Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/21/1995 - Regular~ (t AN ~. ~ ae na eruE rror~ F Z ,, 9 13 WORKING DOCUMENT -FOR DISCUSSION ONLY ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA NOVEMBER 21, 1995 Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AT 1:00 P.M. THERE WII.L BE A BOARD MEETING AS PART OF ROANOKE COUNTY'S STUDENT GOVERNMENT DAY ACrIVI1'IES. COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WILL REPLACE BOARD MEMBERS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS. AT 2:00 P.M. THERE WILL BE A MEETING OF THE AUDIT COMNIITI'EE. Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or Special arrangement in order to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings or other programs and activities sponsored by Roanoke County, please contact the Clerk to the Board at (703) 772-2005 We request that you provide at least 48- hours notice so that proper arrangements may be made. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. LBE ABSENT AT 3:03 P.M. 1 ® Recycled Paper 2. Invocation: The Reverend John Hartwig Good Shepherd Lutheran Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS FM ANNOUNCED THAT ITEM V 2 HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO 12/12/95 AT REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER C. PROCIAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Appreciation upon the retirement of Cecil C. Reynolds, Jr., Parks & Recreation Department. R-112195-1 BI;T MOTION TO ADOPT RESO URC WITH LBE ABSENT MR REYNOLDS WAS NOT PRESENT 2. Resolution of Appreciation upon the retirement of Robert S. Lamb, General Services Department. R-112195-2 EGK MOTION TO ADOPT RESO URC WITH LBE ABSENT MR LAMB WAS PRESENT 3. Recognition of Howard D. Bullen for his service on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. BL.T MOTION TO APPROVE RECOGNITION MR BULLEN WAS .NOT PRESENT 4. Resolution of Congratulations to Roanoke County Public Library upon its 50th Anniversary. 2 R-112195-3 EGK MOTION TO ADOPT RESO URC WITH LBE ABSENT RESO WAS ACCEPTED BY DR. NORMA TERN PETERS, LIBRARY BOARD 5. Resolution of Congratulations to County Administrator Elmer Hodge upon his 10th anniversary with Roanoke County. R-112195-4 EGK MOTION TO ADOPT RESO URC WITH LBE ABSENT RESO WAS ACCEPTED BY MR. HODGE D. BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing on the Visioning Process (Janet Scheid, Planning and Zoning) PRESENTED BY TANET SCHEID VISIONING WILL PROVIDE BASIS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CIP -REQUEST FOR FUNDING AND REPORT ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO BE PRESENTED AT 12/12/95 MEETING 2. Update on Spring Hollow Water Project. (Gary Robertson, Director, Utility) PRESENTED BY GARY ROBERTSON E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of request from the City of Roanoke to form a Transportation District. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator) A-112195-5 3 EGK MOTION THAT CHAIRMAN APPOINT COUNTY OFFICIALS TO MEET WITH CITY OFFICIALS TO DISCUSS FURTHER URC WITH LBE ABSENT 2. Request from the City of Salem for assistance with NCAA Division III and Division II Championships -Stagg Bowl and Basketball Final Four. (Tim Gubala, Economic Development Director) A-112195-6 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE FUNDING OF $1,500 FROM ECON. DEV. SPECIAL EVENTS BUDGET URC WITH LBE ABSENT 3. Request to use $2,500 Public-Private Partnership funds for a new 1996 ISTEA Grant Application for the Hanging Rock Battlefield Trail. (Tim Gubala, Economic Development Director) A-112195-7 EGK MOTION TO APPROVE FUNDING FROM PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP URC WITH LBE ABSENT DAVE ROBBINS ALSO PRESENT TO PRESENT PLANS FOR PHASES I AND II 4. Request for appropriation of $2,500 from Public Private Partnership Funds for the Archery Shooter's Association Virginia Championship. (Joyce Waugh, Economic Development Specialist) A-112195-8 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE FUNDING FROM PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP FUNDS URC WITH LBE ABSENT SHERRY CRUMLEY, ARCHERY ROANOKE VALLEY PRESIDENT WAS PRESENT. F. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS 4 NONE G. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE H. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA EGK MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING AND SET 2ND AND PUBLIC FEARING FOR 12/12/95 - URC WITH LBE ABSENT 1. An ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to construct a commercial dog kennel, located at 10420 Ivy Ridge Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Richard Mark Jones. 2. An ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to operate a private horse stable, located at 4100 Barley Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Jeffrey D. Shupe. 3. An ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to allow expansion of Northside Middle School, located at 6810 Northside High School Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Roanoke County School Board. 4. An ordinance to rezone 32.7 acres from R-1 to AG-1 to permit commercial agricultural uses, located east of Carson Road and west of the NS Railroad, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Industrial Development Authority (Ray Cox). 5. An ordinance to rezone 11.47 acres from R-3 to C-2 to allow commercial uses, located on the west side of Ogden Road at the terminus of Leslie Lane, north of NS Railroad tracks, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon 5 the petition of Industrial Development Authority (Angie Laing). 6. An ordinance to rezone 6.7 acres from R-3 to C-2 to allow commercial uses, located on the west side of Ogden Road, north of the NS Railroad tracks, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Industrial Development Authority (Stranna Arthur). I. FIILST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending and reenacting sections of Chapter 11, Massage Parlors, of the Roanoke County Code to permit cross-gender massages by qualified massage therapists and improve regulations of massage technicians. (Joseph Obenshain, Sr. Assistant County Attorney) 3 PEOPLE SPOKE HCN MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 12/12/95 URC WITH LBE ABSENT HCN ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CERTIFICATION FOR MASSAGE THERAPISTS. 2. Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of necessary easements for property to construct the North Transmission Line. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) BI.~T MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 12/12/95 URC WITH LBE ABSENT 3. Ordinance authorizing conveyance of easements to Appalachian Power Company for underground and 6 overhead electric service across property off Sugar Loaf Mountain Road. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) FM MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 12/12/95 URC WITH LBE ABSENT 4. Ordinance amending and reenacting sections of Chapter 10, Licenses, and repealing section 21-2, Article I, of Chapter 21 Taxation of the Roanoke County Code in order to improve uniformity in administration of the Business, Professional, and Occupational License Tax. (Vickie Huffman, Assistant County Attorney and Wayne Compton, Commissioner of the Revenue) HCN MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 12/12/95 URC WITH LBE ABSENT J. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of necessary easements to construct the Fort Lewis Sewer Submain. (Gary Robertson, Director, Utility) 0-112195-9 EGK MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC WITH LBE ABSENT K. APPOINTMENTS 1. Blue Ridge Community Services MHA TO CONTACT T. WILLIAM PISTNER AND CHERI HAR1'MAN 2. Highway and Transportation Safety Commission 3. Library Board 7 4. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission HCN NOMINATED WILLIAM COOKSTON TO UNEXPIRED 3 YEAR TERM OF HOWARD BULLEN THAT WILL EXPIRE TUNE 30, 1996. BLJ WITHDREW HIS PREVIOUS NOMINATION IN FAVOR OF HCN'S NOMINATION. 5. Planning Commission 6. Roanoke Valley Resource Authority EGK NOMINATED WILLIAM RAND TO A 4-YEAR TERM THAT WILL EXPIRE 12/31/1999. L. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. R-112195-10 BI;T MOTION TO ADOPT CONSENT RESO URC WITH LBE ABSENT 1. Approval of Minutes - September 26, 1995 (regular meeting), October 10, 1995. 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Industrial Development Authority and the Organ Donation and Tissue Transplantation Commission. A-112195-10.a 3. Resolution of Appreciation upon the retirement of Robert 8 J. Walawski. R-112195-10.b 4. Adoption of Resolution supporting the establishment of the Regional Community Criminal Justice Board. R-112195-10.c 5. Request for transfer of $5,000 from Courthouse Maintenance Funds to the General Services Department to install a new Courthouse security locking system. A-112195-10.d 6. Donation of a 7.5 foot drainage easement on property of Flora May Clay Elkins on Bunker Hill Drive to the Board of Supervisors. A-112195-10.e 7. Request for acceptance of Monet Drive and Chagall Circle in the Gardens of Cotton Hill, Section 1, into VDOT Secondary Road System. R-112195-10.f 8. Request for acceptance of Stonemill Drive and Miliwheel Drive, Woodbridge Section 8 and 14 into the VDOT Secondary System. R-112195-10.g 9. Resolution authorizing an audit of Cox Communications, Inc. on behalf of the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee and providing funding. R-112195-10.h 10. Ratification of appointments to the Community Policy and Management Team. A-112195-1O.i 11. Request to execute an agreement for a stormwater management facility at Valley Techpark. .. R-112195-1O.i M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Nickens: ~) Received copy of PMM's memo to Wayne Compton regarding state enforcement of Bingo and Raille Permits and requested a brief work session on the impact, and suggested that this issue be considered for the County's legislative program. (2) Advised that he agreed with LBE's memo to delete some localities in the next salary survey locations and suggested a brief work session on the issue. (3) Asked that potential litigation be added to the Executive Session. Supervisor Tohnson: (1) Was impressed with the students involved with Student Government Day activities (2) Announced that stoplights were now working at Hollins College and Hanover Direct. (3) Thanked Governor Allen for providing employees with the extra holidays and supported the additions. Supervisor Kohinke: (1) Announced that the Audit Committee had received the published CAFR which was produced internally and that the County has received a "Clean Report". (2) Congratulated Spike Harrison on being elected to the Board of Supervisors from the Catawba District. N. CITIZENS' COMII~NTS AND CO1~I1VIiJNICATIONS NONE O. REPORTS FM MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE AFl'ER DISCUSSION OF ITEM 7 AND ORAL REPORT ON ITEM 9 -UW WITH LBE ABSENT 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 10 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Accounts Paid -October 1995 5. Statement of Expenditures and Revenues as of 10/31/95. 6. Proclamations signed by the Chairman 7. Report of operations for year ended June 30, 1995 HCN ASKED FOR COPY OF POLICY WIRE SURPLUS FUNDS IN THE SCHOOL BUDGET ARE APPROPRIATED TO THE SCHOOL CAPITAL FUND. 8. Bond Projects Status Report 9. Report from Treasurer on Judicial Sale TREASURER PRESENTED THE REPORT. 10. Financial Statement and Supplementary Schedule (Audit) of the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County for Fiscal Year 1994-95. 11. Report on the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) Rate Increase for 1996-98 Biennium. RECESS - 5:10 P.M. RECONVENE FOR WORK SESSIONS AT 5:35 P.M. P. WORK SESSION 1. Review of Water and Sewer Rate Structure CONSULTANTS RECOMMENDED NO CHANGE TO THE STRUCTURE 11 DIANE HYATT BRIEFED THE BOARD ON 30INT METER READING PROGRAM WITH APCO. WILL BRING BACK REPORT ON CONSENT AGENDA ON .12/12/95 REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FOR TOINT PROGRAM. 2. Self-Insurance Program BOARD CONSENSUS TO REDUCE BUDGET FOR RISK MANAGEMENT BY $300,000 IN 1996/97. Q. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant. to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (3) discussion or consideration of the condition, acquisition, or use of real property for public purposes (7) Potential Litigation. BLJ MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 7:45 P.M. URC WITH LBE ABSENT R CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-112195-11 BLOT MOTION TO RETURN TO OPEN SESSION AND ADOPT RESO DISCUSSING POTENTIAL LITIGATION ONLY AT 7:03 P.M. URC WITH LBE ABSENT EVENING SESSION S. PROCIAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Appreciation upon the retirement of Eugene S. Grubb, Parks & Recreation Department. R-112195-12 EGK MOTION TO ADOPT RESO 12 URC WITH LBE ABSENT MR. GRUBB WAS PRESENT 2. Resolution of Appreciation upon the retirement of Herman D. Fielder, Sheriff's Office. R-112195-13 EGK MOTION TO ADOPT RESO URC WITH LBE ABSENT MR. FIELDER WAS PRESENT T. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing and management program subdivisions under the Improvement Ordinance County Attorney) approval of a storm water for single-family residential provisions of the Public Works 112288-7. (Paul M. Mahoney, RICK WHITNEY WITH REGIONAL HOMEBUILDERS ASSOCIATION SPOKE A-112195-14 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE ONLY ITEMS (A) AND (B) IN STAFF RECONIlVIENDATION AND STAFF TO BRING BACK METHOD OF FUNDING WITHOUT USING GENERAL FUNDS ON 12/12/95 URC WITH LBE ABSENT U. PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending portions of section 17-3 "Design requirements generally", Article I, Appendix B Subdivision of the Roanoke County Code and authorizing the amendment by resolution of the Design and Constructions Standards for Public Street and Off-Street Parking. (Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering and Inspections). 13 BI;T MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 12/12/95 URC WITH LBE ABSENT V. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance to rezone 1.109 acres from R-1 to C-1 to construct an office/meeting hall, located at the west side of Shadwell Drive, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of IUE Local 162, Inc. (Terry Harrington, Planning and Zoning Director) 0-112195-15 BIT MOTION TO APPROVE REZONING AND ADOPT ORD URC WITH LBE ABSENT 2. Ordinance to rezone 1.146 acres from R-1 and C-1 to R-1 and C-2 to operate a personal services facility, located at 3142 Brambleton Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Marta Sayers. (Terry Harrington, Planning and Zoning Director) ,~T PETITIONER HAS REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 12, 1995.) THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS HAVE BEEN CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 12, 1995 BY THE PLANNING COMIVIISSION Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to construct a 140 foot communications tower and accessory building, located on Poor Mountain, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Valley Communications. Ordinance to rezone 28 acres from AR to R-1 to construct single family residences, located on Yellow Mountain Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Saunders & Wells 14 Investments. W. CITIZEN CONIlViENTS AND CO1bIlVIiJNICATIONS NnNF X. ADJOiJRNMENT TO NOVEMBER 28, 1995, AT 3 P.M., AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BiT~DING FOR THE PURPOSE OF A JOINT MEETING WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD BI{T MOTION TO ADTOURN AT 8:10 P.M. URC WITH LBE ABSENT 15 ~ R AN ,~.~ ~ ~ A z a~ t (2~.o~zxxtt~ .of ~.~~tx~~~.e ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA NOVEMBER 21, 1995 fffi7RT 6772' 9Gg' RIDff Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. AT 1:00 P.M. THERE WII~L BE A BOARD MEETING AS PART OF ROANOKE COUNTY'S STUDENT GOVERNMENT DAY ACTIVITIES. COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WILL REPLACE BOARD MEMBERS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS. AT Z:00 P.M. THERE WILL BE A MEETING OF THE AUDIT COMIVIITTEE. Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangement in order to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings or other programs and activities sponsored by Roanoke County, please contact the Clerk to the Board at (703) 772-2005 We request that you provide at least 48- hours notice so that proper arrangements may be made. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. 2. Invocation: The Reverend John Hartwig Good Shepherd Lutheran Church 1 ® Recycled Paper 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCIAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOG1vITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Appreciation upon the retirement of Cecil C. Reynolds, Jr., Parks & Recreation Department. 2. Resolution of Appreciation upon the retirement of Robert S. Lamb, General Services Department. 3. Recognition of Howard D. Bullen for his service on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. 4. Resolution of Congratulations to Roanoke County Public Library upon its 50th Anniversary. D. BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing on the Visioning Process (Janet Scheid, Planning and Zoning) 2. Update on Spring Hollow Water Project. (Gary Robertson, Director, Utility) E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of request from the City of Roanoke to form a Transportation District. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator) 2. Request from the City of Salem for assistance with NCAA Division III and Division II Championships -Stagg Bowl and Basketball Final Four. (Tim Gubala, Economic Development Director) 3. Request to use $2,500 Public-Private Partnership funds for a new 1996 ISTEA Grant Application for the Hanging Rock Battlefield Trail. (Tim Gubala, Economic Development Director) 4. Request for appropriation of $2,500 from Public Private Partnership Funds for the Archery Shooter's Association Virginia Championship. (Joyce Waugh, Economic Development Specialist) F. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS G. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS H. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA 1. An ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to construct a commercial dog kennel, located at 10420 Ivy Ridge Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Richard Mark Jones. 2. An ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to operate a private horse stable, located at 4100 Barley Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Jeffrey D. Shupe. 3. An ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to allow expansion of Northside Middle School, located at 6810 Northside High School Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Roanoke County School Board. 4. An ordinance to rezone 32.7 acres from R-1 to AG-1 to permit commercial agricultural uses, located east of 3 Carson Road and west of the NS Railroad, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Industrial Development Authority (Ray Cox). I. 5. An ordinance to rezone 11.47 acres from R-3 to C-2 to allow commercial uses, located on the west side of Ogden Road at the terminus of Leslie Lane, north of NS Railroad tracks, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Industrial Development Authority (Angie Laing). 6. An ordinance to rezone 6.7 acres from R-3 to C-2 to allow commercial uses, located on the west side of Ogden Road, north of the NS Railroad tracks, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Industrial Development Authority (Stranna Arthur). FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending and reenacting sections of Chapter 11, Massage Parlors, of the Roanoke County Code to permit cross-gender massages by qualified massage therapists and improve regulations of massage technicians. (Joseph Obenshain, Sr. Assistant County Attorney) 2. Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of necessary easements for property to construct the North Transmission Line. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) 3. Ordinance authorizing conveyance of easements to Appalachian Power Company for underground and overhead electric service across property off Sugar Loaf Mountain Road. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) 4. Ordinance amending and reenacting sections of Chapter 10, Licenses, and repealing section 21-2, Article I, of 4 Chapter 21 Taxation of the Roanoke County Code in order to improve uniformity in administration of the Business, Professional, and Occupational License Tax. (Vickie Huffman, Assistant County Attorney) J. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of necessary easements to construct the Fort Lewis Sewer Submain. (Gary Robertson, Director, Utility) K. APPOINTMENTS 1. Blue Ridge Community Services 2. Highway and Transportation Safety Commission 3. Library Board 4. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 5. Planning Commission 6. Roanoke Valley Resource Authority L. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WH.L BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Approval of Minutes - September 26, 1995 (regular meeting), October 10, 1995. 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Industrial 5 Development Authority and the Organ Donation and Tissue Transplantation Commission. 3. Resolution of Appreciation upon the retirement of Robert J. Walawski. 4. Adoption of Resolution supporting the establishment of the Regional Community Criminal Justice Board. 5. Request for transfer of $5,000 from Courthouse Maintenance Funds to the General Services Department to install a new Courthouse security locking system. 6. Donation of a 7.5 foot drainage easement on property of Flora May Clay Elkins on Bunker Hill Drive to the Board of Supervisors. 7. Request for acceptance of Monet Drive and Chagall Circle in the Gardens of Cotton Hill, Section 1, into VDOT Secondary Road System. 8. Request for acceptance of Stonemill Drive and Millwheel Drive, Woodbridge Section 8 and 14 into the VDOT Secondary System. 9. Resolution authorizing an audit of Cox Communications, Inc. on behalf of the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee and providing funding. 10. Ratification of appointments to the Community Policy and Management Team. 11. Request to execute an agreement for a stormwater management facility at Valley Techpark. M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 6 N. CITIZENS' COIVIlVIENTS AND C011~IlVIiJ1\IICATIONS O. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Accounts Paid -October 1995 5. Statement of Expenditures and Revenues as of 10/31/95. 6. Proclamations signed by the Chairman 7. Report of operations for year ended June 30, 1995 8. Bond Projects Status Report 9. Report from Treasurer on Judicial Sale 10. Financial Statement and Supplementary Schedule (Audit) of the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County for Fiscal Year 1994-95. 11. Report on the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) Rate Increase for 1996-98 Biennium. P. WORK SESSION 1. Review of Water and Sewer Rate Structure 2. Self-Insurance Program Q. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia 7 Section 2.1-344 A (3) discussion or consideration of the condition, acquisition, or use of real property for public R. S. T. U. purposes CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION EVENING SESSION PROCIAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGI~TITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Appreciation upon the retirement of Eugene S. Grubb, Parks & Recreation Department. 2. Resolution of Appreciation upon the retirement of Herman D. Fielder, Sheriff s Office. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing and management program subdivisions under the Improvement Ordinance County Attorney) approval of a storm water for single-family residential provisions of the Public Works 112288-7. (Paul M. Mahoney, PUBLIC HEARING AND FIItST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending portions of section 17-3 "Design requirements generally", Article I, Appendix B Subdivision of the Roanoke County Code and authorizing the amendment by resolution of the Design and Constructions Standards for Public Street and Off-Street Parking. (Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering and Inspections). 8 V. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance to rezone 1.109 acres from R-1 to C-1 to construct an office/meeting hall, located at the west side of Shadwell Drive, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of IUE Local 162, Inc. (Terry Harrington, Planning and Zoning Director) 2. Ordinance to rezone 1.146 acres from R-1 and C-1 to R-1 and C-2 to operate a personal services facility, located at 3142 Brambleton Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Marta Sayers. (Terry Harrington, Planning and Zoning Director) 1' PETITIONER HAS REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 12, 1995.) THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS HAVE BEEN CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 12, 1995 BY THE PIAIVNING COMII~IISSION Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to construct a 140 foot communications tower and accessory building, located on Poor Mountain, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Valley Communications. Ordinance to rezone 28 acres from AR to R-1 to construct single family residences, located on Yellow Mountain Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Saunders & Wells Investments. W. CITIZEN COMII~NTS AND COMMUNICATIONS X. ADJOiTRNMENT TO NOVEMBER 28, 1995, AT 3 P.M., AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BiJILDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF A JOINT MEETING WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD 9 .a C ,' ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 RESOLUTION 112195-1 E%PRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO CECIL C. REYNOLDS, JR. FOR OVER FIFTEEN YEARS OF SERVICES TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, Cecil C. Reynolds, Jr. was first employed on October 1, 1979 as a laborer in the Building Maintenance Division of the General Services Department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Reynolds has also served as Grounds Maintenance Worker in the General Services Department and Parks Maintenance Worker in the Parks and Recreation Department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Reynolds has exemplified the true spirit of dedication to the Parks and Recreation mission and set a standard for others to follow; and WHEREAS, Mr. Reynolds, through his employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to CECIL C. REYNOLDS, JR. for over fifteen years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None .` ABSENT: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: ~• Mary H Alen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources Resolutions of Appreciation File C-~ AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 RESOLUTION EXPREBSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO CECIL C. REYNOLDS, JR. FOR OVER FIFTEEN YEARS OF SERVICES TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAB, Cecil C. Reynolds, Jr. was first employed on October 1, 1979 as a laborer in the Building Maintenance Division of the General Services Department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Reynolds has also served as Grounds Maintenance Worker in the General Services Department and Parks Maintenance Worker in the Parks and Recreation Department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Reynolds has exemplified the true spirit of dedication to the Parks and Recreation mission and set a standard for others to follow; and WHEREAS, Mr. Reynolds, through his employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to CECIL C. REYNOLDS, JR. for over fifteen years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. ~, ~- C-~~, AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 RESOLUTION 112195-2 EBPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO ROBERT S. LAMB FOR OVER THIRTY-FOUR YEARS OF SERVICES TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, Robert S. Lamb was first employed on September 1, 1961, as a Laborer in the Solid Waste Division of the General Services Department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Lamb has also served as Motor Equipment Operator and Solid Waste Equipment Operator; and WHEREAS, Mr. Lamb has always been willing to go above and beyond the call of duty in crisis situations, especially during storm cleanups; and WHEREAS, Mr. Lamb has always been ready to assist his fellow employees in completing job assignments and will be greatly missed by the employees of the Solid Waste Division; and WHEREAS, Mr. Lamb, through his employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to ROBERT S. LAMB for over thirty-four years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its bestwishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: i .~ AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources Resolutions of Appreciation File ., ~. ~- a AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COIINTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 RESOLUTION EBPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COIINTY TO ROBERT S. LAMB FOR OVER THIRTY-FOIIR YEARS OF SERVICES TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, Robert S. Lamb was first employed on September 1, 1961, as a Laborer in the Solid Waste Division of the General Services Department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Lamb has also served as Motor Equipment Operator and Solid Waste Equipment Operator; and WHEREAS, Mr. Lamb has always been willing to go above and beyond the call of duty in crisis situations, especially during storm cleanups; and WHEREAS, Mr. Lamb has always been ready to assist his fellow employees in completing job assignments and will be greatly missed by the employees of the Solid Waste Division; and WHEREAS, Mr. Lamb, through his employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to ROBERT 8. LAMB for over thirty-four years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. .l ' ~ A .~ Y' ~ C- a FIIRTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. -- CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION AWARDED TO HOWARD D. BULLEN FOR SERVICE TO THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE AND THE PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION • Active in North Roanoke Recreation Club since 1985 and serving as 6aseba/l coach every year. • Elected in 1989 to the Board of Directors for the North Roanoke Recreation Club. • Since 1992, served as President of North Roanoke Recreation Club. • Appointed in 1993 to the Roanoke County Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission. 21fh November 1995 Presenf~ed this day of , ,~~ „ -- Signature Chairman, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ~tle it { C_~- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 RESOLUTION 112195-3 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO THE ROANORE COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY ON THE OCCASION OF ITS FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Public Library was chartered by the State of Virginia on November 10, 1945; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Public Library began with a collection of 300 books, housed in a single room, and has grown to include 314,630 items at six libraries; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County, together with Botetourt County, built the first joint library constructed in the State of Virginia; and WHEREAS, annual circulation at the Roanoke County Public Libraries is the highest in the Roanoke Valley and now exceeds more than 782,000 per year; and WHEREAS, citizens made over 633,000 visits to the Roanoke County Public Libraries during the past year; and WHEREAS, the library has grown increasingly more important in meeting the educational and informational needs of its patrons through a diverse collection, access to electronic databases and other online resources; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County. Public Library has, throughout its fifty-year history, emphasized a positive and responsive approach to customer service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby, on behalf of its members and all the citizens who have benefitted through the years, extend its appreciation and congratulations to the ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY on the celebration of its 50th anniversary; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does extend its best wishes for another fifty years of service to the community, and urges all citizens to reaffirm their commitment to the Roanoke County Public Library. On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: J'~ Mary H. A len, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Resolutions of Congratulations File ACTION N0. ITEM NO . ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution Congratulating the Roanoke County Public Library for 50 Years of Service to the Community COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: We have an excellent library system and appreciate your support. We are discussing plans to increase automation, connecting with the Internet, and providing a computer work station for citizens who don't have computers. In the next SO years, this department wiU probably become one of the most significant services the County will provide. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Board is asked to recognize the Public Library on the occasion of its Fiftieth Anniversary as an official county agency. Dr. Norma Jean Peters, Chairman of the Board of Trustees will be present at the meeting of the Board of Supervisors.. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Roanoke County Public Library originated with the formation of a small lending collection by the Junior Women's Club in 1932. This first library was located at Conehurst, but by 1941 the project had grown sufficiently in scope to require the involvement and support of the county government. The Board of Supervisors voted to establish a library, and to provide support, in June 1941. In November, 1945 the Roanoke County Public Library was organized as a county library under the guidelines established by the Code of Virginia, and was recognized by the state as a properly chartered county library. Since that time the Roanoke County Public Library has continued to grow and to change in order to meet the needs of the citizens it serves. The level of use of the various county library facilities, collections, and services, indicates that the public library is responsive to the citizens. As new technologies proliferate, and as new opportunities arise, the Board of Trustees and the staff of the library, are prepared to continue to find the best and most cost effective means to connect our citizens with the information and life-long learning opportunities they need. ~~ ., FISCAL IMPACT: None c-y STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Library staff requests that the Board recognize this significant anniversary in the life of an agency which serves our community. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~~~ Spencer Watts Library Director Approued by,,> Elmer C. Hodge c County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved () Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied () Eddy _ _ _ Received O Johnson _ _ _ Referred () Kohinke _ _ _ To O Minnix _ _ _ Nickens _, _ _ ti ~~ a -~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS TO THE ROANORE COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY ON THE OCCASION OF ITS FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Public Library was chartered by the State of Virginia on November 10, 1945; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Public Library began with a collection of 300 books, housed in a single room, and has grown to include 314,630 items at six libraries; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County, together with Botetourt County, built the first joint library constructed in the State of Virginia; and WHEREAS, annual circulation at the Roanoke County Public Libraries is the highest in the Roanoke Valley and now exceeds more than 782,000 per year; and WHEREAS, citizens made over 633,000 visits to the Roanoke County Public Libraries during the past year; and WHEREAS, the library has grown increasingly more important in meeting the educational and informational needs of its patrons through a diverse collection, access to electronic databases and other online resources; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Public Library has, throughout its fifty-year history, emphasized a positive and responsive approach to customer service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby, on behalf of its members and all the citizens who have benefitted through the years, extend its appreciation and congratulations to the ROANORE COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY on the celebration of its 50th anniversary; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does extend its best wishes for another fifty years of service to the community, and urges all citizens to reaffirm their commitment to the Roanoke County Public Library. C_ 5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THB ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 RESOLUTION 112195-4 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE, JR. UPON HIS 10TH ANNIVERSARY WITH THE COUNTY OF ROANORE WHEREAS, in November 1985, Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. was appointed as the Administrator for the County of Roanoke, Virginia; and WHEREAS, his first challenge was dealing with the disastrous results of the Flood of 1985, the worst flood in the County's history; and WHEREAS, since that time, the County has successfully accomplished many projects and programs under Mr. Hodge's capable direction; and WHEREAS, during Mr. Hodge's tenure, the County celebrated its 150th birthday with a huge sesquicentennial celebration, and has been named an All America City, the only county in Virginia to be so honored; and WHEREAS, two major projects, the Smith Gap Landfill and Spring Hollow Reservoir were begun and completed under Mr. Hodge's leadership; and WHEREAS, during the past ten years, Mr. Hodge has continuously exhibited the necessary qualities to direct the administration of the County of Roanoke as it approaches the beginning of the 21st century. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, offers its sincere congratulations to ELMER C. HODGE, JR. upon his 10th Anniversary i. as Administrator for the County of Roanoke; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors expresses its appreciation to Mr. Hodge for his many contributions in enhancing the quality of life for the citizens of the County of Roanoke, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: y ~ • Q~.,e.~.v Mary H. A len, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources Resolutions of Appreciation File f 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. "~" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Status Report on Roanoke County Visioning Process COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: We are pleased with the visioning process thus far. As we begin the implementation phase, we need some guidelines from the Board. We intend to use this as a basis for updates to the Comprehensive Plan and CIP. What does that mean to you? We really need to get this information back to the citizens and we want to consider an informational program to do so. We may need additional funding for brochures to be sent to every household, and possibly production of a video to share with civic leagues. If we get into an update of the Comprehensive Plan we will need additional staff and/or contractual assistance. BACKGROUND: As you know, the Roanoke County Visioning Process has been ongoing since January 1995. This process has been guided by a citizen's Steering Committee. In April a county-wide community meeting was held and ten citizen focus groups were formed to develop the vision statements. These groups met throughout the summer and on August 15 the focus group representatives briefed you on the results of their work. A second county-wide community meeting was held on October 28 to review these results with the public and receive additional input. You have received copies of the complete focus group reports and summary documents. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Visioning Steering Committee is preparing three final documents. The first will be a complete report that documents the visioning process, the focus group reports, meeting minutes and notes. This report will serve as a historical record of the work that has been done. Secondly, the existing executive summary will be revised and modified. It will be a quick and readable summary of the larger document. Third, we will be producing a visioning brochure that, through the use of text, graphics and photographs will communicate both the essence of the vision statements and the commitment and enthusiasm that has gone into this process. This document will be widely distributed. ~~ 2 These three products will document and communicate the visioning process. They will also form the transition into the Comprehensive Plan and the continuation of the community development work. At your December meeting, staff will review with you a detailed workplan for completion of the Comprehensive Plan including both a time schedule and request for resources. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ ~~~ J et Scheid, Planne D ector of Planning and Zoning Approved, ~~ ~ ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Ref erred to Action Motion by Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens Vote No Yes Abs ~• ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~c~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Report on the Spring Hollow Water Project COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: This project is progressing well. We are preparing for the grand opening on January 13. Please mark your calendars and plan to attend. I am very pleased that we have saved enough money to begin the North Loop Transmission Line, because this allows us to provide water to areas of the County that was not previously possible. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: After decades of planning, the Spring Hollow Water Project is about to become a reality. The construction remains on schedule and staff is preparing for amid-January opening. Below is a status report relating to the major components of the water system (to be accompanied by a brief slide presentation). Spring Hollow Reservoir: Pumping has resumed after more than three months of dry weather. The present water level is approximately 1,385 (full pond is 1,410) feet which is 15 feet above our anticipated normal operating level for the near future. On August 28, 1995, with the reservoir elevation at 1,383 feet, total water losses at the dam measured approximately 1.9 million gallons per day (MGD), which was close to the design standard used in the project. To address this, we implememented a grouting program at the east abutment, at a cost of approximately $122,000. The program is in the final stages of implementation and has successfully grouted the saturated clay seams that occured between the highly impermeable shales in the dam east abutment as well as porous zones of roller compacted concrete (RCC) found within the dam itself. 1 ~~ Because the test grouting program on the east abutment has been successful, Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern has recommended, and staff agrees, that the test program be continued to include grouting additional areas. Should the complete program be necessary, the estimated cost would be between $200,000 and $250,000. Funds were allocated in the reservoir project for this work. In summary, the water level is well above the necessary elevation for successful operation, the perimeter of the reservoir appears to be retaining water better than anticipated, the dam seepage has been shown to be acceptable and total water loss from the reservoir is less than 80% of that anticipated in the design estimates. Water Treatment Plant: Due to favorable weather conditions during the last two months, coupled with continued excellent cooperation and coordination among County utility department staff and Crowder Construction Company, general contractor for the project, construction of the water treatment facilities is proceeding on schedule with substantial completion (ability to produce water) scheduled for January 13, 1996, and final completion scheduled for May 1996. The main treatment building is 90% complete with the following tasks scheduled for December. 1. Complete installation of plumbing and electrical systems. 2. Complete installation of stainless steel process piping systems. 3. Complete installation of appurtenant troughs, piping and underdrain systems for treatment filter basins. 4. Begin and complete installation of PC based monitoring and control instrumentation system. The Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) building is 95% complete with the following tasks scheduled for December: 1. Complete installation of fluoride feed equipment. 2. Begin painting of interior surfaces and process piping. • The post treatment building is 90% complete with the following tasks scheduled for December. 1. Complete installation of chlorine feed equipment. 2. Complete installation of finished water pipe header. 3. Complete installation of electrical transformers and high service pump motor control centers. 4. Complete painting of interior surfaces and process piping. 