM I NISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 August 27, 1993 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS H. ODELL "FUZZY' MIN NIX, CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY, VICE-CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOW NS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR. CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 Dear Fire and Rescue Chiefs: After careful consideration of your need for the immediate release of County funds balanced with the need for an acceptable audit procedure, I, the other members of the Board of Supervisors, and Mr. Hodge, have agreed to release County funds at this time. This is being done with the understanding that you will work with us in the following areas: 1) To resolve the need for an annual-audit procedure of both County and donated funds which meets generally accepted accounting practices for organizations such as yours. The annual audit for the year ended December 31, 1993, should be submitted by June 1, 1994. 2) To ensure that all units have 501(c)3 status. The County staff stands ready to help you in any way necessary to accomplish- these two steps and I would encourage you to call on them when needed. Your staff contact, Diane Hyatt, will be working with you to address the audit concerns. She can be reached at 772- 2023. I very much appreciate your support and cooperation in this matter. Please let me know if you have questions or if I can be of help in any way. Very ~y yours, /! ' H. Odel ~/(F zzy) Minni , Chairman Roanoke Cou ty Board of Supervisors cc: Board of Supervisors Mr. Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator Ms. Diane D. Hyatt, Director; Finance Department Mr. Thomas C. Fuqua, Chief; Fire and Rescue Department ® Recycled Paper