2 ~-~ 5. Begin installation of backwash wastewater decant treatment units. • Construction and testing of the exterior yard piping system is scheduled to be completed by December 1st. • Construction of the off-site sewage conveyance system for the water treatment facility began during the 3rd- week in June, is proceeding on schedule, and is approximately 70 percent complete. Completion of this system is scheduled for January 1996. • Construction of the curb and gutter and roadway for the access road leading to the main treatment building and main parking area was completed in November. Construction of curb and gutter and access roadway leading to the post treatment and GAC buildings is approximately 50 percent complete. South Transmission Line: Phases 1 through 6 have now been installed with the exception of approximately 1,500 feet that passes through the proposed Longridge subdivision. This installation had been delayed while roads were graded. This represents over 16 miles of 24 and 30-inch water line installed in less than 1 year at a cost of $8 million. The South Transmission line traverses the avenue from Spring Hollow Reservoir, along the base of Poor Mountain, 12 O'Clock Knob, and Sugar Loaf Mountain to the Starkey area along Merriman Road. The contractors are now in the process of pressure testing and disinfecting these lines to prepare for their operation in January. These lines will make Spring Hollow water available to the majority of Southwest County water customers. North Transmission Line: The North Transmission line was originally envisioned as a future project when funding was allocated in the Spring Hollow Project. Because of cost savings associated with the construction of the dam, innovative design of the water treatment facility, and direct purchase of pipe materials for the transmission lines, there will be sufficient funds to construct a majority of the North Transmission line at this time. The project as planned will begin at Route 11/460 near Cherokee Hills and proceed to Route 311 (Thompson Memorial Drive) near Hanging Rock. This construction will allow citizens presently served by wells in the Cherokee Hills, Glenvar East, and Red Lane/Wooded Acres areas to also be served by Spring Hollow water. The construction of this line is expected to begin in early 1996 and be complete by early 1997. Future phases of the North Transmission line will include a section along Loch Haven 3 s J L ~- ~ Road to the Plantation Road area and a parallel line from Dixie Caverns to the Fort Lewis area. The current status of work is: • The aerial mapping has been received and the field surveying work started at the end of July. The field surveying work is approximately 50 percent complete. It is anticipated that all field surveying work will be completed by the end of March 1996. • Currently it is projected that the North Loop will consist of approximately 6,500 feet of 16 inch diameter pipe, 9,000 feet of 18 inch diameter pipe, and 26,000 feet of 24 inch diameter pipe. A one million gallon water storage reservoir will also be constructed as part of this project. • The design of the first phase of the transmission main from the Valley Techpark to Alleghany Road is finished. Contact has been made with all property owners along the first phase and preliminary easement negotiations have begun. Construction of the first phase is expected to begin in February 1996. • Petitions for public water service from the North Loop have been received from the residents of Richland Hills Drive and Brandy Run Drive/High Meadows Lane. Staff will work with these residents to provide water service to these areas at the most economical cost to them. The water system designs for these petition areas will not begin until the design of the North Loop past these areas is finalized. Board approval will be requested for any petition projects once the residents agree to finance the project. CONCLUSION: Considering the size and complexity of the overall project, it has proceeded quite smoothly. Staff has been preparing for the operation of this system for many.years and is excited that the mid-January operating date is now within sight. SUBMITTED BY: r; Gary Rob ton, P.E. Utility Director APPROVED: ~~~~ ~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator 4 t ~- ACTION VOTE Approved () Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied () Eddy _ _ _ Received () Johnson _ _ _ Referred Kohinke _ _ _ to Minnix _ _ _ Nickens 5 A-112195-5 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~ "' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Roanoke to form a the Roanoke Valley COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Recommend approvd BACKGROUND: request from the City of Transportation District in At several of the joint meetings with Roanoke City Council, there was discussion on establishing a transportation district in the Roanoke Valley. The issue has also been discussed with other localities, and among staff from the City and County. Subsequently, the Board of Supervisors expressed interest in discussing this issue further with the understanding that all revenues generated in the County from a Transportation District would remain in the County. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke City will be losing considerable federal funding for its Valley Metro system over the next several years with a loss of $190,000 from 1994-95 to 1995-96. As a result, they are pursuing other methods of funding to continue the system. Attached is a letter from Roanoke City Mayor David Bowers providing additional information on the formation of a Roanoke Regional Transportation District. He has also asked that Vinton and Salem consider joining the Transportation District. A Transportation District would provide for an assessment of additional taxes of up to 2% on each gallon of gasoline sold in the City or County or any other locality who wishes to participate. The program would be administered by a Transportation District Commission with representatives from all participating localities. Mayor Bowers has also forwarded a summary of the major points of a proposed Roanoke Regional Transportation District. Among the recommendations are that any revenues generated from the gasoline tax in Roanoke County would be returned to the County to be used for transportation purposes. Consideration of this issue is of some urgency because the proposed -/ legislation must be presented at the upcoming General Assembly session. If the County participated in a Roanoke Regional Transportation District, funds generated from a gasoline tax would provide an additional revenue source to improve County roads. The revenues could also be used to reduce other local taxes paid by Roanoke County residents. FISCAL IMPACT: It is estimated that $485,000 could be generated from the transportation district gasoline tax in Roanoke County. However, this must be offset by a reduction in the real estate tax rate or other locally levied taxes by an amount equal to the amount that would have been allocated for bus services. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the Chairman to appoint the appropriate County officials to meet with similar officials from the City of Roanoke to develop a proposed agreement that would be equally beneficial to both localities. If an agreement can be reached, it will be brought back to the Board of Supervisors for approval. `y, ~ ii(fA~~ Q,, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by: Motion by Edward G Kohinke to approve staff recommendation VOTE No Yes Abse~fi Eddy x Johnson x Kohinke x Minnix x Nickens x cc: File ~-/ -~,. CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 452 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1594 Telephone: (703)981-2444 DAVID A. BOWERS October 2 6 , 19 9 Mayor The Honorable H. Odell Minnix, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Post Office Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Re: Regional Transportation District Dear Chairman Minnix: Roanoke City Council is studying the formation of a "Roanoke Regional Transportation District Commission" in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-342 et. seq., contingent upon the Commission benefitting from a dedicated tax on the sale of motor vehicle fuel sold within the Transportation District. The formation of such a district was discussed at the most recent City/County joint meeting. Approval of a district-wide motor vehicle tax requires the subsequent reduction in the local real estate tax rate, or other local levied taxes. The purpose of the Commission would be to preserve and expand the mass transit system within the district, to make the mass transit system safe, convenient, and efficient for the citizens of the district it would serve, and to provide such other transportation facilities and/or services authorized by law that are consistent with more efficiently and/or effectively transporting and facilitating the movement of the citizens of the Roanoke Valley within the district's jurisdiction. As you know, such a Regional Transportation District has been discussed among the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, the City of Salem, and the City of Roanoke and staffs from those localities as well as staff members from the Greater Roanoke Transit Company (GRTC). I understand that Elmer Hodge has advised Bob Herbert by letter dated September 27, 1995, that the County might be agreeable to participating in negotiations concerning a Regional Transportation District. Attached is a brief summary highlighting the major points that would probably need to be included in any agreement among the jurisdictions that would participate in such a Regional Transportation District. Roanoke City Council would be generally agreeable to the division and disposition of revenues generated, as set forth in Mr. Hodge's letter of September 27, 1995. While the Transportation District Act of 1964 allows a single jurisdiction to form a transportation district if the surrounding jurisdictions do not wish to participate in such a Commission, the City of Roanoke ~-/ The Honorable H. Odell Minnix October 26, 1995 Page 2 believes that it would be in the interest of all the citizens of Roanoke Valley if Roanoke County (including Vinton) and the City of Salem would also participate in a Regional Transportation District. The formation of such a Transportation District would be contingent upon each member jurisdiction dedicating the tax on motor vehicle fuels to the Commission. I am told that under Virginia law, only two transportation districts are currently permitted to assess this tax. Two other districts are expected to request General Assembly taxing authority. For the Roanoke Valley to have this authority, too, certain changes in the Code of Virginia will have to be made during the next Session of the General Assembly if this district is to become effective in the near future. I believe that it would be advantageous to present a united request for such legislation to the legislators representing the County of Roanoke, the City of Salem, and the City of Roanoke. However, if either the County or the City of Salem are not interested in participating in a Regional Transportation District, then the City of Roanoke needs to know this information so that we can conclude our analysis and make a timely decision. Due to the time frame involved, I respectfully request that you advise me at your earliest convenience of the County's position on this matter so that we can hopefully schedule negotiation sessions and meetings with the appropriate legislators. I would appreciate a response by November 15, 1995, if possible. Please respond to Bob Herbert's office by November 15. If you have any questions in the meantime, please contact me or members of the City staff or GRTC staff. Best personal regards. Sincerely, ~~ a . VV~w~ David Bowers Mayor DAB:jas:js Enclosures 2 ~~/ The Honorable H. Odell Minnix October 26, 1995 Page 3 pc: Members, Roanoke City Council W. Robert Herbert, City Manager, Roanoke, Virginia Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia The Honorable Charles W. Hill, Mayor, Post Office Box 338, Vinton, Virginia 24179 Elmer C. Hodge, Roanoke County Administrator, Administrative Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018 The Honorable James E. Taliaferro, Mayor, Post Office Box 869, Salem, Virginia 24153 3 ~- SUNIlbiARY OF MAJOR POINTS OF PROPOSED ROANOKE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT CO1bM4~T()N October 24. 1995 1. The Roanoke Regional Transportation District Commission (RRTDC) would consist of the geographical area comprising Roanoke County, the City of Salem, and the City of Roanoke. However, pursuant to the Transportation District Act of 1964, Virginia Code §§15.1-1342 et. seq., if any contiguous County or City does not wish to join in the Transportation District, then the City or County proposing that District can constitute itself as a single member Transportation District. ffRoanoke County or Salem do not wish to join the District at this time, the remaining jurisdictioa~ could form a Transportation District or Roanoke City could elect to form a single member District. (See § 15.1.1345) 2. The pwpose of the RRTDC would be to improve the transportation system in the Roanoke Valley which is composed of the various transit facilities, public highways, and other modes of transportation. The District would attempt to make the mass transit system in the Roanoke Valley a safe, convenient, and efficient system for the citizens of the Roanoke Valley and to provide such other transportation facilities and services that would be consistent with more efficiently and/or effectively transporting and facilitating the movenKnt of people within the Roanoke Valley. 3. After the Transportation District is created, a commission is created to manage and control the functions, affairs, and property of the corporation and to exercise all the rights, powers, and authority and perform all the duties conferred or imposed on the corporation. The Transportation District is deemed to be a body corporate and politic pursuant to §15.1-1346. The District then creates a conanission that has control over the corporation. (See § 15.1-134' The commission is in charge of managing and controlling the functions, affairs, and property of the corporation and exercises all the rights, powers, and authority conferred or imposed upon the corporation. 4. The crormnission consists of the number of members that the governing bodies determine to be appropriate from time to time. The governing body of each participating County or City appoints from among the mdr~s of the governing body the number of commissioners to which the County or City is entitled. There may also be alternate members appointed. (See § 15.1-1348) Each member of the comrniasion must give a bond payable to the Commonwealth before entering-upon the dirge of hia or her duties. (See §15.-1330). The proposal is that each comporernt governnknt have the right to appoint one (1) eomnnssiorcer for every whole increment of 20,000 residents within the portion of the piirtiapating County or City that is also within the District. S. The coon must have regular meetings and they must beheld at least once every moth at such time and place as the commission shall prescribe. (Sce §15.1-1352) 6. Section 15.1-1353 states that in order for a quorum and action to be taken by the commission, "A majority of the commission, which majority shall include at least one commissioner from a ~ -/ majority of the component governments, shall constitute a quorum. The Chairman of the Commonwealth Transportation Board or his desi ee ma con~~~8 a Quorum. The presence of a quorum and a vote of the ma,~orit}-f of memberspresent, including, an affumative vote from a majority of the jurisdictions represented, shall be necessary to take any action." 7. All monies from arty source whatever shall be collected, received, held, secured, and disbursed by the commission in accordance with any contract of the commission relating thereto. (See § 15.1- 1355) It is the City's understanding that this provision along with the other provisions in the Act would allow the commission to enter into contracts with the member jurisdictions ~ to how the funds held by the commission could be used or disbursed and that this would be arranged in a manner agreeable to all members of the District. 8• Virginia Coder §§58.1-1719, gl,, ~., allows for the placing of a motor vehicle fuel sales tax m certain transportation districts. At the present time this sales tax of 2% of the I prime of such fuel sold within the County or City composing the District is allowed in only two Transportation Districts within the state. This is the area where legislation would have to be enacted the legislators from the Roanoke Valley to allow a similar 2% retail sales tax on motor vehicle fuels to be placed on such fud sold within Roanoke County, the City of Sal Unless the local legislators could obtain ~ and the City of Roanoke. sales tax, the formation of a Transportation D strict tmaY not feasibl~eso~on loot s~ce a dedicated In connection with such a sales aPP P at this time. tax, §58.1-1721 provides that in the first fiill fiscal year ~ ~~ the ~L._-- sales ~ ~ levied, the govaning body of each County or City in which such tax is levied shall reduce /` the rate of its real ester tax, or its estate tax and other locally levied taxes in an amount that will teduce reveruies in the followin 8 Yom' by ~ amount equal to the amount which has been or would have been allocated by the local governing body to the County or City for rail and bus services but is, as a result of the imposition of this tax paid by the commission. As noted, the present legislation only affects two Transportation Districts. These Code sectioas would need to be amended to conform to a Tieiupoitation District within the Roanoke VaU This is 1 addressed in the immediate future if it is to be presented at the next ~~ won that needs to be r°-ssembly in 1996. 9. Another section of the Code that will need to addressed deals with the disposition of tax revenues. That section would noedltomended8 o pro de that the tax revenues that might be received by the RRTDC could be allocated between the member jurisdictions and used by the ~~ jurisdictions for any transportation purpose within their ~Nivdic~ions. The arrrotrnt allocated to each jurisdiction could be a figure agreed upon by the commission and could ~ ~ ~ amount equal to the amount of fuel tax collected from each respective jur4 less their prorata share of the commission's administrative acpenses as n>utuaUy agreed to by the compone~ g~~natts. However the sauces, such as any grants, etc,, ~Y believes that funds from other the district and the mass transit should remain with the commission and be used for the benefit of system being operated within the district. 10. The impact of a dedicated tax on the sale of motor vehicle fuels would be offset to some 2 . _ ~ '- extent by the reduction in the real estate tax as required by the Code. The City is willing to discuss this in further detail and perhaps consider a reduction in other taxes levied besides just the real estate tax as allowed by the Code. 11. The City will transfer its equity in the Greater Roanoke Transit Company (GRTC) and the equipment now operated by that company to the commission. The details of such transfer to the commission can be worked out later, but the City does not anticipate this to be a problem in working with the County or the City of Salem. 12. If an agreement can be reached on the concept of the Regional Transportation District at this time, the County, the City of Satan, and the City of Roanoke should be able to arrive at a consensus for a legislative package that can be presented to the legislators from each jurisdiction so that appropriate legislation can be intraiuced at the 1996 General Assembly to allow the Code of Virginia to be amended for the dedicated fuel tax to apply to any Transportation District that may be formed in the Roanoke Valley. 3 . , . I A-112195-6 Item No . '"" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER IN ROANOKE, VA ON TUESDAY, MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Request from the City of Salem for assistance with NCAA, Division III and Division II Championships (Stagg Bowl and Basketball Final Four Championship) COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS: Recommend Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Roanoke County currently provides $2,500 to Salem in support of the Amos Alonzo Stagg Bowl. Salem now hosts more NCAA Championships than any city in the United States. Salem is requesting that Roanoke County consider an increase of its contribution by $1,500 in order to increase its exposure for the Stagg Bowl as well as host the NCAA Division III Basketball Final Four Championship in March 1996. BACKGROUND: The City of Salem, with the support of the Roanoke Valley, will host the Amos Alonzo Stagg Bowl for the third year on December 9, 1995. The event has brought thousands of fans, players, coaches, sports writers and other media to the Roanoke Valley. In addition, those millions of sports fans have been introduced to the Roanoke Valley through the ESPN network. Salem has also been awarded NCAA Championships in baseball, basketball and softball. These events will garner even more recognition for the Roanoke Valley. The fund raising committee has put together a combination package for the sponsorship of both the Stagg Bowl and the NCAA Division III Basketball Final Four Championship. Roanoke County currently provides $2,500 (Silver Level). The Silver Level combination package (description attached) costs an additional $1,500 for a total of 4,000. FISCAL IMPACT• The Sponsorship Committee has requested that Roanoke County consider becoming a Silver Level Combination Patron. An additional $1,500 is available in the Economic Development Special Events line item. r { ~^ i~ ALTERNATIVES: 1. Continue support of Salem's effort to host a variety of NCAA Division III and II Championships and more specifically retain Silver Level Sponsorship of the Amos Alonzo Stagg Bowl at $2,500. 2. Increase our overall support of Salem's effort to host a variety of NCAA Division III and II Championships by becoming a Silver Level Combination Patron, (Stagg Bowl and Basketball Championship), increasing our financial contribution by an additional $1,500 for a total of $4,000. 3. Take no action. at budget time. Staff recommends that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors fund Alternative #2 and authorize an additional $1,500 for the Silver Level Combination Package. No additional funds are required this year and future appropriations for these events will be considered Respectf ly submitted: ~a--~ Timothy W. Gubala, Director Economi evelopment Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Approved: ~~ "~ J Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Motion by: Motion by Harry C. Nickens to approve funding of $1,500 from Econ Dev Special Events Budget VOTE No Yes Absent Eddy x Johnson x Kohinke x Minnix x Nickens x cc: File Timothy W. Gubala, Director, Economic Development Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance ~r 4 r~ A-112195-7 Item No. ~~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER IN ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, ON TUESDAY, MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Request to use Public-Private Partnership Funds to complete an application for a 1996 ISTEA Grant for the Hanging Rock Battlefield Trail COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Recommend Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation Foundation was recently awarded $549,300 by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to construct the Roanoke Valley's "first" greenway between the Hanging Rock area and the City of Salem. The Foundation has been encouraged by VDOT to complete the plans for the rails-to-trails project that were prepared for the 1995 ISTEA funding cycle. The 1995 grant award did not provide sufficient funding to implement the entire plan. The Foundation has developed Phase I project and has identified a preliminary list of items for funding in a Phase II application. The Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation Foundation is seeking additional funding from VDOT to develop an Intersurface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) application for 1996. The Foundation is requesting funding from Roanoke County, the City of Salem, and local civic organizations for contributions to assist them in completing the ISTEA application for 1996. The Foundation estimates that an application can be prepared at a cost between $4,000-$5,000. Roanoke County is requested to provide $2,500 of that amount. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the Economic Development Public-Private Partnership fund. r~ • '". ALTERNATIVES: 1. Fund the amount of $2,500 requested by the Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation Foundation for planning/design of a 1996 ISTEA Phase II application. 2. Do not fund the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors continue its support of the implementation of the Roanoke Valley's "first" greenway and select Alternative #1. Respectfully submitted: ~~ Timothy Gubala, Director Department of Economic Development Approved: ,~ ,, ~~ 1 Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator --------- ----------------------------------- ACTION ----------- VOTE --------- Approved (x) Motion by: Motion by Edward G. No Yes Absent Denied ( ) Kohinke to approve funding Eddy x Received ( ) from public-private uartner- Johnson x Referred ( ) ship funds Kohinke x To ( ) Minnix x Nickens x cc: File Timothy W. Gubala, Director, Economic Development Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance A-112195-8 Item No . ~~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER IN ROANOKE, VA ON TUESDAY, MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Roanoke County to support the Virginia Championship of the Archery Shooter's Association Virginia Championship on June 21, 22, 23, 1996 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Joyce Waugh has worked very hard to help bring this event to the Roanoke Valley. She deserves a lot of credit. Recommend Approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Virginia Championship of Archery Shooter's Association (ASA) is one of six preliminaries held in the U.S.A. to qualify for the World Championship. This is the first time the event has ever been held in Virginia. The three-day Virginia Championship is a first class event with guaranteed ESPN coverage, 1,000 - 1,500 professional, semi-pro and amateur (youth and adult) shooters. The shooters use three-dimensional animal targets and the event draws an estimated 4, 000 - 5, 000 visitors to the region. The host hotels will be in Roanoke County with overflow at various other hotels in the region. Estimated direct economic impact in other communities ranges from $.8 million to $2.0 million. Exposure of the Roanoke Valley would be significant including ESPN coverage, national/international companies (ASA sponsors) and to the 4,000+ visitors for 3 days. Appalachian Power is providing, at no charge, the approved 400+ acre site at Smith Mountain Lake and an estimated $2,500 in support services (electricity, water, bush hogging) for the event. Trebark Camouflage, a Roanoke County based firm, has been our primary contact in attracting this event to the Valley, with Sherry Crumley, Trebark's Vice President, serving as Archery Roanoke Valley's President. Other valley governments and organizations have offered to assist with this event through their staff resources. The County's investment of $2,500 in Public Private Partnership funds and an estimated $2,500 in in-kind Parks and Recreation assistance will leverage $5,000 to $10,000 in private funding and an estimated $20,000 in additional public/private in-kind support. Private funds are being sought under a newly formed 501(c)4 organization, Archery Roanoke Valley, which is composed of representatives from private business, local governments (cities of ~y Roanoke and Salem, counties of Franklin and Roanoke, and Town of Vinton) and non-profit organizations. The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors readopted the Public Private Partnership Policy by Resolution (72793-6) on July 27, 1993 to include tourism related activities. The Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau estimates an expenditure of $112 per person per day for visitors (4,000 x 3 days), resulting in an estimated $1.3 million economic impact and an estimated $53,760 in food and lodging taxes. This event partners private enterprises and public entities to meet the level of participation and cooperation that is the intent of the partnership concept. In addition, this event benefits the County and the entire region through its broad reach of multi-state visitors, national exposure and educational benefits to people in the region to this growing outdoor recreational sport. FISCAL IMPACT: Currently, $2,500 is available in the Public Private Partnership Fund for an allocation for matching cash and in-kind funds from private sources for this event. ALTERNATIVES: The Board of Supervisors could 1. through $2,500 from Public 2. through $2,500 from another Fund, or 3. through in-kind resources more difficult. choose to support this event: Private Partnership Funds, funding source, such as the General only, which would make fund raising STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve Alternative #1, and authorize use of the Public Private Partnership Policy in the amount of $2,500 to be matched by other public private cash and in-kind assistance for the Virginia Championship of the Archery Shooter's Association on June 21, 22, 23, 1996. Respectfully submitted: yc Waugh Economic Development Specialist Appro ~. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Pete Haislip Director of Parks & Recreation .~ .i Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by: Motion by Harry C. Nickens to approve funding from public-private partner- ship funds VOTE No Yes Absent Eddy x Johnson x Kohinke x Minnix x Nickens x cc: File Joyce W. Waugh, Economic Development Specialist Pete Haislip, Director, Parks & Recreation Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance ACTION NO. ITEM NO. "` AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Requests for Public Hearing and First Reading for Rezoning Ordinances Consent Agenda COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Recommend Approval BACKGROUND• The first reading on these ordinances is accomplished by adoption of these ordinances in the manner of consent agenda items. The adoption of these items does not imply approval of the substantive content of the requested zoning actions, rather approval satisfies the procedural requirements of the County Charter and schedules the required public hearing and second reading of these ordinances. The second reading and public hearing on these ordinances is scheduled for December 12, 1995. The titles of these ordinances are as follows: 1) An ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to construct a commercial dog kennel, located at 10420 Ivy Ridge Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Richard Mark Jones. 2) An ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to operate a private horse stable, located at 4100 Barley Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Jeffrey D. Shupe. 3) An ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to allow expansion of Northside Middle School, located at 6810 Northside High School Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Roanoke County School Board. 4) An ordinance to rezone 32.7 acres from R-1 to AG-1 to permit commercial agricultural uses, located east of Carson Road and west of the NS Railroad, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Industrial Development Authority (Ray Cox). r F} I -t~ 2 5) An ordinance to rezone 11.47 acres from R-3 to C-2 to allow commercial uses, located on the west side of Ogden Road at the terminus of Leslie Lane, north of NS Railroad tracks, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Industrial Development Authority (Angie Laing). 6) An ordinance to rezone 6.7 acres from R-3 to C-2 to allow commercial uses, located on the west side of Ogden Road, north of the NS Railroad tracks, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Industrial Development Authority (Stranna Arthur). MAPS ARE ATTACHED; MORE DETAILED INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE CLERR~S OFFICE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: (1) That the Board approve and adopt the first reading of these rezoning ordinances for the purpose of scheduling the second reading and public hearing for December 12, 1995. (2) That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth as Items 1 through 6, inclusive, and that the Clerk is authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this action. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ .~ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Minnix Eddy Johnson Kohinke Nickens Vote No Yes ~'c1J-~~ ~OIZb~~'~ m~P ~%y, I ~ t' ~ .~ For staff use only COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3738 Brambleton Ave. S`,'/ P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 772-2068 FAX (703) 772-2030 dat r i received by ,~/ application ~~~ TL./ PC/6ZA date- ~ -2. placards issued: 805 date: Case Number: yqr Check type of application file (check all that apply): O REZONING SPECIAL USE O VARIANCE Applicant's name~;c}-~~~,~ ~r~~~ J„r;= S Phone: ~y~~ y?%_~~,y} Address: Zip Code: ICU;Zf; t2 °~= 7 = n % /17-I~t.~T4 J ~C=/i7/~ UG~7~l Owner's name: ~~h~~> m~s~~. -~•r;~ ~ Phone:~y~~=tZ`i-y'~7 Address: Zip Code: Location of property: Tax Map N tuber: t1J ,c~0-~ "~ ; /v~12o ~y~, •~/,~,~~-„,pD Magisterial District: ~ ~ 1,~- '~"T~O~"'f~~~ v~^ • ~?;~-vim - Community Planning Area: '~~ m~c~~ ..~ ~ ~ ~ Size of parcel (s): Existing Zoning: ~ R ~_ acres / Existing Land Use:J/~ r~ C--fc f ~, r/; ~ ~,~~ •~,,~ C~ sq.ft. ..................Y........., Proposed Zoning: ~ For staff use o.,i Proposed Land Use:(~ pmt ~ Ct ~~ '~~ ~ ~~ Use Type: Does the par I meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? ~ YES , NO IF NO, A VARIAiVCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. ~ Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. - - ~ f If rezoning request, are conditions being proffer=d with this request? YES NO Variance of Section(s) 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 ws v Consultation 8 1 /2" x 1 1" concept plan Application '>:Q' Metes and bounds description Justification >'?'~` Water and sewer application ws v Application fee -i~ Proffers, if applicable Adjoining property owners ~~- /hereby certify that / am either th owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the know/~dg ~n IcIonsent 61J the owner. Owner's Signature: (~/\/! __r ~ ~/~ii,~ f- ,~ DECRIPTION OF KENNELS F~-~ RICHARD AND TAMMY JONES 10420 IVY RIDGE RD BENT MOUNTAIN, VA 24059 Plan to build-~-', X 40' building on three acers located at 10420 Ivy Ridge Road, Bent Mountain, Virginia 24059. Kennel will be built with future expantions in mind. See attached drawing. There will be 20 stalls, stall size will be 4' X 4' inside with pop hole connecting a 4' X 15' outside run to each pen. There will be 4 oversized stalls for larger breed dogs, 6' X 6' inside and 6' X 15' run. Run's will be heavy duty chain link fence. The fence will be surrounded by another fence, (Wood) to reduce the noise from the kennel. See drawing attached. Animal waste will be disposed through septic tank and drain field, there will be drains in each stall inside and a troft at end of each run to drains at end. All leading into septic system. See attached. Sound and view buffers will comply with section 3092-4. Building and all buildings will be set back from all surrounding Boundaries a minumum of 100 feet, and meet road frontage requirements. Kennel will install and operate a kennel silencer were needed. -- -' - -- -- -- - - --- - - -- - ~ I„IIhI: Dale _ t - I _ _ I --- -- - - --- _ - hepnrcdFly - - - --- -- - - A; prnv~d Py . -- ~ - ~ - - - -- - ~-- ------ ._ .- - - - -- -.. ..._. _ _ . _ ----- -- -L-----~ - -- - - - ~ - - - - - - - -- - ' unre le+us.n. - i -- - - ---- ~ - , ~ '' ----- --- s ---- ----- ~ --- - -- - - _ ~ - -- e - -- ---- -- i---- --,, - - - - --- - I - - - - ~----- -- ------. I n - - , -- - --- - i '~ it I ~ . I I ~ , I , I -- I- ~ ~ I ~ - T - - I I i i - I t - ~ ~ I J _~ ~ ,; _ : i ~~ I ' I I - i I , CI ; I ; , ~ ; , ' ~ ,~ t -. ' ' i I ~ , I ,i 4 I ~ ~;. , il~ iI~ ~ ~ II r-~ -~ ~ -- -- - _ I jz ~ i~ ; ~ I j i f li ~r ~ ~41I~ ~.(; . _ . .I I i i i i t ~ ~ I 'i I ; , I I ~i~i I ~ I ' I .I l ~ ~ i _~_ (:~ . . . _.. I _ ; ... .. ~ I - ,-;-~ - -~ ~ ._. I'- ~ - , , , I I I .; ; I ' , ~ _ --; ..~. I _ ~ - I - ilk ' ~ ~ I ~ - -LI I:.. ~ I I I ~~ _L_ I 1 ~ i i.. III } (, __. ~ I i _. .. ~ I I _,_I I I 4 I I. ~I li I. I ,.I j: I { I- ~/ I _ : I I~ I I I ~ i E _ __i f I1 I ~ ~ ~ ~ l ` 1 il I f I ~ i IJ~ i I { I L ~ f t I _..~ i ~ !.-- ~ I ~ j I~I i.J__ ~( 1 ~ I i I_I.1.. I i.I i ; y i 1_.__I{ i 1 I I- l. ~ ~ i ii II; I_I--I. i. I~ i I ~ { / I I - ' + ` j , ,_- I I I I I~ I ~ I ~ . . - ~-:_L. Il - I- f I- ~~ ~-- f - - -- - ~ - ~ I _ I-1 ~I - . I - -- ~ / - ~ - ~ ( - ~ ~ ~~_ ~I ~- I- I ~ I _ ~~ _~ - i-~ I~ ~ - -I ~ Ir~l I~i . ~ _ - ~ 1- II . - I. I-- I~~ ~ ---. --~ I /~ I-- I ~ _ ~~ t- ~.I {-. ' '--I III - - -~ ) ~ -- ~ > - - I_ - Wi _ _~ ~I-:_~__ !jl~ ~ - - t'""_~- Li_~.;~ U -~ !I f~~ ~~ I _ 1_ ~_ >._ ;.:: _. _._ - I- - ...: ~ ~ II i . . __ I ... ~ I ~... I ~ 1 ! - ~ I I ~ ~ - I ` - ~ I.' I ( ---I --- -. I .~- ~ - 1.. ~ ~ _ ~ I ---- -- ~~ I - i ~! I I ) : i _ __ i _ -- - - i r I " ` _ .. i _- { i~ f , ~ _ - ~ - - - ~ ~ _ L _ i - ~---I -- ~ - - I- I--- ' ' ~ ~- - k ~ I I I f 1 I' - i ! I I ~ i~ I I I I< ; ~-1 tT l ~I~- ,~ 1 1 ~ _ - ,. ~ ~- • - I - . - I I r, L;-- ~ 1- . . :~~ - . _ ~_ . ~. ~ - ~ . ! i , ~ (_ I ~ .-~ I ~ ~ ~ I - 1 I l , i ~ ~ ~ - ~ I t - -- i I is ~ i I ~ ~ t l L_f ~ I I ~ ~~ I ~ I ' I ~ : I I - - ~ I . f ~, r ,~ ~ I . _ _ ~ I I ~ „~ '- ~ I i ~ ~ I I I ~ I ~: ? ! I' I ~ I fi I i I ~.i I I I i I' ~ '-' I 1 t I t - I ! r- . I I I ~.i { ti -~-i- I ~ I I~ - - - -1 I ~ - I 1- '~ - - I -- - _ 1 ~-. - ~ - f - I -- - - - ~ ~, ~ I I ' ~ I- { {=I ~- ~ ~ -- I I I ~= _I I --~ I-t I i I- 1 1- , - 1~r -- ~ ~" ~ _ f ~ I ~_i_.i~ti Iili I 1 - I I .~-L ~- i f~-~ -,. - - _.._ _ i .~ :: ' W I ~ f I I - - ~i ~ - - ~ ~ I ~ ! I ' ~ - - - - - f _ _ _ -' I ~ ~. I , ' __ _I -I I -I '- "-__ .I ,~ _) I '.,,, - I --I :.' ~~. \ - Il II I R~{ :. . I I ~ -1 I I 11 "~ ( f I ~ I II I ~ I ~ I I ~, I ~ .-.i I ~ .I i I I _. .. _.! : .._ I :. .._ ~ ~ I ~~~I ~ ~~ 1 . I ~ ~ ........ .... , ... _ ...:. _ . .... _. _. . , ......, _ ~ _ _ ~ .... - --_ _.- _ _ . -- II - II .._. _:: _ :_ : . I ; i ~~ .~ _ f I I ~ ~ I . ~ 11 . --• - 1 L I - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - I ~ ~ - -I - . ~ f 1 - __I I _ ; I_ ~ , ~ ~ 1° ~i ~ ~ ~ - -- - - - ~ ~ ~ - I -- - - --f - - I - -- - I - ~ I - I ~ - ~I I i . . I I I . . i , , l I I i~-~ k,~~ ~ L_ ~~~~ QSC.'r15, Fr..o*Y T ~ \~ _"d H~~~ ~cQ~ 3.c~c ACReS i i~o~ / ~ ~ / ~` / ~CC~~r i~ \ ~ ~, \ o \= \h ~. ~~ 5e~{-~:~~,n 3 ~~ -mot ? ' 4 ~~ A ~~- ArvJ tta2~~ s-1 RRi~ ulrr-'~S ~. Q-QC-..r~ C'~UQf~r .~l~ OR FoRnIG`RLy i°RoPERTy Cry fj'oWgRD L . SN/L L /r./G ~~-R ,a o 17..3. 937 PG. 702 ~zo ~~~ _~ DLO O'er ~ ~ DEED Li,/~ N t-A f9_ ~ c P~P~ /. B7Z Ac. TRa~T V / ~f .\ ~ .~~ \~~ ~ ~ fEr/c ~ ~ ~_ ~ ° -, ~.• a v ~. ~ S z ~ ~ ea ~ \ ~~~ ~ 4~e~ ~ ~ ~~~~ 9 52.5/'5 "'ti/ .~.'y~ 'o c. ~ •. ?c ~- ~~ ~~ ~. 1 pc o ~ C F e.~~ W ~ ~ L~ ;~c .~8 jA srG ~4RBE0 Wi.t e -~; ~ f-'e" _"_" ~ ~ Q~ .z ~~~,, ,, , ~°FwE« ~ `_ ~~ ~~ I ~ ~ ~ ARC : /2 iZO 5qZ' ~ 20, ~(v ~ I OG ~ ~QOi~ D ,c '~" g 2~ ~ X08 I ~ ~'Lre~~ DATA •, I ~ •~v l p~ ~~ - F `' VICINITY -MAP.' i ~ N-' . NORTH sceod lord , I ~ I 193Ac ' 35 -. nr 1 ~ _o s o, ~ ~.~. 158ac~' lo2Ac 690 3.19 Ac 1.7 1 : ~ z ~ ° (4 34 .50 15 • , Ac ~~~ 7 .DD 33 998r Ac 1.5 1.3 1.2 I.I 7.~ I 'i • a 37 c 5. I I Ac p;~T 2.95 Ac .60 194 2.33 5. 9960 2 Ac Ig 995s 9.39 Ac 7. I 3.71 Ac Ac Ac un~ ~t62 3 996/ _: 9990 ~ F ~ ~ 2.52 Ac ~/O ~q~ ~...~ 2 9992 28 Rid 0 /0125 19 9945 119Ac 4.28 A X0`0 10.70Ac 38 6 ~ ~ 25 24 20 /0063 /0000 .. 5.33 Ac 31 11.06Ac 27 6.74 Ac 9.90Ac 2 ro ~,,~ 4.68Ac 15.94 Ac g5 . z.o9at ~ ' 1 21 39 ~ h00 ~'~°'~ 1033/ N ~" 1 26 O 57 N II.82Ac ~~~- \ 53.1 ;~~ • ,,. 11.50 Ac ~~ /0072 ~~ p 19.57 Ac /0e3o AtT •.83 Ac /038 ~ I 25 ~ . 42 - , ~O I • 6.56 Ac(D 43 I 60.3 a 60.4 OS6s ~ R ~ d 980Ac(Cl 2.19 Ac ~+~ Ivy R,dae „ 2.48Ac 1.41 Ac ~~ _ /p7j vv _ awe` . / o7t .60.5 Szl ~.-~, +., ~ ~ 54.1 cam. • /O 45 0 = 1.99 Ac 61.1 3.87Ac 0100 '~• ~ 446.60AC X0\2 ~5A3s6 , ~~..# A~- 518AC/ ~ ~ /0/02 1-~~ 51 ..c ; +j: 1,18Ac /0 85AcIC• 1.66 pa,7g 53.5 53.4 5` /0/32 48 I ~ 50 Ac R1 708 /0390 /0.387 /03?3 13.8 ~ i o6 1•~a' pJ80 •~~ 61 3 /0623 /s/°°~' /7 a` 63.1 6 oat / rC.00 ac 60.2 ~. .r 1:25 .13 Icr ~ 9 la9ac ac 63.2 17.99 4c 41 '46 42 Acs / /OJ37 /a 175 /o29s / 62.1 /~ ~c(D) 156 • /0/62 ' • /017/ 120I~Ac / 4.e3A< 61.2 J^ ut ~ /V219 19.75 Ac ~ A,>sessed in ~•°' p2p oid scnoo~ i e 66 w,~+,i,.. eoa„~ I conk/in Co. 72/S ~ Q cnwcn . e 1.3 65.2 65.1 ' 60.1 ~ 2 ~ ~ 3.30 Ac 12.68 Ac s 15.30 Ac ,,. ~~+ z /02 43 s ~ e ~OaciD(~ 653 ~ s ~ 77 ~ _ /. RICHARD MARK JONES ' •'* DEPARTMFTfT OF PLANNING 111.00-2-41:1 AND ZONING SPECIAL USE PERMIT 4 ' ' COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3738 Brambleton Ave. S`.'/ P.O. Box 29800 - - - Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 772-2068 FAX (703) 772-2030 M G11l J IG~26 ''l~ GclJ ~ t; - -v-`i < C~ For staff use only µ ` date received:/c~ ~ Lt , received by: ~ yfl ~Vn application fee:L/C ~' 7 PCBZA da te;- / ,~~ s5 placards issue: 50S date: 5 ~ ~ ~ J ~j Case Number: v =: i Check type of application filed (check all that apply): D REZONING C~JSPECIAL USE O VARIANCE _ ~6 ~. -~.~~~ Applicant's name: v ~y `~ Wz ~~;~{.~ Phone: 3~U ~-q ~ 3 Address: 4 ~ p~ ~~(' ~~ Zip Code: Owner's name: ~~.~ ~ y~ , ,$~ Jp t Phone: Address: M a~ I - ~, ~o ~o -~ ~ l S~-1 ~ Zip Code: Location of property: /~ 1 ~O ~.~e ~; Tax Map Number: ~ 5"•~ --ay3 ~~ S14 ~ •~~ ~~ ay( Magisterial District: C'~~ ~/~,~. Community Planning Area: 7L~~w Size of arcel (s): Existing Zoning: R ~ • ~ ~o acres Existing Land Use: Berl p CN~~p I sq.ft. :~::: Proposed Zoning: ........................... For scarf use only .. Proposed Land Use: S-}Ag~ ANC 0~ 3 h}OrSCs Use Type: Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? YES 1/~ NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED F1RST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for t„e requested Use Type? YES `~ NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being proffet~d with this request? YES NO !~ Variance of Section(s) 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. F, ws v ws v ws v ~~ j Consultation 8 1 /2" x 1 1 ' concept plan Application fee pplication ~~:~ Metes and bounds description ~ offers, if applicable Justification ~~ ~ Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners /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 consent pfilhe owner. n'r.-k . fk-+n.z~ Owner's Signature: A F~~ Staff Use On/y: Case Number µ-~ Applicant -e The Planning Commission will study rezoning and srecial use permit requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the follo~:~ing 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. .~-~,,~~ /~ ~.r kQ ~a `'e ~~sf ~ s~e~~~~ Use f'~~/vi, ~ -f o h ~-~,e h a~ ses 6N ~~ S"~ I ~ ~ ~-c. ~e ~-~-~ Pr, ~ ~ -f~ l y l ~-- ~~ r~ es ccJ er ~ ~'e ~n~ I ~~ ~ ~ ~-~- t~- P2~ M ~ -~ ~ itii~ L"~ Cry -t'h f `tit -~~~ ~1-45 So l ~ ~ M e ~~- ~--~ s So /Q /;~cv,~ . ~9-~ c%r{~ ~ ~q wel cow. e ~r.Ses NckJ I"~ y ~~ ~ ~Q~'r~. f4-re ~sl-f ~,~ ,S~-~4 C L ~~ ~o~ l~- -~-a>^~ ~. (,cue LJov l d G~/ %P ~-a .S~i9-~'~ ~ Oc'~ ~ `! a ~.~~ /f -av/~ ~l~ ~ J~ wcv~ ~,~-1/e /~i l~Yk~,re~,~ A.~J ~.S Cc~e Q ti l ;4 v P 3 ~ T~-~ ~ eS ~"i4-S-~ Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. " 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. y cA • $ ~\ ~'~~M ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ - c~ ~ / ~r ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ • ~ \ j 3 ~ ~ ~ ~-- ~ ~~ ~ J ~ ~;~ t3` ~ ~ ~ ~ a `~ a -°~ ~ ~ -- ~- ~I X ~ -, • -~~ ~ ~ . y ~` ! ` ~ ~ ~ ,/ ~ \ ~~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~j ~ ~ ~ J I ~ r ~ ~~ ~' __ ~ ~' ~ • ' ~O ' ~~ ~~~ O~ - - ~ • -~ i~' ~~. ~ _ o z ~.a g,4~ t,+,ar µ ,, ~ ~ i~-~rn_ c ' s~ ~ '` ~ C'd. ''~ f 5 s 3 t'~cya.~O uy "pw:r '~Gi ,r~. 3. e _ ~" OR ~q ~ _ .9 ~ s ~./ ~~ __i K R S / ( ~ ~/ / _ ' ~ V 3 ^ _ \ / ~ `± ~% 4~L]O ~ `~ I i ` .~Zo3 .x -e~R~c~ ' $ / i '_.. ' 646 ~ ~ i ~ (\~t ~ i . ~k_- ~~FdR55 j ,, ~ , tzoo F}-~ f~ NORTH ~~ u~ ~ ` See Map 55.03 ' ~ 43 \ 1"^ 200' _ ~ 45 22. ~ Z • 48 47 ~ 25.60 Ac tZg3 0 / ~~~e L9 a.~9 1 8°~,e 4 / ~ clD1 ~ I 64 /~ ~~ _` ROOno4• OI w~ a~i~ Aclc1 ~ > / ~ 43.1 tios) ~~ 43. \ ~~ .~~ / ~t p`~ 7.41 Ac~ (-. ~~ _~~~*~ ~ / ~0~\`~ 3.44 Ac ~ N s,+,ooo / ~ y 3.8 Q ~°' iA s 51~~ ,tt6 / tO~T' 4 ~~ 6 Ac • ,~ 44 / toss 43 3 I •A min 43,9 • ~ ~ ~ 22.Q3Ac ~" 229 e N ()„// ~~~ ~ tot/ 43.4 8.03 Ae 7.05 Ac •as~ c ~~g s 43.5 7.77 Ac ~ •iis 43.10 is ~~„ V3 ~ 8.48 Ac ` 4.01• Ae N 2 2 moo,, ~~ 43.6 s. ~ a t /B, 41 anal 4 9.03 Ac ~ omits 43.11 e c . t 3'00• a 325Ac °4,~ - ~A ~ ~ ~ 14.99 Ac ~~ ~P OA - t$g~ ~~ O 6A 43.12 ti63 18.58 Ac ' it 40 55 ' 0 79.04Ac ID) ~ 1.09Ae 6S 62Ac (Cl 101 1\ y .56Ae /~ 39 +ie1 43.13 v \ `, ICI 42.31 Ac 21.16 Ac ~,, ~~ I 1 38 I ( 35.21 Ac (Dl 38.63 Ac lCl I ~~~ i , -I ~' ~ DEPARTI~N'I' OF PLANNING AND ZONING 9 12.40..c JEFFREY D. SHUPE- 65.00-2-43.2 SPECIAL USE PERMIT - I I 98.11 r CCT-~5-35 'r:C~ i 4 : Go i R!(E CO Ei~G/FLAiIi~IiiG FAX N0. 7037722108 P.~03 U~1'. ~'•>`7= ~: -,~ -,'rte .i %'~ / -+ For star( use on/y ~'3 COUNTY OF ROl~NOKE _ =- .y DEPT. OF PLANNING AND. ZONING 3738 6rambleton Ave. Sk1/ -~-~ _ P.O. Box 29800 - - -== 18 _~ _ . Roanoke, VA 240 ~_~~_ - - (703) 772-2068 _. .FAX (703) 77Z 2030 ~~ - : _ ~cs - -- - . det ~ e iv~: gc- - reeew/ 2~ application fes: ~',= PC/6ZA c'ate: f..: pr~~~ra~s>:Ued.. .- . Bos a3t~: _ Case Number :_~ ~ ~ j . Y:::ti•: ` h: ::1~: i•~~ .f1 .~ ? _~~. r:... ':1::•i :: ~:: ~:~: ~:::~ .I~ •1• ••t~ il• ::i~ h ti _+ •i~•i ti: ,j ~ •. . M ..t:.. Check type of application filed (check ail that apply) ~ _ ~, ~~-,~. ~ _ - Y r~ REZONING ~ SPECIALUSE ~. _ _- LAVA IANCE Applicant's name: Rpanoke County=School=`Board Phone: 562-3705 •, Road, `;ti Roan~ok VA ;Zip Code: 24019 Address: 5937 Cove Owner's name: Roanoke County School Board .Phone: 562-3700 Address: 5937 Cove Road, Roanoke, VirgZ7ria-~ Zip Code: 24019 3 . -01-i~ 37.05-01-03, Location of property: ; . , Tax Map Number: -. 810 ;vorthside High School Road, MagisteriaiDistricT: Catawbax-~=y=~7.10.~=(%>.`~6 oanoke VA 24019 Community Planning Area:-<peters:~Creek Communit k,_r, - Size of arcel s): ~ _'=_=~ ~ '~;° Existin Zonin R 1 & R 2 C ~ 1 ~== 43.97- acres _ Educational = t~:~:~~=sa!~ Existing Land Use: •~~:~ ~b sq.ft. _ a '` ~•~-~ ~I~:~IE:sa::: a:::~=~= •s1~~:1~1~1;1:1 :::::::.::::::::::::::::::~:1- ..1: ::1:::::~~•~:~:~:~:~:::~:~: 1.1.:_•. :f:I:l/.1.~.•.• .•1•:~~~~'•...... ..1;..:.•~ x:1::.''1•: - - /`}~ J ~:~I:~~T :~:;:.I.tl l.l{li.::l ~:~\-: :.Y:~: •:'1::: 1.1•-~t , .. V ................ ......... Proposed Zoning: Fr srBff use o~/y Proposed land Use: Educational and Recreational Use Type: arcel 37-06-01-75 is t-o-remain as presently zoned Does the parcel meet the minimum fot area, w;dt~, and frontage requirements of the requested district? YE5 X NO IF NO, A VAnL^-,~`~CE IS R~OUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for ;`s requested Use Type? YES `~ NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being proffer=_d Y~ith this request? YES NO :;:,::::::1:1 •:::::•:;: • • •: •: • ~ ~ ~ •:~ -: • :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:... •.1. .:.,.:.;,:. •.:.:...:.. `...,.,. •..1;::1,1,1, •,_,:::,., • •:,,,,,,,.,... ~ is •::: •::: ~:::'::::::::1' 1 • ~ •=-:-- ~: ~: •:': ~: •: •: ~: •:.:.......: •: ~::::.:.•.....-.:• ..:1:.;.:1.1.,.-. -,.la...:;:;:~::::.~:;::::::~:~:;::;:;:;::::::::::~:::::~::-;.:~:•'.:.1•..:•'•-•-:-•:::.:•: •:::• '.-1: •:.:.:..•i,.i - f .L 1• ~: ~f~ Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ors;nance 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. , ars v ~~`' ws v ws v Consultation 8 1/2' x 1 l' concgpt plan Application fee Application ~ Metes and bcunds description Proffers. if applicable Justification :° Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners / hereby terrify that / am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the know/edge ~d consent o/ the owner. Owner's Signature: ~ f \\ `\`C`~ vA+xv+O got ~y C\ '!`_- / gyp?`, 1 ~ ,/ k ~ \ - - - _ _ \ \ -- - \ ~o \\\ 1DE 1p,1~ p~E SCHpO~ ~,~ ~OR~t-1S ~~~. _J \ ENT 2~a ry O \O \ ~ O ~STyNG P ~'~ 2- ~ Q \\\ O ~U \ \ mesa ~ \ ~+S \\ O '~c o \ ~~ Fyl ;.I \\ \~ ~ ~ \ ~ - -,~ - - -'~ ` ~ ,, v~,,- ; ~~\ i~ ,,,,tom ~~~ ~\~~\ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o- ' \ ~' ~~ ~ ~ ~~ s I , d. ~~~ ~j 430' +~- / ~ ~ ~S a r ,~ TO RTE 850 ~ / NORTHRIDCE RD. ~, ~/~ ~~ / APPLlCAN•i'~ ROANOKE COUKTY SC#-COOLS ~_ ~ ~ I I~ MOTLEY •Ar0001A /~• A110M1TlOTU11! 310 Flnt Stoat Sufta J00 v.o. 90. 2a11 t N O 1 N e l A I N O Roortolu, VA 24010 703 J44-1212 r L A N N I N 0 ox 703) 344-1J21 - NORT}-ISIDE MIDDLE SCHOOL ! K a T « ! : „ ~. r. ~. ROANOKE ViRGiNIA • r,~e.r rte... -...r.. n.arr aau w-w~o, to Mo-w~r 1 CONCEPT PLAN 1]ATC OCT. 26,1995 t;Otty. N0. 95068 OCT-25-95 WED 14 12 RKE CO ENG/PLANNING FAX N0. 7037722108 P. 03 r . ROA.~iO1CE COONTY tlTILITY DEPhRT2~ti? - APPLICATION FOR WATER OR SEATER SERVICE ~~~ TO PROPOSED DF,VELOPM.EN~' Date 23 March 1995 Name of Applicant Roanoke Ccu^.ty School4 Phone.••_562-3700 I~ddres a of Applicant 5937 Cova Road, Roanoke, Virginia, 240J 9 ._._ _^ Name o f Dev e 1 o p? r Roanoke Ccur:ty Schools phori e 562-3700 Address of Developer X93? Core Road, Roanoke, Virginia, 24019 ____ Name of Design Engineer ~ Phone s Address o£ Design Engineer- _^ tJame of Contact Person Dr. f3eanna'Gordon ~~~~ ~~_ Name of Proposed Development Nnrt;hside Middle School - Type of Devexop~nent and propasca number of units (Be specific) • Sc;~oo1 Addition - (,:l~,k~ Rooms- Auditorium - Gymna4l iun - _ - 7,or_ation of proposed development (FURNialI COPY OF t•SAY ANT) PL~MlIi~'I?2?C NUN1AcR) 6810 NorL•Hsidc High School Rcad, NUJ (Maps 9L~-7 ~, t'C.-7) Size of proposed developme:~t in acres: _43'97 ~ Acres Give minimum and maximum elevation (Use USGS Elevations) At Which the individual water/sewer service connections would be located: Minimum feet MSL. Maximum feet MST, Is this application for a development that will be a part or section of a larger future development? x No ~ Yea If yes, provide map of entire area if available. OCT f25-95 WED 1412 RKE CO ENG/PLANNING FAX` N0. 70~ 722108 P. 0 ~? . ~ ~ ," ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ . . 1 / ,- i '' ~\ ~' ~ \, '~ ~ /~ ~ ;*~ I -~ / ~ ~ ~ i •1 / ~r _~ __ _ 1- /~ 1-.L _ ..~.... -i. _-~ ~' / ' \ . j X ~ ;} ~ ~ 'J c, :T ` > .~~~ \_ ~ _ ~ ~ ' ` i - -~ r - ._ tL \ ~: . .B •~~;~ .* ~ '2 ~ ~f L-~af~'1 ~'r?i: '.'~;L^.r',•. v,".'•V. :: ,pE ~+r: ~• /`I' Y•<!1 ti,)~ ~~ •~ y •.l~s ]. ~. Y ,5:' ~ ~ t- lj ti .Mir , s~ :a~ :l ~ ~ !4~. ' yC _ ~'~ 1 ! 1. .t' Rr ~. •~ + ' ~~, r. .•ti' ~ ~~-.r 1 t i~• ,~(~ ~ .ter ~C~~ its! >r.~~ ~xF _ .~ r` :•Y, .. ~,,-' ~ ~• i` .,- ~ ~ ' ~ ~* ` NOR I ~ ,:. ,^ 1 ~ ~.,{..' ~ • -ter' -~_G ~ ~ • .k •~ ~f:. .:; .6. ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ acv r ,~ •~, i ~b • ~ ' •' ' fy ., . / OCT-Z5-95 WED 1414 RKE CO ENG/PLANNING FAX N0. 7037722108 _P. 05 1~ - ~, f J t 4 ~J)c..'' 4 ~~ t•.•. ~~~f'< it ~~r ~. ~ i*3! ' , • ai j; iy r tt= ~:• r' _ ~~ ~~ {y Y. ~ ° C r I ' ' IOCN HavENrTANK~' `.r ~ ky{~~rt i,~ 1~ ~ '' ~ 0 00 GAL S.R ~ .n 4:~~i~y~~ ~~'+ t. ..~' +.. °U rrnr a .F~.Jr Y ' ' '< c Y •r - y~. $ it ~ ~ [ ~`, ~a~i~`. 'r T~7: i`Y 'r'f~7 ~~~It i ~~s. ~ / ,;i ~:, ~ '. .a ~ i F: t ~ ~~ ` 1 ~ `` `~ a~t , a-" r j 'k ,` rya '. 1 ~ ~ ~+.. ~ ,, I - ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i r.i,or I. ~ ~ r.r s ~i \~ ~` ~ } .v..~,t,-., . ~~ "°"` _ `~ Ca'T 1 wry i•~ ~~~ _~~x r VICINITY MAP i , ~ .~ ..,.~ ., /- `'' ~, :o ', •• -: \ ,~. ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ R ~,~ ~ y ~• :,,", y` ~~ / +f j r s ~~! ~ •O° ' • O ~ • ~ f • _ 'j . ! n~ '~ a '1 '' I ij1 fL '- 0 S.S- ~: %i ..~ ~~ ~~ , a' ~\ ~c1~CF67 ~ t'... r~.. _ ~\`~\~ ~;~ ~,- ~ . ri ~. -~ t I ~~ . i -: ~* DEPARZT~NT OF PI,~INNING SCHOOL BOARD (NORTHSIDE JR, HIGH) .. ~ ~ AND ZONING TAX ~ 37.05-01-3, 37.06-01-75, 37. to-o~-27 ;~ ~~ 1 -1-26 /~ H~3 NORTH i COUNTY OF RO.^-.NOKE DEP i . OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3738 5r~mbi~;cn Avg. S'.`+' P.O. box 2800 - Roanoke, VA 240 i 8 (703) 772-2008 Fr,X (703) 772-2030 r'C~ Sicii US2 Grly ~_ y a_~ii a;Ten tee. I rC. .. .. ~~r~ 9 ~ ~~ ;.!aca:ds issued: I30S da;e: Case Nu:-ber: ,[f~•J fn /'1 ~~,I ::: r ::::::::::::::: z ~ ~~P ~~l~1~1 ~'~ Check type of application filed (check all that arply): ~ REZONING ^ SPECIAL USE ^VARIANCE Applicant's name: Industrial Development authority or Roanoe County Phone: (~01) i ice" Address: P.O. Box 20068, 1919 Electric Rd. , Roanoke, V~ Zip Code: 1197 21018 Owner's name: Phone: Address: See attached sheets Zip Code: L tion f pro ~~ty ~ n n~ ~~ ~~ i ax Map Number: See attached sheets ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ` G~-{/ e a to d sl t~ r ~ti1a isterial District: g See attached sheets ~~ ~ Area: I Plannin Communi l g ty Size of arcel (): Existing Zoning: --f I See attached sheets (Se~~s~acres Existing Land Use: See attached sheets attachmen ~.ft. ::'~:: :_~::: ~~~. •~~• r~ ~~`...•• Proposed Zoning: See attached sheets '~ roe Stall Use only Proposed Land Use:. See attached sheets Use Type: Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? YES NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being pro~~ete~ with this request? YcS NO ~tT ... f~~........ .... Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order tc: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION bVILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF A~'VY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCO~~APLE i E. ws v ~' us v ti s v Consultation / ~ 8 1 /2" x 1 1 ' concept plan Application fee Application '~`:- Metes and bounds description ~'" Proffers, if applicable Justification ~a>: Vlater and sewer application Adjoining property owners /hereby certify that / am either the owner of the property or the o~~ne~'s agent of contract pu~chasei and am acting with the knowledge~d c'-o-nseent oft a owner. Owner's Signature: •'LG~GG %~L~c ~~ Edward A. Natc, Counse n_ustriaT Lzvelu mC~ ~+ ~ i~ - - - oP Roanoke County, Virginia ~~ 4 ~-- `{ SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA SITE NAME TAX MAP # MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Ray Cox 50.01-1-27 Hollins ~~ SITE LOCATION .~er[h side of Carson Roars, west side of Glade Creek and N&W Railroad SITE SIZE 32.7 acres EXISTING LAND USE Wooded acreage tract with 3 residences EXISTING ZONING R1 PROPOSED ZONING AG1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION Flood hazard WATER SERVICE 16-inch water line on site at Valley Gateway SEWER SERVICE Sewer upgrade planned for Carson Road in FY95-96 ROAD ACCESS Access point to Carson Road ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY COMMENTS Not covered in 1992-94 Strategy ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RATIONALE FOR REZONING Property owner request for commercial agricultural uses associated with organic farming, tract, trout fish pond stocking for "fee fishing" and sale of water plants. PLANNING COMMITTEE/IDA SUBCOMMITTEE COMMENTS RECOIVIl~IENDATION 8 - o~?~ CONT~NUATED ~ AP i2 i ~' 1 ~G _~ ~NYC~~~ q c`ti 9' ~ C~ - ~l4 1609 Tc~ ~ ~ ~~RO F„0 Q`. X10 G = G Q'G° ; `/r ~03 ~i~ - 'BE- ~ ,~ 9 9, ~ ~ ~ / I Site name: .1100 ~rG ~ `~C~ Ray Cox Site ~,,,.~ -~ • Rt f003 ~'• ~ x.11. e.~r.o-~.~«,~ 1 ; 0~1.. ~ o ,i ~ ~ _,- Y/ /1f17 .,,, ____ >z.~.~ _/. ,_ • .ois 27.1 S 0o ac ~ ~3 ~~` Ac.u.r ~ / .4 ~ r .._ 1 c-~ ~_ 6 ss ~'` ~~ 1.0] Ac. / 7 ss~ ~sss ~ i `23 S S2 SelOl I.S01(c10 S O I •c (CI .24 •c1C ti„ J~ +r ~23 1~ t - ~a O Tax Map Numbers: Request: 50.01-1-27 Rezone R1 to AG1 32.7 acres ~ .c ~r COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT . OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3738 5ramcletcn Ave. S','+' _ P.O. box 29800 -- - Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 772-2068 FAX (703) 772-2030 Fcr sra;";" use cr:ly l 1 ''a;~ _ dI /7 ,,clued by~ z=iii a;ien lee: `e IrCia" ~ -,~• C'•~ ;.!acards issued: 305 date: ~ Case N~nber: ~ /f ~/ ~y~ ~' ~ ~ PP .~ ~`~1 ~S . Check type of application filed (chec:{ all that apply}: C'q REZONING ^ SPECIAL USE ^VARIANCE Applicant's name: Industrial Development authority o= Roano'<e County Phone: ~~04) 77;•- Address: P.O. Box 20068, 1919 Electric Rd. , Roanoke, V~: Zip Code: l la t 24018 Owner's name: , ~ ^ Phone: Address: See attached sheets ~~ ~ p Zi Code: Loc ion of prop y. J Ta Map Number: See attached sheets r / .-. ~ ~heets 1,iagisterial District: See attached sheets r ~~ Q~ ~ Community Planning Area: ize of par el Existi oning: ~,,~ See attached sheets (See , Gres Existing Land Use: See attached sheets attachmen ~.ft. ' ~r-i _ ~~'~ ~~R . .. See attaci--ed sheets Proposed Zoning: ~ Fo~sratf use only. See attached sheets Proposed Land Use: . use Type: Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? YES NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. . If rezoning request, are conditions being pro~~et~~ with this request? YE~ NO ~~ ... fem.. Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in orcer ta: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION ~VlLL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITE)V1S ARE MISSING OR INCONIPL~E. ros v _~' us v ~ s ~ Consultation ~ ~ 8 1 /2" x 1 l " concept plan Application fee Application ~- Metes and bounds description ~ Proffers, if applicable Justification ~~•; V`later and sewer application Adjoining property owners l hereby certify that / am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the know/edged consent o(t a owner. Owner's Signature: .'LGzGG~~q ~~ y/; L` ~~ Edward A. Nate, Counsel, Industrial U2Vt!lU(J(TlClll nu~uu~~~, - of Roanoke-County, Virginia SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA SITE NAME TAX iviAP ~ MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Angie Laing 77.19-1.1,2,3 Cave Spring SITE LOCATION West side of Ogden Road at end of Leslie Lane and north of NS Railroad tracks SITE SIZE 11.47 acres EXISTING LAND USE Single family residences and vacant tract EXISTING ZONING R3 PROPOSED ZONING C2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION Park and open space WATER SERVICE 12-inch water line (City) in Ogden Road SEWER SERVICE 8-inch sewer at Ogden Road for PMI project ROAD ACCESS Access point at Ogden Road for Leslie Lane ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY COMMENTS 1992-94 Economic Development Strategy calls for rezoning of selected parcels in 419 corridor for commercial uses. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RATIONALE FOR REZONING Rezoning needed to assemble parcels for proposed commercial site that can be marketed jointly with adjacent Stranna Arthur property. Market demand for C2 commercial property in Tanglewood Ma1V419 market area. PLANNING COMMITTEEIIDA SUBCOMMITTEE COMMENTS RECOMMENDATION _ -- 10 ,~ ~~' ~ ~~ `~ 3 C G~4 / ~~ • - ,~! /~ , v vn \ cu ~I • j, 1 ~~ 1 9 7 ~ ~~ - I ~ • ~' Y~ t 17.t! t•!a. o f~~ ~~ y? ~ ~ ~~ra•VG ,~,' "" n~ ~.~ na Ra ~~ ~ ~ : e• ~,, Rr w u •7 '. ~ K. ,~ ~ . . • ~•- ~~. -~4 A 1 ~ L z7.2 ~~ ~ r _ ° 56 vs~ `.~ ' ' .A t39 K S I l ~ .~ ~ ~ 7 ~? !;~ 241 ' OI - •~ ~ ~ .. 1 ~ ~ + ; IIM Ii• p o - .e ~ ~ . > ., - e /" / - , ds ••'~ / ~ J , y ~ ~ - ~ _ ~J ~Ot •• q ~ Z .~ lT7 4 e'~ a' I c.. ~e~. r~ ~ n3 ~,,~ ~ ~ 3 ~4 %'1 ~ ~ ~ r I ~' ~ ~P u.I ~' M Inca. are ~~ ~ ' ~ ~ Tax Map Numbers: Request: 77.19-1-1 Rezone R-3 to C-210.47 77.19-1-2 Rezone R-3 to C-2.5 (A) 77.19-1-3 Rezone R-3 to C-2.5 (A) _ r COUNTY OF RO ^ NOKE DEPT . OF PLANNING ,^-,ND ZONING 3738 6rambie;cn Ave. 5','/ P.O. box 2°800 - Roanoke, V;, 24018 (703) 772-2008 FAX (703) 772-2030 Far scar; use G~/y/y ~ ~° 2~:II a:ICn iee: Y/W''?C,•'n_r. c'd' ;,:acards issued: I3o5 data: Case Number: C'-'/ _ !,v'7~iJ t-~ ~~'riF~~~~~~~~P~'`~~'.~ STS Check type of application filed (check all that apply): ~ REZONING ^ SPECIAL USE ^VARIANCE Applicant's name: Industrial Developtrent authority or Roano'.<e County Phone: (~0!;) 77,•- Address: P.O. Boa 20068, 1919 Electric Rd., Roeno'-:e, VA Zip Code: 119! 2!.:018 Owner's name: Phone: See attached sheets ~' ~ Address: `( J<~~ Zip Code: Location of property: Tax Map Number: See ch n et See attached sheets ~,iagisterial District: ~ ~ See attached sheet Community Planning Area: Size of arcel s): Existing Zoning: See attached sheets (See , acres Existing Land Use: See attached sheets at achmen ~.ft. ::~:, :~::_ .~~~ ~•. .. Proposed Zoning: See attached sheets /r ~~ FoiStaNUse only Proposed Land Use:. See attached sheets (~ Use Type: Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? YES NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being pro~icrc~ with this request? YES NO iR ~~ .. t` . ~.......... Variance of Section(s) 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. NS V ~-r NS V 0."S V Consultation ~ ~ 8 1 /2" x 1 1 " concept plan Application fee Application '=:'€=< Metes and bounds description ~ Proffers, if applicable Justification `~~ Mater and sewer application Adjoining property owners l hereby certify that / am either the owner of the piope~ty o! the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge~d consent oft a owner. Owner's Signature: •'LG~GL~~ l~ Edward A. Nact, Counse rn~uscria Lzve u mciTt. nu't•~ ~~; oP Roanoke County, Virginia 5~~, _"~. SITE EVALLATION CRITERIA SITE NAME TAX ~L~P # MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Stranna Arthur 77.19-1-4 Cave Spring SITE LOCATION West side of Ogden Road, specifically; west and south of Leslie lane, adjacent to NS Railroad tracks SITE SIZE 1.86 acres ~~~, ~~5 , ~/~ EXISTING LAND USE Single family residences for rent EXISTING ZONING R3 PROPOSED ZONING C2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION Park and open space WATER SERVICE 12-inch water line (City) in Ogden Road SEWER SERVICE 8-inch sewer at Ogden Road and PMI project ROAD ACCESS Access point at Ogden Road for Leslie Lane ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY COMMENTS 1992-94 Economic Development Strategy calls for rezoning of selected parcels in 419 corridor for commercial uses. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RATIONALE FOR REZONING Rezoning needed to assemble parcels for proposed commercial site that can be marketed jointly with other Stranna Arthur and Laing properties.. Market demand for C2 commercial property in Tanglewood Ma1U419 market area. PLANNING COMMITTEE/IDA SUBCOM~IITTEE COMMENTS RECOMMENDATION 12 {~-b SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA SITE NAME TAX MAP # MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Stranna Arthur 77.15-1-12,13,14,15,16 Cave Spring SITE LOCATION West side of Ogden Road behind PMI building and north of Leslie Lane SITE SIZE EXISTING LAND USE EXISTING ZONING 4.84 acres Single family residences for rent R3 PROPOSED ZONING C2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION Park and open space WATER SERVICE 12-inch water line (City) in Ogden Road SEWER SERVICE 8-inch sewer at Ogden Road for PMI project ROAD ACCESS Access point at Ogden Road for Leslie Lane ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY COI~EvIENTS 1992-94 Economic Development Strategy calls for rezoning of selected parcels in 419 corridor for commercial uses. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RATIONALE FOR REZONING Rezoning needed to assemble parcels for proposed commercial site that can be marketed jointly with adjacent Laing property. Market demand for C2 commercial property in Tanglewood Ma1U419 market area. PLANNING COMMITTEE/IDA SUBCOMMITTEE COMMENTS RECOMMENDATION - ---- ------ - 11 ' •c~C ~ - ~.- ,~~,~_,._: Site name: ' ~ Q~ C o ~ y„ `~ ' `$' , is ~ ...•* c+ 1 . o f "~,,t ~ ~ ` ~ '~ ~ _ ~~ - ~'°r ~ ~ Tanglewood Mall area i ~ a- ~} it ~~4y~` .. "'~. . p~ ,` ~ ~'*~_ 'rte ,>~~? ° ~ o '~ _ ~~^':"' ~E Stranna Arthur • C2vcr_prin~~'~' ;,-t1l- .°~~`:?. ~ ~~_ ~_~~-G~-f~~- ., l -- ~ -F- 1 ? .~. aL ~ ~7A-i _J..B' r ;. P ~ i~ i G~ ~Ftu .°.. 4•~ . ~. 1 J ¢a i~ • - • // / 4 . ~ R~7 ! / / s •~ i R.76 y.i Ri ~' % G.,~~~ ~ -- - .~ R:a y •7 / ~ 2~ ~~ ~, Y _ ~ 1 4~ ,~~ ~ `4 ~ ~+ ~.. _ ° . ~ ar~ • ~ `~~~ ~ • .A tM ~c S ,s, t~ ~ fi ~ 3 7 ~?> >: • •~ 241 ~' 3 s r ~ .. .~ c ~ ~ - ..e J a er, u,~ / .r vs r ~ us 2~ ~ . c.. vs.. c y cs` ~ + ~a ~•« ' c C• ~ Y~ . ~1 ~ C1 `.~ ~'S ~cz.., .+ /~ +' ~ .C i ~'~ Tax Map Numbers: Request: R-3 to C-2 t . 86 ac ~~ 77.19-1-4 _ -' Rezon - -C=~~- _ _ . ~ Site name: W~~ -wiM G=rii;,i i .y roF • . ~S l -~•-/ ~ SI _~~ '-:~ ~F. P; ~. Tangiewood Mall area ~~ Strann~ rrthur property / 1~ • ~1 / 70 p~ .1~ ~ , O . ~ ~~ / j • y~ ~.~ e~. s '~''~ ~ ~~- , 9`~. 4 `,•` ~,`~' ~ .~ ~`. ~ / ~ ti - i p .f, ~. i • ~~ / ~~ .JO ,k •` ~~:. ~ ,, ~ / ,, ~ ].N4 d ~3 r: / / ~~~' ` 9J ti / qv. S«r c7.... `7 / / . ; ' ~w4 11 ~+++ 9`t •U4101 17f410 ~~~ 4Y~..f' d ,~ a / 14 ' l ~, lS,ta ~, , ~~ Tax Map Numbers: 77.15-1-12 77.15-1-13 77.15-1-14 77.15-1-15 77.15-1-16 Request: Rezone R-3 to C-2 1.32 Rezone R-3 to C-2 1. (A) Rezone R-3 to C-2 .5 (A) Rezone R-3 to C-2 1. (A) _ Rezone R-3 to C-2 1.02 ACTION ITEM NUMBER ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORB OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 11-1. DEFINITIONS, SECTION 11-7. LIST OF MASSAGE TECHNICIANS TO BE DISPLAYED, SECTION 11-9. MASSAGE OF PERSON OF THE OPPOSITE SEX, SECTION 11-27. APPLICATION GENERALLY, SECTION 11-29. ISSUANCE, AND SECTION 11-47. APPLICATION, AND ADDING SECTION 11- 13. TECHNICIANS TO ADMINISTER MASSAGES ONLY IN AUTHORIZED PARLOR, SECTION 11-14. EMPLOYMENT OF NONOUALIFIED TECHNICIAN, SECTION 11-15. RIGHT OF ENTRY OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR, AND SECTION 11-16. MINORS OF CHAPTER 11 MASSAGE PARLORS OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO PERMIT CROSS-GENDER MASSAGES BY QUALIFIED MASSAGE THERAPISTS AND IMPROVE REGULATION OF MASSAGE TECHNICIANS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: The Board used great wisdom in 1976. BACKGROUND' In 1976 the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors adopted the current Massage Parlor ordinance which appears in Chapter 11 of the Roanoke County Code to combat the abuse of massage techniques as a front for unlawful and immoral activities. The broad definitions of "Massage parlor" and "Massage" found in Sec. 11-1 of the County Code has worked to effectively stifle the business of providing massage for both legitimate and illegitimate purposes. Over the past decade or so, individuals who have been trained in the administration of massage for therapeutic purposes have organized themselves into organizations such as the American Massage Therapy Association and have developed professional standards of training for entering this field. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Massage as a technique or therapy which can promote both physical and mental well-being has been recognized for centuries in 1-1 a number of cultures. Today, massage is being utilized by both individuals and employers to promote wellness and improve productivity and to reduce the risks of employee illness or injury due to stress or fatigue. In order to remove the actual or perceived limitations on providing legitimate massage therapy to members of the public, both male and female, the Massage Parlor ordinance is being amended to exempt trained massage therapist who have completed 500 hours of training or those providing such massage under the direction and control of licensed medical professionals. The burden would be upon the individual applying for a business license to provide the Commissioner of the Revenue with documentation as to the requisite hours of training or other circumstances authorizing an exception under this ordinance. Other changes have been made to the ordinance to make it consistent with other county code provisions and to increase the application fee to reflect modern circumstances. Additional sections have been added to clarify the restrictions on activities by massage technicians who are still subject to this ordinance consistent with ordinances of adjoining jurisdictions. FISCAL IMPACT' None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the first reading of the ordinance. Staff further recommends that the second reading and public hearing be scheduled for December 12, 1995. Respectfully submitted, Jo ph benshain Se for Assistant County Attorney Approved Denied Received Referred to Motion by: ACTION VOTE Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens No Yes Abs 2 1- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 11- 1. DEFINITIONS, SECTION 11-7. LIST OF MASSAGE TECHNICIANS TO BE DISPLAYED, SECTION 11-9. MASSAGE OF PERSON OF THE OPPOSITE SE%, SECTION i1-27. APPLICATION GENERALLY, SECTION 11-29. ISSUANCE, AND SECTION 11-47. APPLICATION, AND ADDING SECTION 11-13. TECHNICIANS TO ADMINISTER MASSAGES ONLY IN AUTHORIZED PARLOR, SECTION i1-14. EMPLOYMENT OF NONOUALIFIED TECHNICIAN, SECTION 11-15. RIGHT OF ENTRY OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR, AND SECTION 11-16. MINORS OF CHAPTER 11 MASSAGE PARLORS OF THE ROANORE COUNTY CODE TO PERMIT CRO88-GENDER MASSAGES BY QUALIFIED MASSAGE THERAPISTS AND IMPROVE REGULATION OF MASSAGE TECHNICIANS WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke adopted an ordinance in 1976 to regulate the abuse of massage administered by members of the opposite sex; and WHEREAS, the use of massage therapies and techniques is a legitimate treatment of the external parts of the human body to promote physical health and fitness and to assist in rehabilitation efforts which has existed for many centuries; and WHEREAS, legitimate massage therapist have organized professional groups such as the American Massage Therapy Association and developed detailed standards for education and training of those individuals who wish to practice this beneficial craft; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, wishes to modify its current Massage Parlor ordinance so as not to unfairly restrict the bona fide activities of legitimate massage therapists and those administering massage as 1 • ~ ~'-- part of a medically recognized program of treatment; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 21, 1995; and the second reading and public hearing for this ordinance was be held on December 12, 1995. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Chapter 11, MASSAGE PARLORS of the Roanoke County Code be amended and reenacted as follows: SEC. 11-1. Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section, unless clearly indicated to the contrary: . . Massage: A method of treating the external parts of the human body Eon aom~+~~~ o~ tl~ ..gex~era~: Weil bei~~>€>b~~t~~::b~~~ b~ for remedial or hygienic purposes, consisting of rubbing, stroking, kneading or tapping or vibrating with the hand or any instrument. Massage parlor: Any establishment having a fixed place of business where any person administers or gives a Turkish, Swedish, vapor, sweat, electric, salt, magnetic or any other kind or character of massage, bath, alcohol rub, fomentation, manipulation ............................................................................................. of the bod or other similar rocedure. ~~`~~<<d~~a~ari~<>$ha~a>~o Y P ............................................................................................. ,..:::> >::<:>: ~::; :::.;::;:.;:.;:::.:::::; ::..::.:.:....::.,.; i is o~ the caffic:e c~~ p~.acs _ a~ ~~sin~'~~ ~-f a "d~t~.~;~~u~si~d€iph~'s...: a:::>:.:,:.:, at~tgeon #~~teo~r~t'th ; re$i'!~tet . hurs~,~.... b~t~rse p~$a~ity+~~e~,.. p~y~aa1 the~api;;~t, ~hxrapra~t~r, +~r b~ a m~ts~e~~~ thera~~~t ~r~.ghtee~<:<t1~~3: 2 ~^ who administers to another person a massage, alcohol rub, bath, manipulation of the body or any similar ,:..... treatment at a massa a arlor. ~Io:>::>::>m~~~:a:':e€:€:€:»:~~cY~~-~c~a~'~~°il~~a g P ~:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:;:.;::::.:::; :::::::.::::::::::.::.::::::..;:..:. ad~ain~:a'ter $n "asst` ~ ~: the>~Ca '" y g th n ~tt~ t~°:>~a~io~~<tit~t~1`~e<i~~~b:~t ~~~ ~~iys~~oiaer v~ that ~teve~u+~ ~.~ a~aa~dh~~ze ~i~h ~h~~+~~>~> ........__._...._.........___.. ~~'~ ~ ~'' `: iC V' d i iT' R' ..................................... ...................................... ..................................... ...................................... :: ':::.i>:>i:i:.i:. Sur $On'; __ {Sa~k4 .a~~:: ;::»::::>: i::.i::. .. .::~::. _.:"ii :::~@:~9:'~$rE'd<:: i:.iii?i::.;':.F:::..::.iiiii:.i:.i:.is4i. :>;::»::>~llr9$as~::>:::> }i::i::i`y^..isn'ii:..i;i:.i?i:.:oi'.i::.i<i:.:v:Y'.ii: :: ...i: .i::.i:.i::.. .. .. :::>~1;~~`~?E~1:>':z:: ~`'~~'~'..:z~ t'i~~rr":. chiropractor, ~h~s~.gay r ~herapast o~ other I~'~~s~a~$ed h~r~1t<~ca~+ 1~ ... Sec. 11-7. List of sassage technicians to be displayed. !t}:?Every person holding a massage parlor permit issued under this chapter shall display, in a conspicuous place at such parlor, a list of all massage technicians employed in the parlor. b 'fhb o e~atQ.r ~g a massage ..p~~~.os;.: ~h~~~::::<~ga~r~a3~he Sec. 11-9. 1[assage of person of the opposite sex. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to administer, to any person of the opposite sex any massage, any alcohol rub or similar treatment, any fomentation, any bath or any electric or magnetic treatment, nor shall any person cause or permit in or about his place of business, or in connection with his business, any agent, 4 r ~ ~ employee or servant or any other person under his control or supervision to administer any such treatment to any person of the opposite sex. (b) This section shall not apply to any treatment administered in good faith by a physician, surgeon, osteopath, registered nurse, nurse practitioner, chiropractor, or physical therapist duly ................................... licensed by the Commonwealth Cf, Y'.~~~t~ or to a licensed practical nurse (LPN) or nursing assistant acting under the direct the scalp, the face, the neck or the shoulders only. Sed 1~.W1~ ~ ~!+s~~ia~y'' a~ a±c~a~o~~e~ . ma-ss~g+ss~ only` f~a, a~t~a~~ted parlor.:; ,: :::. ma~saq~ ~$~c1~~ ~~m~~ta~ag uud~~.::::~<;1~~a~:~,ci ~~d ~tbtk~i~~ip~~ded::: ~i~~~a~e 5 l- ~ ~e~a. i~~.#~. ~aplo~ae~~.. ~~ n~n+gaali~md teabc:~aa `>~:< .............................................. . ::>::::a~rm . ~~ .....~~x~::::~~.:: ~.:::xe~s.~ :.....::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..:..:::::::::.:::::.::.::::::.:::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::~.:::~'::::::::..:::.::::.:::..~:::::::::::: y~ ~r /. , . ............ %: ~.~V~:~:''.~hal.l:: ~R.::~i ~ ~~:. :e~.:;:~ ..y: Yalu;::.:~~~ii~`.':;:~i7~~:;:~i~y;:~~ .h~~~ii,~iRr:.'!~:.!!~ ~~:: ~ .......................:.:::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::.p.:::::::~::::::.:......~............::~::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::;..::::::::::::.:;..:..............::::::::::::::::::::;:;::::::::::: ~,n~..~~as~#~~ pa~~ot at and ta~m~. . . Sec 11-27. Application generally. (a) Any person desiring a permit to operate a massage parlor shall make application to the Director. Such application shall be accom anted b ;:a check m,~d~ $ ,~$>:::~+b tbs .:.!~i~~~~t~~'~~'`~::>h~:~t~~~::. Qr~ :~OIE~nt3k@ <3A the sum of ~irc~>::::hundred:::< nd<~~ .: dollars ;;:.;:«:~ €i €~g ($LtxE~3~-s-96) , ........:.:............ ...................... ....................... such sum to cover the cost of investigation by the ~toaroK+~.:.:County ~el.soe _.~eFartmet~ and the health and other departments. (b) An application submitted pursuant to this section shall contain the:; follow~,Ac~: 6 .. ,~--1 1 The full name a e date:>:»ia~d» `:~aa~<~a~~'' hei ht ....................... ( ) . 4 . ..............:::::::::.Iy.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.f.. 4 wei ht :;:.>~,`;»::>:.> ,.:;>:.>: ;.?'~ "ens::€<and=<~ta3~;::>: sent address of re 4 . ~~~:;;Q,, lox'.;:.of.:.;;::.:~'>::;»>;:.>::::::;::;;<:>;:<:«::.:::::.;:.;:>:.;::::~r: P the a licant and>:>::a:::::>:ct~~~ent::::<:: c~~t~a~~<:::::~:~:fi.:::. jai :.~<~><t~ti PP . ;:.;:.;:<~.;:.;;;:.;:::.:::::;;:.;;;;::.;:..~: ~.:.::::::::: :.;:.;:.;;~:.;:.;:.;;;:.;:;.::.:;::~:;;;::.:;:.;:. :::::>:~ l:~~d~t t:.::.~:.: ~ac~:..: ~ ::lot`;<.:~~~n ::>::a~:::>cl:e~~:::~~~r;~;~~€€€th~ :.::.... ..................................................... Sec. 11-29. Issuance. Within th~~t €e~n (~03# days of the receipt of an application under this article, the Director shall issue the permit if he shall find that: (i) The premises to be used or constructed meet the requirements of the '~e~~it building code, as reported by the groped administrative officers of the county; (2) The applicants facilities comply with the requirements of this chapter; ;.:::. amt (~) The experience and knowledge of the applicant are such that the operation of the proposed massage parlor will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the patrons; (#) The information in the application is truthful. Sec. ii-47. Application. Any person who desires to secure a massage technician ~ s permit shall file an application with the Director. 8 E . . 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after January 1, 1996. c:\wp51\doc\age~da~ce\massage. ord 9 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: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: First Reading of Ordinance - Authorization to Acquire Necessary Easements to Construct the North Transmission Line COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Recommend Approval BACKGROUND: The North Transmission line was originally envisioned as a future project when funding was allocated in the Spring Hollow Project. Because of cost savings associated with the construction of the dam, innovative design of the water treatment facility, and direct purchase of pipe materials for the transmission lines, there will be sufficient funds to construct a majority of the North Transmission line at this time. The project as planned will begin at Route 11/460 near Cherokee Hills and proceed to Route 311 (Thompson Memorial Drive) near Hanging Rock. This construction will allow citizens presently served by wells in the Cherokee Hills, Glenvar East, and Red Lane/Wooded Acres areas to also be served by Spring Hollow water. The construction of this line is expected to begin in early 1996 and be complete by early 1997. The estimated cost is $3.5 million. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Board of Supervisors has approved the North Transmission Line Project along with the appropriate funding. This project will involve acquisition of numerous easements. In order to secure the required properties in a timely manner, staff is including a list of potential properties located within the corridor identified for the project. Please note that not all properties identified on this list will require acquisition of an easement. An Ordinance authorizing acquisition of the necessary easements is attached. Attached is the list of potential properties involved in this project. 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 conduct the first reading of an ordinance 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 North Transmission Line Project. This is consistent with the County's past policy of acquiring the necessary easements. SUBMITTED BY: 'fit, Gary Rob son, P.E. Utility Director APPROVED: ~~~ ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy - - - 7ohnson - - - Kohinke - - - Minnix _ _ _ Nickens POTENTIAL PROPERTIES INVOLVED IN THE NORTH LOOP TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT TAX MAP NO. PROPERTY OWNER 35.03-2-21 Ben A. & Jennie P. Alley 35.03-2-25 David J. Luzzi 35.03-2-24 Paul C. & Snowa Lockhart 35.03-2-23 Glenn Ray Eubank 35.03-2-22 Eddiw W. & Betty H. Taylor 35.03-1-24 J. L. & Suzanne Reynolds 35.03-1-25 A. C. & B. C. Gearhart 35.03-1-26 Roy L. & Lucille Reynolds 35.03-1-27 Mark B. Rea 35.03-1-29 William H. & Joyce S. May 35.03-1-39 W. W., Jr. & V. Brown 35.04-3-32 Roanoke College 45.01-1-79 B. G., Jr. & C. S. Hodges 45.01-1-78 R. M., Jr. & M. G. Peery 45.01-1-77 Kathleen Francisco 35.03-3-1.1 Barbara Ann Guthrie 35.03-3-1.2 Jack H. Guthrie 35.03-3-1.10 Mildred G. Arnold 35.03-3-4 A.&B. Marsh c/Teresa 35.03-3-5 Geneva Craighead 35.03-3-6 Geneva Craighead 35.03-3-6.1 Ethel R. Tickle 35.03-3-7 Richard A. Marsh 35.03-3-8 Fergie D. & Norris Barnett 35.03-3-9 William R. & Carol McGuire 35.03-3-10 Rodney L. & Mary R. Webb 35.03-3-11 David L. & Ann M. Chandler 35.03-3-12 Lewis L. & Judy B. Long 35.03-3-13 Lewis L. Long 35.03-2-79 Adele L. Anderson 35.03-2-69 S. D. & C. L. Mussleman 35.03-2-68 Jerry W. and Gale R. Hodge 35.03-2-72 Bobby L. & Karen Ferguson 35.03-2-62 Benson & Peggy J. Cook 35.03-2-59 Benjamin H. Tingler, Sr. 35.03-2-60 James E. & Terri N. Payne 35.03-2-61 Carolyn L. & Lloyd M. Jarvis 35.03-2-50 Benjamin H. Tingler, Sr. 35.03-2-49 B. H. & D. S. Tingler 35.03-2-47 John, Jr. & Mary F. Tingler Sa PAGE -2- TAX MAP NO. PROPERTY OWNER 35.03-2-46 John, Jr. & Mary F. Tingler 35.03-2-45 John, Jr. & Mary F. Tingler 35.03-2-44 B. H. & D. S. Tingler 35.03-2-48 Herbert E. & Fannie Crum 35.03-2-51 Florence K. & Penna Logan 44.02-2-4 M. G. & Teresa Birmingham 44.02-2-4.1 Garland R. & Debra Wood 44.02-2-3 Dewey Carpenter 44.02-2-2 Warren M. & Mary O. Long 44.02-2-1 Louise D. Hall 44.02-1-51 Mary E. Crowe 44.02-1-50 Mary E. Crowe 44.02-1-49 Gwen M. Crowe 44.02-1-42 Lela H. Palmer 44.02-1-48 Nora M. Evers 44.02-1-47 Nora M. Evers 44.02-1-46 Ronald L. Shaver 44.02-1-44 Don Rodney Lawrence 44.02-1-43 Elsie H. Lawrence 44.02-1-40 Curtis Lafayette Lawrence 44.02-1-39 C. Rodney Lawrence 44.02-1-38 Hugh L. & Lucille R. Meador 44.02-1-37 Wildwood Grace Breth. Ch. 44.02-1-21 Cheryl B. Stockton 44.02-1-20 Wildwood Grace Breth. Ch. 44.02-1-19 Paul R. & Ruth Snead 44.02-1-18 James M., Jr. & T. Carroll 44.02-1-18.1 James D. & Susan Carroll 44.02-1-13 Joseph Van Buren Harrison 44.02-1-12 Lewis E. & Bessie Kanode 44.02-1-11 Robert William Staton 44.02-1-10 C. F., III & Rebecca Frazier 44.02-1-9 C. F., III & Rebecca Frazier 44.02-1-8 J. O., Jr. & E. R. Nunley 44.02-1-5 F. J., Jr. & N. J. Francisco 44.02-1-4 Allen B. & Kathleen Turner 44.02-1-3 W. E. & Lorene Slusher 44.02-1-1 Bruce E. & Sandra S. Booth 45.01-1-80 Marie K. Harwood 34.00-1-3 Verlin W. & Frances J. Wygal 34.00-1-3.1 Thomas H. & Emily C. Field 44.00-1-18 Pry, Inc. a PAGE -3- TAX MAP NO. PROPERTY OWNER 44.03-5-50 Clayton & Gerald Smart 44.03-5-49 Timothy A. & Mary Rogers 44.03-5-48 Darrell L. & Glenna Hungat 44.00-2-1 Donald K. & Hilda J. Slone 44.00-2-2 James R. & Vickie M. Craig 44.00-2-3 Jerry & Judy Grubb 44.00-2-4 Harden L. & Linda W. Davis 44.00-2-5 Donald L. & Ramona T. Turman 44.00-2-6 John & Sherry Milliron 44.00-2-7 John & Jane East 44.00-2-8 C. C. E. Ltd. 44.00-1-19 Charles R. Goad 44.00-1-16 J. M. & Jane East, Et Als 44.00-1-17 J. L. (III) & Linda Reynolds 44.00-1-14 F. R. (Jr.) & K. A. Carroll 44.00-1-13.2 Larry J. Conner 44.00-1-12 Ercil H. & Christine Poff 44.00-1-11 Fred D. & Nancy E. Russell 44.00-1-10 Charles P. Dooley 44.00-1-6 W.M. Wolf&Ellen Coleman 44.00-1-5 W.M. Wolf&Ellen Coleman 44.00-1-4 Harmon Daniel Pollock, Jr. 44.00-1-3 Larry J. & Marilyn Francisco 44.00-1-1 David L. & Bonnie Spangler 44.00-2-9 R. M. & Charlene Lester 44.00-3-10 44.04-2-67 Russell J. & Linda Duncan 44.04-2-58 Gerald S. & Linda G. Holt 44.04-2-50.1 Leonard D. Wright 44.04-2-60 Russell J. & Linda R. Duncan 44.04-2-59 Charles F., Jr. & Agnes Lovelace 44.04-2-53 George Law 44.04-2-54 Owne & Martha Law 44.04-2-50 Leonard A. Wright 44.04-2-51 Marion D. & Mary L. Furrow 44.04-2-52 Salem Free Penacostal Ch. 44.04-2-18 Richard L. & Cheryl Wood 44.04-2-17 Deborah J. L. Blankenship 44.02-2-27 Herman T., Jr. & Shelby D. Hill 44.02-2-27.1 Jeannie L. Hill 44.02-2-24 James S. & Robin L. Watts 44.02-2-24.1 James S. & Robin L. Watts 44.02-2-24.2 James S. & Robin L. Watts ~~ Ia PAGE -4- TAX MAP NO. PROPERTY OWNER 44.02-2-24.3 James S. & Robin L. Watts 44.02-2-20 John T. Halsey 44.02-2-19 John T. Halsey 44.02-2-17 Jeffrey B. & Robin A. Martin 44.02-2-18 Jeffrey B. & Robin A. Martin 44.02-2-15 Ricky E. & Brenda C. King 44.02-2-14.1 Tillow C. & C. A. Dishon 44.02-2-10 R. Franklin, III & Julie Hough 44.02-2-9 William & Donna Williams 44.02-2-9.1 Lionel M. & Sylviane Anes 44.02-2-11.2 Karla Alisa Carroll 44.02-2-7 Rebecca Kiser 44.02-2-6.1 K. E. & Norma Widener 44.02-2-6 Norma Widener 44.03-7-17 Mary L. Hull 44.03-7-18 E. W. & Virginia B. Barton 44.03-7-19 Juanita D. Wickham 44.03-7-19.1 Mark & Juanita D. Wickham 44.03-7-20 Ralph L. & Margaret Riggs 44.03-7-21.1 B. J. & Connie Wilkinson 44.03-7-22 Ralph & Eloise T. Murray 44.03-7-23 Church of God of Prophecy 44.03-7-24 Connie & Barbara Croy 44.03-6-25 G. B. Barton 44.03-6-24 Orville C. & Ruby Jacobs 44.03-6-26 Bonnie M. Smith 44.03-6-21 Helen Brumfield 44.03-6-19 Eugene C. & Cerl Eastridge 44.03-6-18 Cline A. & Mary R. Conner 44.03-6-17 Mary J. Booher 44.03-6-16 Mary J. Booher 44.03-6-15 Stover W. Carter 44.03-5-22 Cline A. & Mary R. Conner 44.03-5-23 Kenis M. Waldron 44.03-5-24 Brenda C. Perdue, Et Als 44.03-5-25 Alvin C. & Judith C. Waldron 44.03-5-52 Mava D. & Pamela Wingate 44.03-5-51 B. D. & Kathy Montgomery 54.04-7-48 Robert A. Woolwine 54.04-3-1 Christian Life Fellowship 54.02-4-3 Roanoke County Schools 54.02-4-2 Roanoke County Schools ~~ PAGE -5- TAX MAP NO. PROPERTY OWNER 54.02-4-1 Roanoke County Schools 54.02-3-38 Arthur & Joan Price 54.02-2-59 J. R. Tomlinson 54.02-2-60 J. R. Tomlinson 54.02-1-2 R. A. & Charlotte Gravely 54.02-1-3 Jurl Sykes 54.02-1-4 Hazel H. Basham 43.00-1-26 Howard D. Ulrey 55.01-1-58 Alfred & Alma Hagee 55.01-1-57 Ronald E. Webb 55.01-1-56 Alfred & Alma Hagee 55.01-1-55 Lee & Rebecca Lineberry 44.03-7-16 John G. & Hazel S. Hull 35.04-3-30 J. Spencer Frantz 35.04-3-22 James S: Frantz, Jr. 35.04-3-21 James S. Frantz, Jr. 35.04-3-59 Roanoke College Investment 35.04-3-60 J. Spencer Frantz, EtAls 35.04-3-20 Margaret D. Logan 35.04-3-19 Virginia y. Brogan 35.04-3-15 E. W. & Judy Johnson 35.04-3-61 Bethel Assembly of God 35.04-3-60.2 Roanoke College Investment 35.00-1-31 J. Spencer Frantz, EtAls 35.00-1-31.1 J. Spencer Frantz 35.00-1-28 J. Spencer Frantz 35.00-1-27 John Robert Carlton, Jr. 35.04-1-44 Eunice F. Pugh 35.04-1-46 Virgil L. Frantz, Jr., EtAI 35.04-1-29 Henry A. & Hazel M. Lester 35.04-1-28 Lyle E. & Donna Stansbury 35.04-1-27 J. Marshall & Cleo M. Oliver 35.04-1-21 Martha B. & Judy H. Richards 35.04-1-22 Terry L. Wainwright 35.04-1-47 Virgil L. Frantz, Jr., EtAI - arm AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 ORDINANCE FOR AIITHORIZATION TO ACQIIIRE NECESSARY EASEMENTS AND PROPERTY TO CONSTRIICT THE NORTH TRANSMISSION LINE WHEREAS, location plans for the North Transmission Line Project have been completed and the project 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 November 21, 1995, and the second reading was held on December 12, 1995. 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 North Transmission Line Project is hereby authorized across the following properties, referenced by tax map number, from the following property owners, their successors or assigns: TA% MAP NO. 35.03-2-21 PROPERTY Ben A. & 01PBTER Jennie P. Alley 35.03-2-25 David J. Luzzi 35.03-2-24 Paul C. & Snowa Lockhart 35.03-2-23 Glenn Ra y Eubank 35.03-2-22 Eddie W. & Betty H. Taylor 35.03-1-24 J. L. & Suzanne Reynolds 35.03-1-25 A. C. & B. C. Gearhart 35.03-1-26 Roy L. & Lucille Reynolds 35.03-1-27 Mark B. Rea 35.03-1-29 William H. & Joyce S. May 35.03-1-39 W. W., J r. & V. Brown 35.04-3-32 Roanoke College 45.01-1-79 B. G., J r. & C. S. Hodges ~i 45.01-1-78 R. M., Jr. & M. G. Peery 45.01-1-77 Kathleen Francisco 35.03-3-1.1 Barbara Ann Guthrie 35.03-3-1.2 Jack H. Guthrie 35.03-3-1.10 Mildred G. Arnold 35.03-3-4 A.&B. Marsh c/Teresa 35.03-3-5 Geneva Craighead 35.03-3-6 Geneva Craighead 35.03-3-6.1 Ethel R. Tickle 35.03-3-7 Richard A. Marsh 35.03-3-8 Fergie D. & Norris Barnett 35.03-3-9 William R. & Carol McGuire 35.03-3-10 Rodney L. & Mary R. Webb 35.03-3-11 David L. & Ann M. Chandler 35.03-3-12 Lewis L. & Judy B. Long 35.03-3-13 Lewis L. Long 35.03-2-79 Adele L. Anderson 35.03-2-69 S. D. & C. L. Mussleman 35.03-2-68 Jerry W. and Gale R. Hodge 35.03-2-72 Bobby L. & Karen Ferguson 35.03-2-62 Benson & Peggy J. Cook 35.03-2-59 Benjamin H. Tingler, Sr. 35.03-2-60 James E. & Terri N. Payne 35.03-2-61 Carolyn L. & Lloyd M. Jarvis 35.03-2-50 Benjamin H. Tingler, Sr. 35.03-2-49 B. H. & D. S. Tingler 35.03-2-47 John, Jr. & Mary F. Tingler 35.03-2-46 John, Jr. & Mary F. Tingler 35.03-2-45 John, Jr. & Mary F. Tingler 35.03-2-44 B. H. & D. S. Tingler 35.03-2-48 Herbert E. & Fannie Crum 35.03-2-51 Florence K. & Penna Logan 44.02-2-4 M. G. & Teresa Birmingham 44.02-2-4.1 Garland R. & Debra Wood 44.02-2-3 Dewey Carpenter 44.02-2-2 Warren M. & Mary O. Long 44.02-2-1 Louise D. Hall 44.02-1-51 Mary E. Crowe 44.02-1-50 Mary E. Crowe 44.02-1-49 Gwen M. Crowe 44.02-1-42 Lela H. Palmer 44.02-1-48 Nora M. Evers 44.02-1-47 Nora M. Evers 44.02-1-46 Ronald L. Shaver 44.02-1-44 Don Rodney Lawrence 44.02-1-43 Elsie H. Lawrence 44.02-1-40 Curtis Lafayette Lawrence 44.02-1-39 C. Rodney Lawrence 44.02-1-38 Hugh L. & Lucille R. Meador 44.02-1-37 Wildwood Grace Breth. Ch. 44.02-1-21 Cheryl B. Stockton 44.02-1-20 Wildwood Grace Breth. Ch. 44.02-1-19 Paul R. & Ruth Snead 44.02-1-18 James M., Jr. & T. Carroll T-~- 44.02-1-18.1 James D. & Susan Carroll 44.02-1-13 Joseph Van Buren Harrison 44.02-1-12 Lewis E. & Bessie Kanode 44.02-1-11 Robert William Staton 44.02-1-10 C. F., III & Rebecca Frazier 44.02-1-9 C. F., III & Rebecca Frazier 44.02-1-8 J. O., Jr. & E. R. Nunley 44.02-1-5 F. J., Jr. & N. J. Francisco 44.02-1-4 Allen B. & Kathleen Turner 44.02-1-3 W. E. & Lorene Slusher 44.02-1-1 Bruce E. & Sandra S. Booth 45.01-1-80 Marie K. Harwood 34.00-1-3 Verlin W. & Frances J. Wygal 34.00-1-3.1 Thomas H. & Emily C. Field 44.00-1-18 Pry, Inc. 44.03-5-50 Clayton & Gerald Smart 44.03-5-49 Timothy A. & Mary Rogers 44.03-5-48 Darrell L. & Glenna Hungat 44.00-2-1 Donald K. & Hilda J. Slone 44.00-2-2 James R. & Vickie M. Craig 44.00-2-3 Jerry & Judy Grubb 44.00-2-4 Harden L. & Linda W. Davis 44.00-2-5 Donald L. & Ramona T. Turman 44.00-2-6 John & Sherry Milliron 44.00-2-7 John & Jane East 44.00-2-8 C. C. E. Ltd. 44.00-1-19 Charles R. Goad 44.00-1-16 J. M. & Jane East, Et Als 44.00-1-17 J. L. (III) & Linda Reynolds 44.00-1-14 F. R. (Jr.) & K. A. Carroll 44.00-1-13.2 Larry J. Conner 44.00-1-12 Ercil H. & Christine Poff 44.00-1-11 Fred D. & Nancy E. Russell 44.00-1-10 Charles P. Dooley 44.00-1-6 W.M. Wolf & Ellen Coleman 44.00-1-5 W.M. Wolf & Ellen Coleman 44.00-1-4 Harmon Daniel Pollock, Jr. 44.00-1-3 Larry J. & Marilyn Francisco 44.00-1-1 David L. & Bonnie Spangler 44.00-2-9 R. M. & Charlene Lester 44.00-3-10 44.04-2-67 Russell J. & Linda Duncan 44.04-2-58 Gerald S. & Linda G. Holt 44.04-2-50.1 Leonard D. Wright 44.04-2-60 Russell J. & Linda R. Duncan 44.04-2-59 Charles F., Jr. & Agnes Lovelace 44.04-2-53 George Law 44.04-2-54 Owne & Martha Law 44.04-2-50 Leonard A. Wright 44.04-2-51 Marion D. & Mary L. Furrow 44.04-2-52 Salem Free Penacostal Ch. 44.04-2-18 Richard L. & Cheryl Wood 44.04-2-17 Deborah J. L. Blankenship 44.02-2-27 Herman T., Jr. & Shelby D. Hill `~ ~. Hill Watts ~ - Jeannie L & gobi L- Watts r- James S• & g°pln L• Watts . 2 -2 4.1 J am s S•' & Robs L• Watts 44.02 2 2 J S• & 44.02 2-24.1 James I3alseY tin 44'02 2-24.2 John T~ galseY In A• Mar tin 44.02- 24.3 John T• & gob A• Mar 44 ' 02 2-20 Jeffrey B•' & enda C ~ Kong 44' 2-19 Jeff & Br Dlsh Hough 44.02-2 .18 Ti1oW C • ~ C II • & ilams 44.02-2 15 g• FranK &i Donna Wane Anes 44.02- 2_14.1 WilliamM. & 5Y1 roll 44 ~ p -2-10 T,ionel Alisa Car a 44.• 02 2 9 ' 1 Repecc & No a Widener 2_11.2 K. E• Widener ton 44••p2-2-7 Norma T,. Hull is B, gar In 44 02_2-6.1 Mary & Virg. kh am 44 • p2-2_6 E, W • D- Wlc amWickh 44 ' 7 -17 Juanita Juanita a~et Biggs 44,03-7-18 Mark & & Marg llkinson 44'p3 7-19 ga1Ph L•C°nnle W Murray 44'03 7-19.1 B, J• & Eloise T'prophecY 44 :03_7-20 ga1Ph & of God ° a cr°Y 44,03_7-21.1 Church & Barbar 03_7-22 Connie Barton gubY Jacobs o- 44 • 7 2 Div lle C' & tYl 5m 44-' 03 6-25 Bonnie arumf iela 1 Eastrl ege 44.0 6-24 gelen C• & Ce g, Conn 44.03- 6-26 Eugene & Mary 44'03 6-21 Cline A'Booher 44'03 6-19 Mary J' Booker 4 4 •03 _ 6 _ 18 Mary er' W • Carter g . Conner 44' 6-17 St°v & Mary 44.03_6-_15 C eels M• Wa ea aue ~ Et Waldron 44-p3_6 K P C. 22 renda C- Judith ate 44~-03-5-23 Alva D • & pameMon g° erY 4 5-24 Mav Kathy e 44.003_5_25 B- D, t A• Woo7,wFellowship 44•'03-5 51 Chrl tlan un y Scho ols 44.03 - -4$ goanoK e ~ountY Sc pO1s 54'04 3-1 goanoK County ce 54.04_4_3 goanoke & Joan prl 54'02 4-2 Arthur omlins°n 54.02_4-1 J, R• T°mllns Otte Gravely 54'-p2_3-38 J• g' & Charl 54 •02-2 .60 gurl• Sykes sham a 2 54'02 l-2 Hazel HD• U1reY 54•• 02-1-3 Howard 54.02_1-4 43.00-1-26 z=a 55.01-1-58 Alfred & Alma Hagee 55.01-1-57 Ronald E. Webb 55.01-1-56 Alfred & Alma Hagee 55.01-1-55 Lee & Rebecca Lineberry 44.03-7-16 John G. & Hazel S. Hull 35.04-3-30 J. Spencer Frantz 35.04-3-22 James S. Frantz, Jr. 35.04-3-21 James S. Frantz, Jr. 35.04-3-59 Roanoke College Investment 35.04-3-60 J. Spencer Frantz, EtAls 35.04-3-20 Margaret D. Logan 35.04-3-19 Virginia Brogan 35.04-3-15 E. W. & Judy Johnson 35.04-3-61 Bethel Assembly of God 35.04-3-60.2 Roanoke College Investment 35.00-1-31 J. Spencer Frantz, EtAls 35.00-1-31.1 J. Spencer Frantz 35.00-1-28 J. Spencer Frantz 35.00-1-27 John Robert Carlton, Jr. 35.04-1-44 Eunice F. Pugh 35.04-1-46 Virgil L. Frantz, Jr., EtAl 35.04-1-29 Henry A. & Hazel M. Lester 35.04-1-28 Lyle E. & Donna Stansbury 35.04-1-27 J. Marshall & Cleo M. Oliver 35.04-1-21 Martha B. & Judy H. Richards 35.04-1-22 Terry L. Wainwright 35.04-1-47 Virgil L. Frantz, Jr., EtAl 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 North Transmission Line Project funds from the 1991 Water Revenue Bonds; and 4. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish these acquisitions, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. agenda.realest. Vansmission ^ ~~ ~ '~ D ~ O ~ O Z O ~ z ~ ~ C N ~ ~ r ~ ~ (~~ ~ fTl " 1 CI1 -~ D m z ~ --I ~. \' x ~~ m~ ~m ym N= ~ N ~~' ~~„ \tP ~~ 1i,~~ d\'• \` ~~ 1l ~,,; ~~ ?~ O r" O m z = ~ _ G7 D O ~ O C7 O ~ O O .~ Cm7 ~ 0 z D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r to z O r~ ~ r O O "D • 1~ u >~ ~~ ~~ ~~ `'\ `, ', 1, \\1 ,` ~\ ~! 1 ~C 3oC Y R~ TJ D !~~ -i ~~ i`a K A %~ ~~ 7' 7 /, I~ • D .Zml Z N fn N Z D ~ ~ J fit) ~~ s ~ u ~, y Dv i 1 ILL R. RD. ~P,. ~~ y~L ~~A oR. o~ ~ ~ ~z o~ t~/1~ m~ D~ ~m v ~ ~~1 0 ~" ~ ~ N `~ \ do 3 ~ \. ~, ~~~~ \ ~ '~ I ,`~ • ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENTS TO APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY FOR UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD ELECTRIC SERVICE ACROSS A PORTION OF PROPERTY OFF SUGAR LOAF MOUNTAIN ROAD OWNED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Recommend Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is the first reading of the proposed ordinance to authorize donation of easements to Appalachian Power Company (APCO) for underground and overhead facilities on County property off of Sugar Loaf Mountain Road, Tax Map Number 76.01-1-27, in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Appalachian Power Company is seeking easements for underground and overhead facilities on County property off Sugar Loaf Mountain Road in order to provide service to County residences in the Longridge Subdivision. APCO requires two rights of way, each fifteen feet (15') in width, as shown on APCO Drawing No. R-3156, dated October 3, 1995, a copy of which is attached hereto. County staff has checked the locations of the proposed easements and determined that they do not interfere with the use of the property. FISCAL IMPACTS• Consideration for the proposed easement is the sum of $1.00. .T3 ALTERNATIVES• (1) Adopt the proposed ordinance authorizing the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents for donation of the electric service line easements as shown on APCO Drawing No. R- 3156, dated October 3, 1995, to Appalachian Power Company. (2) Decline to authorize donation of the easements and request from APCO the fair market value as consideration for the purchase of the easements. (3) Decline to authorize donation or conveyance of the easements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed ordinance as provided in Alternative #1. Respectfully submitted, Vicki L. Huf a Assistant County Attorney Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Eddy Johnson Kohinke Nickens Minnix Vote No Yes Abs PROPOSED U PROPC BOARD OF SUi OVA' ROANOKE EXISTING PC 299- PROPOSED OVERHEAD -9 I o° I i s MAP SECTION 3780-299- D3 T. D. 665000 ' WINDSOR HILLS MAG. DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY VA L rtvr-uvvr~L uiviJilJiy 16V ULt'HI-t I MLIV I PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ON PROPERTY OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY ~-~ n RVM a-*E 10-3-95 ter. n T. L.M. scuE I " =100' f sxECr ~ or ~ sMms DRAWING NO. R- 3 1 5 6 I U ~Xi9h/WO/12-89 ~"~ ~-3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENTB TO APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY FOR IINDERGROIIND AND OVERHEAD ELECTRIC SERVICE ACROSS A PORTION OF PROPERTY OFF BIIGAR LOAF MOUNTAIN ROAD OWNED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County is the owner of property off Sugar Loaf Mountain Road, designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 76.01-1-27, in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District; and, WHEREAS, in order to provide service to the Longridge Subdivision, Appalachian Power Company (APCO) requires easements for underground and overhead facilities on County property; and, WHEREAS, the proposed underground and overhead easements do not conflict with the use of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on November 21, 1995; and a second reading was held on December 12, 1995; and 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the interests in real estate to be conveyed are hereby declared to be surplus, and are hereby made available for other public uses by conveyance to Appalachian Power Company for the provision of electrical service to Roanoke County residences; and i / r3 3. That APCO's offer to purchase the easement for One Dollar ($1.00) is hereby accepted and the proceeds from the sale of the easement are to be allocated to the capital reserves of Roanoke County; and 4. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to convey underground and overhead electric line easements, each fifteen feet (15') in width, as shown on APCO Drawing No. R-3156, dated October 3, 1995, across the County's property (Tax Map No. 76.01-1-27) unto Appalachian Power Company; and 5. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such further actions as may be necessary to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney; and 6. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. -- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 10-1 THROUGH 10-19, ARTICLE I; SECTIONS 10-30 THROUGH 10-36, ARTICLE II; AND SECTIONS 10-44, 10-50, 10- 54, AND 10-56, ARTICLE III; OF CHAPTER 10 LICENSES, AND REPEALING SECTION 21-2, ARTICLE I, OF CHAPTER 21 TAXATION OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE IN ORDER TO IMPROVE UNIFORMITY IN ADMINISTRATION OF THE BUSINESS, PROFESSIONAL, AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE TAX AMONG JURISDICTIONS IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: These changes are needed to bring our ordinance into compliance with the model BPOL ordinance recommended by VML and VACo. We hope this will protect this revenue source from efforts to eliminate it in this session of the General Assembly. The loss of BPOL to Roanoke County would amount to ~fi3 million per year. This would have a serious impact on our budget and we would have to raise other taxes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY• This is the first reading of the proposed ordinance to amend and reenact Article I, Article II, and Sections 10-44, 10-50, 10- 54, AND 10-56, Article III, of Chapter 10 LICENSES, and repealing Section 21-2, Article I, of Chapter 21 TAXATION of the Roanoke County Code to incorporate uniform provisions for the administration of the business, professional, and occupational license (BPOL) tax into the Roanoke County Code. The second reading and public hearing are scheduled for December 12, 1995. BACKGROUND' Chapter 37 (Section 58.1-3700, et seq.) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, authorizes localities to adopt an ordinance imposing a business, professional, and occupational license (BPOL) tax. Localities throughout the Commonwealth have adopted such ordinances, with some disparity in local provisions and administration of the tax. Criticism of the BPOL tax has led to support for repeal of the state enabling legislation and elimination of the tax, which would have a significant impact on the revenue of many local governments. In order to address concerns with the tax, the Virginia Municipal League (VML) has provided local governments with a proposed uniform ordinance and has encouraged adoption of the provisions without change to the extent possible. The VML has suggested that action be taken for an effective date of January 1, 1996. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: County staff has prepared the proposed amendments to Chapter 10 by incorporating the uniform provisions into the existing ordinance. Generally, the uniform provisions address such issues as key definitions, rules for establishing situs, interest and penalty provisions, and due dates. For the most part, the changes represent clarifications and improvements to existing provisions and would not result in a major substantive effect on Roanoke County's ordinance. More specifically, the changes involve extensive additions and some revisions to section 10-2 of Article I, sections 10-30 through 10-36 of Article II, and sections 10-44, 10-50, 10-54, and 10-56 to provide clarification and uniformity in the terms and classifications in the ordinance. The application of the tax to those engaging in professional services represents the most significant change, in that individual professionals would no longer be required to obtain separate licenses where the individuals are associated in a business and the business obtains the license. As with other types of businesses, the total gross receipts would be attributed to the business, which would pay the tax rather than the individuals, and should not result in any significant change in the amount of taxes received. Section 10-4 sets forth the provisions for the licensing requirement, with a focus on attributing gross receipts to a definite place of business. These provisions do not represent a significant departure from the existing ordinance, but may eliminate application of the tax to some businesses; the overriding purpose, however, is to establish consistency among the jurisdictions in application of the tax. This section also provides for a definite uniform date, changed from January 31 to March 1, for filing the annual license applications. The former subsections (b), (c), and (d) of Section 10-4 are shown as deleted, but these provisions have simply been moved and incorporated into section 10-19. Section 10-5 provides for a change in the due date for the BPOL tax from January 31 to March 1 of each license year. The purpose is to allow additional time for licensees to prepare reports of gross receipts at the end of each calendar year and to establish a definite uniform date for payment of the tax to all Virginia localities. 2 .~ ~,~J ,.- / Section 10-6 sets forth provisions for the uniform imposition of penalty and interest, including allowances for situations where the failure to file or pay the tax was not the fault of the taxpayer. Section 10-8 establishes and specifies guidelines for determining the situs of gross receipts. Provisions for apportionment among jurisdictions, where applicable, and agreements between the assessing officials of affected jurisdictions are included. This section also provides for the addition of an administrative review procedure to assist the taxpayer in challenging any assessment without the necessity of court proceedings and permits the taxpayer to obtain advance written rulings regarding application of the BPOL tax to a specific situation. Section 10-9 sets forth 'reasonable' uniform exclusions and deductions from gross receipts. Generally, these provisions incorporated what is already applied by virtue of state law, attorney general's opinions, or case law. The changes made to section 10-15 are not substantive, but represent an incorporation of former sections 10-14 and 10-16 into one provision. In the past, the provisions of section 10-56 have been more or less duplicated in section 21-2 of Chapter 21, Taxation. Therefore, staff recommends that section 21-2 be repealed in conjunction with the proposed amendments to Chapter 10 of the County Code. There are statutory caps on rates in the state code, but such rates and any threshold amounts for application of the tax are otherwise left to the determination of each locality. The uniform provisions do not address, establish, or change these local decisions and the proposed ordinance amendments remain unchanged for these items. FISCAL IMPACTS' The revenue generated by the BPOL tax in Roanoke County is approximately $3 million. The reduction in revenue as a result of adopting the uniform provisions and administering the tax in accordance therewith is estimated to be minor, if any. However, County staff advises of the potential for problems with cash flow during the months of January and February, which could necessitate borrowing, as a result of a change in the due date for the BPOL tax to March 1. It is anticipated that this will not be a problem in early 1996, but could arise in the future. 3 .~ y ALTERNATIVES• (1) Approve the first reading of the proposed ordinance to amend and reenact Article I, Article II, and Sections 10-44, 10-50, 10-54, AND 10-56, Article III, of Chapter 10 LICENSES, and repealing Section 21-2, Article I, of Chapter 21 TAXATION of the Roanoke County Code to incorporate uniform provisions for the administration of the business, professional, and occupational license (BPOL) tax into the Roanoke County Code, and schedule the matter for a second reading and public hearing on December 12, 1995. (2) Decline to adopt the proposed ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed Ordinance in accordance with Alternative #1 above. Respectfully submitted, is ie L. Hu an Assistant Cou ty Attorney Approved Denied Received Referred to Motion by: ACTION VOTE Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens No Yes Abs 4 T-Y AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 10- 1 THROUGH 10-19, ARTICLE I; SECTIONS 10-30 THROUGH 10-36, ARTICLE II; AND SECTIONS 10-44, 10-50, 10-54, AND 10-56, ARTICLE III; OF CHAPTER 10 LICENSES, AND REPEALING SECTION 21- 2, ARTICLE I, OF CHAPTER 21 TAXATION OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE IN ORDER TO IMPROVE UNIFORMITY IN ADMINISTRATION OF THE BUSINESS, PROFESSIONAL, AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE TAX AMONG JURISDICTIONS IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority of Chapter 37 (Section 58.1-3700, et seq.) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the County of Roanoke, Virginia, imposes a business, professional, and occupational license (BPOL) tax through the adoption of an ordinance codified in Chapter 10 of the Roanoke County Code; and, WHEREAS, the state enabling legislation allowed localities flexibility in the adoption of ordinances and administration of the BPOL tax, which has resulted in some disparity between the various local jurisdictions; and, WHEREAS, in order to provide more uniformity and to improve administration of the BPOL tax among jurisdictions throughout the Commonwealth, local government organizations have proposed uniform provisions for adoption in the individual localities; and, WHEREAS, the uniform provisions address such issues as key definitions, rules for establishing situs, interest and penalty provisions, and due dates; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, finds that the adoption of these uniform provisions, by incorporation into the existing ordinance, will serve the public interest and will benefit the citizens and taxpayers of Roanoke County; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law; and, WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 21, 1995, and the second reading and public hearing was held on December 12, 1995. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: T.- ~ 1. That Chapter 10, LICENSES of the Roanoke County Code be amended and reenacted as follows: Chapter 10. LICENSES* ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 10-~ Definitions. As-~rsed-ix~h~s~ e~rag~er ~~d--as ~a~p~ed`~e t~~s-i~es~-tee; a~d~re~s~ee~-€}ea~~-e~~~~- 2 S@C. - (a) f~::::::'at~c~>`a~:4uta z~t~an~l 1y w ~,~ ~ a ~e7~ e~'~~ t~ eg~. Y-I+Ti ~ }~# ~ i ~r .` ... 1 l ,~. .-. a : C a ~-ea-ee-e~-~e rG3 .. a lei ee~r~ree -re ~ i ~ ~.r1 CYY ~ ~~ ~ € - e ~ ~ ~e~ '~ ~..,. ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ _ ...Z , ~ -. a ~'~ ~ ~ g eas e ~ ~~ r; e~e s ; - ~ i~ ee~e e ~ ~ , s e r ee~re~ ~i n ; ~ "~ }~,~ re~t~a-~s~ ~ l ~ -e~~e ~~ - r~e ~ s ~et~~ ~ ~ x eo = 6ve~ei~ ~ ~tp i e~ i e- 9 -9 3~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ti ~er~~ 3~- ~e~ e~ e~ e~re~r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ees . e t ~ ~ ~ € ~ a- s ~ ~ ~ g es, ~ i~~e~ • -- c-s = r ~ --h,,; 1 riAr nr -i a- e e r e~- a-i~~- - l~r~ ei ~~ e~~~R . ~ l s e ~~rr ~ ~ ~ a,.,...r; L ; .. lei=e-l~~~t--a 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-a~-~ -e e~ l ~~ -e~e~ ~ '~ --] e~t ~e a ~ zS 6i~~eiF ~ ei ~ e•~6 3~ ~ .-F3- ~3~1 1 e -- f ~ cvirncc ~ ei3-FF ~ i 32 .~Et ~~ 6i~e l a ~i ~es~ -~ ` ` ~ } e i-ce-&eE1e~ ~ ~~~~ -e ~ ,,,a~ --g ~e ~e c re ~~ ~ ~- c~rt g ~e9 ~ € -r~ s ~ i ~ ~ ~ i S ~ e~ge~ e - A~ e s~~-};n ~r -:~-~;~ ~eve~e~~ ez -e Vi -ire-~a e - - ~e~~e ~.~ee e~ r ~ Zy zy ~~:::~::~::~:::::>::~d:::an~~~~ ross recei is from an business . ... . profession, tracle~;~~ ~~~ occupatior-, vocation, calling or activity, including cash, credits, fees, commissions, brokerage charges and rentals; property of any kind, nature or description from either sales made or services rendered without any deduction therefrom on account of cost of the property sold, the cost of materials, labor or service or other costs, interest, or discounts paid, or any expense whatsoever; and shall include in the case of merchants the amount of the sale price of supplies and goods furnished to or used by the licensee or his family or other person for which no charge is made; provided, however, that the term "gross receipts " with respect to manufacturers and wholesale merchants manufacturing or dealing in articles upon which there is levied a direct excise tax by the United States shall exclude such excise tax payments to the United States government+-i-p~e~ded-€~~r~~ , t~i~-wno~es~l-e--a~d ~e~a~-deal-e~s~-ge~e~-e-~~~~~~rreh t~i~s~~ce~e~e9 a ~s~e~eh~e~e~e~aa~e~ei~de-s~eY;--~a~-pa~~tt°~~~s~e~e-~~~ ~g~e~s~ - -==~s~t-p~e~-ided--€~r~t~== ; t-ka~-~e-t-az-~~~ez ..w ; .., .. ..,.... .,...._ .,.~.r... .......,.a .......a.....~..,, r.a....~.,.....,. ~.,............, ..... .......r.._..~..7 ....r.. gee s~~eees e€ ~re~e~rs ees-~rd_~- = ee~re~-~4~-e~~b}s-~ed~~ ,~~ ~a~a~y~a~d~e~ge~e~--e~p~-e~ed~~t~re~o-mss d~~ee~rs e~~ ~i~e--sg~e€es~ie~~de~s~reh-see~e~r The term "gross receipts" when used in connection with, or in respect to financial transactions involving the sale of notes, stocks, bonds or other securities; the loan, collection or advance of money; or the discounting of notes, bills, or other evidence of debt, shall be deemed to mean the gross interest, gross discount, gross commission, or other gross receipts earned by means of, or resulting from such financial transactions, but the term "gross receipts" shall not include amounts received as payment of debts. The term "gross receipts" shall include the gross receipts from all sales made or services rendered or activities conducted from a place of business within the county, both to persons within the county and to persons outside the county. In this connection the word "person" shall be construed to include governmental agencies. The calculation of gross receipts for license tax purposes shall be on either a cash or actual basis; provided, however, that the basis used must coincide with the system of accounts used by the taxpayer and the method employed by the taxpayer for federal and state income tax purposes. 5 :{~} Person shall include individuals, firms, ~.,...~. copartnerships, corporations, companies, associations, or joint stock corporations; and it shall include any trustee, receiver, assignee, or personal representative thereof carrying on or continuing a business, profession, trade, e~ occupation ~~. This definition shall not include a trustee, receiver; ~ ~~or~~~ ~otfier representative duly appointed by a court to liquidate assets for immediate distribution; or a sergeant, sheriff, or deputy selling under authority of process or writ of a court of justice. 6 ~~„ c/ sec. 10-3. Levying of license taxes. ~a.~'; For each and every year beginning with January 1 of each year and ending December 31 following, until otherwise changed, there are hereby levied and there shall be collected the annual license taxes hereinafter set forth in this chapter, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, on persons conducting or engaging in any business, trade, ~~,' e~ occupation r~ra~,;~_~n in the county ~...~..;r~~~~w ~; set forth in this chapter, which license taxes shall be for the~~"support of the county government, the payment of the county debt, and for other county purposes. 7 8 e c . 10 - 4 . ~?C~l ~@j7G±aB~li 7- Y ~y fixate ~~mxa>:ss~:oner> v~ x~e~e.~~e>:a~±~ snarl be properly i-~-re~ ::.:..,. Gpmp~let',~d with such information as the commissioner may require. Every applicant fora license to ~e~~et ~~i~re~~, rr^F^^^'_^„; under the provisions of this chapter shall furnish the commissioner of the revenue in writing with his correct name and trade name; his correct residence address; the nature of ...................................... the business, profession, trade, e~ occupation ;~QJG°<'~s~~.'~Il to be pursued; the place where it is to be pursued; and a~-~recorcl ~`of gross receipts verified by oath for the preceding twelve (12) months; as well as such other information as may be required by the commissioner of the revenue. The commissioner shall compute the amount of license tax and after payment shall issue the license, subject to zoning certification as provided in section 10-7. 8 (o)ff "-~ e~i~a~ed-by-t-~i~s-~apt..w -,.. ..~.~.,.,.~..;.. r -- - ---- s~ee-i~t~p-~e~rde~-~'~~;na-~e-~~ea~e~-€e~~ , ; ....,,,.,.,. ~... ~~... .~ ~~ ~~ ~'G~~~~St.• .• ,rnar~'~~--~ir~&n-f , •, a •, to ~~'~te~e-~t~i~'3r e~ta~}~e=-ivr i r e - ~ ~ € ~ ~ ~ a tee..., ..ire.. ~ }~ ~''~~ asses~ a~~ e a~c ~a~et -e - ~ ~--d ~ ~~ ~ --~$-~ ~~ 3~ re~ ~ e a~-e~re Re~e- z-~-~m a~s , tam--yeas "" tiia ~ e~ra~-~ei~~e e~ei~a~e--ai~-~~s3i~es3-~idir€eii " ~c-s~-vQ"'ti' , • • , ., a .. _ - ------ -~ J . , (d)fe} No license issued pursuant to this chapter shall be valid or effective unless and until the tax required shall be paid to the Treasurer of Roanoke County and such payment shall be shown on the license. No such payment shall be accepted and no business license shall be issued until the applicant has produced satisfactory evidence that all delinquent business license, business personal property, meals, transient occupancy and admissions taxes owed to the county have been paid which have been properly assessed against the applicant by the county. (e)-~€} The commissioner of the revenue shall report monthly to the treasurer the aggregate amount of license taxes assessed during the month and placed in the hands of the treasurer for collection. Sec. 10-5. Payment of tax. 9 1'Y ~~ In all cases where the person shall begin the business, profession, trade, e~ occupation or calling upon which a license tax is imposed after January first of the license ~ year, such license tax shall beee~e due and payable within thirty (30) days of the commencement of the business, profession, trade, e~ occupation sec. 10-6. Penalty and interest ~e . 10 f ~?~ T~ie~' •• ,• ~.• ., ~ ~ '^ a ~~e~k'~~-6~-~ ei=~eii }~iri'~i-a `T f~ ; Rc rTLCCf~.~e CQf[C .~7~52[[O OOGQ t~i~=}1-~-~-T===} e~£ t-he-e~~~~~ce~se-ye.e~e~-i~--t-he-Pase-sue-airy ~e~so~; e~a~i-~~rs~ess; ~~e~€es~~e=~~M~-ei= f 11 <:::.:.: ' :interest at the rate of ten (10) percent per annum shall b~ .~c1~q~t~:>:::~z]t ~: .~':>:::~~ym~~3t::::;~::> f e~t~i~~~e~d--a~~s~~ee~e~~ea~s e€-dei~rq~re~e~ ;-s~s~. ~ -~*~ ~~~ s'~ ~ , , ~ ~ ~'' t-h~~at~e~t-a~-~s~rs~ran~e-8 ee~e~r-6 6zre~ ~e rr o n..a.. ,.~ ~ noc ~ ~~ „a..a '~.~~1-es~ t-~i~~r--~e-r~~1~-~--~e~ee~ ~~(_ Taxes aid penalties zat~za~?~~;s herein provided shall be assessed and collected in tfie manrier~~ provided by law for the enforcement of the collection of other taxes. 1- `~ 8@C. 10-7. Sit:`' «>:,;~! ............................................ . It shall be the duty of every person applying for a business license to ascertain whether the location for the conducting of such business, profession, trade, e~ occupation l't is properly zoned and has any necessary use permit ~'liefore~'~making application for such business license. The commissioner of the revenue, in any case where he suspects the location is not properly zoned for the type of business, profession, trade, e~ occupation ;~` °~ proposed by the applicant, shall refuse to issue such business license until a certificate is issued by the zoning administrator stating that the location is properly zoned and the necessary use permit, if any, has been granted. The issuance of a business license by the commissioner of the revenue shall not be deemed to be approval by the county of zoning compliance. ~r ~ ~ b ~ -~s~# '-,. _~ ~'' ~„~ ~~ -t~ ~ ~d {e~-~~ e y e~rse-s ra ~ „ ss~re e- ~ 7,., ~ i~ e e~ ---r - - - ~e ~'e--C. ~ # ~ r ~~ TI ~ ee-a=-37'~.5 ~ ~ ~' , ..... .....+ ..~.....~... ....... ~~ }'"' -~ ~'' ~, ~~ . .'~' e a i e~- re ~ ' e e~r sepe ~ e -ee~ ~a _ ses e_ __ --- _ e~'g e~ L~'T ' ~ '~ ~ ff.7~ei3~ ~ ~'~e D eS'S~e1T j ,~r }a''Ct„e' j ,~ ey'~~ ~ 7 r e P. .~~ eT~C~ ri ~ L... .7 .. F ; ; ~ .. S r j7~ J~e~e 'r':Te'~'A'~ e~4' G~ZSg Gr~7 . 7 Te ~ ~ ~ '~ ~-~E~ 1' ~ ~ C~~~-~i ' ~ ~ 'CG'Q'IIL~-VCY1Cr- I € ~~ 1 ~ 1'a'I'[-C'I'1C~[RT ~ ,•, ; ~Y7 ~ ~ , ; . y rQQG l T 7~e~. ~ r +' .. , ~ .. ~, a, , .. ._,i.. ,.,, .. , , --~~ t ~ S;znr3-pa- Ai - s i t 3 a- b Eei~e ~ ~ ~ 9 i 6~1 ~aee-ez~~es s ~~tta t gr~s .S reee- -p s ~~-a- e s~ e T ~ e € i ~ ~ ~ ~ -l~bj-e~~~e t-~i~ ~ ~ ~ a pie es~- e~ , i , , es , ew t h~ e ee~a t,, .. ,~... .., e~s a a -, , , ~ ~-@~- ` , ,,., .. t 'kl~ - r?-rs-zireQstr~e- ~~ - ~t .~ , -- - T te c'~~i -~A~i= i r ; ~ ------- r-- - c 3 c3 ii" ~ u~ii u~-1-~res~~c- e € r ~ ~ -may Oi4e 1~ ~' r Z t~eiy~~S e ., .s F ~' 1T~ ' r~ : .~ , c u -€G~AGT 'C ' G'reT .7 1 e'~S~~~ ~ ~ ~ e '1 QCTe'~' Q~.'~.'~' GT 1 G e~T.S ~ 37 ~ L r y ~ 12 ~ r ~! 13 1'`) 14 ~~ 15 ~<.<:. »::::;.: ~.::::>::>::>::>: ~_c~ns:::>gnd:::>:::8edu+~~~~n~:::<::~rom::::>::>::>:. x~s~::;::;~~~e~ . ~ :.:.:.. ~eac,..:::: ~~.::: :•:::::::: ~x,a~u ::::::::::::::::.::::..:....:.::::::::q.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::.~.::::::::::::::. .~ Sec . 10-~Z~. years. and shall be maintained for a period o~ give 16 1-'I (c){~}- Each licensee whose license is measured by gross receipts or ? shall submit to the commissioner of the revenue, not later than r-}~~ ~k11~~>f' of each year, a report of his gross receipts or ^"'~-- ~~"'~~'a''""~"" ~--== ---r ----------- for the preceding year. .................................. .................................. (d)fe} In those cases in which the conduct of the business, profession, trade, e~ occupation c~ia involves operations subject to more than one (1) rate or computed on more than one (1) base, as here= set forth, the licensee is hereby required to maintain separate accounts for each such operation; provided, however, that the licensee may elect to maintain a single account for all operations tax in which case the entire business license shall be computed at the highest rate applicable to any part of the business taxed on gross receipts. ~'~'{~} If any licensee shall fail to maintain the records required in this section, regularly supported by customary vouchers, the commissioner of the revenue is hereby authorized and directed to estimate the taxpayer's gross receipts or gas ,.~.r.. -•-' ~ }••~•~~ pupa; on the basis of the best evidence he can ...t.._...,.~ --_ __ obtain, and tfie``commissioner of the revenue shall make an assessment on the basis of such determination. Sec. 10-331. (a) Every person beginning a business, profession, trade, e~ occupation n which is subject to a license tax under the provisions of this chapter and is based in whole or in part on gross receipts or fi1~'8' shall estimate the amount of the gross receipts he will receive or the ~~s <'~<J between the date of p :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::. beginning business and the end of the "~tF~en=current year, and his license tax for the then-current year shall be computed on such estimate. (b) Whenever a license tax is so computed upon the estimated .................................. .....a ~ ~.,~...,,. gross receipts or g~sss c.,r_.._______ ~S~x~'I~t~3, any erroneous estimate shall be subject to correction and the commissioner of the revenue shall assess such person with any additional license tax found to be due after the end of that license year, and shall at the same time correct the estimate for the then current license year, until a full year of operation shall have been completed, and in case of an over-estimate the taxpayer shall be entitled to a credit upon his license tax payable the following year. sec. 10-3-1ti2'. Payment of license tax by corporations, partnerships, ...................................:............. ................................................. 17 ..1. trade e~ occu ation ~~': When the business, ~~,;. p .::.;;;,. licensed is conducted by~ a corporation or partnership, or by~~~~an employer of persons who would otherwise be liable for a license tax, and the license tax is imposed upon the gross receipts or ~_ ___ _:.r ______ _ __ __ ~ thereof, then the license tax shall be paid by the corporation or~partnership, or employer; and when so paid it shall be deemed to discharge the license tax liability of the officers and employees of such corporation, and of the partners and employees of such partnership and of such persons employed by an employer who would otherwise be liable ~e~t~~` such license tax, insofar as the business of such licensed corporation, partnership or employer is concerned. ~~s~~~re~-s~~~-~e~-a~~A Sec. 10-3~~~. Transfer of licenses. (a) Licenses issued under the provisions of Article II of this chapter, except as otherwise provided, may be transferred from one person to another or from one location to another; provided that no such transfer shall be valid unless and until notice in writing is given to the commissioner of the revenue of the proposed transfer, which notice shall contain the name, trade name, if any, and the address of the proposed transferee; the proposed new location, if any; and the effective date of the proposed transfer; and the commissioner of the revenue may approve such transfer upon being satisfied of the good faith thereof. Failure to notify the commissioner of the revenue of the transfer of a license within thirty (30) days of such transfer shall invalidate such license and such invalidated license shall not be subject to refund as provided by section 10-16 of this Code. (b) It is specifically provided, however, that if the transferor's license for the current license year has been based on an estimate of gross receipts or ~G'~;, as {~~ ~~ ~:::.:::~: of this cYia ter~~ ~ the provided in section 10--1-F~}'~ (~~ and -{b} ~.::::~ p , J_ __~L -_ transferor shall reveal his gross receipts or __ '~^'~a' ~""^" t~I~ for the period he was in business during the current license year and if the accumulation of gross receipts or g-~3 :::: ^~'' ~ }•"~^^ ~ urehas+~s b transfer date shall exceed the original estimate, the transferee shall be required to amend the license by an estimate of the gross receipts or t~1't, he will incur between the day of beginning business and the enc~~~of the current license year. (c) Licenses issued under the provisions of Article III shall not be transferred from one person to another but may be transferred from one location to another within the County of Roanoke. 18 1'y S@c. 10-3-3~ Display of evidence of license. Every person required to obtain a license under the provisions of this chapter shall keep the form, decal, or sign issued in evidence thereof as prescribed by the commissioner of the revenue in a convenient and conspicuous place, and whenever required to do so shall exhibit the same to any authorized enforcement officer of the county. - Assessment of omste~lo<>~t~i~ ~ Sze license taxes sec . 10 3#;~r . ...::.:::>~~~:.;:.;:.::::.:::::::::: ~, If the commissioner of the revenue ascertains that any persori~~~~has not been assessed with a license tax levied under the terms of this chapter for any license t~ year of the three (3) license ~x years last past, a~t~i~b~e:._-_ _; __~'' __________~} ~; it shall be the duty of the commissioner of the revenue to assess such person with the proper license tax for the year or years omitted. (a) The commissioner of the revenue is empowered to certify to the treasurer any instances of erroneous assessments. Upon receipt 19 s@C. 10-3/~5. n..«as o.:...~a.~...« ,.s ...:..: ~;rroneous assessmentt~€s~ refunds ~~ 1~ of such certificate the treasurer is directed to make a refund based upon the certificate of the commissioner of the revenue. (b) Licenses issued under the provisions of Article II of this chapter, except those measured by other than gross receipts or ' z shall be subject to refund where the licensee goes out o~ business before the end of the current license year subject to all of the following qualifications: (1) License for the current license year must be based on gross receipts or c~ obtained throughout the preceding calendar year: ~~ (2) The reason for going-out-of-business is not connected in any manner with the violation of any state law or local ordinance or violation of any rules or regulations made pursuant thereto. (3) The amount of refund shall be determined in the following manner: If the licensee goes out of business before the end of any month except December, the refund shall be calculated by dividing the tax paid for that year's license by a fraction in which the numerator shall be the number of months remaining in the calendar year following the month in which business ceases and the denominator is the number twelve (12); but in no case shall the refund reduce the tax below the minimum as provided by this Code. (4) No refund shall be made of any minimum flat tax or of any other flat license fee not based on gross receipts. (c) Refunds based on licensee going out of business shall be made in the same manner as herein provided for erroneous assessments. (d) If any person seeking a refund is indebted to the county or any department or office thereof, or is indebted to any state constitutional office of the county for a local levy, the refund, or so much thereof as is necessary, shall first be applied to such indebtedness. (e) Any person who has been properly issued a license may apply for a refund prior to the date upon which the license was to become effective by providing satisfactory evidence to the commissioner of the revenue that the business was never commenced or the sale, show, performance, or exhibition will not take place. Upon being satisfied that such license was never in effect, the commissioner of the revenue may authorize a refund of the license fee oraax_,,,pa~d<r less a thirty dollar ($30.00) processing fee. ........................................... ............................................. _._. __ 20 s~ ~ = -Te~~e~~-~ ~ ~t~ e-its- ~~a~--airy e~rer -t-ire-~o ~~- e -e ~~ ~~~ A= 3 ~t ,., M , ~ ~'' at ~r~~ e elrep~e~ €e~a~e~re- u ee~rs e ~-- e- f ~ d ce ~-6~~ ' l ~''"' F "' ~'° e~-s e ded-t~ ~e~a~~=-e e -e a- ~~ Sec. 10-17. License as personal privilege. Every license issued under the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to confer a personal privilege to transact, carry on, or conduct the business, profession, trade, e~ occupation which may be the subject of the license, and shall not be exercised except by the persons licensed. sec. 10-18. Enforcement of chapter. (a) In the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter the commissioner of the revenue of the county, in addition to the powers herein specifically granted, shall have all and the same enforcement authority with respect to county licenses that state law confers upon commissioners of the revenue generally with respect to state licenses. As one of the means of ascertaining the amount of any license tax due under the provisions of this chapter, or of ascertaining any other pertinent information, the commissioner of the revenue may require taxpayers or their agents or any person, firm, or officer of a company or corporation to furnish information relating to tangible or intangible personal property, income, or license taxes of any and all taxpayers; and require such persons to furnish access to books of account or other papers and records for the purpose of verifying the tax returns of such taxpayers and procuring the information necessary to make a complete assessment of any taxpayer's tangible and intangible personal property, income, and license taxes for the current year. (b) The commissioner may, for the purpose of assessing all taxes assessable by his office, summon the taxpayer or any other person to appear before him at his office, to answer under oath, questions touching the tax liability of any and all specifically 21 ~=}~ identified taxpayers. The commissioner shall not, however, summon a taxpayer or other person for the tax liability of the taxpayer which is the subject of litigation. (c) Any person who refuses to (i) furnish to the commissioner of the revenue access to books of account or other papers and records, (ii) furnish information to the commissioner of the revenue relating to the assessment of taxes, (iii) answer under oath questions touching any person's tax liability, or (iv) exhibit to the commissioner of the revenue any subject of taxation liable to assessment by the commissioner of the revenue, shall be deemed guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. Each day's refusal to furnish such access or information shall constitute a separate offense. ~~ Any person who shall willfully fail or refuse to file a business license tax return as required by section 10-4 shall be guilty of a violation of law. Upon conviction for such failure, the person shall be punished as a Class 3 misdemeanor if the amount of the tax lawfully assessed in connection with the return is one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or less and as a Class 1 misdemeanor if the amount of the tax lawfully assessed in connection with the return is more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). 22 sec. 10-19. ~-~es taoas<<~~":. l~ Secs. 10-20--10-29. Reserved. ARTICLE II. CLASSIFIED BUSINESS AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE PROVISIONS Sec. 10-30. Contractors t~i~~- €e~--~s~a~~ . a or or sale ~,-, ~r===Qa~}~ense~~r €:€:€:>~>:>€:''t>:: ~~ ;c:r:~` sixteen cents ( $0.16 ) per one hundred dollars ~ ($]:00:00) ~`~o~f `gross receipts from the business during the preceding calendar year or thirty dollars ($30.00) , whichever is r 7^;. (b) "Contractor " means any person, firm or corporation: and persoris~"' (1) Accepting or offering to accept orders or contracts for doing any work on or in any building or structure requiring the use of paint, stone, brick, mortar, wood, cement, structural iron or steel, sheet iron, galvanized iron, metallic piping, tin, lead, or other metal or any other building material; (2) Accepting or offering to accept contracts to do any paving, curbing, or other work on sidewalks, streets, alleys, or highways, on public or private property, using asphalt, brick, stone, cement, concrete, wood, on any composition; (3) Accepting or offering to accept an order for or contract to excavate earth, rock, or other material for foundation or any other purpose or for cutting, trimming or maintaining rights-of-way; (4) Accepting or offering to accept an order or contract to construct any sewer of stone, brick, terra cotta, or other material; (5) Accepting or offering to accept orders or contracts for doing any work on or in any building or premises involving the erecting, installing, altering, repairing, servicing, or maintaining electric wiring, devices, or appliances permanently connected to such wiring; or the erecting, repairing or maintaining of lines for the transmission or distribution of electric light and power; or 23 ~' (6) Accepting or offering to accept an order or contract to remodel, repair, wreck, or demolish a building; or (7) Accepting or offering to accept an order or contract to bore or dig a well; or (8) Accepting or offering to accept an order or contract to install, maintain, or repair air- conditioning apparatus or equipment; or (9) Engaging in the business of plumbing and steam fitting? Sec. 10-31. Retail;i~ des. a a ::.::::::.: .......:...:..:..::.>:.... ~~t~'~ ?Smt>txl~'`> twenty cents ( $ 0.2 0 ) per ..one.._.._ un..re........... o ars ;:: ($100.00) of gross receipts from the ~u~~~~S~ d~i`z~~ '~.~~ preceding license ~ year or thirty dollars ($36:Ob)~, whichever is ~ . .....................:..... .......................... (c) Any person who is both a wholesale merchant and a retail merchant is subject to the retail license tax for the retail portion of the business and the wholesale license tax for the wholesale portion of the business. Such person may, however, obtain a retail license for both the retail and wholesale portions of the business. Sec. 10-32. Financial services. (a) ~--~ i i-~~~ra~-s epee ~ lei iri theamount of fifty cents ($0.50) per one hun re dollars ($100.00) of gross receipts from the occupation during 24 the preceding calendar year or thirty dollars ($30.00), whichever .......................... i s ~~~~` . (c) Those engaged in rendering financial services include, but are not limited to, the following: Buying installment receivables Chattel mortgage financing Consumer financing Credit card services Credit unions Factors Financing accounts receivable Industrial loan companies Installment financing Inventory financing Loan or mortgage brokers Loan or mortgage companies Safety deposit box companies Security and commodity brokers and services Stockbroker Working capital financing Other money lenders 25 1-~ c c = ~ ~ - + s '~ ',~ C 6i ic~--cr iS3~ ri- ~ " ~ , ' } l" ~ vn Q= o 3zvza--^v z'~-rr°~ i~~ 3re ~aa-i Fle9'3 6~-~~~i-~l~~i 9~ - a , i i i ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ' E~a~t6i -~ o6 ~ei~S e 6Ga -- Ai~-- ~iEi-~i~9~ei~-~1 r r r a~ , sec. 10-33. Real estate services. (a) ~5 in the amount of fifty cents ($0.50) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) of gross receipts from the business during the preceding calendar year or thirty dollars ($30.00), whichever is e-~ a Every person whose gross receipts in the preceding calendar year shall be less than three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) from any real estate service shall be exempt from the requirements of sections 10-4 ~~ and 10-5 of this chapter. Appraisers of real estate Escrow agents, real estate Fiduciaries,~~real estate Lessors of real property Real estate agents, brokers and managers Real estate selling agents Rental agents for real estate Sec. 10-34. Professional services. (a) ~~'~~ Y ~ ~~~- ~e>>:~~::~he:::a~tc~~xr~~ of fifty cents ($0.50) per one hundred dollars ($10'0:00') ` ~~of `gross receipts from the occupation during the preceding calendar year or thirty dollars 26 T-~ ($30.00) , whichever is ~r-ig~h~ t Every person whose gross .:. receipts in the preceding caleridar~~~year shall be less than three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) from any professional service shall be exempt from the requirements of sections 10-4{~}; and 10-5 of this chapter. (b) - - ~~Qage~-in ~-~?~~:s:~t~rial::>:<:~;:env:~:~~:~:!~::>:>~ha~~:::~tte rendering any _ _ _ _ _ J ~ J ~ __ 'n an service specif'ca~1`Yy`~ enumera~ec~~ `be~~ow or~~"eng g y occupation or vocation in which a professed knowledge of some department of science or learning, gained by a prolonged course of specified instruction and study is used by its practical application to the affairs of others, either advising, guiding, or teaching them, and in serving their interests or welfare in the practice of an art or science founded on it. The word profession ;r~~oa~; r____ imply attainments iri ................:,,::::...... ::.. professional ~now1`edge as distinguished from mere skill, and e application of knowledge to uses for others as a vocation. `~~ Those engaged in rendering a professional service include, but are not limited to, the following: Architects Attorneys-at-law Certified public accountants Dentists Engineers Land surveyors " = t-~i ~i~cviiatikE''}ti--v~ --i l ~i~ ' ~ ~ e-~ei~6 Tom}- d g 6 ir . ~ ed ~e 9~ r i i . e ~ et --s~z-e-re~b~s ~:-~e-rye;~e +.,. ~ ~ ~ ~ `""" ' ~, rY i- 27 . .lam'--. _ - J ~ - - - T~7~i ~CC1'~l~ Surgeons Veterinarians ~ ~ i ~ , .. *-'~ d '~ w ~ ~.~ -. w~.,. _ ; .. w a F,~ re e~ra .- a~-}~~e€ess l e-en ~ J iaacu z-u ss-Ai~~srrc sire-~ " " , ~6i ~6i~a~ , , ~ r , r s~ee~e~e-~a~ ~ ~ t ~~-Tree~s t~ - .,~~wn}~ w .~.\ e~--ire-~ea ~-e~€es -e s~e~te~r ea ~- ~ C / ~ a~~ e '""~.~ Q~[[GIRp'e'1 L[SJ'Te ~rRTZ'e'~-e'~ ~-b • ~ ~ w ~ ~} i~ ~ i i~T is' ' a e w~P i ee~rs e a a -~ eaeh- ~ra- ~d ~' --~~ ~ = ~ p t~;~-~e~ ~- '~ e a e ~e -rr-s ee re~- de-€ ~ - ~b ~ a = , tee e~rtea s~ a ~d~a~ eens e ~ pQi~-6-~ ~ic-gi~6S S 1~ee~p~S 6~ } l., w ~ ~,. w o ,.. ...~... ..L.~.-. .. " ~ .. ,. ,. = w ..1 ~ Fi~w... i.L.w ... ..... ..~ r a a-ssee}a-t-~-e~e e F l ~ l 1 L, .+ F i L. w +.~.+ F i ~ ~ ci ... ... . w -. l -i~cz~ -~3 crs~ 8 ~r3~~~6i r r r ~e~es~-e~-e~e~s~-e€ ~~eTree~w w tTs1sO~t~ir~-9~3--6a ... ,..~,..w,....ti.:... r -- -r ~ w w Sec. 10-35. Repair service occupations. I~<~r any repair service~~~~occupation, business, or trace snarl :: x ::::::::.......::.:.::::::::::::::.;;: ;;; .. . ~ ;;~;;~;~#~#~7; of thirty-four cents ($0.34) for each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of gross receipts from the occupation during the preceding calendar year or thirty dollars ($30.00), whichever is h-i-~~ greater:. (b) Repair service occupations include, but are not limited to, the>€<~~: Airplane repair Auto repair, engine repair of any type Bicycle repair Business and office machines repair Clothes, hats, carpets or rugs, repair of 28 S-y Dressmaking, slip covers, drapery and/or curtain making (service only) Furniture, upholstering, repair of Gunsmith, gun repairing Locksmith Machine shop, boiler shop Mattresses, repair of Nickel and chrome plating Paint shop, other than contractor Radio, refrigerators, electrical appliance, home appliances, repair of Reweaving Road machines, farm machinery, repair of Saw, tools, repair of Shades, repair of Shoe repair Tire repair Toys, repair of Umbrellas, harness, leather Washing, automatic-cleaning Watches, clocks, repair of Welding shop Other repair services. goods, repair of of automobiles Sec. 10-36. Personal and business service occupations. (a) i :.. ~ ~i~li~r~e~~-~k~~l~az-rrce~25 @-~~£ > ~~tE~'~ o f thirty-four cents ($0.34) per one hundred dollars~(S~OO:~Ob)~~~~of gross receipts from the occupation during the preceding calendar year or thirty dollars ($30.00), whichever is ~ Every person whose gross receipts in the preceding calendar year shall be less than three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) from any personal or business service shall be exempt from the requirements of sections 10-4-f-~}(;;};; and 10-5 of this chapter. Addressing letters or envelopes Advertising agencies 29 },',-{-b} Those rendering a personal or business service include, but are not limited to, the following: 1- `~ Airports Ambulance services Amusements and recreation services (all types) Animal hospitals, grooming services, kennels or stables Artists Auctioneers and common criers Automobile driving schools Barber shops, beauty parlors, and hairdressing establishments, schools and services Bid or building reporting service Billiard or pool establishments or parlors Blacksmith or wheelwright Boat landings Booking agents or concert managers Bottle exchanges Bowling alleys Business research and consulting services Cemeteries Chartered clubs Child care attendants or schools Child or adult home care registry Cleaning chimneys and/or furnaces Clinical laboratory Coin machine operator Collection agents or agencies Commercial photography, art and graphics Commercial sports Computerized information retrieval service Dance band Dance halls, studios and schools Data processing, computer and systems development services Developing or enlarging photographs Detective agency and protective services Domestic service registry Drafting services Electrolysis or scalp treatment Engraving Erecting, installing, removing or storing awnings Escort service Extermination services Freight traffic bureaus Fumigating or disinfecting Funeral services and crematories Golf courses, driving ranges and miniature golf courses Hauling of sand, gravel or dirt Hospitals, profit and nonprofit Hotels, motels, tourist courts, boarding and rooming houses and trailer parks and campsites House cleaning services Information bureaus Instructors, tutors, schools and studios of music, ceramics, art, sewing, sports and the like 30 z- y Interior decorating Janitorial services Labor service Laundry cleaning and garment services including laundries, dry cleaners, linen supply, diaper service, coin- operated laundries and carpet and upholstery cleaning Limousine service Mailing, messenger and correspondent services Movie theaters and drive-in theaters Musician Nickel plating, chromizing and electroplating Nurses and physician registries Nursing and personal care facilities including nursing homes, convalescent homes, homes for the retarded, old- age homes and resthomes Packing, crating, shipping, hauling or moving goods or chattels for others Parcel delivery services Parking lots, public garages and valet parking Pawnbrokers Personal services, labor agents and employment bureaus Photographers and photographic services Photocopying Physical fitness establishment Physicians registry Piano tuning Picture framing and gilding Porter services Press clipping services Private investigation Promotional agents or agencies Public relations services Realty multiple listing services Renting or leasing any items of tangible Reproduction services Secretarial services Septic tank cleaning personal property Shoe repair, shoe shine and hat repair shops Sign painting Statistical service Storage--all types Swimming pool, other than nonprofit or cooperative Swimming pool maintenance and management Tabulation services Tanning salons Tax preparers (other than professionals listed in section 10-34) Taxicab companies Taxidermist Telephone answering services Theaters 31 ~~~ Theatrical performers, bands and orchestras Towing services Transportation services including buses and taxis Travel bureaus Tree surgeons, trimmers and removal services Trucking companies, intrastate and interstate (unless a certified motor vehicle carrier operating in the Commonwealth of Virginia and filing such annual report as required by section 58.1-2654 of the Code of Virginia) Turkish, Roman or other like baths or parlors Undertaker, embalmer Vehicle title service Wake-up services Washing, cleaning or polishing automobiles Writers Other personal or business service occupations. Secs. 10-37--10-39. Reserved. ARTICLE III. SPECIAL LICENSE PROVISIONS sec. 10-44. Wholesale merchants. (a) Every person engaged in the business of a wholesale merchant shall pay for the privilege an annual license tax of five cents ($0.05) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) of e ~a' ~.,~...,. ~~e in the preceding license tax year. ..,t..........~ --_ -- sec. 10-50. Massage parlors. (a) Every person operating a massage parlor shall pay an annual license tax of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) not transferable to another person or subject to proration for a part of a license year. 32 (b ) Tn--vri"nvi-~a s~c-:ire"' "arc~rS 6i~@-`~6-9~e~S ~ 6 6 `a •• , •• , .., a S~ Sec. 10-54. Savings and loan associations. Ever savin s and loan association `>?~:~,~,.;:..:~~ar~~~::::::::::::,,.; :::::::::::..::.:: .. .. .. .. Y g .:::. ....:.::.;. ........::.:.;:::.;;. .... .... ~~xi whose main office is located within Roano~~e~"County s~ai`1' pay~~~an annual license fee of fifty dollars ($50.00). Sec. 10-56. Public service corporations. (b) In the case of telephone companies, charges for long distance telephone calls shall not be included in gross receipts for purposes of license taxation. (c) For the purposes of this section, gross receipts shall be ascertained as of the thirty-first day of December of each year and the tax for the current ~_ r year shall be based on k~'>?C~ receipts for the precedingcalendar year. .................................. .................................. (d) The tax imposed by first day of d~~ l shall be due and payabYe to before the 'first day this section shall be assessed on of each nee= , ...::::::::::::::.:.;:. ~MS~ year and the treasurer of ~t~e~~~ county on or ~y :...........................:..:................................................... the (e) Excluded from the provisions of this section are gross receipts attributable to service supplied to the governments of the United States and Virginia, their political subdivisions and agencies, and charges paid by the insertion of coins into coin boxes of pay telephones. 33 (b) A massage parlor is defined as any place where manipulation of body tissues for remedial or hygienic purposes, or any other purpose, is conducted and the owners and employees z-~ 2. That Section 21-2 of Article I, Chapter 21, TAXATION, being a duplication of Section 10-56 of Article III, Chapter 10, LICENSES, of the Roanoke County Code be, and hereby is, repealed in its entirety: Chapter 21 TAXATION* ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL ~e ~c~~ -~ -h ~ ~ }'' ; *-'~ ~ t = r. g e g ~a~€-e€-ere- e~e ~ }rs ress a €~~ -ee- ~ a a-r~ ~e -an~ h ~ i ~ e t ?@'.. ~ =„ --~ ~~ ~e re-g ~e~.~ee ~ ~ ~ e~~ s~e - ~rs- -~tess~ ~~ •• } • • ,~ ~ E c91Et X53-3~e99 S~ ' ~e ~ ~31 6~5~'E ~.3r 3- frt E 1 r ~ l tis ~ 1~ieS a-~i- rn 3 P ~ _ , ~l i } a a r ~2 i~ `~t~i i ~t-~ e-ec~ e~a~ ~m =~ s ~ ~ ~} = ~ ~ €-ti 'F ~ ~ __ _ ~~i ~ _.:_ ~ ......~_.~ r; i i = ~ e Ta s e e- e;:r ~ -~r e ~ r~ -n -(~-~-~e~es es-e~s~ee-t~-e~g~~~s~ - -- --r } = =w ~ ~ , be-as~e~~a~ed-as e€-~e-t~iirty-F===t d~~-e~~eee~e=-e~ ear ~a~an~--t-~e-~a~€e~~e-e~~e~-ea-~eyea~-s~a'~c-~ee~-ems Feces-€e~~e~~e~ed~g ea~enda~ea~ a~~Te~es~iiu-e~ai~~ eS--~a~~'~-~~" i n S e"r~rvi~vrG vi irs-zirc6 cvii3 i 3. That this ordinance as amended and reenacted shall be in full force and effect on and from January 1, 1996. 34 .--~ r ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 ORDINANCE 112195-9 FOR AIITHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE NECESSARY WATER AND SEWER LINE EASEMENTS AND PROPERTY TO CONSTRIICT THE FORT LEWIS SEWER SIIBMAIN WHEREAS, location plans for the Fort Lewis Sewer Submain Project have been completed and the projects will require acquisition of water and sewer line easements across certain properties; and WHEREAS, said easements are to be acquired to facilitate any future construction of the Fort Lewis Sewer Submain 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 October 24, 1995, and the second reading was held on November 21, 1995. 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 water and sewer line easements for the Fort Lewis Sewer Submain Project is hereby authorized across the following properties, referenced by tax map number, from the following property owners, their successors or assigns: TAX MAP NO. PROPERTY OWNER 55.03-03-16 Aaron J. Conner 55.03-03-18 Robert B. Crouse 55.03-03-19 Roanoke Equipment Co. 55.03-03-20 Donald R. Spangler 55.03-03-21 Norma Fisher & Shirley Clements 55.09-01-20 Plantation & Kanter 55.09-01-20.01 Plantation & Kanter 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 Sewer Repair and Replacement Fund; and 4. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish these acquisitions, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections I 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: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Second Reading of Ordinance -Authorization to Acquire Necessary Easements to Construct the Fort Lewis Sewer Submain COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Recommend Approval BACKGROUND: The Fort Lewis Sewer Sanitary Submain Project is being constructed as part of the repair and replacement program. This project will involve acquisition of several easements. Staff is including a list of properties from which easements will be required for this project. An Ordinance authorizing acquisition of the necessary easements is attached. The first reading was held on October 24, 1995. The list of properties is as follows: TAX MAP NO. 55.03-03-16 55.03-03-18 55.03-03-19 55.03-03-20 55.03-03-21 55.13-01-02 55.09-01-20.02 55.09-01-20 55.09-01-20.01 PROPERTY OWNER Aaron J. Conner Robert B. Crouse Roanoke Equipment Co. Donald R. Spangler Norma Fisher & Shirley Clements Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Plantation & Kanter Plantation & Kanter J 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 Fort Lewis Sewer Submain Project. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: Gary Robe son, P.E. Elmer C. Hodge Utility Dir for County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved () Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied () Eddy Received () Johnson _ Referred Kohinke _ _ _ to Minnix _ Nickens AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE ~"`~ COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 ORDINANCE FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE NECESSARY WATER AND SEWER LINE EASEMENTS AND PROPERTY TO CONSTRUCT THE FORT LEWIS SEWER SUBMAIN WHEREAS, location plans for the Fort Lewis Sewer Submain Project have been completed and the projects will require acquisition of water and sewer line easements across certain properties; and WHEREAS, said easements are to be acquired to facilitate any future construction of the Fort Lewis Sewer Submain 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 October 24, 1995, and the second reading was held on November 21, 1995. 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 water and sewer line easements for the Fort Lewis Sewer Submain Project is hereby authorized across the following properties, referenced by tax map number, from the following property owners, their successors or assigns: TAX MAP NO. PROPERTY OWNER 55.03-03-16 Aaron J. Conner 55.03-03-18 Robert B. Crouse 55.03-03-19 Roanoke Equipment Co. 55.03-03-20 Donald R. Spangler 55.03-03-21 Norma Fisher & Shirley Clements 55.09-01-20 Plantation & Kanter 55.09-01-20.01 Plantation & Kanter 2. That the consideration for each easement acquisition t s~ 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 Sewer Repair and Replacement Fund; and 4. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish these acquisitions, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. agenda.realest.fortlewis ACTION NUMBER / /,, ITEM NUMBER ~f "'~ E!/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. BLUE RIDGE COMMUNITY SERVICES The three year terms of J. William Pistner, and Mrs. Cheri Hartman, Member at Large, will expire 12/31/95. 2. HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION SAFETY COMMISSION The four year term of Ms. Jackie Talevi, Legal Representative expired June 30, 1995. Ms. Jackie Talevi, has served two consecutive terms and is not eligible for reappointment. 3. LIBRARY BOARD The four year terms of Josie Eyer filling the unexpired term of Shirley VanRiper, Catawba District, and Charlotte Lavinder, Windsor Hills District, will expire 12/31/95. 4. PARRS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION Unexpired three-year term of Howard D. Bullen, at-large member. The term expires June 30, 1996. Mr. Bullen's letter of resignation is attached. One nomination was presented at the October 24 Board Meeting. Nominations were left open until this meeting for other potential candidates for this at-large appointment. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION The four year term of Donald R. Witt, Cave Spring District, f /</-/o will expire 12/31/95. 6. ROANORE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY The four year term of Gardner W. Smith will expire 12/31/95. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Mary H. Allen, CMC Elmer C. Hodge Clerk to the Board County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) Kohinke To ( ) Minnix Nickens .- ~~-~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 RESOLUTION 112195-10 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM L - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. that the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for November 21, 1995, designated as Item L - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 11, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of Minutes - September 26, 1995 (regular meeting), October 10, 1995. 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Industrial Development Authority and the Organ Donation and Tissue Transplantation Commission. 3. Resolution of Appreciation upon the retirement of Robert J. Walawski. 4. Adoption of Resolution supporting the establishment of the Regional Community Criminal Justice Board. 5. Request for transfer of $5,000 from Courthouse Maintenance Funds to the General Services Department to install a new Courthouse security locking system. 6. Donation of a 7.5 foot drainage easement on property of Flora May Clay Elkins on Bunker Hill Drive to the Board of Supervisors. 7. Request for acceptance of Monet Drive and Chagall Circle in the Gardens of Cotton Hill, Section 1, into VDOT Secondary Road System. 8. Request for acceptance of Stonemill Drive and Millwheel Drive, Woodbridge Section 8 and 14 into the VDOT Secondary System. 9. Resolution authorizing an audit of Cox R Communications, Inc. on behalf of the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee and providing funding. 10. Ratification of appointments to the Community Policy and Management Team. 11. Request to execute an agreement for a stormwater management facility at Valley Techpark. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the Consent Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: ~. C~-~-~ Mary H. lien, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant Administrator Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney Timothy W. Gubala, Director, Economic Development L ~v ' September ?6, 1995 ~~Q Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 September 26, 1995 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday, and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of September, 1995. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman ~4innix called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman H. Odell "Fuzz " Edward G. Kohinke Sr. y Minnix, Vice Chairman Bob L. Johnson, Harry C. Nickens sors Lee B. Eddy, MEMBERS ABSENT: Pdone STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Mary H. Allen, Clerk; John ;~. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator; Anne 2?arie Green, Director, Community Relations IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by the Reverend John Hawn, St. i . September 26, 1995 RESOLUTION 92695-1 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO FREDERICK W. "BILLY" BORER FOR OVER 24 YEARS OF SERVICE TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, Frederick W. "Billy" Bower was first employed in September, 1970, with the Roanoke County Public Service Authority; and WHEREAS, i~ir. Bower has also served as a Maintenance Meczanic, Motor Equip:;ent Operator II, and Courier; and WHEREAS, Mr. Borer always went above and beyond his job requirements as a Courier to provide the highest quality of customer service; and WHEREAS, :fir. Sower volunteered to assist with the Co;.~odity Distribution Program sponsored by the Department of Social Services; portrayed Roanoke County's Santa Claus during the 1992 Christmas season; and was nominated on numerous occasions to the Extra Mile Club; and WHEREAS, Mr. Bower, through his em to Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the qualitylof life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to FREDERICK W. "BILLY" BOWER for over 24 years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None IN RE: OLD BUSINESS 1• Ado tion of a resolutio„ in suDtiort of improvements to Bent Mountain una d (Route 221) as outlined in the current Prima Sig Year September 26, 199 ~~~ that it was important to maintain tre rural nature of the community and minimize the impact on farces. Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt his September 12 motion to adopt the resoluton supporting improvements only in the existing alignment, and that no additional corridors will be studied. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Nickens, ;~innix NAYS: Supervisors Kohinke, Eddy RESOLUTION 92695-2 EXPRESSING APPROVAL AND SUPPORT OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S PROJECT ROUTE 221, BENT MOUNTAIN ROAD. WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation held a public hearing on May 24 and 25, 1995 for the purposes of discussing the proposed corridors to State Route 221 project; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on September 12, 1995 for the purpose of receiving citizen comments on the proposed corridors; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors does hereby approve and support the proposed improvements to State Route 221 but request the existing alignment to remain the general corridor for future improvements; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution duly attested be forthwith forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation Salem Residency Office by the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolution and request that no additional corridors will be studied, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: Supervisors Kohinke, Eddy ?• Debarment of Wa ne En ineerin Com an from September 26, 1995 ~~C Supervisor .:ohnscn's motion to approve the staff recommendation and cebar for a three-year period Wayne Engineering Corporation, and refuse collection vehicles developed, manufactured and serviced by Wayne Engineering Corporation but distributed by the Leach Company carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors .:ohnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None ZN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1• Re uest to acce t Famil Preservation Act monies and make a lication for a rant to be administered b the Communit Polic and Management Team. (John Chambliss, Assistant Count Administrator A-92695-4 Mr. Chambliss reported that in 1993 Congress passed and began to implement a new federal family preservation and family support service program which must provide family-centered, community-based social services to children and families. The County's Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) must prepare an initial application detailing the planning process which will become part of a four year state plan. Mr. Chambliss reported that each locality will receive at least $10,000, and the initial September 26, 1995 ~~r' grant method. This year, Roanoke County will r~c:eive $237,000 of which $118,960 represents the reduced block grant funds for Youth Haven II, and $118,960 which must be applied based on VJCCCA guidelines. This will have an adverse inpact to Youth Haven II. Mr. Chambliss reported that it may be necessary to increase the Youth Haven II per diem cost from $42.31 to $82.21. Staff recommended acceptance of the $237,920 of VJCCCA funds with $18,960 allocated to Youth Haven II and $118,960 administered by the Roanoke County CFMT. In response to questions about the funding formula, Mr. Hodge advised that staff is putting together a study team to suggest a reallocation of the funds and they will report back to the Board. Supervisor Eddy moved to approve the plan and accept $237,920 of VJCCCA funds. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None 3• Re uest to a rove the rant for CORTRAN. John Chambliss Assistant Count Administrator A-92695-6 Mr. Chambliss reported that the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation has advised Roanoke County that the operating grant for the CORTRAN Red Line and Blue Line has September 26, 1995 ~~4 Director R-92695-7 Mr. Gubala advised that the Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation Foundation has obtained approval of an ISTEA grant for $549,300 from VDOT provided that a local government administers the grant. The Foundation is requesting that Roanoke County administer the grant and assign a project coordinator. Funds will be released by VDOT on a reimbursable basis. Mr. Gubala recommended that the Board authorize the County Administrator to execute an agreement for development and administration of the Hanging Rock ISTEA grant, appoint the Director of Economic Development as project coordinator, and authorize the County Administrator to execute other agreements as may be necessary. Supervisor Kohinke moved to authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary agreements and appoint Timothy W. Gubala as the Grant Project Coordinator. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None RESOLUTION 92695-7 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE HANGING ROCK BATTLEFIELD AND RAILWAY PRESERVATION ISTEA PROJECT, AND AN AGREEMENT WITH THE HANGING ROCK BATTLEFIELD AND RAILWAY PRESERVATION FOUNDATION AND THE CITY OF SALEM September 26, 1995 ~r11 this grant project and these agreements. 6) That the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is directed to forward an attested copy of this Resolution to the Clerk of the City of Salem and to the Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation Foundation. On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the resolution and appoint Timothy Gubala as Project Coordinator, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None 5. Resolution RectardinQ the IIrban Partnership's Report of the Research and Issues Development Committee (Elmer C. Hodge) R-92695-8 Mr. Hodge reported that the Urban Partnership's Research and Issues Development Committee will make a presentation to the Urban Partnership Board on September 28 at which time they will finalize the report to be forwarded to the General Assembly for consideration. Mr. Hodge advised that there were several issues included in the report that concerned him and other County officials as to their possible negative affect on counties. He recommended that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution stating their opposition to certain aspects of the report which would then be presented at the September 28 meeting. Following discussion on the merits of remaining a member of the Urban Partnership, Supervisor Nickens moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following September 26, 1995 673 localities that achieve a prescribed level of regional cooperation. b. Distribution of incentive funds to localities based upon the "disparity" formula of the Department of Education which uses the concentration and number of children who qualify for free lunch in each locality. Other distribution formulae should be developed. c. Emphasis on reducing disparity of average income between core cities and their suburbs. This appears to be a peripheral issue not directly related to the mission of the Urban Partnership. d. Including the extent to which projects promote "governmental integration" as a factor in the selection of eligible projects for incentive payments. "Governmental Integration" sounds like another term for consolidation. e. Giving the Commission on Local Government the power to "order" granting a City Class A status and setting conditions therefor if a city and county are not able to reach a voluntary agreement on a transition plan. f. Changing the requirements so that a referendum on consolidation will be determined by a majority of the combined voters, and 3. That copies of this resolution be transmitted immediately to the chief elected and appointed officials of each participating member government of the Urban Partnership and the Chair, Co-Chair and Executive Director thereof. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: Supervisor Johnson ABSTAIN: Supervisor Kohinke IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF September 26, 1995 ~75 Management," and imposing a Storm Waiter Management fee to fund a Storm Water Management Program for Roanoke County. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) Mr. Mahoney advised that the proposed ordinance would create a storm water management program similar to that in Prince William County. The ordinance would create a county-wide program funded by a utility fee imposed on all developed property in the County. The revenues from the fee are dedicated to a special funds to cover costs associated with the storm water management program and are similar to utility fees for water and sewer. Supervisors Johnson and Nickens expressed concern about applying a general tax increase instead of a special tax district. Supervisor Eddy advised that he felt the program should be funded by General Fund money. Supervisor Nickens moved to take no action on the ordinance and staff was directed to develop policies and procedures to incorporate the alternative in the staff recommendation of Board report which utilizes the public works improvement ordinance to fund specific projects. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: Supervisor Eddy Supervisor Johnson requested that a public hearing be held on this issue before any action is taken. September 26, 1995 677 Strauss Construction Corporation,. to the Commonwealth of Virginia, subject to certain conditions; and, WHEREAS, it will serve the interests of the public to have Monet Drive accepted into the state secondary road system and the release, subject to the issuance of a permit and other conditions, will not interfere with other public services and is acceptable to the Roanoke County Utility Department. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on September 12, 1995; and a second reading was held on September 26, 1995; and, 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the interests in real estate to be released are hereby made available for other public uses by conveyance to the Commonwealth of Virginia for acceptance of Monet Drive into the state secondary road system by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). 3. That quit-claim and release of the water and sanitary sewer easement within the boundaries of Monet Drive and located between Lot 1 of the Gardens of Cotton Hill, Section 1, and Tract 1 (Tax #96.02-1-45) Property of Strauss Construction Corporation, to the Commonwealth of Virginia, is hereby authorized subject to the following conditions: a. VDOT issuance of a permit for the water and sanitary sewer lines or facilities. b. The facilities located within the 60-foot right-of-way, between Lot 1 of the Gardens of Cotton Hill, Section 1, and Tract 1 (Tax #96.02-1- 45) Property of Strauss Construction Corporation, may continue to occupy the street or highway in the existing condition and location. c. The release would be for so long as the subject section of Monet Drive is used as part of the public street or highway system. 4. That the subject easement is not vacated hereby and shall revert to the County in the event of abandonment of the street or highway. September 26, 199 ~r'~ AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None ORDINANCE 92695-10 DECLARING A PARCEL OF REAL ESTATE TO BE SURPLUS AND ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR THE SALE OF SAME; NAMELY THE WHEELER WELL LOT BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject property, having been made available for other public uses before permitting disposition by sale, is hereby declared to be surplus. 2. That an advertisement for bids for the sale of surplus real estate was advertised in the Roanoke Times & World News on April 9, 1995. 3. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading of this ordinance was held on August 22, 1995; and a second reading was held on September 26, 1995, concerning the disposition of the following parcel of real estate identified as follows: Wheeler Well Lot Tax Map Parcel No. 87.11-3-28 4. That offers for said properties having been received, the offer of Lvndon R. Carr to purchase this property for the sum of 13 525 is hereby accepted. 5. That the purchase price for the property shall be paid upon delivery of a deed therefor and all proceeds from the sale of this real estate are to be paid into the capital improvements fund. 6. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the sale of said property, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 7. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: September 26, 1995 ~iQ~ ordinance was held on May 9, X995; and a second reading was held on September 26, 1995, ccncerning the dispo:~ition of the follcwing parcel cf real estate identified as follows: Algoma Park Well Lot Tax Map Parcel No. 87.06- 2-22 4. That offers for said properties having been received, the offer of J. Larry Lyons to purchase this property for the sum of Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred ($16,300) Dollars is hereby accepted/rejected. 5. That the purchase price for the property shall be paid ~.:pon delivery of a deed therefor and all proceeds from the sale of this real estate are to be paid into the capital imprcvements fund. That the Ltility Department be reimbursed for the costs for the relocation of the existing water line from the proceeds of this transaction. 6. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the sale of said property, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 7. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None IN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1. Community Corrections Resources Board It was the consensus of the Board that this appointment be deleted from the agenda until the CCRB is reorganized. ?. Grievance Panel Supervisor Nickens nominated Cecil Hill to serve another two year term which will expire September 27, 1997. September 26, 1995 ~iQ~ resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, NickEans, Minnix NAYS: None RESOLUTION 92695-12.c SUPPORTING CATAWBA HOSPITAL'S APPLICATION TO OPERATE A CLASS E NON-EMERGENCY PATIENT TRANSPORT VAN WHEREAS, Catawba Hospital, a division of the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, located in Roanoke County has filed an application with the Virginia Department of Emergency Services (DES) for permission to operate two Class E vehicles for the non-emergency transportation of wheelchair-bound patients from that hospital to local hospitals or health care provider locations, and WHEREAS, this Class E Non-Emergency Patient Transport Van will not be available for public use, and will not be part of the emergency services system for the Roanoke County area and will service patients at Catawba Hospital only, and WHEREAS, Roanoke County will continue to provide emergency medical service coverage for Catawba Hospital, and WHEREAS, DES requires a resolution of support from the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County prior to approval of such an application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County endorses the application for an EMS Agency License for Catawba Hospital to use and operate a Class E Non-Emergency Patient Transport Van. On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Nickens• He advised that he had received a number of letters from parents at Cave Spring Junior High School regarding the Board voting to deny the request for literary bonds September 26, 1995 ~R ~ . whole presentaticn would take approximately 20 mir_utes. (3) He asked about a memorandum he sent regarding a request from a developer to put in sidewalks which the Virginia Department of Transportation discourages. Mr. Hodge advised that he had written to VDOT. (5) e asked about a recent memorandum that he sent on curbside ~ecyciing and asked if there would be emphasis placed on this issue since the value of recycled materials has increased. Mr. Hcdge will check and report back. (6) He asked if Mr. Mahoney was still working on the Brookwood well lot issue. Mr. Mahoney responded affirmatively. IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Johnson moved to receive and file the following reports. The moti on carried by a unanimous voice vote. 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance ?. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board ContinQ ency Fund 4. Proclamations signed by the Chairman 5. Bond Proiect Status Report 6. Report from VDOT on additions to the Secondary System in AuQ USt 1995 7. Statement of Expenditures and Revenues as of 8/31/95. 8• Accounts Paid - AuQUSt 1995 September 26, 1995- ~Rr' 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 natters lawfully exempted from cpen meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLIITIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Appreciation to Ronald S Edwards for over 22 vears of service to Roanoke Count R-92695-14 Mr. Edward was present and accepted the resolution from Chairman Minnix. Supervisor Kohinke moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None September 26, 199 689 Sports, Inc.) Mr. Lampman reported on the success of ttie Commonwealth Games. He advised that there was a 10.5 increase in the number of athletes who participated and a 19% increase in the number of athletes from the east and north. over 40,000 athletes have competed in the Games since its inception. He presented T-shirts and a plaque to the Board and expressed appreciation for their support. IN RE: PIIBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearinc and resolution authorizing the execution of an agreement relocating the boundary lines between the City of Salem and County of Roanoke. (Paul M Mahoney, County Attorney) R-92695-15 Mr. Mahoney advised that this resolution authorizes execution of an agreement to relocate the boundary line between the City of Salem and County of Roanoke at the request of Patrick S. and Robin S. Pillis. A transfer of property from the City to the County is not part of this transaction. Ray Byrd, attorney for the petitioners, explained that the acreage is divided into two tracts with a portion of the second tract located in Roanoke County. This land is only 1/10 mile from South Salem Elementary School, is near the Salem Fire and Rescue, and it would be a benefit to the County for services September 26, 1995 ~(~ ~ . 1. The Chairman of the Board of Supervisors is hereby authorized to execute an agreement between the City of Salem and the County of Roanoke, on a form approved by the County Attorney, establishing a new boundary line at certain points between said jurisdictions, as more particularly shown on a plat prepared by T.P. Parker & Son, dated July 31, 1995, which is incorporated by reference herein (Exhibit 1). 2. The boundary line set forth in said agreement will be described by metes and bounds (Exhibit 2). 3. Notice of the proposed boundary line adjustment. has been duly published as required by §15.1-1031.2 of the State Code. 4. Upon approval of the execution of the agreement between the governing bodies, the County Attorney is authorized to petition the Circuit Court of one of the affected jurisdictions to relocate the boundary line in accordance with the plats and the agreement. 5. Upon entry of an order by the Circuit Court establishing the new boundary line, a certified copy of such order will be forwarded to the Secretary of the Commonwealth. 6. The County Administrator and County Attorney are authorized to take, or cause to be taken, such other actions, and to execute other docuaents as may be required by law to effect the change in the boundary line as set forth herein. 7. The Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is directed to forward an attested copy of this resolution to the Clerk of the City of Salem. On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizinct a Special Use Permit to operate a convenience store and gasoline outlet. located at the corner of Plantation and HershberQer Roads. Hollins Macisterial District. September 26, 1995. 6 additional parking and landscaping. Mr. J. T. Anderson, 4915 Colonial Avenue spoke, and said that he was concerned about water runoff from the property, and that there were no completed site plans. He also was concerned about activities that currently take place on the parking lot which could increase if the buffering makes the lot more secluded. Mr. Harrington responded that any storm water runoff must be detained on the church property and that the petitioner could avoid buffering that would further seclude the lot. Supervisor Eddy suggested an additional condition that would require a gate around the loop road at the church site. Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the ordinance with Supervisor Eddy's suggested condition that the church construct a gate around the loop road to discourage trespassers. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None ORDINANCE 92695-16 GRANTING A SPECIAL IISE PERMIT TO CAVE SPRING UNITED METHODIST CHURCH TO EXPAND AN EXISTING CHURCH TO INCREASE THE SANCTUARY AND CLASS ROOMS (TAX PARCELS 77.17- 5-20, CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Cave Spring United Methodist Church has filed a petition to allow the expansion of an existing church to increase the sanctuary and class rooms, located at 4505 Hazel Drive, in the Cave Spring Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing September 26, 1995 695 THE PETITIONER) 0-92695-17 Ms. Mawyer is requesting the special use permit in order to keep the three dogs she currently owns. Ms. Judith Hoven, 5454 S. Roselawn Road, and Mr. Ed Griffith, 6208 Saddleridge Lane, spoke and advised that while they originally opposed the request, they no longer had any objections because of the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Harrington presented a memo that clarified the third condition and asked that the ordinance be amended with the clarified language. Supervisor Eddy moved to adopt the ordinance with Condition "C" wording as included in Terry Harrington's memorandum of September 25, 1995. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: Supervisor Kohinke ORDINANCE 92695-17 GRANTING A SPECIAL IISE PERMIT TO HELENE MAWYER TO OPERATE A PRIVATE KENNEL LOCATED AT 5502 SOIITH ROSELAWN ROAD (TAX PARCEL 86.03-1-30.3), AINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Helene Mawyer has filed a petition to allow the operation of a private kennel located at 5502 South Roselawn Road, in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on July 5, 1995; and September 26, 1995 ~(~7 County Planninq Commission. (Terry Harrington, Planninq and Zoning Director) 0-92695-18 Mr. Harrington advised that the amendments consist of changes in three areas: (1) the Flood Insurance Rate Maps have been modified to correct the floodway boundary along the Roanoke River in the vicinity of Diuguids Lane; (2) Amendments to the National Flood I^surance Program regulating the placement of recreational vehicles in floodprone areas; and (3) minor revisions to the definitions and administrative provisions. Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the ordinance. motion carried by ~he following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None ORDINANCE 92695-18 AMENDING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE 82592-12, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF ROANORE ~COONTY, BY AMENDING THE FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR ROANORE COIINTY The WHEREAS, the following text amendments have been mandated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in order that Roanoke County maintain its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as follows: 1. That the following sections pertaining to the Floodplain Overlay District be amended and reenacted to read and provide as follows: September 26, 1995 ~i99 SEC. 30-74 OF FLOODPLAZN OVERLAY DISTRICT Sec. 30-74-4 Delineation of Areas (A) The various floodplain areas shall include areas subject to inundation by waters of the 100 year flood. The primary basis for the delineation of these areas shall be the Flood Insurance Study for Roanoke County prepared by the Federal Emergency. Management Agency, dated October 15, 1993, as>:~~mez~ded. These areas are more specifically defined as'~~~folTows: 3. The Approximated Flood lain shall be t `~~~ P :: use oodplain areas shown an the Flood Insuran~~"X.~~e . .::. .. ....... y ~ Ifit IHlMKx4:ii+ni: Mai for which ~ no detaled~~~~~~flood_.. profi~Tes M_or elevations are provided, bit and all;,~t~ flood~lazr areas where the drainage area is greater than 100`~acres. Where the specific 100- year flood elevation cannot be detenained for this area using other sources of data such the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Floodplain Information Reports, U.S. Geological Survey Flood Prone Quadrangles, etc., then the applicant for the proposed use, development and/or activity shall determine this elevation in accordance with hydrologic and hydraulic engineering techniques. Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses shall be undertaken only by professional engineers or others of demonstrated qualifications, who shall certify that the technical methods used correctly reflect currently accepted technical concepts. Calculations for the design flood shall be related to existing land use and potential development under existing zoning. Studies, analyses, computations, etc., shall be submitted in sufficient detail to allow a thorough review by the ~ «rf<~,~ry~.~: ~ ~:><::....:.;;:: ,,,.,.{.r.:~:,,,,, ~.,, .. September 26, 1995 7n ~ . provisions, but which is not in conformity with these provisions may be continued subject to the following conditions: 1. Existing structures and/or uses located in the Floodway shall not be expanded or enlarged (unless the effect of the proposed expansion or enlargement on flood heights is fully offset by accompanying improvements). 2. Any modification, alteration, repair, reconstruction, or improvement of any kind to a structure and/or use located in any floodplain area to an extent or amount of 50 percent or more of its market value, shall be undertaken only in full compliance with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption. All ordinances or parts of ordinance in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix PLAYS : None IN RE: CONTINIIED HEARINGS Chairman Minnix announced that the following public hearings have been continued until December 12, 1995, at the request of the petitioner, the Industrial Development Authority, 1. Ordinance to rezone approximately 1 acre from R 2 to C-i to ad'ust the zonin boundar to conform to the east ro ert line located on the east side of Starkev Road adiacent to Huntinq Hills Countr.,y Club. Cave SDr1nQ Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County (Old Heritace). ?. Ordinance to rezone 22.59 acres from I-iC and C-1 to C-2 to increase commerciall zoned fronts e located on the southeast side of Route 460 at he October 10, 1995 703 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 October 10, 1995 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday, and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of October, 1995. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Minnix called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, Vice Chairman Edward G. Kohinke, Sr., Supervisors Lee B. Eddy, Bob L. Johnson, Harry C. Nickens (Arrived 5:15 p.m.) MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Mary H. Allen, Clerk; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator; Anne Marie Green, Director, Community Relations IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant Administrator. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by October 10, 1995 705 1. Presentation by the Roanoke County Education Association (Ritty Boitnott, RCEA) Ms. Boitnott gave a slide presentation on state funding for education. The presentation outlined how state funding has continued to decrease in comparison to other states in recent years, and the reduction in funding for teacher salaries and health insurance. She advised that the slide presentation was being presented to local governments throughout the state. IN RE: NEA BIISINESS 1. ReQUest from Sheriff's Office to accept and appropriate the Adult Literacy and Basic Education Program grant (Sheriff Gerald Holt) A-101095-1 Deputy Sheriff Michael Winston was present to answer questions. There was no discussion. Supervisor Johnson moved to accept the grant and appropriate the funds. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Minnix NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens ?. Desi nation of a Votin Re resentative at the Virginia Association of Counties Annual Meetinc October 10, 1995 707 facilities. At that time Utility Director Cliff Craig intended that the County staff would perform various construction administration functions. However, due to present staff workload, it has been necessary to obtain outside electrical and instrumentation engineering assistance. Hazen and Sawyer has proposed to provide these services for a fee of $44,600. Staff is recommending that the County expand its contract with Hazen and Sawyer to include the additional engineering services. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the request. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Minnix NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens Supervisor Kohinke requested that in the future, items added to the agenda be faxed to the Board members prior to the meeting. IN RE: REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Re uest for Public Hearin on November 21 1995 to receive comments on the Storm Water Mana ement ProQram_. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Administrator) It was the consensus of the Board to set a public hearing for November 21, 1995. IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES • October 10, 1995 709 NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens Staff was asked to notify the Roanoke Regional l Homebuilders Association of the second reading on October 24, 1995. IN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1• Industrial Develo ment Authorit This appointment was discussed in Executive Session. ?• Parks and Recreation Advisor Commission Supervisor Johnson announced that Howard Bullen has resigned from the commission and requested that a resolution of appreciation be presented to him. 3• Planning Commission Supervisor Johnson nominated W. Todd Ross to serve another four year term which will expire December 31, 1999. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-101095-4 Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the Consent Resolution with item 6 removed for a work session on October 24 1995. The mot_cn carried b the followin y g recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Edd y, Minnix NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens October 10, 1995 71 ~ IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Johnson• (1) He attended the meeting at Cave Spring High School regarding the future school needs for Southwest County and commended the School Board for involving citizens, and thought the consultant did a good job. He will attend the October 26 School Board meeting to hear the final report from the consultant. Chairman Minnix advised that the Board can decide at the October 24 meeting whether to adjourn to the School Board meeting on October 26. (2) He announced that he felt it was time to discuss with the leadership of the Regional Chamber of Commerce positions on issues such as the BPOL tax and Urban Partnership. He asked Chairman Minnix to work on this. Supervisor Rohinke• He advised that he is still receiving letters from Cave Spring Junior High School parents regarding renovations to the school. He pointed out that he resigned from the Republican Party partially because of their support of charter schools which he felt is an indication of his strong support for public schools. supervisor Eddv• (1) He advised that he was the only board member who suggested more study of the charter school issue. (2) He reported that he read the memorandum from George Simpson advising that the flyash had been removed from the Dixie Caverns landfill. Mr. Hodge advised that he would have George Simpson present a brief recap of the Dixie Caverns landfill October 10, 1995 71 ~ Supervisor Nickens absent. 1. General Fund Unap propriated Balance ?• Capital Fund Unap propriated Balance 3. Board Conting ency Fund 4. Proclamations Sig ned by the Chairman 5. Re ort on the Se tember 28 1995 Urban Partnershi Board Meeting . Supervisor Nickens had requested that the report on the Urban Partnership Board Meeting be held until 5:00 p.m. when he could be present. It was discussed after the Executive Session. IN RE: EXECUTIVE SESSION At 4:40 p.m., Supervisor Johnson moved to go into Executive Session pursuant to pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (1) Personnel Issue; 2.1-344 A (3) Discussion or consideration of the condition acquisition or use of real property for public purpose, Salem Bank and Trust Building; 2.1- 344 A (1) Personnel - Appointments to the Industrial Development Authority and League of Older American Advisory Commission. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Minnix NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF EBECIITIDE SESSION October 10, 1995 r'-~ ~ i - i IN RE: REPORT ON THE SEPTEMBER 28, 1995 URBAN PARTNERSHIP BOARD MEETING Mr. Hodge reported on the meeting and advised that the report will be discussed at the Virginia Association of Counties Annual Conference on November 12. Chairman Minnix was asked to contact the surrounding local governments and request that they support formulation of a plan that would provide regional cooperation but would not have a negative effect on Roanoke County. A report on this issue will be brought back to the Board on December 12 or at a special meeting if necessary. IN RE: WORK SESSION 1. Vehicle Replacement Policy General Services Director Bill Rand reported that in July of 1993, the Facilities Management Team delivered a recommendation for a vehicle replacement policy to the Board. At that time several suggestions were made which have been incorporated in-the criteria used to select a vehicle management program. The system will allow the use of age, mileage or hours, cumulative non-accident related maintenance cost, condition and life expectancy. The position of Fleet Manager was moved to the General Services Department in April 1995 and a computer program for vehicle maintenance, repair and replacement has been purchased. October 10, 1995 X11 7 Supervisor Eddy suggested that the fire and rescue requests be treated separately. Mr. Rand was directed to bring back a policy for adoption by the Hoard incorporating suggestions at the work session. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT At 6:25 p.m., Supervisor Johnson moved to adjourn. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. Submitted b~-, Approved by, Mary H. Allen Clerk to the Board H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix Chairman A-112195-10.a ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~-^~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Industrial Development Authority and the Organ Donation and Tissue Transplantation Commission COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Recommend Approval SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The following nominations were made at the October 24, 1995 meeting. 1. Industrial Development Authority Supervisor Minnix nominated Guy Byrd to a four-year term which will expire September 26, 1999. 2. Organ Donation and Tissue Transplantation Commission Supervisor Minnix nominated Mary Allen to an initial one-year term. RECOMMENDATION• It is recommended that these appointments be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, C~ Mary H. Allen, CMC Elmer C. Hodge Clerk to the Board ---------------------------------- County Administrator ------------------------ ------ ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Motion by Bob L. No Yes Absent Denied ( ) Johnson to approve Eddy x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred ( ) Kohinke x To ( ) Minnix x Nickens x cc: File Industrial Development Authority File Organ Donation and Tissue Transplantation Commission File • .. 1 ~- ~- 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 RESOLUTION 112195-10.b EBPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO ROBERT J. WALAWSRI FOR OVER NINETEEN YEARS OF SERVICES TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, Robert J. Walawski was first employed on April 30, 1973 as an Inspector in the Engineering & Inspections Department; and also served as Chief Construction Inspector; and WHEREAS, after his retirement on June 1, 1992, Mr. Walawski volunteered his services to the Engineering & Inspections Department for over a year and additionally, came back on a part- time basis whenever necessary; and WHEREAS, Mr. Walawski obtained many certifications while working with the County, among them certified Erosion & Sediment Control Inspections, Virginia Department of Transportation certifications in soils, compaction, nuclear testing, and a certified Class IV Waterworks Operator; and WHEREAS, Mr. Walawski, through his employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to ROBERT J. WALAWSKI for over nineteen years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources Resolution of Appreciation File L-a RESOLIITION E%PRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORB OF ROANORE COIINTY TO ROBERT J. WALAWSRI FOR OVER NINETEEN YEARS OF SERVICES TO ROANORE COIINTY WHEREAS, Robert J. Walawski was first employed on April 30, 1973 as an Inspector in the Engineering & Inspections Department; and also served as Chief Construction Inspector; and WHEREAS, after his retirement on June 1, 1992, Mr. Walawski volunteered his services to the Engineering & Inspections Department for over a year and additionally, came back on a part- time basis whenever necessary; and WHEREAS, Mr. Walawski obtained many certifications while working with the County, among them certified Erosion & Sediment Control Inspections, Virginia Department of Transportation certifications in soils, compaction, nuclear testing, and a certified Class IV Waterworks Operator; and WHEREAS, Mr. Walawski, through his employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to ROBERT J. WALAWSRI for over nineteen years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. .° / _~ FIIRTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. L -~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, RESOLUTION 112195-10.C ESTABLISHING BY JOINT ACTION OF THE BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTIES OF ALLEGHANY, BATH, BOTETOURT, CRAIG, ROANORE AND ROCRBRIDGE, AND THE COUNCILS OF THE CITIES OF BUENA VISTA, CLIFTON FORGE, COVINGTON, LESINGTON, ROANORE, AND SALEM, THE COURT- COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS REGIONAL COMMUNITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD. WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly has adopted legislation titled the Comprehensive Community-Corrections Act for Local- Responsible Offenders (§53.1-180 et.sea of the Code of Virginia) and the Pretrial Services Act (§19.2-152.2 et. sea. of the Code of Virginia), both of which were effective July 1, 1995; and, WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly has previously enacted the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program (§18.2-271.1 et. sea. of the Code of Virginia); and, WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act for Local-Responsible Offenders, the Pretrial Services Act, and the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program require the appointment of representatives in establishing a Board to administer the programs; and, WHEREAS, the Code of Virginia. requires the localities to submit a Community-based Corrections Plan to the Department of Corrections in order to receive reimbursement for eligible costs of jail construction; and, WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act for Local-Responsible Offenders and the Pretrial Services Act both 1 mandate that any locality required to submit a Community-based Corrections Plan is further required to establish Community Corrections Programs and Pretrial Services Programs; and, WHEREAS, the Court-Community Corrections Program has provided the criminal justice systems within these localities with sentencing alternatives for certain non-violent felons and misdemeanors since July of 1980; and, WHEREAS, the establishment of a multi-jurisdictional Court- Community Corrections Regional Community Criminal Justice Board will result in a reduction in the program's administrative costs, enhanced funding priorities, the continuation of cost-beneficial dispositional alternatives to the judicial system, increased input of criminal justice professionals within program strategies, without increasing the threat to public safety; and, WHEREAS, the City of Salem has agreed to serve as the administrative and fiscal agent for the aforementioned programs. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke: 1. That the County of Roanoke will implement the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act for Local- Responsible Offenders and the Pretrial Services Act as provided herein; 2. That the existing Court-Community Corrections Program be responsible for the continuation of services to the judicial system, including the implementation of the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act for Local- 2 Responsible Offenders and the Pretrial Services Act, and the continued administration of the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program; 3. That it hereby establishes the Court-Community Corrections Regional Community Criminal Justice Board (the Board) hereby appointed pursuant to 53.1-183 of the Code of Virginia; 4. That the representatives of the Regional Board will be agreed to and appointed jointly by each participating locality as follows: a. one representative designated by the Judges of the Twenty-third and Twenty-fifth Judicial Circuits; b. one representative designated by the judges of the Twenty-third and Twenty- fifth Judicial General District Courts; c. one representative designated by the judges of the Twenty-third and Twenty-fifth Judicial Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts; d. one Commonwealth's Attorney designated by mutual agreement of the Commonwealth's Attorneys serving the jurisdiction of the Regional Board; e. one Chief Magistrate designated by mutual agreement of those serving within the jurisdiction of the Regional Board; f. one Chief of Police designated by mutual agreement of those serving within the jurisdiction of the Regional Board; g. the Sheriff of the County of Alleghany; h. the Sheriff of the County of Botetourt; i. the Sheriff of the County of Roanoke; j. the Sheriff of the City of Roanoke; 3 k. the Jail Superintendent of the Rockbridge Regional Jail; 1. the Public Defender of the City of Roanoke; m. one defense attorney practicing criminal law and recommended by the Roanoke City Bar Association; n. one member of local education from the Twenty-third Judicial Circuit and District; o. one member of local education from the Twenty-fifth Judicial Circuit and District; p. one member of a Community Services Board serving the Twenty-third Judicial Circuit and District; q. one member selected by agreement of the Community Services Boards serving the Twenty-fifth Judicial Circuit and District; r. one member representing the Department of Social Services serving the Twenty-third Judicial Circuit and District; s. one General District Court Clerk designated by mutual agreement of the clerks serving the Twenty- third and Twenty-fifth Judicial Districts; and, t. one representative designated by the fiscal agent of the Regional Board. 5. That the Court-Community Corrections Regional Board shall have those powers and duties prescribed by the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act for Local- Responsible Offenders, the Pretrial Services Act, and the Commission on VASAP. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Eddy 4 A COPY TESTE: ~. C:~~ c-.~-~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant Administrator Jim Phipps, Director, Court-Community Corrections Regional Community Criminal Justice Board Court-Community Corrections Regional Community Justice Board File 5 r , ACTION N0. ITEM NUMBER °' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of a Resolution Establishing the Court- Community Corrections Regional Community Criminal Justice Board C'niTNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Recommend Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY• The Comprehensive Community Corrections Act for Local- Responsible Offenders and also the Pretrial Services Act require each participating locality to submit a Community Corrections Program and Pretrial Services Program. Since July 1980, the Court- Community Corrections Program has provided the criminal justice system with sentencing alternatives for certain non-violent felons and misdemeanors. It is recommended that the existing Court-Community Corrections Program be responsible for the continuation of these services to the judicial system including the implementation of the new acts. It is proposed that the local program be regional in nature and include the counties of Alleghany, Bath, Botetourt, Craig, Roanoke and Rockbridge, the cities of Buena Vista, Clifton Forge, Covington, Lexington, Roanoke and Salem and the towns of Buchanan, Fincastle, Hot Springs, New Castle, Vinton, and Warm Springs. The attached resolution has been provided by Jim Phipps, Director of the Court-Community Corrections Program for the Twenty- third and Twenty-fifth Judicial Circuit and District Courts. The format of the resolution will allow the joint adoption by the participating localities and prescribes the methods of determining membership. This resolution establishes the Court-Community Corrections Regional Community Criminal Justice Board in accordance with Section 53.1-183 of the Code of Virginia. It is very appropriate to participate in this endeavor in a regional manner. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: ~-y Staff recommends participating in the Court-Community Corrections Regional Community Criminal Justice Board as recommended by the Court-Community corrections Program to serve the localities of the Twenty-third and Twenty-fifth Judicial Circuit and District Courts by the adoption of the attached resolution. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, fir` ~," ~ ~~~~~• ~ John M. Chambli Jr. Elmer C. Hodge Assistant Administrator County Administrator ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) Kohinke To ( ) Minnix Nickens -y AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING BY JOINT ACTION OF THE BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTIES OF ALLEGHANY, BATH, BOTETOURT, CRAIG, ROANORE AND ROCRBRIDGE, AND THE COUNCILS OF THE CITIES OF BUENA VISTA, CLIFTON FORGE, COVINGTON, LEXINGTON, ROANORE, AND SALEM, THE COURT- COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS REGIONAL COMMUNITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD. WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly has adopted legislation titled the Comprehensive Community-Corrections Act for Local- Responsible Offenders (§53.1-180 et.sea of the Code of Virginia) and the Pretrial Services Act (§19.2-152.2 et. sea. of the Code of Virginia), both of which were effective July 1, 1995; and, WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly has previously enacted the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program (§18.2-271.1 et. sea. of the Code of Virginia); and, WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act for Local-Responsible Offenders, the Pretrial Services Act, and the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program require the appointment of representatives in establishing a Board to administer the programs; and, WHEREAS, the Code of Virginia requires the localities to submit a Community-based Corrections Plan to the Department of Corrections in order to receive reimbursement for eligible costs of jail construction; and, WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act for Local-Responsible Offenders and the Pretrial Services Act both 1 ~-Y mandate that any locality required to submit a Community-based Corrections Plan is further required to establish Community Corrections Programs and Pretrial Services Programs; and, WHEREAS, the Court-Community Corrections Program has provided the criminal justice systems within these localities with sentencing alternatives for certain non-violent felons and misdemeanors since July of 1980; and, WHEREAS, the establishment of a multi-jurisdictional Court- Community Corrections Regional Community Criminal Justice Board will result in a reduction in the program's administrative costs, enhanced funding priorities, the continuation of cost-beneficial dispositional alternatives to the judicial system, increased input of criminal justice professionals within program strategies, without increasing the threat to public safety; and, WHEREAS, the City of Salem has agreed to serve as the administrative and fiscal agent for the aforementioned programs. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke: 1. That the County of Roanoke will implement the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act for Local- Responsible Offenders and the Pretrial Services Act as provided herein; 2. That the existing Court-Community Corrections Program be responsible for the continuation of services to the judicial system, including the implementation of the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act for Local- 2 ~-y Responsible Offenders and the Pretrial Services Act, and the continued administration of the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program; 3. That it hereby establishes the Court-Community Corrections Regional Community Criminal Justice Board (the Board) hereby appointed pursuant to 53.1-183 of the Code of Virginia; 4. That the representatives of the Regional Board will be agreed to and appointed jointly by each participating locality as follows: a. one representative designated by the Judges of the Twenty-third and Twenty-fifth Judicial Circuits; b. one representative designated by the judges of the Twenty-third and Twenty- fifth Judicial General District Courts; c. one representative designated by the judges of the Twenty-third and Twenty-fifth Judicial Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts; d. one Commonwealth's Attorney designated by mutual agreement of the Commonwealth's Attorneys serving the jurisdiction of the Regional Board; e. one Chief Magistrate designated by mutual agreement of those serving within the jurisdiction of the Regional Board; f. one Chief of Police designated by mutual agreement of those serving within the jurisdiction of the Regional Board; g. the Sheriff of the County of Alleghany; h. the Sheriff of the County of Botetourt; i. the Sheriff of the County of Roanoke; j. the Sheriff of the City of Roanoke; 3 L-~ k. the Jail Superintendent of the Rockbridge Regional Jail; 1. the Public Defender of the City of Roanoke; m. one defense attorney practicing criminal law and recommended by the Roanoke City Bar Association; n. one member of local education from the Twenty-third Judicial Circuit and District; o. one member of local education from the Twenty-fifth Judicial Circuit and District; p. one member of a Community Services Board serving the Twenty-third Judicial Circuit and District; q. one member selected by agreement of the Community Services Boards serving the Twenty-fifth Judicial Circuit and District; r. one member representing the Department of Social Services serving the Twenty-third Judicial Circuit and District; s. one General District Court Clerk designated by mutual agreement of the clerks serving the Twenty- third and Twenty-fifth Judicial Districts; and, t. one representative designated by the fiscal agent of the Regional Board. 5. That the Court-Community Corrections Regional Board shall have those powers and duties prescribed by the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act for Local- Responsible Offenders, the Pretrial Services Act, and the Commission on VASAP. 4 A-112195-10.d ACTION N0. ITEM NUMBER L-S AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 A~"ENDA ITEM: Request for a transfer of $5,000 from the Courthouse Maintenance Account to the Department of General Services to install a new Courthouse Security Locking System COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Recommend Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: $32,000 was included in the 1995-96 budget to install a security system for the County Courthouse. Proposals have been received for the equipment to complete this project. The base proposal was $32,079.50. Other essential items needed to make the system operate properly include a dedicated computer to operate the electronic system ($1,500), Electronic keys ($1,440) and keying of mechanical locks ($1,800). The Sheriff and Chief Judge of the Circuit Court have requested that the Board of Supervisors approve a transfer of $5,000 from the Courthouse Maintenance Account to allow the completion of this project. FISCAL IMPACT: This request would not require a new appropriation of monies, but would require a transfer from the Courthouse Maintenance Account to complete the project. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the transfer of $5,000 from the Courthouse Maintenance Account to allow the Department of General Services to complete this security project. 2. Continue to use the locking system in place today. L- ~ RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative number one of transferring 55,000 from the Courthouse Maintenance Account to the Department of General Services to allow completion of the security project. Respectfully submitted, Approved by,~ hz ~a~~- ~ ~~ ~~~ ohn M. Chambli s, Jr. Elmer C. Hodge Assistant Administrator County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Motion by Bob L. No Yes Absent Denied ( ) Johnson to approve Eddy x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred ( ) Kohinke x To ( ) Minnix x Nickens x cc: File John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant Administrator Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance r . ~^ A-112195-10.e ACTION NO. ITEM NO. L' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Donation of a property of Flora Drive to the Board COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Recommend Approval SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 7.5-foot drainage easement on May Clay Elkins on Bunker Hill of Supervisors of Roanoke County This consent agenda item involves acceptance of the following easement conveyed to the Board of Supervisors for drainage purposes, in connection with drainage improvements to property located on Bunker Hill Drive in the Cave Spring Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke: a) Donation of a drainage easement, seven and one-half feet (7 .5' ) in width, from Flora May Clay, a/k/a Flora May Elkins (Will Book 49, page 367) (Tax Map No. 77.13-1-14) as shown on a plat prepared by Lumsden Associates, P. C. , dated 9 May 1994, a copy of which is attached hereto. The location and dimensions of this property have been reviewed and approved by the County's engineering staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Department of Engineering and Inspections was represented by outside counsel in the preparation, acquisition, and approval of this easement. The engineering staff recommends acceptance of the easement. Respectfully submitted, V c ie L. m Assistant C my Attorney I ~ ~ L-(~ ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Motion by Bob L. No Yes Absent Denied ( ) Johnson to approve Eddy x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred ( ) Kohinke x To ( ) Minnix x Nickens x cc: File Vickie L. Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections .. - -- -- -_ - N 58'00'00"E --- RA ®-~1~5~~ EXrhT/ IRON PrN TAx• 77,13-I~14 LOT 10 /,~ L01 11 ~~h ~ ~~ ~~Q ~Q? Q~ J ~~~~ Qom. PROPERTY OF FGoRA ~~aY W. 9.4 9 PG, 367 0 0 0 0 0 o g ti C~ 2 N ,, 3 w ~"'_' r Q 0 0 ~u ti: u °° w •°~ Q ~ ~ ? o Q n o c~ ~.. ti z 9 W 0 0 0 0 LOT !2 EX15T. P,K IN GONGRETE QITGN ~ -- 83.00 ro Pr, ; 7,5' rh58'oo~oo"W ViENMORE AVE, ~ F~UNI~Ea Hll.l nRIV~ 5o'RIw . - VA. SeG• RTE. rdrb NOTES: 1) THIS PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN THE LIPfITS OF A 100 YEAR FLOOD BOUNDARY AS DESIGNATED BY FEMA. THIS OPINION IS BASED ON AN INSPECTION OF THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP AND HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY ACTUAL FIELD ELEVATIONS. FLOOD ZONE "X". 2) THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A CURRENT TITLE REPORT AND THERE MAY EXIST ENCUMBRANCES WHICH AFFECT THE PROPERTY NOT SHOWN HEREON. PLAT SHOWING NEW 7.5' DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE BY o~~~,ALTNp~r,,, FLORA CLAY _''f. ACROSS LOT 11, SECTION 3, SURVEY #1, ~~, ~CZ MOUNT VERNON HEIGHTS (P.B. 2, PAGE 67) ~ VINCENT K ~ CROANOKEICOUNTyISTERIAL VIRGINIA `~lU '~ SCALE: 1" =30' DATE: 9 MAY 1994 L~~/Y~ "No. ~ Z r 14288 4 LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P. C. '~D SUjtV~O ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS-PLANNERS ROANOKE, VIRGINIA "°°`°°°'" COMM. q/1- ~" ~ -~ `'~ THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1995, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: RESOLUTION 112195-10.f REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF MONET DRIVE AND CHAGALL CIRCLE IN THE GARDENS OF COTTON HILL, SECTION 1, INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (VDOT) SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(a), fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FIIRTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded vote Moved By: Supervisor Johnson Seconded By: None Required Yeas: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Nickens, Minnix Nays: None Absent: Supervisor Eddy A Copy Teste: l~ ~ ~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Virginia Department of Transportation `~~ ~ ~ ~n ~~ 7~/!r Y~3C0 ~~ _y~, _n ~ ~ \ i .. .... ~<< '688 ~ ) ~; ,. _ _,,,r,_ ~ D. 7 a ~~ VICINITY MAP I ~~'~ R L-'~ 2~\ 1~~ORTH .,~,-,-~ /~, ~ - ~ ~%Sy i 7 ~~Y ~ ~ ~ -~l ~~, , m PROPOSED PJDI:ION Sci04+T1 IN GRAY DESCRIPTION: "') 1) MONET DRIVE FROM THE INTERSECT_ON OF COTTON HILL ROAD (RT. 688) TO 0.043 MILES EAST. LENGTH: (1) 0.043 MILES (2) 0.07 MILES (3) 0.16 MILES RIGHT OF WAY: (1) 60/50 FEET (2) 50 FEET (3) 50 FEET ROADWAY WIDTH: (1) 36 F??~ (2) 38 FEET (3) 30 FEET SURFACE WIDTH: (1) 22 F'c.=T (2) 34 FEET (3) 26 FEET SERVICE: (1) 2 HCi^.ES (2) HOMES (3) 5 HOMES 2) MONET DRIVE FROM 0.043 MZLES E ST OF INTERSECTION OF COTTON HILL ROAD TC CUL-DE-SAC. 3) CHAGALL CIRCLE FROM THE INTEFcS~CTION OF MONET DRZVE TO THE CUL-DE-SAC. .' ~, i" Y~ _ `,~.~~^/ P ,,O d ~ i H~~} t1p1, GD . ~s r ROANOKE COUNTY LOCATION: ACCEPTANCE OF ROADS SERVING THE GARDENS UTILITY OF COTTON HILL, SECTION 1. DEPARTMENT ~ 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: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM• Acceptance of Monet Drive and Chagall Circle, "The Gardens of Cotton Hill," Section 1, into the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Secondary System. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Recommend Approval SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Strauss Construction Corporation, the developer of "The Gardens of Cotton Hill," Section 1, requests that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation requesting that they accept 0.11 mile of Monet Drive and 0.16 mile of Chagall Circle. The staff has inspected these roads along with representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation and finds these road to be acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT• No County funding is required. RECOMMENDATIONS• The staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to VDOT requesting that they accept Monet Drive and Chagall Circle into the Secondary Road System. SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey, Dir~tor of Engineering & nspections APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator --------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred Kohinke to Minnix Nickens L-'] THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1995, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5 (a) , fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5 (A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to X33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Moved By: Seconded Yeas: Nays: Vote By: A Copy Teste: Mary Allen, Board Clerk r 4 ~~ _;~ NORTH ~t yll -. r-~ ~F 6 ,.,,~ ~ 'I I ~ ~ d ~ iI1 {FfYY ~~ _ ~ ~~ j ~~ //// / C ~/Sti i "'~ ` 'i. ~' , . ©' '= ~ r ~. 11~W /IM\)1' BLOCK ^1 /.. ~l \~` v// / rn; - '1, o« a , . , ~ PROPOSED P.DDITION S HOWN IN GRAY ,,~'''~ ~`~~e .v toe cue ~`~ DESCRIPTION: ' 1) MONET DRIVE FROM THE INTER SECTION OF COTTON HILL ROAD (RT. 688) TO 0.043 MILES EAST. LENGTH: (1) 0.043 MT_LES (2) 0.07 MILES (3) 0.16 MILES RIGHT OF WAY: (1) 60/50 FEET (2) 50 FEET (3) 50 FEET ROADWAY WIDTH: (1) 36 FEET (2) 38 FEET (3) 30 FEET SURFACE WIDTH: (1) 22 FEET (2) 34 FEET (3) 26 FEET SERVICE: (1) 2 HOMES (2) HOMES (3) 5 HOMES 2) MONET DRIVE FROM 0.043 MIL ES EAST OF INTERSECTION OF COTTON HILL ROAD TO , CUL-DE-SAC. 3) CHAGALL CIRCLE FROM THE INTERSECTION OF MONET DRIVE TO THE CUL-DE-SAC. ROANOKE COUNTY LOCATION: ACCEPTANCE OF ROADS SERVING THE GARDENS UTILITY OF COTTON HILL, SECTION 1. DEPARTMENT J L- THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1995, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: RESOLUTION 112195-10.tr REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF STONEMILL DRIVE AND MILLWHEEL DRIVE, "WOODBRIDGE," SECTION 8 AND 14, INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (VDOT) SECONDARY SYSTEM. WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(a), fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote Moved By: Supervisor Johnson Seconded By: None Required Yeas: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Nickens, Minnix Nays: None Absent: Supervisor Eddy A Copy Teste: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Virginia Department of Transportation . f ~~ $ -- Y4. Sl.+fea JI - r~ M~ B~oei[ 13 2! R~ g~3 ;i b~ e b"d I ~ i ~ o~ .rte... KiRw~ ~~ cans sa-o- amv w..~ o.*a~fee s[n •m Mlll~a 1 1Rp+~ ~_~_ ~~ R 1 "- 4 ~~~~ _ SG,o ~ 8oa •' KY 3 '1 ~;~4~8 _ _ _ 9 ~~ / /\oV~ ~ i [ :. i c5,pl ~ I i ~~~ - I .._ I l - I ""'"°' h.,a. ~ ~ 2 \ j~ ` \ /~0 ~ \ [- I ".C'I ...~ ~ f ~_~.. ,r,,:fc~k.I~°-~Jn~ll a .r..•o I•'. I. ~e:~ ~ e: <_,i-`n m°~ f -~t /~~'O~` ~• • D0. i0.00'~~rn N.G N.N. i0~~ ~ lw ~.J ~ ~1 O-a+ ]rr. N.Nt~.+iO.Pl::ra li.i0 f-i+sN.N]sa+N.01 0_~" o .7 ~1' i. Aa... N.Oa'^^ ffrtif N. ll0 w f , ~ 0 ~ f ~ / ~.. ~' ~ F I~~ ro~.ae..J-~~ s ~ ~ J7 '~, ~ •~1 ~ f ~,`^:~2? ~~~~/31ea.'il ',^,RZ/49e"R3 ~a 2 g+ I r_4~1'~ ~ ~l,.,arw .[r „/~/2 .r II • 10 9 8 ~ 8° 7 6 S .~a q=o.z[[?~9 o.zts9$ o~~L,~ ~N a 7isvw.vo~roo n ~ _ ~ oI -~~Ro.zn ~: os[s i$ o~zn ox[[ ,.R o:n Rlq o:[[ g:R oas ° , os[[ >a A f r [O .ACRD' ACRL ~'• ICR[!' ACR[-! ACRL •' ACRE '.. ACR[ - ICR[~~ •CRGI {f o >a ..b.;+.E~+~Ir': ~ ` ~ICR[=~~ACR[- } ~ra ).Ti'T/~.ZLt'i°T`JI J 3i' 1~/_l~L .7.. Lor -wwf c:. C ~yc~ Z ~ ~ALi ~;'SZ~2„~7;'~ti'~3-:%w.oo~ .[-,r' , :a o, -Se es• ~-.~~•~ .~ _ ~/FY c ~'f+_~ 9'0 3 :~°fa STONI DRIVE., .: ~ e "N.N ta.oe_ NN ~~~Nrf-.ae• '• g~ $ +cR f~s~ :" -~~ S L -r'°-~°_ :~°'z0~ '. _ ~ny.'.°~^o~[ 31~L.~~.wT~, .~-_..3t1~ :1 ynA~ 3c~L' LEI „• I ...~o:'~,~_ ZZSS,R~2_.3~.r4.~;~ZLia: :FZ/38; d7 a2~ZLtR ?izaa o e• ;,: 1. ~1I .ts 0 21 ?r 22 ~ 23 R'r 4 x$ 2~~Ot.°. abe~~ ^~ 3 ~~~~ a ,a~~ do aairl _L 16~:.y I7q .3 18~~~8 f5 :tR ~~ R _.R i$d.'z~LSR_.3 o.z[s o.: 1 aft' ACR[ ~= ACR[ .a [D ~_~ 0.[[3^~03L3^~ ACR[R: 0.2[3^~_ ACR[^'=-ACR[ ACR[ ~= ACR[~~ ACR[:'[ ACR[ ~ ACRD- ICRL-~ ~ ACRL ., a4 _ .otww.v...t swx.•*r ~ , - L ": o,~ ~N. N~ a ` a-ae L fS lfsLfP JLJ • [./C~~" )• ..)' ° N.0 N.N' ~ N. N. N' N. N' N.00' 10.10' N 00' w O DO I„ PI. s/ (:~ ~Q.l o.a ~ cquaflC J....w'11 >ror ~S~p.V I SO.vlO ~~! J TT {Yt tJL 1 f ^~M[!^' o Jo.r./snN Rln(wiw':. wCwlS+II/1 L..t 00 ~~ SAO T.~ - lo.v~01O.v- .. .. _ . MAR"._ O[Lt, ~._... R.RLa -_. _ - - _ ... .. .. _ _ PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY DESCRIPTION: 1) Stonemill Drive from the intersection of Millbridge Road (Rt. 1168) to the intersection of Millwheel Drive. LENGTH: (:) 0.25 MILES (2) 0.07 MILES RIGHT OF WAY: (_) 50 F.?ET (2) 50 FEET ROADWAY WIDTH: (1) 36 F?ET (2) 36 FEET SURFACE WIDTH: (1) 32 FEET (2) 26 FEET SERVICE: (1) 27 HOMES (2) HOMES 2) Millwheel Drive from the intersection of Stonemill to the intersection of '~illbridge Road (Rt. 1168). This is a connecting stree*. ROANOKE COUNTY ACCEPTANCE OF ROADS SERVING WOODBRIDGE SUBDIVISION, ENGINEERING & SECTION 8 AND 14. ' INSPECTIONS DEPART.~fENT AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ITEM NUMBER ~ ~ O MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM• Acceptance of Stonemill Drive and Millwheel Drive, "Woodbridge," Section 8 and 14, into the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Secondary System. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Recommend Approval SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: L & S Enterprises, Incorporated, the developer of "Woodbridge," Section 8 and 14, requests that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation requesting that they accept 0.23 mile of Stonemill Drive and 0.07 mile of Millwheel Drive, a connecting street. The staff has inspected these roads along with representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation and find these roads to be acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT• No County funding is required. RECOMMENDATIONS• ACTION NO. The staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to VDOT requesting that they accept Stonemill Drive and Millwheel Drive into the Secondary Road System. MITTED BY: i rnold Covey, Direct r of Engineering & Inspections Approved Denied Received Referred to Motion by: ACTION APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens L- THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1995, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5 (a) , fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5 (A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to X33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, resolution be forwarded to the Department of Transportation. Recorded Moved By: Seconded Yeas: Nays: Vote By. that a certified copy of this Resident Engineer for the Virginia A Copy Teste: Mary Allen, Board Clerk L-~ NORTH i I •~• ~~`< JO'RAD/u5 ~ I, ~ E.'/ST.sV6 TEMPoRARY ~ ~i TLRNAgo/NO /~ >a q~vERr i. 1Lf ADJA~ENTI.", ~ (OT ~WAlRS ^ t,: ~ iii ~.'~T tP ~. A/..~ 1 B .use- ~: qt A.v/A~c fwsxa.Y a e: ~] - - - -- O ~ L !S I.VfUPA/SLS. /NC.~ ,.i• Y M.0 90.00' ~ W ~ 10.00' f 1~]• 10.00' 9p.1 ~^ n 0< ~ TM Jf ay•/•/ 1 /eNNSTON ~S~,D I DO 199 PI.f/ O ~pLl p.0--. Rua:St<L ZONfD .b-L T PAAC<L ~ / ~<„[F.v M /a N TJN _ .PlAfAiNG AGAES s 11. /! UN< ~ N. if ~e ~O S~ i _ . _ -. LDS. .._ .. .r ..w..• ...-.• _~~-. PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY ROANOKE COUNTY ACCEPTANCE OF ROADS SERVING WOODBRIDGE SUBDIVISION, ENGINEERING & SECTION 8 AND 14. INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT DESCRIPTION: 1) Stonemill Drive from the intersection of Millbridge Road (Rt. 1168) to the intersection of Millwheel Drive. LENGTH: (1) 0.25 MILES (2) 0.07 MILES RIGHT OF WAY: (1) 50 FEET (2) 50 FEET ROADWAY WIDTH: (1) 36 F?ET (2) 36 FEET SURFACE WIDTH: (1) 32 FET (2) 26 FEET SERVICE: (1) 27 HOMES (2) HOMES 2) Millwheel Drive from the intersection of Stonemill to the intersection of Millbridge Road (Rt. 1168). This is a connecting street. 1 .~ . L-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 RESOLUTION 112195-10.h AIITHORIZING AN AUDIT OF CO% COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ON BEHALF OF THE ROANORE VALLEY REGIONAL CABLE TELEVISION COMMITTEE AND PROVIDING FUNDING WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") is the Grantor of a Cable TV Franchise Agreement ("Agreement") entered into on May 1, 1991, by and between the County and Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc. [now Cox Communications, Inc.] ("Grantee"); and WHEREAS, the Agreement empowers the Regional Cable Television Committee to monitor Cox Cable's compliance with the provisions of the cable television Ordinance and Agreement and to coordinate review of Grantee's records; and WHEREAS, no audit of Cox Cable's franchise fee payments has been performed since the franchise was entered into on May 1, 1991; and WHEREAS, the Minneapolis law firm of Moss and Barnett, special counsel for the Regional Cable Television Committee, has submitted a proposal for a "desk audit" of all three jurisdictions' payments, total cost estimated to be between $3,125.00 and $5,000.00. Assuming a desk audit of $5,000.00, and based upon the County's share of Cox Cable's customers of 34~, the County's share of the desk audit would be $1,700.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke that an audit of Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc., franchise fee payments for a three-year period, commencing on July 1, 1992, at a total cost to the County of Roanoke not to 3 exceed the sum of $1,700.00, be conducted by Moss and Barnett to confirm that these payments have been in accordance with the Franchise Ordinance and Agreement. This resolution is passed and adopted by the County of Roanoke, Virginia, this 21st day of November 1995. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: _~ Mary H. A en, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance 2 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER L~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AUDIT OF COX COMMUNICATIONS INC. ON BEHALF OF THE ROANOKE VALLEY REGIONAL CABLE TELEVISION COMMITTEE AND PROVIDING FUNDING COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Recommend approval BACKGROUND: The cable television franchise agreement between the County of Roanoke and Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc. (now "Cox Communications") obligates the franchise operator to open its books to the County and the other jurisdictions it serves. The agreement further empowers the Regional Cable Television Committee to monitor Cox Cable's compliance with the provisions of the cable television Ordinance and the agreement and to "[c]oordinate review of Grantee records as required by this Ordinance." No audit of Cox Cable's franchise fee payments has been performed since the franchise was entered into on May 1, 1991. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Committee recommends that an audit of Cox Cable's franchise fee payments for a three-year period, back to July 1, 1992, would be appropriate at this time. The Committee has no indication that the franchise fee payments over this period are in violation of the franchise agreement. But good business practice would suggest that an audit should be conducted to confirm that these payments have been in accordance with the Ordinance and agreement. As initially contemplated, the audit would involve two steps. The first step would involve a determination of the operator's interpretation of the relevant documents and its defining terms, such as "gross revenue," and identification of the revenue categories on which the fee payments have been calculated. Secondly, the necessary financial information would be obtained from Cox Cable and a "desk audit" conducted by reviewing this L-~f information and performing the necessary calculations to check for agreement. The audit may well end here if the auditor's numbers correspond with the payments actually made. Only if there are significant questions raised would a more detailed "on-site" audit be necessary. Moss and Barnett, our current special counsel, has submitted a proposal for a desk audit of all three jurisdictions' payments estimated to involve approximately 25 to 40 hours at an hourly charge of $125.00 per hour. Total cost of such audit would be between $3,125.00 and $5,000.00. Due to this firm's familiarity with the franchise agreement and ordinance of all the participating jurisdictions, it would be both cost effective and easier to administrate to contract with Moss and Barnett for this audit. Assuming a desk audit cost of $5,000.00, and based upon the County's share of Cox Cable's customers of 34~, the County's share of the desk audit would be $1,700.00. Once the results of this audit are received, the Committee will then determine whether any further audit or other action is necessary. FISCAL IMPACT• The immediate cost to the County will not exceed $1,700.00. There is the possibility of additional revenues for the County should the audit reveal discrepancies with the franchise fee payments already made. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this Board authorize the Regional Cable Television Committee to proceed to contract with the firm of Moss and Barnett to conduct this franchise fee desk audit and appropriates the sum of $1,700.00 from the Board's contingency fund for that purpose. The Cable TV budget is for the sole purpose of operating RVTV. The Cable TV Committee directed that each local government be asked for additional funds for this audit. Respectfully submitted, ~~ , Jos ph B. Obenshain Senior Assistant County Attorney Approved Denied Received Referred to Motion by: ACTION VOTE Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens No Yes Abs ~-9 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AUDIT OF COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ON BEHALF OF THE ROANOKE VALLEY REGIONAL CABLE TELEVISION COMMITTEE AND PROVIDING FUNDING WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") is the Grantor of a Cable TV Franchise Agreement ("Agreement") entered into on May 1, 1991, by and between the County and Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc. [now Cox Communications, Inc.] ("Grantee"); and WHEREAS, the Agreement empowers the Regional Cable Television Committee to monitor Cox Cable's compliance with the provisions of the cable television Ordinance and Agreement and to coordinate review of Grantee's records; and WHEREAS, no audit of Cox Cable's franchise fee payments has been performed since the franchise was entered into on May 1, 1991; and WHEREAS, the Minneapolis law firm of Moss and Barnett, special counsel for the Regional Cable Television Committee, has submitted a proposal for a "desk audit" of all three jurisdictions' payments, total cost estimated to be between $3,125.00 and $5,000.00. Assuming a desk audit of $5,000.00, and based upon the County's share of Cox Cable's customers of 34$, the County's share of the desk audit would be $1,700.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke that an audit of Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc., franchise fee payments for a three-year period, commencing on July 1, 1992, at a total cost to the County of Roanoke not to L-~ exceed the sum of $1,700.00, be conducted by Moss and Barnett to confirm that these payments have been in accordance with the Franchise Ordinance and Agreement. This resolution is passed and adopted by the County of Roanoke, Virginia, this 21st day of November 1995. 2 i ~ ~ i A-112195-10.i ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~' ~ U AT A REGULAR MEETING OF .THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Ratification of Appointments to the Community Policy and Management Team COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Recommend Approval BACKGROUND• At the October 24, 1995 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, one of the appointments listed in the agenda package was for Jo Wirth as the parent representative to the Community Policy and Management Team. It was noted that her term expired December 31, 1995. At the inception of the Roanoke County Community Policy and Management Team, the Board of Supervisors appointed two parent representatives and a private provider representative who are not employees of public agencies. According to the bylaws, these appointments are generally for a three-year term. However, for the first year, the terms were staggered so that there would not be a drastic change in membership at any given time. At the present time, the following individuals and their expiration dates should be in effect: Name Organization Term Expiration Date Herb Beskar DePaul Family Services - A June 30, 1996 Private Community Resource Mrs. Jo Wirth Parent Advocate June 30, 1997 Ms. Rita Gliniecki Parent Advocate June 30, 1998 ~ ~ ti J ,, L-/D When the reports were submitted requesting appointment of Ms. Wirth and Ms. Gliniecki, staff indicated a one year expiration date. However, the expiration dates should have been in accordance with the table above. The Board of Supervisors is requested to ratify the above expiration dates and staff will recommend appropriate individuals for appointment when necessary. I apologize for the confusion in the appointment process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the expiration dates of the citizen members of the Community Policy and Management Team as outlined in the table above. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, John M. ChambLl' s, Jr. Elmer C. Hodge Assistant County Administrator County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Motion by Bob L. No Yes Absent Denied ( ) Johnson to approve Eddy x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred ( ) Kohinke x To ( ) Minnix x Nickens x cc: File John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant Administrator Community Policy and Management-Team File t ~ . ~ ~--~ AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COIINTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TIIESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 RESOLIITION 112195-10.i AIITHORIZING THE E%ECUTION OF A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY AGREEMENT WITH THE INDIISTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANORE COUNTY FOR VALLEY TECHPARR WHEREAS, economic and industrial development serves a public purpose and constitutes a proper function of government; and WFIEREAS, managing storm water runoff is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare of this community; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County and the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County desire to enter into an Agreement to provide for the construction and future maintenance of the storm water management facility at Valley TechPark. BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia: 1. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute on behalf of the Boar of Supervisors of Roanoke County an Agreement with the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County (the "Authority") for the construction and future maintenance of the storm water management facility at Valley TechPark, all upon form approved by the County Attorney. 2. That the County Administrator is hereby directed to include in the budgets for the Authority for FY 1996-97 and all future years sufficient sums for the maintenance of said facilities. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: • ~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Timothy W. Gubala, Director, Economic Development Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Item No. ~` ~r AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER IN ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, ON TUESDAY, MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Request for approval of Valley TechPark stormwater Management Facility Agreement nOUN'~'~- ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS: Recommend Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Roanoke Valley has a critical shortage of ready-to-go industrial sites. Roanoke County and its Industrial Development Authority (IDA) have attempted to assist the Valley's job creation efforts by developing and marketing Valley TechPark. A single stormwater management facility is one site development feature provided with Valley TechPark. A single stormwater management site maintained by the IDA serves as a regional facility for the industrial park serving anticipated prospects and Rusco. BACKGROUND: A combination of zoning, topography, and infrastructure location, coupled with the recent location of several projects throughout the Valley, has left a critical shortage of industrial sites. Roanoke County and its IDA are making improvements to Valley TechPark in an effort to have a ready-to-go industrial park. Our competition throughout the south and mid-Atlantic regions has positioned themselves for sustained growth through similar efforts. Construction on an industrial access and the extension of water and sewer lines in Valley TechPark were recently completed. The private sector utilities are currently in the process of extending services into Valley TechPark. Roanoke County also completed the construction of a silt catch basin with the intention of converting this 4.5 acre facility into a stormwater management facility. This facility has been sized to handle most projects. The facility assists Roanoke County in its economic development efforts. A single facility maintained by the IDA frees up developable land throughout the park that would otherwise be expected to hold several similar facilities. As industries locate in Valley TechPark they will be allowed to tie into the existing storm drain system which empties into the stormwater management facility. L - /~ The IDA proposes to enter into an agreement with the County that would ensure for the proper construction (completion) and ongoing maintenance of the facility. Estimated funds of $5,000 will have to be allocated in the FY96-97 budget process to handle periodic maintenance and annual mowing. 1. Authorize the County Administrator to execute the attached agreement between the County and the IDA pertaining to the private drainage and stormwater management facility required for Valley TechPark. 2. Adopt the attached resolution pertaining to the drainage and stormwater management facilities within Valley TechPark. 3. Take no action STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt alternatives 1 and 2. Respectfully submitted: Approved: Timo y W. Gubala, Director Elmer C. Hodge Department of Economic Development County Administrator ACTION Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens No Yes Abs Attachment - ~ L-// AGREEMENT ~TERHOUDT, FERCUSON. IATT, AHERON & ACEE ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW RGANGKE, VIRGIfiIA 240(8-1699 THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of 1995, by and between THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("County") and THE INDUSTRIAL (DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("Authority"). W I T N E S S E T H The Authority is the owner of a parcel of land containing 174.561 acres as shown on the plat entitled "Subdivision and Combination Plat for the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia" prepared by T. P. Parker & Son under date of January 28, 1994, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County in Plat Book 16 at page 64, said plat containing 8 pages; and WHEREAS, there is shown on sheets 5, 6 and 8 of said plat certain new private drainage easements and a new private drainage and stormwater management easement; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to set forth the terms and conditions under which all of the above said easements will be constructed and maintained. NOW, THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual ovenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto do ovenant and agree as follows: 1. The Authority shall take all steps necessary to onstruct the new private drainage and stormwater management acility required for the development of the Valley Tech ~ - ~~ Industrial Park as said stormwater management facility is required by the County. In addition, the Authority shall take such steps as necessary in order to construct and improve the new drainage easement and the new private drainage easements as shown on the above mentioned plat for the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia of record in Plat Book 16, page 64 of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke. 2. The County shall provide all necessary funding to the Authority in order to construct the improvements hereinabove set out and to maintain the same as hereinafter set out. After initial construction, the Authority does hereby agree to maintain with funds provided by the County pursuant to Paragraph 3, all stormwater drainage easements and stormwater management facilities which are not maintained within the jurisdiction of the Virginia Department of Transportation. The Authority shall, with such funds, perform such maintenance as is necessary in order to keep the stormwater management facility and related drainage easements in an operating condition. 3. This agreement shall be construed according to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 4. This agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties and the same shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, successors and assigns and no agreement ^STERHOUOT, FERGUSON, NAT T, ANERON & AGEE shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless the same shall ATT[IRNEYS-AT-LAN! RnnNOKE, V~RG~N~A be reduced to writing and signed by the parties hereto. 240I8-tfi99 WITNESS the following signatures and seals as of the day L - ~/ and year first hereinabove written. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By Its THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By Its STATE OF VIRGINIA ) to-wit: OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1995, by of THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. Notary Public 7STERN000IT. FERGUSCIN, NATT,AHERON 6 AGEE ATTORNEYS-AT-IAVI ROANCKE, VIRSL`GIA 24018-1699 Commission Expires: ~~ ~ L-i/ STATE OF VIRGINIA ) to-wit: OF ~ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1995, by of THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. Notary Public ~TERHOUOT, FERGUSCIN. GATT. AHERON & AGEE ATTORNE'!S-AT-LAW R~ANOY.E, VIRGINIA 24018-1fi99 IMy Commission Expires: z:\tirp50\steph\ida.Agr:ssel0/31/95 L .- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 RESOLIITION AIITHORIZING THE EBECIITION OF A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY AGREEMENT WITH THE INDIISTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY OF ROANORE COIINTY FOR VALLEY TECHPARR WHEREAS, economic and industrial development serves a public purpose and constitutes a proper function of government; and, WHEREAS, managing storm water runoff is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare of this community; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County and the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County desire to enter into an Agreement to provide for the construction and future maintenance of the storm water management facility at Valley TechPark. BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia: 1. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County an Agreement with the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County (the "Authority") for the construction and future maintenance of the storm water management facility at Valley TechPark, all upon form approved by the County Attorney. 2. That the County Administrator is hereby directed to include in the budgets for the Authority for FY 1996-97 and all future years sufficient sums for the maintenance of said facilities. C.ATTORNEY. PMM.I DASTORW. RES D-I GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA of General Amount Fund Revenues Beginning Balance at July 1, 1995 (audited) $6,994,906 8.09% Addition from 1995-96 Budget 10,558 Sept 12, 1995 Donation to IDA - Rusco (127,500) Balance at November 21, 1995 $6,877,964 7.95% The Board has recently requested a change in the way we present the Unappropriated Fund Balance, to include all pending appropriations. Changes below this line are for information and planning purposes only. These amounts have not been appropriated to fund balance at this time. The increase in projected 1995-96 revenues is based on the most recent estimate of the year in process, and could be adjusted up or down as the year progresses. These funds are not available to be appropriated to other projects at this time. Balance from above $6,877,964 Pending Adjustments Recommended increase in 1995-96 budgeted revenues based upon 1st quarter review 2,371,305 $9,249,269 10.70% Note: On December 18, 1990, the Board of Supervisors adopted a goal statement to maintain the General Fund Unappropriated Balance at 6.25% of General Fund Revenues 1995-96 General Fund Revenues 6.25% of General Fund Revenues $86,464,490 $5,404,031 Respectfully Submitted, Diane D. Hyatt M:\Finance\Common\Board\Gen95. WK4 ~ -~. CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount Beginning Balance at July 1, 1995 (audited) $405,409.00 July 17, 1995 Payment on sale of old School Administration Building 399,984.00 18, 1995 Sale of land adjacent to Kessler Mill Road to VDOT 1,020.00 Balance at November 21, 1995 Submitted By Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance $806.413.00 I The above does not include a note receivable from the sale of the old School Administration Building due July 1, 1996 for $200,000. M:\Finance\Common\Board\Cap95. WK4 RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount Beginning Balance at July 1, 1995 (Unaudited) $1,773.00 From 1995-96 Original Budget 100,000.00 July 27, 1995 Survey of Needs -Four Year University (2,500.00 Sept 26, 1995 Red Line Service - CORTRAN (6,023.00 Balance at November 21, 1995 $93,250.00 Submitted By ~iL.~2.'rz2~ 'L.l ~~ . Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance o-~ M:\Finance\Common\Board\Board95. WK4 ~~ i• ACTION # ITEM NUMBER Q AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid -October 1995 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Payments to Vendors: Payroll: 10/6/95 $602,471.41 10/ 16/95 1,565.31 10/20/95 _620,933.93 $3,967,284.52 1,224,970.65 • $5,192,255.17 A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance Approved Denied Received Referred To ACTION () Motion by: O O O O ~~ ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy _ _ _ Johnson Kohinke _ _ _ Minnix Nickens _ _ _ ,,, _ I _ . ~.~ . I I i I ~' ~ I i i M b^ o. I o^ o^ , i W W I' ~: ': i ! ~~ ~ aQ I a o I I !N a 7 C N m P >~ rom^ ~+ K M M; ~ pl~ o L'~ ^ •^'r W > : V 1- O my Y 'CLL. o'ro o G' ro'v N Oda Q KrV w' E 1 OI•~ _ >•' UI 2 r,W O Ci E 7 r- O~O J U Yu I C IJy m ., E W .a ~1+ P ;ro o U! I i I M to d C F m O 1 > 1 m }~ I C' Z ro A d F- U1 > ro a ma N ~ .. ~ .. ~ ro~ m n L G C M a O C I Y > m Q: T m I 7 t C M a I C > O m ~ L a, 7 It ro L m C m O 0 °x! O:' C1 V L, O!~ a m I 0 2 a a U 7 m _ ,. '~-~ ~ ~ I I 1 ~ ~I :I ~ ~ I ~M If1 111 N O m^ N CD IN ? o ~N 7 0 o M !n P N !n O O h o N 7 aD - P F o M o CD o -- I ~7 V M m o M F P M M 7 o F^ P N^ N ~~- ~ F et CO ^ .-. P o Gl N- P h o o M o N . j . i ~ i ~IV N m ;.- M ~F ~- F '7 P ~W F ^ ~ 7 - 'N N N a ~ M M N F ~ 7 ~ 111 7 ~ er ~ p~ ~) I i M N N .- N i 111 ':M N R .-. M 7 IA V F N m M M .- -- 7 N UI N N III i j ~ ': II ' I I 1 I ! I I 1 ^ M? IN o m ~F P o ~P m o ~N 111 Y1 P N M IN F P IN h F ao W F 7 o N M W .- N m o M N N 1 m P F ~,~ o O :F N CO ills .- o ~N m N 1111 F 7 M P 7'v m I!i N m O m N M m m< N o7 M o V V PNM,M o CD .7Mm Nmo NN P'.-P FbN7,-P mCOMht0 .-M 71!17 G 7 m.- m m i N N N -m b 7 IF 111 7 L- M o IF F `Ir F' ui i.- ,_ v I !F O m !111 P O '.M m 7 ;,~ ~ N~~ m M~ F o N N o O F N V1 N 7 moIm111M-m--NOJ Im PIf1M~lMhOMFo .- oP N N I N CO m,N o~^~Ifl '.•tNM'.M V~ IM .o tON NF^lilM7 Ul NF F F 1 .. . , ^ ~, 1 IF V1 ^ 7IM N ^ .- '' ~ ~ 1 M^ I N .-..- m I I ' I ~ N CO. I I ~O m 111 F M IN o P o M !F 7 7 0 7 E I7 N o ~7 N O N 7 N M P o m o ~ N P VI M M I I ~M o N'~C6 .- IN 7 .- 7 CO 'F M 7 7 N UI m O N;W M O+.N M^ h 7 o M .- 7 N^ m 7 7 1 .O F m !m ^'N m M F M 7 F O op o N 10+ ~D l11 jM o .p 111 .p F- of er 1f1 M 7 of o M M M , , , , 1 'IN P N la_D UI ;N 7 111 M m ~N N M N F .- IN F 7 IT o N^ 7~ CO ? .~ N N h e m W O ~I 7 o M o m CD ,M 7 N W CD !N - ^I^ ^ 7.N M 111 I11 M '• N ro h F F F I 1 FM.-I.- N'NMN M N111 i M.7 --o~ a~ ^ o o l ('. I^ 1 I i o 0 I ^ ^ I I M ^111 !M m 111 7 W 0 '- .M F P o h 7 ~N F^ I7 I N W -M W~ W 'i 1 1I1 o N',iN F 17 o P P F ~b M .- NI I l11 M'~a ? F M N M N^ ^ N'M N M ~^ M CO M M o F M h F ~- ' I oom,M FINm MP7 '-7 mNMFM7 PM7 M,om hmh FMOO COP N o, o~ 1 I IM o N IF M ifO 7 O ''.. m IUI COW N N 0 m M Im ^ M P v o r- m ut .o - r- c, ri m m i m N ~ m 17 .- ^ 7 M .- I I M .-'o M^ .-. m N o QI N' 1 ~ j I I^ N Nl N. N 1 ,: _ 1 II ( I : MI M~. ', I IO O O IO O O !O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~,0 0 0 0 0 m ~~^ O O t0 O M O m o M O P m ~. m I '. I '0 0 0 ~o 0 o o 0 0 0 0 o'b 0 0 0 0 0 jo O o 0 o N M o o -M o 111 o h o M M m CD ~ N IIo 0 o io 0 0l0 0 0 0 0 0Io 0 0 0 0 0Io P o If1 o M M o 111 0 o h o CO o N m 7 P i P . , I I 0 01/1111/1 0 0 to 0 0111 0 0 ~O o U1 o N F'7 ^ o • I to O F F P M I7 O ~ I IF N N M a0 M m Ul t0 !tt N o M M ap N N 1 o N F ~M M M O F 7 m M m O U) N N o+ 7~ OJ W ~- 7 h m O Q O P 111 N 0 .n o m O O I 1 . ~ 7 oNNM W M 7FPVl NP o)' a0 I 'M .- UI 7 N N I M ~^ y N N ~ i P' P m i L ~ O '~ m';m ro l l I I ~ U . a I Cd ate. ~' iN~ U9 .O. i C N I m 3 YI ' a ; m '. N~+Om i i C 'uro N¢N ~ x L 1+ ro I x a ro' m ' ro O,N i- iro x N C IF O m N 'm N m > M > .. V V F nlm F ro IC ~ xI O yl ly I N Im w Nt11 E 7 L L 10 ~ L '', L L B F m ro E IL m ~ L O W ro C U m L a L¢ 7 'U w FO m O~ I m Mlr a .,U.. .V. L a ~ to O u1 m O 'v ~ coi r o IM m .. ro io v Ir_ c n, m'.+ m >'.. o o a .. y ... m ;~ y i I s o m ~~ d ro _„ c "1 cam. m ;~ t ~ rni m a L la L C t0 .. m ro .. ro LL v o~ o Fau' -.r-!»+mxmoc'..ro o-. LmLEma amvmucluvL o ~bJ jrurei...umsa L•.. ~,=oo I v~o..co o.,ou Iii' Im L> tll ] F-IV m UIV m N r 7 I O U IL L LiL 4 0 U L m tq m N'Q O C wn. L:N C m) J ..rc.. O L a Cm U t.. O;O L a O O. ~. m ro J I ro m'~.. ..W mt JC4.x0 T,L wIr-NCV O~xW NMC I+C'N Q J Ir ^'tni roLMNaC AUV RO.!CN LroNmW r -Oro-+L F' Q N ro r r Na N > O >,~6 1 F C M, O O'm m N N N ~L Y m y ml.. v U•.a O' F W C U +. C E a t~ r .+ ro r' U 7 mlm 1 .•. m ro O L L~v w F-I p o..•..a..I~cuLa.+.,atro •..~ .xollncrn!rnaa'>cJmroLro',mL Lu1 i l- I "'~ E ^+ ro E roam .+ C O m .+ a m a E'O E M L rlm a LiL E UO I L w m i-.U m m C N L a ~ C T U C N ro V x •.~ y x L C L I m. m O C> ro' ro ++ 0 0 0 ro -~ L ~+ ] t >: ~, ro i p m m~' m ro 0 0 7 L O ro ~. O ro v C ro m m .+ L •.+ a G ;t m ++ m O L a r m y V w L Z o: o. ~ la_ a J cJ m tL L {- 7 IS F O Q J R ILL, V 0. LL. O: U IU CC E K 2 47 3 0 3 W 0 0 .F- q _o N M? o^ N M 7 111 m IF O 0+ O .- N? F tb P o N iCp o.-Imo.- 7 M o ~N m N ~M c> 00000 oOp0 oo0100000010000o 0oo oioooooooo o'o I _ ~ ~ I I (?- 5 P O .- i ^ M I I o ` o .. o ^ W W c~ r ¢ ¢ aA i i c I .y r ro i L i !a 'o 'L 'nIn am ,¢ ~ I~ M ~ SIC \ ro o i ~ ^ UI III W ~ ~ d F I U ¢ I >ICO ' ro -i L LL j mao Y B O'7 N C'U ¢ roIG i OiW 1 K t.I M F Odd 2 ILO >-7L r~r C •..J 7!v a O'C U V!d I1J 'a~ w 7 ~ o IIo I~ 7 b I L U I V C 7 LL ro L • c d U' I ~ NI I =1 p', I O L~ ~ O I O.I ~ • I IL m I L 0. 1 O ~ ~o ^ ° r i ~ III ~ '' ^ o q' i i ^ D ' ~ ~ M ~^ N o~ o o If1 ? N T o ^ !• f r l Ni ~ ~ ^ M~~ ' i ~ (11 7 ' N M1.~ F M o o a M a M o M m ~'~ d 7 i~ ~ • 1 ' T N !.- ~ ~O o'o i ~O N ^ i O~ P ~F M a0 M ~- .- P o o . x U iQ' I W C ro U I M M:N ~ N M!~ i M 7 M ~i N N V M ~-~ h N n Ifl M l11 M N W 7 1 ~ i i0 N m I '. ! i ' ~ w roj 1 i i } j ' I ' j i I y; 1 ~ I ' ~ I i d ~ 1 ' 10 o I- M'' ' 7M M ^ In F iP N.~ NooN7 ^ .-MNO~NO~o M o.- i L • I i d U 1 7 t- N O ap M1 M1 ~ ~O N F W ~ O III .- ~ OD ; o .- T ~O .UI iM1 GD ~ N' 1~ o~ M- M o 1 1 7 M1 M o aG 1- o u~ 7 ~o ~O J]C I _: i ^ (1 (1 W .- o M N .o M o .n M M [O E~ ro 1 N 7 N N ~~ M m 7 m Y1 aD I^ ~n ~ _ _ o~ o M o ~o o o~ 111 U1 .- N .- m ~ ~n N 7;-+ 1 U'ro I 7 o:'UI 7! o'.~ M ~. W~ ~ N F ,W 7~ M oo ~- N 7 N M 7^ N U1 U1 7 0 - - N~ ~O M' m .- M ~o COI M o ^ ^ m 111 7 N 1- OJ n 7 .- ~ ~ ~ I j j ~ m d 1 OHO ~.- N' 0].-'N N Pap N o! ^P!mNUI N M o NMCO U' M N< L L I III 0~ ~7 Op i N M'~D N o M .- w ~ .O N ~ 7 ~O N~ N o W .- N o .o m 7 N 7 f 1 o W I~ m~ I~ 1~ In o M ~ .D o i' c0 N'.F 1- a0 ~ v m N N .- o m - ~- o r+ 7 U V C I O I II- I - N m- ~^ '7 o i N M 00 ; NM M m CD T H7 7 ~, ^ X0'7 ~o aD ~ OD 7 0~ c0 OD oD m M o ~- ~ W } ; m N I ; N .- ~ M 7N 7 N N T COI, .- ~ a07~Pa0o. m OD T N ^ .- N InM^-tn c n .- l11 c N ~O 7 ` 0. ~8 x I ~ ^ ! N ~ i11 ,, i ~ M ^ W I ~ ~. Oi • ~ i M IU I UI N T ~ N ~ M1 ~ 7 MI '- o CD of ` M 7I~' GO; 111 OC UI. M N M V C I ro 1 N 111 ^ l11 M M ^ o a7 7 y N ' ap 7 ~n M 7 ! m M 1- N; ! M 7 0 In M N c L 1 , i N _ --I 111 .- _ T - ~n IA N N- N .n - 1- VI m 7 D I 1 M ~ 7 ^ '•~ M ' o~111 CD Mj 7 MM M t11 M M N 7 r 8 N N i ' W O M1 I o ~.-. m Ill r! U 1 I N U1 h i i ~ O W 1 I ~ i d l ~ M GD c0 0 ~ M I(1 ~ - - 7 N M o .o M~ M o '- I W P 7 !n 7 'r1 .p M Vf L i F 7 N OD ~- CD i ~o .D ~ (0 aD OD , o o~ o .p 7! ^ o o M N M In M .- T 7 1 N o F o ^ o i ^ M 1- ? l11 f- -- N',N i11 7I In o c~ o~ h• ~ M 1~ 7 .L t ', 7 ~O ? UI o o' o ~D r• ~O o; a N i N N ~O i f~ ^ o N m m ~ aD ~o ^M ^ M bal o 1(17 I oNl111 ~ Mo5 N- ~ 7O O .1 f N N MN 1 ~ mt- T N ~ r 1 o P 7 M d 1 ~ . OI I MN P M d 1 M N i~' to I 1 I N I Ln I ~ I a ' r III N .. ~+ c ro c ~ ~ s u e ! ~ ' ¢ •~ It- C L ~ ~ 4 • ~ ro O l > O •. i d (q u ~ j c v .. ro L ro ~ ro L ~ I, d lL C > • . . j 'b ^~ t!1 I v ro 7 -+ L o ' ~ ro O o I N L r ~- O I OI C d ~ • • .+ ~ J t9I W 0 0 0 i N M j o o O MN~ ,p i 7 I IO Ifl N ~ Nj ~ ' 7 T~h-OD o~ a6 111M ~O No o~N h M ~O OD o 7 M ~ ^ 111 F 7, M ~O'F N ~Oi ^ N M [0 0 0 o M M. o GD aD W I ~- OD N N M M '. T 7 N N ~D , ~o ~O M 7 N lI1 o M 1!1 111 OD ~oF h o~ 7F ~N o~ om~aOPUII ap MU1C oomm N .om III UI -- MMi M ~ N7.T U)M~ 111 MNO~a6MOi-- N MN a0 ? M ~O ^ o CO ' M aD ~ o N - .u 7 C c M .- V1 .- Ul ~0 7 M M! ^ ^ M N~N T M^ V1 N^ r ' ~~ C C Ul i 7 U I ~ ~ r \- d i ro N d L >' w ro C ~ I ~ V ro i d C L F- ~ r >' ~+' • i Nj Or C N Y ~ ~ C 0. ro 0. O~ ~- _. • L C F; ~ L O d L 3 C O / ^+ M • ro N C~ i i O N L O O r . N 3 N U ro .b a In c o u •~ x u r m .+ d t A ~. N U •• N m i • ~.~ I~ u r L L C r .+ ~-.. U r • ri C ~ •V J7 O.dC~GL; D V CC> ro U •+ ro I v .~ 7 "'f V h L• C O 7j d M U~C B •I 7 ro ro C N 0• L d d d' 7t OR' .. j .+ G ~,.~ O y i OrojLU ~. d d d tll ++ > d SS r¢r Ncn S C = o ~- r o C j• ~ ~ o C 7 Z o .b ~. O1 C 6 o C M U o 6 d' d• ro'~. o .. U ~~ U r .-. o, L r 0 ~ L f ~» r N O W • • L M O q r ~ C O+ L, 7 ro -. L ,... L m ~ U1 N ro ' 7 f U 2 L L 7[ ..~ ro d l t- -+ p. L C ~ O r -+ • .•~ r r~ .~ C O O. D tl1 7 U O Y L L D O O ro •-~ O d ro C ro d . d 7 7 7 C O O ro ~~+ Ut» J4, V KE Wt9 C9 E tL V1 dw}tll d.J 0 0 UI o 0 0 o IIl ~o UI o ~o U1 0 111 o I(1 o 0 0 N N ^N M i NNMM 7,; 'NNM M77U1 .-M NN N MM M 777?7' N 111 Ul UI IA UI'III FN 0 0 0 0 0 0 I i 0 0 0 0 of I '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. I I I ' w r -~a~x ~~~ ~;~ \ N M I I ~' o .• I ~ o \ ~ ~, ~. o ~ I I o .- W W '~ ~. l9 F a a ! i d 0 I i ~ I I ~ R I o .- ~O ' m m m p ; a~ m ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 In o m UI Ca O I oUl 'N ~pMM I M~oNooo oooho .-p m E Y I .. ! . a7>\'m I pFlm MM~~Op p pN ~ W N Ix U .OBI - MAO T MNmN i N -- -- W C ro D I i W 7 I ~ O wm 1 _ ~ '~~ F- M ro I ~ I ~ I ~ V 1 1 n I w m 1 N M 111 N o. i m p III o o ~ N p o In o M F o p M h o .o 'C L m I o.-F -~ 1l1m p~ o pNF Opo .DOwh p N Nh o T 'O i m~U I ' 1l1 FN F m~ON~ i0+ 7'p ~OOmo OOm.DO m Nh o F -~ I c I a ~ . ro i 6~ro I 7~+ I ~.D M mN; o; m IANNM F111 N171 'w 0 T. ~Ufp 1!1 'nom N~O~ o op.- W 000 .- M !nm mM N M p M U'ro I I ~ M N 'F m N p N ~- -- p T m [O p M lfi L I I C m i ~ ~ - , - - a ! m l 1 N ~ ~ .- Iil .-. N Vl o L C ~ i I p p h a In I a m ' ~ w ~ m 1 j ~ O~ o L- II F i M h M UI bD j o ,p 111 '~ I I Ill ~D o .- ~ o ~ v~ .a\ ~ L a I mo'v1 0' .Omvm ' F .p~N ~o Mp m h o F o7 '. V M roIC\ ' I 7 E 1 ~ ~ 7 I UC1 I 0115 N Nlll llll o ~ of .o o m o ~OF~mF r- IOC p II N h M kllM o p o UIN M o o 0 0 ~ ++ ~ ro o C i I V C F I I W ~ p Ul ~ ~ m ^ o I p m .- 'M - ~ ip iUl .O m N ~ ~ '~ I!1 .~ M '~ ~ m p .-N - m M - c0 a .o N I- OIw W I I ~ m aw! I ~ i , - W 1 ~ >IC O T~W , ro I L LL I w IU I Y1 m M ~ 7 I ~N N i M - x.EO ~ C I C~L I .- h p Ill M `o o I 07 m I ~ o ~ o.. M v O i l fq I ro .a 1 F N iN i F I 'stn I W I T CIV a ro,C I /+~~;E I w,7 I In I ~ F o O W I V V I ~ I i - ~ ' - S O'W I i w' o I wF mz ! w I I I I i LO Im I Mo o N o ~O F F ~ +t V1 I o T N N. m m ~ T 7 E L I mo o M p 0 ~o ~D ' N O~ .- T N I!1 ~N ~D ~O ~O h ~' ~' >~~7 1 F ll1 T o M o M I O~ ~ M m'~ m UI N 7 1 0 a L 1 N ~O M F N N M Ill Ill I m N p '~~ Ill YI N U m m ~ C C I ~ N M .-'m M I m p N N In a.. o m I I ' ' xa Llal ~ ~ I ~ ! v v r W x I ' I I p W I I F o 0 ~. I ~ 1 N M i ~ -- ~O N o N M T ~N o N m ~o+ o 7 m N 0 F o o ~~o o 0• o o Ip o ~o M p ~I o .e - .O Ill h m F N F ~D a0 i i j m 7 C 7 I O I ': O+ I lfI N 11 M N l/l F o f 1 Ill F .- N N N i~- o ~O O~ < I o o Igo o ~ IA t/l ip o I I o m .- I o p F m N N F ~o ~- o m m N I V h iy 1 I N m - m ~O o ~O F ,`O F W ~D 7 O N i`O ~ ~ o o Ifl I .- o p p o G Im i • Im M m aD ~ p i N .- I ^ v N I p h p - d! i ' U N ro 1 p ~ ' N m F c0 N L I ~ ~. p p m c i 1 ro ~.. 7 a a m I I E c cl E' « 7 a: ~~ I 7 ro ro c c roi I x a a L m ro u'c I L rn e m ..lo w' I i ; L o o i .. m c O o' L a a o v'~ U C a w ro'w v' L ~; 7~ ~+ ro y r o ~~ o ra''. rI LI O a m~ ~-I - ~ ~ j r L m o;v o m w:E c vl c • a 7 I w m V L .~.C-~ O 11. IO O Cam ro ~ E w w O o ~ C m G U w' m r ~ >.~L7 Y m I V~ w v L L , -~ ® O, m E m C O~ C 1 E ro C baY T N N M C C a G ro w' ~+ ro Lla•+-+ xrp m m'C L ro m m w w w L ' V/ L ~+ a I0 L +~ ++ J m' L> W ~-+ U 7 a w ul m a u - cx..o c ~L vo Irov..o m cc w o w -+ w owlets 7 e ww.+lavmmm>u o roro w z I O C L .ac N > w E C C 7 W I L -+ ~•+ Y L ~. U 1 L L G O U O .+ C L ro mlm C b > O ro E O m m L 0 \'+~ v al>~ ro m a m ~ m ~ tnI ' C, F F m !L ~ r M d , •~~ L U -6 m ro U - > C mI L m'C L ~',T O Z V U L F- J C 7 ~ O~ V '~i U 1- m 7 ro -+ V w m a •+ i L ~ C C a an V •-~ ' ro L o o c m.. .+ LIE U ~ o o m > c~.. ~ro a ono ro o •. m~ C m C L C o, o 7 7 o f- i I w a 7 F c m'o •.. m . o . i ~+ 7 m m m!o w a • . a L c ~ m' k. V- L ~O a O ~ I I •+ o C a~C . l ' + 1 ro. r n r .+ o G .+ U ~ 7 EIS' a mlm o ~~ o c I ! .. ro o~oa . x w x aF...lc ro rl> ' w o 7 -+ o u 7 E w,+ rom m mlo c c c c c ~ au c~ dcJiwa w o>Er-,rco:o:IcJ~...i~+ .. .., Q o 0 0 111 0 ~Ul 0 0 111 UI o N 0 Ul'o N M UI ' ~ - N 2 ~ 7 111 ~c .- N N 7 ! .- .- N M M ? p Ul Ul UI :Ifl ' .o .o ~ FF F mm mm O~ TPO~IO~O~TIO+T TIT OAT , I L i o 0 o O O j 0 0 0 0 0 O I 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 o o . e i _ _ _ _ _ .. ~ h G. ~ r. ~ I n w s ~ „ I - p-5 } l l I __ hl~un#~ of ~LZuttxcuC~e - ~"~A ~ rzr ~ ROAN ~ F >, L ~ ~ ~ 2 J .a2 1838 DECLARING DECEMBER 5, 1995 AS VIRGINIA SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DAY IN ROANOI~ COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, conservation districts were created in the late 1930's !n recognition of the need for local lnvohrement in conservation districts; and WHEREAS, today, there are more than 3,000 conservation districts In the United States, Including 45 districts fn Virginia; and WHEREAS, these districts promote solutions to natural resources issues in the community level by encouraging consensus and collaboration of state, federal and local resource agencies; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts (VASWCD) provides and promotes leadership In the conservation of natural resources through stewardship and education programs, and WHEREAS, VASWCD supports many programs such as the Youth Conservation Camp, Envirothon, an Education Foundation, and watershed conservation projects in its ongoing efforts to preserve natural resources for future generations. NOW, THEREFORE, AND FURTHER, 1, H. Odell "Fuzzy' Minnix, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County do hereby proclaim December 5, 1995 in Roanoke County, Virginia, as VIRGINIA SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DAY on behalf of the citizens of Roanoke County, 1 offer a warm, sincere welcome fo the participants of the 57th annual meeting of the VASWCD, and encourage them to visit the sites in our Dutiful Roanoke Valley. r/ /' ~ l H. Odell "Fuzzy' i , Chairman ATTEST: Mary H. Allen, Clerk f~uun#g u~ ~arxxcuke ~ t~ 2 DECLARING DECEMBER 1, 1995 AS WORLD AIDS DAY IN ROANOJ~ COUNTY c~ - !n WHEREAS, the global spread of the HN Infection and AIDS necessitates a worldwide effort to Increase communication, education and preventive action to sfop the spread of HN/AIDS; and WHERFJI~, the World Health Organization has designated December 1 of each year as World AIDS Day, a day to expand and strengthen the worldwide effort to stop the spread of HN/AIDS; and WHEREAS, the World Health Organization now estimates that 18.5 miillon people have been Infected with HN and that more than 1.5 million of them have developed ANDS; and WHERFA~ the American Association for World Health is encouraging a better understanding of the challenge of HN/AIDS nationally as tt recognizes that the number of people diagnosed with HN and AIDS !n the United States continues to increase, with an estfmsted 1 In 250 Americans currently HN positive and over 441,528 AIDS cases reported (as of December 31, 1994); and WHEREAS, World AIDS Day provides an opportunity to focus on HN Infection and AIDS, caring for people with HN Infection and AIDS, and leaming about HN/AIDS; and WHEREAS; World AIDS Day 1995, 'Shared Rights, Shared Responsibilities' (a) urges the world to protect everyone's rights to HN/AIDS prevention and care, (b) recognizes that everyone shares the same human rights regardless of their HN status, and (c) emphasizes the shared responsibilities of Individuals, families, govemments,and the international community to promote prevention. NOW, THEREFORE, 1, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim December 1, 1995 as WORLD AIDS DAY In Roanoke County, Virginia, and urge alt citizens to take part 1n activities and observances designed to increase awareness and understanding of HN/AIDS as a global challenge, to take part in HN/AIDS prevention activities and programs and to join the global effort to prevent the further spread of HN/AIDS. ~r ,, H. Odell 'Fuzzy' Mi rtr3c C airman ATTEST: Mary H. Allen, Clerk 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: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Report of Operations for the Year Ended June 30, 1995 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: KPMG Peat Marwick has concluded their audit of the financial operations of the County of Roanoke for the year ended June 30, 1995 and the County has received a favorable opinion. The printed Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) will be distributed at the Board meeting. County Operations The operations for the year ended June 30, 1995 were reviewed with the Board at a work session on October 24, 1995. There has not been any change in the financial information since that time. The County continues to maintain its strong financial position. As of June 30, 1995, the County will add an additional $2,000,115 to the unappropriated fund balance. The result of operations for 1994-95 are summarized below: Revenues in excess of budget $ 1,360,111 Expenditures under budget 441,588 Transfers under budget and changes in other reserves 198.416 $ 2,000,115 The continued improvement in the economy was again beneficial to the County during the 1994-95 fiscal year. General Fund actual revenues exceeded budgeted revenues by $1,360,111. The major sources of these actual revenues in excess of budget are shown below: m:\finance\common\board\ November 17. 1995 o- ~ Real estate taxes $ 410,532 Personal property taxes 320,876 Permits and fees 141,245 Commonwealth 144,960 Federal 168,931 Other 173,567 $ 1,360,111 There were no significant department overruns. There was an overrun in the Court Services department of $141,543 resulting from mandated court placements. Greater detail of the result of County operations can be seen on Attachment A. School operations In addition, the School operations for the fiscal year 1994-95 resulted in a year end surplus of $758,480 as outlined in Attachment C. Actual revenues were very close to budgeted revenues. The year end balance is primarily the result of expenditure savings in personnel costs. The budget ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors states that all school fund appropriations remaining at the end of the year shall be appropriated to the School Capital Fund. In accordance with this provision, on November 16, 1995, the School Board appropriated year end surplus to school capital improvements. This balance was allocated to school buses ($500,000) and other school capital ($258,480). FISCAL IMPACT The surplus from County operations of $2,000,115 is added to the unappropriated fund balance at June 30, 1995, as shown in Attachment B. The Board can reappropriate the funds from the unappropriated fund balance to other projects if they desire. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: No action is required from the Board at this time. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~v ~~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance Approved byr, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved () Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied () Eddy _ _ _ Received O Johnson _ _ _ Referred O Kohinke _ _ _ To O Minnix _ _ _ Nickens m:\finance\common\board\ November 17, 1995 Attachment A COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA GENERAL FUND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1995 Budget Actual Revenues Real property taxes $ 37,303,000 $ 37,713,532 Personal property taxes 16,080,000 16,400,876 Other property taxes 2,220,000 2,293,129 Local sales tax 5,200,000 5,054,088 Utility license tax 250,000 294,700 Utility consumer tax 3,830,000 3,861,958 Business license tax 3,150,000 3,159,025 Bank franchise tax 250,000 184,107 Motor vehicle license tax 1,450,000 1,491,960 Recordation and conveyance 670,000 790,285 Hotel/motel tax 660,000 627,198 Meals tax 2,100,000 2,084,278 Other local taxes 785,000 869,935 Permits and fees 617,217 758,462 Fine and forfeitures 487,500 447,508 Use of money and property 114,299 138,193 Charges for services 899,231 970,866 Miscellaneous revenue 484,092 497,899 Recovered costs 678,566 637,126 Commonwealth 6,628,611 6,773,571 Federal 2,046,012 2,214,943 85,903,528 87,263,639 Expenditures General government administration 6,369,277 6,056,281 Judicial administration 1,379,216 1,318,429 Public safety 14,750,004 14,083,183 Public works 8,631,652 8,218,797 Health and welfare 5,393,694 5,235,004 Parks, recreation and cultural 3,487,374 3,230,182 Community development 1,545,930 1,468,992 Nondepartmental 3,710,499 3,194,448 45,267,646 42,805,316 Excess revenues over expenditures 40,635,882 44,458,323 Transfers to other funds (43,774,622) (43,158,136) Changes in other reserves Rollover of outstanding encumbrances Rollover of departmental savings Amount available to add to Unappropriated Fund Balance o- 7 Variance Favorable (Unfavorable) 410,532 320,876 73,129 (145,912) 44,700 31,958 9,025 (65,893) 41,960 120,285 (32,802) (15,722) 84,935 141,245 (39,992) 23,894 71,635 13,807 (41,440) 144,960 168,931 1,360,111 312,996 60,787 666,821 412,855 158,690 257,192 76,938 516,051 2,462,330 3,822,441 616,486 4,438,927 (418,070) (1,067,026) (953,716) $ 2,000,115 M:\FINANCE\COMMON\95AU DIT\BOARD.WK4 11 /10/95 Attachment B COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE of General Amount Fund Revenues Beginning Balance at July 1, 1995 (Unaudited) $4,994,791 5.78% Addition from 1995-96 Budget 10,558 Current year appropriation Donation to Rusco (127,500) Balance prior to November 21, 1995 4,877,849 5.64% Addition from results of 1994-95 operations 2,000,115 $6,877,964 7.95% Note:The Board of Supervisors adopted a goal statement to maintain the General Fund Unappropriated Balance at 6.25% of General Fund Revenues 1995-96 General Fund Revenues $86,464,490 6.25% of General Fund Revenues $5,404,031 M:\FINANCE\COM MON\95AU DIT\BOARD. WK4 11 /10/95 Attachment C Revised (11-1-95 ) ~~ ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AUDITED YEAR-END BALANCES JUNE 30, 1995 OPERATING FUND BUDGET ACTUAL OVER/(UNDER~ REVENUES; STATE FUNDS Basic S.O.Q. & Categorical Funds State Sales & Use Tax FEDERAL FUNDS LOCAL FUNDS OTHER FUNDS 26,916,547 27,004,973 88,426 6,828,489 6,871,339 42,850 138,800 145,330 6,530 39,639,768 39,609,759 (30,009 368,392 427,656 59,264 ~ TOTALS 73,891,996 74,059,057 167,061 EXPENDITURES: CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION PERSONNEL SUPPORT SERVICES CENTRAL SUPPORT OTHER PROGRAMS TOTALS Year-End Fund Balance Portion of Fund Balance for FY199 Remaining Unallocated Fund Bala BUDGET ACTUAL OVER/(UNDER)~ i 3,080,092 3,147,505 67,413 ~' 61,489,810 60,646,369 (843,441y 4,261,129 4,271,474 10, 345 4,642,924 4,437,294 (205,630 418,042 392,985 (25,057 73,891,996 72,895,627 5-96 Operations ice i (996,370 1,163,431 404 951 Zy ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER v ~ V AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 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 Bond Referendum (Attachment A), a time line for the projected/actual activity of the various work components (Attachment B) and a listing of projects that .have been completed (Attachment C). FISCAL IMPACT: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Questions may be directed to either the specific project coordinator listed on the time line worksheet or John Chambliss. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, ~~u J hn M. Chambliss, Jr.' Elmer C. Hodge Assistant County Administrator County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Motion by: VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment A November 21, 1995 1992 BOND REFERENDUM PROJECTS PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS PARKS AND RECREATION • Vinyard Park The playground is complete. o-s • Ballfteld Fencing Fencing has started at Walrond Park and the contractor will move to Whispering Pines next. • Tennis Court Renovations The contract has been awarded for Mt. Pleasant and Bent Mountain courts. These courts will receive an asphalt overlay, sealer coat, striping, new nets and posts and minor fence repairs. They will not be color coated. Due to the paving schedule, the work will not be completed until the spring of 1996. DRAINAGE PROJECTS • Dwight Hills This project has been delayed due to easement negotiations. Two key property owners are not willing to donate an easement. Unfortunately, we have exhausted all other options. We plan on having a public meeting sometime next summer (1996) to inform other property owners. • Wolfe Creek We are currently meeting with property owners to discuss construction/drainage easements of Phase II. VDOT has approved Phase II plans. We expect to begin construction soon. Q O O M p., ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ° o ~ ~ ~ i.,; N M b~A N b4 b4 N ~ +--' ~ c~z~A o ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ O U a~i a~i G j 'o ~. a ., Q ~O a d d z ti U w A 0 z ,~ F O o~ W a a ., w A W Q a w a w a w a w a w a Q a z d z d z d z d z d z d z d d ,..~ E• U d a F, U d ,..~ F, U d a F, U d a F. U d a F. U d ,~ F. U a d a d a d a d a d a d a d o ~ o az N F" W W F. U O z ~ Wa F- F x A~ a H W da E,.,S ~~ a `boo ~ AA d 30 0 a ~o w a°a o a Ufa dw dU U ~U o.U H ~~ H A F ~ U °` ,--^ ~ ~ O ~, N a ~ ~ z~~ 9 A°a¢z O W O a U a a w Az d a U ~C A b ~," O .~ b ~. .O .:~ h ~ z ~ w O o U U G O O O O O O ~ O O "~ 6~4 6N~4 ~.+ ~"' ~ N ~ U .~ ~ ~ ~ A z ~a ~~ o~ o a U W U N O a W E~ A F o~ V °` O ~ c~ a z~~ °~¢z x w ~a U z F U O a a W C7 z a A ., `O a Q z ., U W A 9 O z H 0 w ~ ~ Q .~ 0 ., H w A co z H ~ ~ z H a ¢ a Q a d z 0 ~ x v H ~ W H .~ wH z H O ~U ~ a~ ~. O U 3 a° ... 0 3 0 .~ a~ ~. a bA .b .~ ,D M 0 0 U O ~. .., 0 .~ .~ b b a~ ~., 0 ao .~ a F z O U N o-~ ~ ~ O O O O O ~ p O o0 ~ ~ 6R N y ~ ~ U .G ~ Q ~ Fri ~ O N i. +~ s~ ~ O U O ~ ~ O W U U N ~O ~, a W Fd' U °` ~.. O ~ N ~ ~ ~ z~~ ~ ~ °~¢z x U w U O a a L~ d z A ~, Q ~O a d III w d ti U W A O z o rn a w ~II F CW7 Q o~ z Q o`a. Q E]-~ ¢ z Q a Q F d z Q a Q H ¢ z Q a Q H d z Q a Q F ~ Q ~? z W o H 3w A~ a ~ N ~ d a W H ~ U a U Q U U ~ cC a .~ a~ c~ ~ O O ~ O cd •~ O ~ '« ~ ~ o ~' U O U ~ ~ ~ bA o ~ o o a~ ~~ ~. o ~~ ~ a a '-" o a~ a~ ~a .., 3 'b a~ bA ~--~ f~ ~ a ~ `~ ~~ °~' O U y H W M o-~ 0 ~~~A ~ o ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ bA ~ z ~ ~ ~ O W ~ U O O U U a~ 'o a F A U °` Q ~ N a z~~ ~¢z ., d `O a a W w z ti W A 0 z ,~ F U O W Q a ., w A Ca ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ z z z z a ~ a d a ¢ a d a d Q o as w o A Q H :: v~ ~z W qx U A~ ~ x a N w x d H wN U ~ ~U P.U ~ U x H x A H a w A a ~ ~' ~ o ~ ~" ~ G1~ c~ ~" ~.i N c~ ~ .~ O O ~ bA O~ .~ •-.~ s.. ~3 °' o ~. ~, 3 •~ o O o ~ ~, ..„ a; ~~ °a~ H ~ . ~ .o .~ ~ ~ ~•, ~" ~ O ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 00 ~ •~ 'b o b a~ ~ ~ ~ b i ?? b ~ Q ~ ,--~ DG ~ ~ 'o a~ a ~ o H W D-~ ~ O O ~ C~, p O Q ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ bA N sue. .~ ~ 'd ~ ~ ~ z ~, ~, °o w r'i U 'C Q O O U U N ~O a W H A H ~ U O1 ~a O ~, c~ ~ ~ ~ z~~ °~¢z ., I ~o a d Q w w z a ti U W A O z ,~ F U O o, a w rn ~ a ti H w Q oa Q a w a Q a w a w a w a w a z Q z a z ¢ z a z a z ¢ z Q Q F Q F Q F Q F ¢ H Q H Q N a U d ,,~ a. U ¢ ,~ a U d ,.a a U d ,,~ a U ¢ ,~ a U d ,.a a U d a V a o 0 ~ ~ z ¢ z ¢~ A w ° a H a d H a U ~ F _zw W~ ¢ ¢ ~H~ ~H~ ~~ wo ~z ~z w~ a¢a p ~ Ww~ ~a°~ QW~ Sao a 0 v~U aw a3a ~a ~az ~aaU H cd N .b .., c~ a~ a~ cd 3 ~. w 0 0 ..., ~. a z W D-g a ~ o ~n ;~ O O M ,~ N O ~ `~" O ~ O ~ i/'~ a ~ 6F} yg N ~ .. O ~' U i.: .--i O bUip ~ ~ O ~ A ;~ N GA o U ~ ~ U O ~ .O O ~ a~ w z 0 U U W F A F ~ U °` .- ^ O ~ N a~~ ,~ ~ U~ N °~¢z F U O A4 a z 0 H d U Az d a z ti ~O a Q ~, a III w z w A 0 z I~IIp ~~~ III Q ., W ~ ~ m PC MII gll °II ~II III gll ~II a',. H Q z a H ¢ z a H ¢ ¢ a H d Q aa. H d A z wo a ~ a ca ~ o~H Q F aW,p U V qQ W k R.z Za a `a z ~w ¢ Boa H ~ iC p ... a .~ O a~ 3 o a ~ o ~ U p U N ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ a p., UC"" y O O ~ 3 o o U i"' ~ ~ .--~ v] ,~~+ cd bq ~ i~i bA O ~ .,-, ~ ~ w '~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ N a w -d ~ N `~ z~ 0 V a~o~ N O v'~ x O~ ~ O ~ ~ ao~~ ~ u a~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ Q :b N W 0 °o ~ °~ U ~ ~ 'd ("i 'o ~ a a w z 0 U W d H ~ O ~ N a z~~ A°a¢z H a a z 0 Wd' a WU a ~O a W w d ti w a ° ~ z ~ rn a ~, ~ s:» rn ~ Q a ti g ~ Z5 v~, ~ 0 2 F ~ F, ^ W ~ ° ° ~ ° ~ pQ O~ N ' A N N V1 d r7 CQ ~ ~ ~ ~ z z z z a ¢ a',. d a ¢ a Q w a ~ ~ ¢ ~z ¢a o ~ °H F ~, W .~ x~ ¢ Z° z H ~ ~ vFi W F W ~ z v~ N ~ .b c~ ~ .~ ~3 Q" o ° U ~ °' A Hb ~ o ~ U O ~ .~ ~~ O p .--~ A ~ '3 ~H .~ ~~ a~ ~ a ~? ~ ~ `~" o ~ .~ -d ~ ct~ ~ ~ v~ ~ O ~ ~ a~ '~ ~ o U ~ bA ~..+ ~r ~, L" a o ~ L~L ~ l~ ~ ~ ~ b .~ ~ ~ C~ o ~ a ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ,--~ N cd .a U ~ o a~ `~ '3 F o ~ ~~ .~ .~ .~ i. a .., b a~ a~i N .~ b b S'".. aLL~ l~ I a~ U U O .~ p-6 ~oooo > o o S ~°oo ~~ d~~~ ~ ~ A ozCa o ~ o °~' b U U .. O ~ b U ~ U ~ a~ W ~O a w U °` ~1 ^° as a A ~ ~ U N cd °~¢z C/] H U O A4 A a ., ¢ '~'' ~o a `: d ::::: Q ~ >:. rn w z '```' ti w A >E: o :: z ~: ~, F U `> ~:~ O ::: ~, W ~, ::> ~ Q ~: ., ::: W Q Q F ~ H a ~ a d Q W AW F x U v i W p+ F F~ a U ..a oz a o dUd F rn .~ ~. a ~. 0 rn rn .--~ W .-.. ~, b -d U .~ O .~ U 0 U "C .~ 0 a~ ,S~ a ~, 0 ... x .s ~, Q .., -~ U z ~ N .? an a ~-g w 0 .-~ A ~~+ G O b .~ ,Ly" U 0 ~-, z 0 U U 0 .., ~, 0 0 U U N O i, a W F A F U Qw z 0 °o~ o~ o~ V7 M ~ ~ b~3 •--~ ch ~-+ 6R ,b ~..+ ~~ ~a Q 0 b a~ a W rn a~ N N ~ ~> ¢z ., ~O a Q w w z ., W Q 0 z H U O a W ~ ~ d .a ., m ~ ~ m ~ ~, W O ~ O A ~ ~ ~ ~ CQ z H z a d a d w O F Q ~Q O a .a F- c~ O N cti .~; ~+ N .~ bA ..., ~..+ cd ... 0 an a~ z F W 0 U 68 BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment C November 21, 1995 BOND PROJECTS COMPLETED DRAINAGE: Mt. Vernon Heights Sierra Drive/Fenwick Drive Green Valley Mason Creek Phase I PARKS AND RECREATION: Walrond Park Soccer Field Northside Realign Fields Bonsack Park Picnic Shelter Vinyard Park I Light Soccer Field Byrd School -Light Baseball Field Starkey Park - 1 Baseball Field Starkey Park - 2 Baseball Fields Facility Repairs -Walrond Office Infield Surface Materials for Baseball Garst Mill Park Starkey Park -Parking Lot Whispering Pines Park Vinyard Park I Playground c-a Walrond Park 2 Baseball Fields Bonsack Park Ball Field Bonsack Park Playground Equipment Vinyard Park I Parking Green Hill Park - 2 Picnic Shelters Starkey Park -Light 1 Field Facility Repairs -Craig Avenue Center Career Center - Replace Lights Mt. Pleasant Park Brambleton Center Elevator Goode Park Vinyard Park I FIRE HYDRANTS NORTH COUNTY LIBRARY VALLEY TECHPARK ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~L~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE• November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM• Report of Judicial Sale COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: This has been a successful program. Mr. Anderson will be attending the Board meeting and wishes to make some comments on this item. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: You will recall that earlier this year, you approved Osterhoudt, Ferguson, Natt law firm to handle our Judicial Sale proceedings. On March, 10, 1995 the Treasurer's Office presented them with 108 parcels totaling $247,000 in tax, penalty, and interest. These parcels were delinquent at least three years the preceeding December 5. To date, 61 parcels have been paid in full totaling $147,000. Eight parcels lacking clear titles were removed and escheated to the Commonwealth. They totaled less than $6,000. Presently, 39 parcels totaling $94,000 are scheduled to be sold sometime in January. After the judicial sale, this will have cost the County nothing. All costs were bourne he deling ent taxpayer as provided by law. Respect lily subm ,, ted, c6`~ Alfred C. Anderson Roanoke County Treasurer ---------------------------------------------------------------- Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by: VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens ~• , Item No . ~ -' ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER IN ROANOKE, VA ON TUESDAY, November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Financial Statement and Supplementary Schedule (Audit) of the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia, for Fiscal Year 1994-95 rOUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: The Industrial Development Authority (IDA) is required to have an annual audit. H. Schwarz and Company performed the audit and determined that the Authority's operations and changes in its financial position are in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The IDA contracted for its own audit. Receive and file audit. Respectfully submitted: / , "v' Timothy Gubala Secretary-Treasurer, IDA Approved: Elmer C.Hodge, Jr. County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens Attachment ~~ V INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEDULES June 30, 1995 and 1994 o-~~ OFFICERS Charles R. Saul, Chairman Timothy W. Gubala, Secretary-Treasurer Edward A. Natt. Legal Counsel BOARD OF DIRECTORS Billy H. Branch Ronald M. Martin J. Richard Cranwell J. Carson Quarles W. Darnall Vinyard Carole Brackman TABLE OF CONTENT'S~~~~ Page INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT 1 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Balance Sheets 2 Statements of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance 3 Statements of Changes in Financial Position q Notes to Financial Statements 5 SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEDULE Schedule of Revenue Bonds and Notes Outstanding g CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Professional Coroorat~on INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT titembers of the Board of Supervisors and Board of Directors Industrial Development Authority Roanoke County, Virginia ~~~ 5204 Bernard Drive, Suite 300 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 ~ 7031 989-6144 F,4X (703) 989-6613 We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia, as of June 30, 1995 and 1994, and the related statements of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balance and changes in financial position for the years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the management of the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia, at June 30, 1995 and 1994, and the results of its operations and changes in financial position in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Our audits were made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the basic financial statements taken as a whole. The schedules of revenue bonds and notes outstanding on page 8 are presented for the purpose of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audits of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. i~~>~~ , ~-,Vic. October 25, 1995 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA BALANCE SHEETS June 30, 1995 and 1994 ASSETS Cash Land (Note 3) LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE Fund Balance 1995 $ 3,960 1,453.282 $ 1,457,242 $ 1,457,242 The Notes to Financial Statements are an integral part of these statements. 1994 $ 3,567 1 45. 3.282 $ 1 4549 $ 1 456 49 t .. 1~ ~ 2 V ~` ~I U INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA STATEMENTS OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Years Ended June 30, 1995 and 1994 1995 1994 REVENUES Contributions from Roanoke County $ - $ 435,830 Audit fees 2,147 754 Member fees 1,450 1,350 Application fees 663 250 Interest income 74 - TOTAL REVENUES 4.334 438 1 4 EXPENDITURES Service charges 16 136 Professional fees 2,175 950 Directors' fees 1,750 850 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 3.941 1.936 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES 393 436,248 FUND BALANCE, BEGINNING OF YEAR 1,456,849 1 02 1 FUND BALANCE, END OF YEAR $ 11 457,242 $ 1,45a The Notes to Financial Statements are an integral part of these statements. 3 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA STATEI~tENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSIT°ION Years Ended June 30, 1995 and 1994 1995 FINANCIAL RESOURCES WERE PROVIDED BY: Excess of revenues over expenditures S 393 Reduction of cash - TOTAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE 5 393 FINANCIAL RESOURCES WERE USED FOR: Purchase of land $ - Increase in cash 393 TOTAL USES S 393 The Notes to Financial Statements are an integral part of these statements. 1994 $ 436,248 1661 $ 43~1~ $ 436,182 $ 43 1 2 ~.~ ~ 4 u~~a INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Note 1. ORGANIZATION, DESCRIPTION OF THE ENTITY AND ITS ACTIVITIES The Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia, was created as apolitical subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia by ordinance of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors on August 11, 1971, pursuant to the provisions of the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act (Chapter 33, Section 15.1-1373, et. seq., of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended). The Authority is governed by seven directors appointed by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. It is authorized to acquire, own, lease and dispose of properties to the end that such activities may promote industry and develop trade by inducing enterprises to locate and remain in Virginia. In addition, the Authority is authorized to issue revenue bonds for the purpose of obtaining and constructing facilities. Liability under the bonds may be retained by the Authority, or it may be assumed by the enterprises for whom facilities are constructed. Collection of revenues pledged to liquidate the bonds may be assigned to a trustee. The revenue bonds are not deemed to constitute a debt or pledge of the faith and credit of the Commonwealth of Virginia or any municipality thereof. The bonds are payable solely from revenues generated from the lease of the facilities constructed and may be secured by a deed of trust on those facilities. Note 2. ACCOUNTING POLICIES O~eratinQ Cvcle and Classification of Asset The Authority may realize its assets and liquidate its liabilities in operating cycles which range from very short to very long periods. The accompanying financial statements are presented in a nonclassified format because working capital concepts are not indicative of its opcrating liquidity. Net Investment in Direct Financing Leases The Authority may acquire and improve properties and retain title to them. Where transfer of title at the completion of a lease to a tenant is not reasonably assured by bargain purchase options or other lease provisions, the Authority accounts for activities in its role as lessor as either capital leases or operating leases in accordance with the provisions of Financial Accounting Standard Number 13. PassthrouQh Financing Leasg~ Most activities of the Authority represent passthrough leases.. These agreements provide for periodic rental payments in amounts which are equal to the principal and interest payments due to project bondholders. The Authority has assigned all rights to the rental payments to the trustees of the bondholders, and the lessees have assumed responsibility for all operating costs such as utilities, repairs, and property taxes. In such cases, the Authority neither receives nor disburses funds. o-~~ INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Note 2. ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) Passthrouah Financine Leases Although title to these properties rests with the Authority, bargain purchase options or other lease provisions eliminate any equity interest that would otherwise be retained. Deeds of trust secure outstanding bond obligations, and title will revert to the lessee when the bonds are fully paid. Although the authority provides a conduit to execute such transactions, it does not retain either the benefits of asset ownership or the liability for bond liquidation. Accordingly, the Authority does not recognize associated assets, liabilities, rental income, or interest expense in its financial statements. Investment Income Recosnition Interest income from short-term cash investment of bond proceeds related to projects retained and managed by the authority is restricted as to its disposition by the bond indentures and is deferred as a part of the basis of related properties. Contributions from Local Governments and Deferred Revenue Contributions from local governments are recognized as income of the Authority when the activities for which the contributions were designated have been completed. Note 3. LAND The Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia, owns certain parcels of land as follows: • 175.57 acres of land located at Valley TechPark $ 1,017,100 • 15 acres of land located at 601 Hollins Road 286,152 • One-half ownership with Botetourt County of I S acres of land located in the Jack Smith Industrial Park 63,391 • 2 acres of land located on Route 11 75,957 • 0.484 acres of land located on Routes 11 and 460 10.682 $14.582 Note 4. REVENUE BONDS AND NOTES As of June 30, 1995 and 1994, the Authority has issued $37,872,077 and $45,336,225, respectively, and has outstanding $26,087,317 and $28,849,614, respectively, in bonds and notes under the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, pursuant to Chapter 33, Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. These debt issues 6 O'~o INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Note 4. REVENUE BONDS AND NOTES (Continued) are not included in the accompanying financial statements since the Authority is not liable for their repayment, as discussed in Note 2. Note 5. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS The Roanoke County Director of Economic Development serves asSecretary-Treasurer for the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia. Roanoke County pays legal fees for the Industrial Development Authority in the normal course of business to the legal counsel of the Authority. Total fees paid for the years ended June 30, 1995 and 1994, were approximately $7,130 and $12,363, respectively. C"~ H O E..i H a ~' N ~> a~ so U aA C "~ ~ O ~.r OG y ~ O M C7 z H zA 6 H H O W F O z A O~ r-1 d' ~ O O ~ ~ W G W W A4 G. O W r-7 A W x U U a~ •O ~+ W W O a~ A 9 H a, U ~ U ~ O r-1 M ~ G G ti a~ ~ ~ G ~ ~ •,~ U ~ ~, a~ '~' +~ ~+ U •rl •,-I U L1 r-~ ~ r-~ r-I cd N ~d U •rl •rl 'L1 W 1J of ~--~ W W d0 W O r-•1 N ~+ c0 O b0 b0 h0 G ~ h0 dD b0 ~ OD U N G G G G N •r+ N N G G G~ G G d .b E G b b b ~~ .a rn b b b 70-i b •a O G a~ ••a •,a •••r .~ G W •~ •a ••a •d •.•~ O ,~ ~ +~ d O G 0 a~ a o e0 G G G G G ~+ ~ ~ ~ o ~ a~ ~ 3 m ~ b a~ a~ a~ a~ a~ •a •~+ •.a o0.~ U U U~ ~d o G U U U U o G r•+ u1 L1• •rd N •.•i ,~ •.-i •'•I 7a •~ ~ v-1 •.a •'•1 •.-i •.-1 •a N ~+ u1 G7 l.r W W W G O b W W W W W W E 1.J 0 0 S-i cti W W W •~ 1~ N d W W W W W b O Z x k+ 3 0 0 0 to ~ R+ 0 0 0 0 0 d x 0 0 0 u1 N u'1 ~f1 O ~D N O .7 n O O O\ O N (~ oooaoao~aoo~~o~oooo~o~ ,~ OOOOcON1~O~o+ON~OO~DOrn M OOO~ONO0a0O00o0 V1r-1MNO~YUIN f~ .•~ i11 .7 N ~O O o0 O O M ~ r-i 1~ f~ ~O O O 00 00 O~ M .•i ~f1 N ~D N 00 N M N u'1 N M r•d O O ~ ~ e--i M e--1 ~ M ~p N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t!1 O O O O O N ~--i OOOOOOOOOOONOOOOOu'1 ~ N O O O O O O O O O O O N O 0 0 0 0 00 •rl ,'3 OOOOOv'1u"1OOO0NOO0OO0+ 00 N o0 ~O O O O ~ a0 O ~+'~ O N ri O o0 tr'1 ~O u'1 O •rl UI n 00 N O~ ~ M r-1 O ~ ~ r-1 t!l tt1 t~ ~fl M N N ~ H r-i M M ~ ~ ~O O~ ao M o0 00 op o0 u'1 tr1 ~ nr~o+aornrnrna` ~u~oooo a + a~~~rn~r-+,~.~ ao0ornrn~ r-I rn r•d e-~ r~ 1!'1 O\ O\ r°I r••I 00 O\ M e--1 - in - ~ 00 r-1 00 rn - - .-1 00 .-r v~ r~ ri r-1 N r-i N N N r-I - - V1 tf1 O\ r-a ~••1 1.~ 3.1 ~.i bd 3.1 S-1 3.1 i•1 ~-I - N O~ .-1 r-1 ~ .--i ~ co O N m N d N N d o~ ~+ ~+ Y+ ~+ - ~ ri ~ A ~,CA,~„p~,1~pN d N N d 1~u1 t0 E E E E E E E E ,G A ,G A y ,G .G O N N m N d d d N~ 0 0 0 0 ?i U U 3.i O O~ N N~ N y U ~ ~ G U U U~~ N N ~ Z2AAAAAAhOOOO d-7~ ~f=, N ~ O ~ }+ JJ r-1 ~ ~ N U '~ U 1 J O •n O G d ctl ~ ~ C4 ~+ G1 U O V1 a '.Z. S•i ~ Sa U cd O •n N G d u1 O ~0 N N JJ ~I O O N d 0 N ~+ d a+ •.•+ U o o w x a ~+ •~ b ~+ u~ O w y" E ~+ 3~+ u1 00 ,C cd U r-1 t0 G •.~ ~ mda ~,-+ m ~+ >,u G aata o ~ o w d al~~ t+~ra s.+3 o O o x •~+ F+ G a~ ~-~+ cd ~ ~ o ~ ~ G +~ b ,~ may G G o4 a~ a~ G G .~t O J..1 G o0 G~ u1 O O JG •-~ d ti-1 N O oq pq •.~ d ,r •.~ W of u U d a,+ ~ •.~ r-1 E F-1 G U L1 3a d O ~ •~ ~ O O iJ b ~ ~ b•i Sa xGrrWOG3~>G1:~C4v~dW Wav O oGU n n O N n n M p-ro ACTION # ITEM NUMBER~J AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: VRS Rate Increases for 1996-98 Biennium COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: At a recent board meeting, one of the Board members asked for an update on the impact of early retirements on VRS contributions. This report is included for your information because we will most likely have to deal with this in next year's budget. The full impact will not be known until the General Assembly chooses the method of funding these retirements. We could lobby the legislature to minimize any increases. However, this might actually result in even greater funding in years to come. At this point it appears that the impact on next year's budget will be $1 million for school and County retirements. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Senate Bi112008 enacted by the General Assembly last year provided an annual three percent cost of living increase for current and future 1) State retirees, 2) retired elected Constitutional Officers and their retired State funded staff, and 3) professional School Board retirees (teachers, administrators and clerical staff) effective October 1, 1994. Aboard report was presented to the Board at the time to approve the same annual increase for the remaining County and School Board employee groups which were not covered by this bill. Using rates estimated by the state, the fiscal impact for the County was determined to be $162,000 for the Schools professional group, $27,000 for the Schools non-professional group, $37,000 for Constitutional Officers, and $136,000 for County employees. The fiscal impact of the above bill remains the same today. However, the issue of prefunding cost of living allowances (COLA) for retirees has resurfaced. In 1980, a government commission recommended language requiring the COLA to be prefunded no later than June 30, 1992. That statute was later repealed. The prefunding issue has been revived in large part due to the recent reporting requirements set forth by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). Under the new GASB standards, if an employer does not pay the contributions in any year that are determined to be necessary to fully fund benefits, then the shortfall must be recognized as a liability on the financial statements. The COLA is not required by GASB to be funded but all statutory COLA's, as in the state of Virginia, that are not funded must be disclosed as a liability on the financial statements. The major implication of this type disclosure would be the effect, if any, on m:\finance\common\boazd\ 11-21-95.rpt s - c~-l the County's bond rating. The alternative to disclosure would be for VRS to increase the locality contribution rates an amount sufficient to cover the liability. Recognizing that the resolution of the prefunding issue is a policy decision, VRS submitted three options to the Governor for consideration in setting the 1996-98 employer contribution rates. The options were to 1) continue the current pay-as-you-go policy which would require the above referenced liability disclosure on the county financial statements, 2) partial prefunding of the COLA with an estimated county and school cost of $150,000 and $850,000, respectively, in the 1996-97 budget, and 3) full prefunding of the COLA with an estimated county and school cost of $300,000 and $2.2 million, respectively, in the 1996-97 budget. These cost increases would be recurring expenditures of the county and are based on actuarial determined contributions necessary for funding future COLA's. The attached article describes the potential impact on school divisions throughout the state. At this time, the State has released information only on the teacher pool and staff has provided rough estimates of the total impact on the county. It is anticipated that VRS will provide more information on the local costs in December. However, it appears the implications for the county range from a potential adverse impact on our bond rating if we do not increase the funding to a significant increase in our retirement contribution rate dependent upon which option the Governor chooses to pursue. At this point, it seems likely that Roanoke County will have to increase the annual contribution to VRS by approximately $1 million next year. Staff will bring back additional information as it is released by the State. ~. ,z~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance o.' f L~, ~ ~~'~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved () Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied () Eddy _ _ _ Received O Johnson _ _ _ Referred () Kohinke _ _ _ To O Minnix _ _ _ Nickens m:\finance\common\boazd\ 11-21-95. rpt .f ~, - ~µ VASS NEws VRS Contribution Rates: Significant For Superintendents by J. Richard Garnett Jr., Superintendent of Schools, Fredericksburg City A recent reporting requirement of the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) could have significant fiscal impact on local school division budgets They aze: 1. Continue the pay-as-you-go system for funding the COLA. This would result in no significant change in VRS rates. across the Common- wealth of Virginia. 2. A partial prefunding of Because this new ~ the COLA. VRS rates requirement could could increase to 13.10% mean prefunding the '~ under this proposal Cost of Living Allow- ~~Y, 3. Fully prefunding the ance (COLA) for ~ , _ • COLA which would retirees, asignificant result in the 15.79% rate increase in VRS rates _ previously mentioned. would be needed to properly fund the ~ If the decision is system. It should be made not to fully prefund noted that for every 1% the COLA, the new the VRS rate increases, Richard Garners, Jr. GASB. regulations would it will add $10,000 for require that the unfunded each one million dollars benefit must be listed as a of payroll for teachers. Thus, if a school system has a $5,000,000 teacher payroll, it would take $50,000 in additional local funds to pay fora 1 % increase in VRS rates. The current VRS race is 5% for employees and 6.41% for the em- ployers for a combined total of 11.41% for teachers. Should the state decide to fully prefund the COLA for retirees, the combined rate will rise to 15.79%, a 4.38% increase. The increase would thus cost $43, 800 for every one million dollars of teacher payro~: Recognizing the significant fiscal implications of the COLA issue, the VRS Boazd of Directors tt~s-summer forwarded to the Governor and the General Assembly three options for their consideration. liability on the financial statements of both local governments and the State of Virginia. This additional liability would likely cause the bond ratings of localities and the state to be adversely affected. Lowered bond ratings could result in significantly higher costs of bonded indebtedness across the state. Thus the General Assembly will be faced with a true dilemma in trying to decide what to do with the COLA issue. It has been estimated that to fully prefund the COLA, it would cost the state $133 million and school boards and local governments another combined $165 million. These numbers vividly illustrate the fiscal significance of this issue. It will clearly be an issue worth monitoring in the 1996 General Assembly. - 3 o-i~ .~ .~ ~~ m d Q ~, ~~ ~o-d ~z~ U C ~ r ~, p~ ~ U J ~ m < ~ '^~ ~ ~ ~11~ v z ~/1 I /fTl O Tl// ~~ A /~~ .(r7 n /'!f n Z o 0 ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ o x r..~. Cn N /fit A~ r+ rt ~+ 61fD m~ N~ Q ~, ~~ ~~~ ~:~ C i r-- A ~ < z U z 1 ~ ^O V ~ {1 J < ^.~'I o 'pn^}~ ~ ' • ~ n ~ O ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~•~ do ~ ~ o '~~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ • K CD ~- n O ~• rr- /~ fD A~ r+ fD • O ~ ~ ~ '~ n ~' O n ~ ~ ~. O r~''' ~ ~ '~ O cn r 0 G~ 0 0 a ~~ m ~ ~-d ~: ~ y °c ~ ,A ~ ~ °~~ ~~ ~z ~ ~, ~, z ~, ~, o ~m~ ~, ..~. n Cn fD ~- fD ~D ~-i ~i c~''3, o o CD C ~t O A~ n H O y ~• C~ ~--~- ~D C!~ n ~D x I~ • ~' F-+ • n F--~ d r+ O C~ N Vi ~ ~ N ~ ~ ' ~ C , . ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ r r ~ A~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ O ~~ '~ ~ ~ CD ~ ~ ~ fD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O O. ~D n 9 CA CA i--~ 0 C!~ OSID m~ U y a ~, ~~ ~~-~ ~z ~ ~~ ~~ ~r ~~ ~ U ~ M J ^/ Q ~'^ ~ ~ N U z ^A I (T1 O Jy, ~~ G i A Y/ O ~. ~~ ~1 C3i FP N F-' ~ ~ ~ O o n o c~ o ~ oo c~, ~ ~ ~ --, ~ C37 W N N N N W o °o F--~ ~ FP ~ 00 ~1 ~P O o N ~ 0 0 O O O O O -~-~ V^ C3~ C~J ~ N ~--~ N N Oo 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 `~ ° O O ~ m l V ~ K O ~' ~n ~ ~ ~~ m ~ ~~ 0 ~~ ~~ n~ ~n ~. r,. . o~ ~ ~~ 61SD m y~ v c w+ ~ ~ w <, Q ~ ~ C~+ i r ~ ~~ U ~m ~ <z ~. ~ ~ ~Z y ~, o ~~ ~• - r-t- =. co s ~ N O 0o 00 N ~1 O 00 N FP O E--~ F--~ O ~ FP 00 C3~ -~P~ ~ ---~ ~P -~P FP N N ~ 00 N E-' N N CTS ~P N --~ N N N N N N ~P O ~ EP O 00 ~ ~ N N N 4~ 00 O O ~ C37 N FP ~ N CJl ~l ~ ~1 O W W W O ~1 O W O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F-~ N N --~ N N W W W CTt CTt O N o h o 0 0 ~ ~ o 0 0 O ~- ~~ o n ~ ~ 0 0 .-. N °o 0 0 0 0 ~"f~ F-~ ~~ n a r+ ~• O n 0 1'~ ~~ 6~ m~ Q~ ~~~ ~-~ ~z~ ~~~ v C ~ r z ~ ~~ ~ ~ fTl ~ ~ Z ~ i f'l 0 T ~ ~. r~ [~ n W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ N O Oo ~ -~P W N N --, ~ ~ CD '-~ Cn N~ CD O O o ooo~ N N N N 0 0 0 0 O O o --, N Cn 0 0 0 n O ~ ~' i ~ N C.n V N O ~ O --,, 0 0 0 o CD ~] ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ n~ o. O ~ ~ n CD ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~o ~~ ~. n o ~~ ~~ 6~ m d a ti W <~o"d ~~ z [D ~: ~ y ~ r U C ~ ~ ~~ 3 Z o ~ c't fTl ~ ~ ~ Z ~ m ~ `~ n T~ ~• r,. N 0 '~ O~ FF~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~' ~' a~ va cry n ~_ iv W O Vi O ~ O O ~--• ~ o C 0 ~ ~. C ~ 0 n 0 ~' O O O O 0 0 0 0 ~I ~I O~ A~ ~ F~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~, ~, ' ~ ~ ~ ~ cry crcr vQ v4 /~ IV J ~ ~1 N O O ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ -P ~ C o° o ° o , ~ C va oc ~' o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C Q~ fD a ~i C' FF~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ v- a~ a-' ~, ~, ~, ~, ~ ~ ~. ~. CD CD CD CD • ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 f~ ~- a 0 ~. 0 Cn A~ 0 CD fD ~t A~ r+ CD ~9 m ~ U Q ~ ~ I~ () r A ~ ^ 3 Z vV ~ ~ ~~ ~Z ~.~ ~ Z N i fTl O ~ n <~ ~~ ~~ '~ ~• ~ W ~ `~ ~• ~ w w `~ ~• ~ N a+ `~ ~• ~ N w x n n n x n n ~ n n n n n n n n n '-'. UQ ~ C cn o ~ ~n 0 C ~n 0 ~'. ~ ~ C ~n o ~ ~n o ~ ~ ~- • a ~ cn rr o C ~n ~ 0 ~ ~n ~ 0 ~ v~ ~ 0 ~ v~ ~ 0 ~ v~ ~ 0 ~ ~n ~ 0 ~ cn ~ 0 ~ v~ rr 0 w cu c~ c~ w cu c~ ~ cv cu c~ c~ cu c~ cu c~ c~ ~ ~. ~. ~. ~ ~. ~. ~ ~. 0 o 0 o ~ ~, o o ~ ~. ~ ~. ~ ~. ~ ~. ~ ~' o.. ~' ~ ~' ~' ~ o+ ~ ~' r* ~' o va r* ~' o oa o tro ~ tro o va n ° w ~ IV ~ ~ o n ° w .~ IV ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o .p o ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ to ~ ~ ~ _ ~' r° ~ ~ ~ o ~' r° ~ ~ ~. ' ~ ~ ~. ~ Q; CD ~ ~ o o° o o a- o ~ ~ A. ~ ~ ~ v ~ o o ° o ~ ~ ° N ~ ° cu ~ C w ~ cu ~ ~ w ~ u, ~ ~ o ~ o 0 0 ~ ~' ~ c~ -~ CD ~ ~ cu ~ ~ v, ,r, ~ ~ a ~ ~ O va ~ ~ cto w , ~, ~ w ~ ,,fl ~ '~` ~, ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ `° ~ ~ ~ ~ CD ~ ~ ~ ?~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ly ~ 01 ~ ~ l V `~ ~ w ~ ~ 1-F~ ~ F-h~ ~ ~ O C C CAD N w ~ ~ -~ U Q N N A~ ~- fD O ~. 0 ~^ l J 0 T1 ~~ A~ 0 Q~ m ~ Q ''y n <o"d ~~ y C ~~ z ~ °" ~ ~m ~ <z ~~ ~ az ~ ~, ~ ~' n z~ ~• .-~ O a' O v ~ ~ ~ N o ~ c~ ~- cn 0 3 (D v~ ~~ v- N 0 m ~ ~ .}. c~mr- m o N (D -, ~ ~ ~ ~~~ rn rn N -~ m rn~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~N ~~ ~, ~~ N X, ~ ~ ~ ~ Q C -a ~ ~ ~ r ~~ rn rn ~ r,. ~~ O ~ ~~ rn ~ ~N v ~_ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~. ~. 3 0 rn ' + ~ O ~. ~ o ~ v rn ~ ~ N rn ~ v~ rn~ ~N ~~ v~ N C -~ ~ O ~ N + ~, ~ D ~ ~- ~ c ~ cQ ~ ~' (D -1 v, Q. ~' 8 O X N~ cQ v rn 0 ~. 0 O ~- C!) 0 t~ fD N rr N m F d ti w <.o-d ~z ~ ~: cn C i ~ A U ~ ~ '^~'^ ~ ~ Y+ V z I ~ O ?~ w' ~D ~/~~ 0 ~... 0 W 6' i r ~ r -~- + ~ ~ ~ o ~ -~ ~ '~' -~ -~ ~. a '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, o r' cu o c~ ~-, ~ va ~ ~ ~ ~ a c, ~' ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ o ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ O i i ~~ c~'u ~ ~. •~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~~ v~o ~°- c~ '-' ~• ~ ,.~ ~. o " O r 0 c~ c~ 0 c~ a 0 c~ c~ 0 ~... 0 w A~ ~' ~~ w a 0 c~ 0 a~ a 0 0 0 c~ w c ~~ i 0 cu c a 0 0 0 0 c~ a cr ~~ va ~.. ~~ ^~^ lI 0 ~. 0 N 0 ~' c~ i i bd ~ CD o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ c~ ~ .... ~_. ~ ~ ~~ a- a 0 0 C i 0 c~ 0 c~ c~ a 0 ~. 0 N a• c~ 0 G 0 a~ c~ a ~~ ~' va ~~ ~~ ^~^ lI Cn ~D N /~ A~ r+ 0 ~. 0 n 0 rt w .~ 0 w m Q n < Q ~~ ~z ~ ~: ~ c ~ r A ~ ^ ~ ~ z o z N I ~ O s ~ ~ ~ f F v 0 c v m m m 0 v =i n ~_ cu a 0 7 Annual Water 8~ Sewer Bill ~a ~ ~ ~ Efl ~ ~ N N tJ1 O CT O CJ1 O O O O O O O O O O (fl O O O O O O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ W W A O CT O O O O O O O O O O O O O ^®^®ao^ 0oo0oom ~ -o -o v v v x ... 0 0 0 0' o 0 > > > > > > ~ # ~ # # ~ O W W N N -+ --~ Q 01 Q d Q' d n c ( J r .a -°: a~ ca ~ tD N n O O ~ 3 O 3 ,* ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ c ~ I..a . v- O 'a ~+ O N ~/~ Vu~ `J] V J 0 V N O O ~" 0 `r/~^, V mju m d ~~~ o-~ ~:~ C I~ ~ r r ~~~ ~~~ ~m~ ~z~ ~, o ~~~ zN ~,. T~. ti `v J J A • • • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /~ ~ n ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ dd o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~o N o o ~'' 4 ~~~n ~ ~ ~, ~ ~r~~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• ~, o ~ ~ ~ ~ Q~ m d w <o-d ~. z ~o ~. ~ y A ~ U ~z ~m~ ~, U~ z r^ ~ 0 s (~ ~ ~ ro !~~ m io Y+ ~n ~r ~n ~ ~ O o ~? ~ ~ ~...f.. ~ ~ ~. ~ o ~n o ~ ~ ~. o ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• ~ C7d O `~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ n ~ ~. ~ `~ N O Cn ~D ~ ~D ~ ~D ~ d ~ ~ o ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ i W ~ y ~, A~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W N tS' ~ w n a rt 6~ m d Q ~ ~, ~~ `° o ~: ~„ y " C ~ r A -i U ~ M J '~/ G z ~ m ~ ~ 'Y^i U Z YJ I ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ '^^Fnr7 • a fD a ~-r 0 rD N ~D •-v • fD ~• rti-, N rD l 1 r+ O N ~. ~D ~D r 0 m ~- ~D O CD ~• CD N ~-- r F-+• ~- ~D D C~ ~~! ~-~+ ~-~!" ~-~+ l J i ~- ~D rD V -~ n u O n UR N O /~ CD n O ~D A~ ~- O Water and Sewer Rate Study County of Roanoke, Virginia November 15, 1995 Prepared For: Roanoke Counfiy, Virginia Prepared By: DraperAden Associates CONSULTING ENGINEERS f Blacksburg, VA • Richmond, VA • Nashville, TN DAA Project #21523 i~ Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................1 2.0 Project Approach ....................................................................................................................1 3.0 Description of Options ..................................................................................: ......................... 2 ' 3.01 Option # 1 a ...................................................................................................................... 3 3.02 Option # 1 b ..................................................................................................................... 4 ' 3.03 Option #2a ...................................................................................................................... 4 3.04 Option #2b ..................................................................................................................... 4 ' 3.05 Option #3a ...................................................................................................................... 4 3.06 Option #3b ..................................................................................................................... 4 ' 3.07 Options Not Considered ................................................................................................. 5 4.0 Summary and Evaluation ........................................................................................................5 5.0 Rate Comparison With Other Localities .................................................................................8 5.01 Henrico County ............................................................................................................ ..8 5.02 Chesterfield County ..................................................................................................... ..8 5.03 Hanover County ........................................................................................................... ..9 5.04 Augusta County Service Authority .............................................................................. ..9 5.05 Stafford County ............................................................................................................ 10 5.06 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 10 6.0 Recommendations .................................................................................................................11 Appendix I -Detailed Revenue Projections Appendix II -Comparison of Consumption-Based Rate Options Appendix III -Comparison of Meter-Based Rate Options ~j 1.0 Introduction ' In 1991, Roanoke County issued $59,731,873.75 in revenue bonds to construct the Spring Hollow Reservoir and associated transmission lines. A feasibility study and rate study was ' performed at that time. As aresult, atwo-tiered rate structure was adopted by the County. The existing rate structure consists of 19 base charge categories which are based upon consumption, and a volume charge. As currently applied, the base chazge insures a guazanteed revenue stream ' to cover debt service, and the volume chazge provides for the remaining operating expenses. This rate structure, however, has resulted in numerous complaints from residential customers. ii ~I!~ [] ii ii U r-;, li ~J ~I 1 Draper Aden Associates has been retained by Roanoke County to review its existing water and sewer rates; and, to make recommendations for the most effective breakdown of base and volume charges and the adequacy of the current revenue stream. The goal of this report is to address two primary complaints from residential customers: • T'he relatively high water and sewer chazges experienced by customers who are using little or no water. • Significant quarterly changes in water and sewer chazges experienced by customers whose consumption patterns move them into ahigher/lower base rate. Additionally, the County has expressed a desire that the recommended rate structure continue to provide guaranteed income to cover debt service, be fair and equitable, and minimize changes to existing customers monthly water and sewer bills. 2.0 Project Approach The study was conducted utilizing a computer spreadsheet model to evaluate several alternatives simultaneously. In order to simplify the model, several assumptions were made: a) The total water and sewer revenue required for FY 1995/96 is as follows: Water Sewer Total Total Revenue Total Debt Service $7,926,741 $4,512,773 $4,571,757 $1,721,474 $12,498,498 $6,234,247 b) Water consumption has been based on historical data for 1995 plus 2.57% to determine volume chazges. Volume charges aze based upon total annual consumption and not on individual customer consumption. c) A total of 250 new water customers and 104 new sewer customers have been assumed during FY 1995/96. Revenue projections for FY 1995/96 utilize '/Z of the above figures as an average for the yeaz. New customers have been divided in accordance with the existing ERC percentages provided by the County. d) Revenues from base and volume chazges have been determined on an annual basis. i~ d i h h ' e) n t e e County s Consumption based rate charges are based upon the factors establis existing base rates. ' f) Where meter sizes have been used to apply base charges, meter information has been provided by the County. Fire service and secondary meters have been separated out from revenue projections. g) Meter based rate charges are based upon the factors established in the County_ 's existing ' connection fees. " " h) rate philosophy. two-tiered All options presented in the analysis are based upon a ' i) The County's existing percentage of revenue from base charges is approximately 52% for water and 49% for sewer. County staff has developed the following target percentages in conjunction with this study to allow the use of lower base rates. Ch l ume arges Base Charges Vo Water 50% 50% ' Sewer 35% 65% j) The following profile of customers is based upon existing average water consumption. ' Future projections are based upon these percentages. Monthly Consumption Range (1, 000 gallons) From To % of Customer Base 0 3 36.00% 4 10 56.00% 11 14 5.00% 15 17 1.00% 18 28 0.80% 29 39 0.25% 40 54 0.20% 55 69 0.15% 70 111 0.15% 112 153 0.12% 154 210 0.10% 211 267 0.05% 268 440 0.05% 441 613 0.03% 614 853 0.03% 854 1093 0.03% 1094 1400 0.01 1401 1707 0.01% 1708 2087 0.01 2088 2467 0.01% 2 ' k) The following profile of customers is based upon meter information provided by the County. Future projections are based upon these percentages. 7 1 Meter Size % of Total Customer Base % of Residential/ Commercial Customer Base 5/8" 72% 3.4% 3/4" 25% 0.3% 1" 1.1% 1.0% 1 %i" 0.6% 0.6% 2" 0.5% 0.5% 3" 0.2% 0.2% 4" 0.1% 0.1% 6" 0.1% 0.1% 8" 0.01 % 0.01 10" 0.01 % 0.01 12" 0.01 % 0.01 Residential - 94% 3.0 Description of Options Based upon the goals described in Section 1.0 and the assumptions described in Section 2.0, a computer spreadsheet model was used to evaluate six (6) alternatives. Each option falls into one of three categories. In general, the # 1 options utilize base rates which are determined by consumption and maintain the same number of existing base rate categories (19) with only slight deviations from the existing rate structure. Base rates for the #2 options are also determined by consumption but cut the number of categories down to 10 or 11 in order to minimize the number of base rate "jumps". Base rates for the #3 options are determined by meter size. The following is a detailed description of each rate option considered in this evaluation. Detailed revenue projections have been provided in Appendix I 3.01 Option #1 a Option # 1 a is almost identical to the existing rate structure in that the same base rate categories are utilized. Actual base and volume rates have been modified in order to maintain the percentages highlighted in Section 2.0 i) above. All base charges have been adjusted proportionally in order to ensure a 50% and 35% guaranteed revenue stream for water and sewer, respectively. Volume charges were adjusted to provide the remaining necessary revenue. Because the percentage of revenue from base charges versus commodity charges does not vary, the monthly volume charge of $2.12 and $1.64 per 1,000 gallons remains constant throughout this analysis. 3 ~' [1 C 3.02 Option #1 b Option # 1 b is similaz to the existing rate structure in that base rates are determined by consumption. In order to address concerns about low-end residential users, a 0 - 3,000 gallons/month category has been created with base monthly rates set at $7.79 and $3.81 for water and sewer, respectively. These rates represent %2 the base rate of the next flow category. In order to address concerns about base rate "jumps", the 4,000 - 10,000 gallons/month and 11,000 - 14,000 gallons/month categories have been combined with base rates equal to existing base rates of $15.57 and $7.62 for water and sewer, respectively. All other base chazges have been adjusted proportionally in order to ensure a minimum guaranteed revenue stream. Volume charges aze as noted in Option # 1 a. 3.03 Option #2a Option #2a is similar to the existing rate structure in that base rates are determined by consumption. In order to address concerns about base rate "jumps", the original 19 categories have been combined into 10 categories. This would place neazly all residential customers into one base category. All base chazges have been adjusted proportionally in order to ensure a minimum guazanteed revenue stream. Volume charges are as noted in Option # 1 a. 3.04 Option #2b Option #2b also has base rates which aze determined by consumption. This option maintains the identical categories created in Option #2a except that an eleventh base rate category (0 - 3,000 gallons/month) is added to address concerns over low quantity users. Initial base rate have been set at %Z the base rate of the next flow category. All base chazges have been adjusted proportionally in order to ensure a minimum guazanteed revenue stream. Volume chazges are as noted in Option #la. 3.05 Option #3a Unlike any of the previous options considered, option #3a differs from the existing rate structure in that base rates aze determined by meter size rather than consumption. This type of rate structure would eliminate base rate "jumps" experienced by customers with changing water patterns. Base charges for different meter sizes aze based upon the factors established by the County's existing connection fee structure. All base charges have been adjusted proportionally in order to ensure a minimum guazanteed revenue stream. Volume chazges aze as noted in Option # 1 a. ' 3.06 Option #3b Option #3b is identical to option #3a except that residential customers aze charged a base ' rate no matter what size meter they have installed. Base charges for commercial and industrial customers aze based upon meter size (as in Option #3a). The residential base rate is identical to the commercial rate for a s/s" meter. All base charges have been 4 u 1 adjusted proportionally in order to ensure a minimum guaranteed revenue stream. Volume charges are as noted in Option # 1 a. This option attempts to address concerns over residential customers with'/4" and 1 "meters due to pressure problems. 3.07 Options Not Considered The number of potential water and sewer rate options is almost endless. Rather than needlessly explore all options, this study's intent was to focus on options which had a reasonable opportunity to meet the County's goals. Because of the County's relatively high debt service and desire to maintain reasonably low rates for residential users with low water use, options such as a single base charge or flat rate are not feasible. For example, in order to maintain the County's desired minimum guaranteed income, a single base charge rate structure would result in almost $30 in monthly water and sewer base charges for a residential customer. Other options such as ascending or descending rate structures were not considered because they did not address this goals of this study. 4.0 Summary and Evaluation The following table presents a summary and evaluation of the water and sewer rate options considered in this study. Each option is evaluated in terms of the goals of the study, how broad classes of customers will be affected, and the advantages/disadvantages relative to the existing rate structure. A table has been provided which highlights six (6) hypothetical low to medium water use customers and how each would be affected under the options considered. In addition, four of the County's large water users have been selected for a detailed billing analysis and the affect of each rate option. A graph has been provided which details annual water and sewer charges for each of the four customers. Flows are based upon meter information from October 1994 to September 1995. Detailed graphical comparisons of each rate option versus flow can be found in Appendix II and III. I O O H f~A y N C ~ m o m m o s (compared to existing rate structure) I ~ E ~ N N ~ E Options ~ y c ~ ~ ~; m E c ' Investigated m V m ~ z' V I ess change based upon flow usage Option #1 a / 19 lore I vill pay slightly more I than existing Option #1 b / 19 change based upon flow usage I ~i customers will pay more I by changing base rates will decrease I red Option #2a / 10 change based upon flow usage I ntly higher by changing base rates will decrease ' Option #2b / 11 ~hange based upon flow usage ntly higher I sed upon consumption Option #3a / :ed :ters will pay significantly more e meters will I pay more sed upon consumption Option #3b / ed ~ters will pay significantly more ' Projected Water and Sewer Revenue for 1995/96 Impact of Rate Options on Customers i Roanoke County Rate Study Nov-95 Hypothetical Customers a. b. c. d. e. f. Type of User Residential Residential Residential Commercial Commercial Commercial Meter Size (in.) 5/8 5/8 5/8 2 - 2 4 Monthly Water Consumption (~ooo yak.) 2 8 15 30 60 150 Daily Water Consumption (ya~.> 66 263 493 986 1,973 4,932 Existing Monthly Charge $29.72 $49.70 $107.61 $233.62 $437.26 $1,029.77 Option #1a Monthly Charge $27.47 $50.03 $106.28 $228.49 $431.04 $1,022.77 #1b $19.12 $53.27 $114.38 $247.28 $464.40 $1,097.27 Option #2a Monthly Charge $29.13 $51.69 $113.87 $232.05 $458.48 $1,035.38 #2b $19.99 $55.02 $122.73 $250.43 $494.36 $1,108.01 Option #3a Monthly Charge $27.23 $49.79 $76.11 $314.63 $427.43 $1,371.32 #3b $29.00 $51.56 $77.88 $332.76 $445.56 $1,443.82 Comparison Of Rate Options ' Large Commercial Users $400,000 ' $350,000 ' $300,000 m `m $250,000 3 $200,000 .. 3 $150,000 c ' a $100,000 $50,000 ' $0 ^ Existing O Option #1 a O Option #1 b ®Option #2a O Option #2b ®Option #3a ^ Option #3b ~: F, ~:Y N ;:, ,~ . ,^ ~, ,,` ~;; ~, , ~ ~' , ~ ; ,~ ~ .,., ' _ Double Envelop ITT Richfield Hollins 5.0 Rate Comparison With Other Localities To compare Roanoke County's system to other localities in the State, five similar localities were surveyed. Included were Henrico, Chesterfield, Stafford and Hanover Counties and the Augusta County Water and Sewer Authority. Of the utilities surveyed, none used a system similar to Roanoke for applying the base rate. All localities do use a two tier system with a base rate and a volume charge. Either a flat base rate is used where all customers pay the same monthly rate or a variable rate based on the customer's meter size is used. The information for each locality follows: 5.01 Henrico County Base Charge (per month) Meter Size Water Sewer %" or 3/4" $ 3.60 $ 7.25 1" $ 8.50 $ 12.00 1 '/2" $ 15.50 $ 17.50 2" $ 24.00 $ 25.50 3" $ 39.50 $ 43.00 4" $ 63.50 $ 68.00 6" $126.00 $135.00 8" $241.00 $232.50 10" $241.00 $232.50 Consumption Volume Charge (per 100 cubic feet) (100 cu. ft.) Water Sewer 0 - 5,000 $ 1.66 $ 1.75 > 5,000 $ 1.14 $ 1.25 5.02 Chesterfield County Bimonthly Customer Cost Charge: $3.96 per account Bimonthly Capacity Cost Charge: Water Sewer Single Family $3.76 $13.04 Multiple Family (per unit) $3.20 $11.08 Two Family Dwellings (per unit) $3.76 $13.04 Trailers (per unit) $3.20 $11.08 All others: 5/g" or 3/4" $3.76 $13.04 1" $9.40 $32.60 8 1 '/z" $18.80 $65.20 2" $30.08 $104.32 3" $60.16 $208.64 4" $94.00 $326.00 6" $188.00 $652.00 8" $300.80 $1,043.20 10" $432.40 $1,499.60 12" $582.80 $2,021.20 Volume Charge: $1.06 per 1,000 cubic feet water $1.13 per 1,000 cubic feet sewer 5.03 Hanover County Base Rate: $ 6.70 per month (water) $ 15.39 per month (sewer) Volume Charge: $ 2.99 per 1,000 gallons water $ 3.86 per 1,000 gallons sewer Each customer receives 3, 000 gallons per month with the base rate. 5.04 Augusta County Service Authority Base Charge (per month) Meter Size Water Sewer %8" or 3/4" $ 5.25 $ 4.75 1" $ 10.25 $ 9.70 1 '/2" $ 28.20 $ 27.50 2" $ 51.25 $ 50.93 3" $ 86.95 $ 84.00 4" $169.13 $166.43 6" $268.80 $265.65 8" $343.28 $339.80 10" $417.75 $413.95 Volume Charge: $ 1.77 per 1,000 gallons water $ 2.57 per 1,000 gallons sewer 9 S.OS Stafford County Water Base Rate Volume Charge 0 - 10,000 10,001 - 50,000 over 50,000 Sewer Base Rate Volume Charge $ 2.37 per month $ 2.12 per 1,000 gallons $ 1.85 per 1,000 gallons $ 1.71 per 1,000 gallons $ 3.72 per month $ 3.16 per 1,000 gallons The above rates are based onnon-seasonal consumption charges. 5.06 Summary The following is a summary of water and sewer charges based upon 5,000 gallons per month of consumption*. Locality Water Sewer Total Roanoke County $23.92 $15.48 $39.40 Henrico County $14.72 $18.98 $33.70 Chesterfield County $9.97 $15.08 $25.05 Hanover County $12.68 $23.10 $35.78 Augusta County $14.10 $17.60 $31.70 Stafford County $12.97 $19.52 $32.49 * Information from 1995 Water and Sewer Rate Survey, Draper Aden Associates 10 6.0 Recommendations Since the beginning of this evaluation, County staff has indicated a desire to avoid drastic changes to the existing rate structure. Any of the options under # 1 and #2 could be considered a minor change to the rate structure. There is, however, a significant disadvantage to a base rate determined by consumption. Because a customer's consumption often varies, his/her base rate can also vary. As mentioned at the beginning of this report, this has been a source of many customer complaints. Attempts in options #1 and #2 to remedy the problem do not fully address the issue. If a lazge number of base rate categories is employed, the actual "jumps" are minimized but a greater number of people will be affected. If a small number of base rate categories is employed, the number of customers affected will be minimized but the actual "jumps" will be significantly higher. Base rates which aze determined by meter size such as options #3a and #3b eliminate this problem because customer's meter sizes generally do not change. Option #3b addresses concerns over residential customers with'/<" and 1" meters due to pressure problems. Neither option #3a or #3b, however, significantly reduces the relatively high water and sewer charges experienced by customers who aze using little or no water. In addition, option #3a could result in significantly higher rates for many commercial and residential customers who have oversized meters or use the same meter for fire protection. Option #3b addresses these concerns for most residential customers but may still result in significantly higher rates for commercial customers. Among large water users, Richfield is an extreme example. With a 12" meter providing both domestic and fire flows for the retirement community, both option #3a and #3b would result in a significantly higher water and sewer bill. It should be noted, however, that several commercial businesses would also see significant benefits under a meter based rate structure. Based upon the discussion above, none of the options explored in this study were able to meet all of the County's goals. If we look only at the goal of lowering the monthly bill of the customers that use little or no water option #lb or #2b would be feasible. In order to achieve the required revenues, other customers' monthly bill will increase in these options. In addition, both of these options could aggravate the problem with rate "jumps". If we look primarily at eliminating the base change jumps, option #3b would be feasible. To a lesser extent, obtain #2a places nearly all residential customers in the same base rate category. However, both option #2a and #3b provide only a slight reduction in monthly bill of the customers that use little or no water. The process of altering a water and sewer rate structure is a significant undertaking; and, exchanging one rate structure for a marginally better structure may not be very attractive. Since both goals cannot be simultaneously met at this time and the existing system is meeting the required revenues goals, we recommend that the County remain with the existing system for now. Ultimately, the County should consider changing to a meter based system similar to option #3b. A meter based system will provide the County with the required revenues and provide a fair and 11 1 ' equitable system for customers. As the customer base increases and additional large water users are in place, the original goals of this study will be addressed by: ' • Eliminating "jumps" in the base rate due to changes in consumption patterns; and, • Providing lower base rates to residential customers and higher volume charges which will ' benefit low consumption customers. ~I 1 1 Prior to implementing a meter based rate structure all customers with meters larger than 1" should be surveyed to determine if their water meter has been properly sized. In addition, many customers may consider separating fire and domestic meters if they are now combined. If a customer has a meter larger than required by AWWA or BOCA, they would end up paying a much higher water bill under the proposed system. Adequate time should be provided to assure that customers have time to change meter sizes if desired and that proper revenue projections can be developed by the County. It should be noted that all revenue projections utilizing meter size for base charges is based upon current County meter data. Since meter size has not been a significant field~n the database, County staff is not comfortable with the accuracy of the information. If the County wishes to pursue a meter based rate structure, we would recommend allowing the staff to verify the entire meter database before a decision is finalized. It is anticipated that County staff will require one billing cycle (three months) to verify meter sizes throughout the County. 12 C e 1 1 Appendix I -Detailed Revenue Projections 1 Projected Water and Sewer Revenue for 1995/96 Roanoke County Rate Study Existing Water and Sewer Rates Nov-95 ~~ 1 Monthly Consumption Range Water Sewer From To Monthly Base Rate of Customer Base Annual Base Revenue Monthly Base Rate % of Customer Base Annual Base Revenue 0 10 $13.86 92.00% $2,566,051 $9.20 92.00% $1,403,670 11 14 $20.79 5.00% $209,189 $13.81 5.00% $114,513 15 17 $34.65 1.00% $69,730 $23.01 1.00% $38,160 18 28 $57.50 0.80% $92,570 $38.19 0.80% $50,667 29 39 $80.37 0.25% $40,434 $53.36 0.25% $22,123 40 54 $110.85 0.20% $44,615 $73.61 0.20% $24,415 55 69 $142.70 0.15% $43,075 $94.77 0.15% $23,575 70 111 $230.70 0.15% $69,639 $153.19 0.15% $38,108 112 153 $318.68 0.12% $76,957 $211.62 0.12% $42,114 154 210 $437.15 0.10% $87,972 $290.28 0.10% $48,140 211 267 $555.61 0.05% $55,905 $368.95 0.05% $30,593 268 440 $915.16 0.05% $92,083 $607.71 0.05% $50,391 441 613 $1,274.70 0.03% $76,956 $846.47 0.03% $42,114 614 853 $1,773.51 0.03% $107,070 $1,177.70 0.03% $58,593 854 1093 $2,272.29 0.03% $137,183 $1,508.93 0.03% $75,072 1094 1400 $2,909.67 0.01% $58,554 $1,932.17 0.01% $32,043 1401 1707 $3,547.02 0.01% $71,380 $2,355.40 0.01% $39,062 1708 2087 $4,336.78 0.01% $87,273 $2,879.85 0.01% $47,759 2088 2467 $5,126.55 0.01 % $103,167 $3,404.29 0.01 % $56,457 Total Annual Base Charge 52 % $4, 089, 806 Volume Charge (per 1,000 gallons) $2.05 Total Annual Volume Charge 48 % $3, 836, 941 1995-96 Total Revenue $7,926,747 49 % $2, 237, 569 $1.28 51 % $2, 332, 074 $4,569,643 C~~ Projected Water and Sewer Revenue for 1995/96 Roanoke County Rate Study Option #1a Nov-95 Monthly Consumption Range Water Sewer From To Monthly Base Rate of Customer Base Annual Base Revenue Monthly Base Rate % of Customer Base Annual Base Revenue 0 10 $13.40 92.00% $2,480,887 $6.55 92.00% $999,352 11 14 $20.10 5.00% $202,246 $9.83 5.00% $81,528 15 17 $33.50 1.00% $67,415 $16.38 1.00% $27,168 18 28 $55.59 0.80% $89,498 $27.19 0.80% $36,073 29 39 $77.70 0.25% $39,092 $37.99 0.25% $15,751 40 54 $107.17 0.20% $43,134 $52.41 0.20% $17,382 55 69 $137.96 0.15% $41,646 $67.47 0.15% $16,784 70 111 $223.04 0.15% $67,328 $109.06 0.15% $27,131 112 153 $308.10 0.12% $74,403 $150.66 0.12% $29,983 154 210 $422.64 0.10% $85,052 $206.67 0.10% $34,274 211 267 $537.17 0.05% $54,050 $262.68 0.05% $21,781 268 440 $884.79 0.05% $89,027 $432.66 0.05% $35,876 441 613 $1,232.39 0.03% $74,402 $602.65 0.03% $29,983 614 853 $1,714.65 0.03% $103,517 $838.47 0.03% $41,716 854 1093 $2,196.87 0.03% $132,630 $1,074.29 0.03% $53,448 1094 1400 $2,813.10 0.01% $56,611 $1,375.62 0.01% $22,813 1401 1707 $3,429.30 0.01% $69,011 $1,676.94 0.01% $27,810 1708 2087 $4,192.85 0.01% $84,377 $2,050.33 0.01% $34,003 2088 2467 $4,956.40 0.01 % $99,743 $2,423.71 0.01 % $40,195 Total Annual Base Charge 50% $3, 954, 069 Volume Charge (per 1,000 gallons) $2.12 Total Annual Volume Charge 50% $3,975,716 1995-96 Total Revenue $7,929,785 35 % $1, 593, 052 $1.64 65% $2,979,053 $4,572,105 Notes: 1. Base Rate Based Upon Consumption 2. Adjusted % of Base Charge vs. Volume Charge Projected Water and Sewer Revenue for 1995/96 Roanoke County Rate Study Option #1 b Nov-95 Monthly Consumption Range Water Sewer From To Monthly Base Rate of Customer Base Annual Base Revenue Monthly Base Rate % of Customer Base Annual Base Revenue 0 3 $7.79 36.00% $563,995 $3.81 36.00% $227,466 4 14 $15.57 61.00% $1,911,317 $7.62 61.00% $770,857 15 17 $38.93 1.00% $78,333 $19.06 1.00% $31,606 18 28 $64.59 0.80% $103,991 $31.63 0.80% $41,966 29 39 $90.29 0.25% $45,423 $44.20 0.25% $18,324 40 54 $124.53 0.20% $50,119 $60.97 0.20% $20,222 55 69 $160.31 0.15% $48,390 $78.49 0.15% $19,526 70 111 $259.16 0.15% $78,231 $126.88 0.15% $31,563 112 153 $358.00 0.12% $86,452 $175.28 0.12% $34,881 154 210 $491.08 0.10% $98,826 $240.43 0.10% $39,873 211 267 $624.16 0.05% $62,803 $305.59 0.05% $25,339 268 440 $1,028.07 0.05% $103,444 $503.34 0.05% $41,737 441 613 $1,431.97 0.03% $86,451 $701.10 0.03% $34,881 614 853 $1,992.32 0.03% $120,280 $975.44 0.03% $48,530 854 1093 $2,552.64 0.03% $154,108 $1,249.79 0.03% $62,179 1094 1400 $3,268.66 0.01% $65,778 $1,600.34 0.01% $26,540 1401 1707 $3,984.64 0.01% $80,187 $1,950.89 0.01% $32,353 1708 2087 $4,871.84 0.01% $98,041 $2,385.27 0.01% $39,557 2088 2467 $5,759.05 0.01% $115,895 $2,819.64 0.01% $46,761 Total Annual Base Charge 50% $3,952,065 Volume Charge (per 1,000 gallons) $2.12 Total Annual Volume Charge 50% $3, 975, 716 1995-96 Total Revenue 57,927,780 35% $1,594,163 $1.64 65 % $2, 979, 053 $4,573,217 Notes: 1. Base Rate Based Upon Consumption 2. Add One Additional Base Rate for Low Quantity Users Projected Water and Sewer Revenue for 1995/96 Roanoke County Rate Study Option #2a Nov-95 Monthly Consumption Range Water Sewer From To Monthly Base Rate of Customer Base Annual Base Revenue Monthly Base Rate % of Customer Base Annual Base Revenue 0 14 $14.51 97.00% $2,832,393 $7.10 97.00% $1,142,140 15 28 $38.59 1.80% $139,780 $18.88 1.80% $56,371 29 54 $80.08 0.45% $72,514 $39.18 0.45% $29,238 55 111 $156.36 0.30% $94,400 $76.51 0.30% $38,066 112 :210 $316.51 0.22% $140,128 $154.87 0.22% $56,503 211 440 $615.90 0.10% $123,943 $301.36 0.10% $49,977 441 853 $1,276.47 0.06% $154,126 $624.58 0.06% $62,148 854 1400 $2,169.99 0.04% $174,676 $1,061.79 0.04% $70,435 1401 2087 $3,301.41 0.02% $132,875 $1,615.40 0.02% $53,579 2088 2467 $4,293.58 0.01 % $86,404 $2,100.87 0.01 % $34,841 Total Annual Base Charge 50 % Volume Charge (per 1,000 gallons) Total Annual Volume Charge 50 % 1995-96 Total Revenue $3, 951, 240 $2.12 $3, 975, 716 $7,926,955 35 % 65% $1, 593, 298 $1.64 $2, 979, 053 $4,572,352 Notes: 1. Base Rate Based Upon Consumption 2. Ten (10) Base Rate Ranges Projected Water and Sewer Revenue for 1995/96 Roanoke County Rate Study Option #2b Nov-95 C Monthly Consumption Range Water Sewer From To Monthly Base Rate of Customer Base Annual Base Revenue Monthly Base Rate % of Customer Base Annual Base Revenue 0 3 $8.37 36.00% $606,376 $4.10 36.00% $244,780 4 14 $16.74 61.00% $2,054,942 $8.20 61.00% $829,532 15 28 $44.52 1.80% $161,263 $21.81 1.80% $65,104 29 54 $92.38 0.45% $83,659 $45.25 0.45% $33,768 55 111 $180.40 0.30% :$108,909 $88.36 0.30% $43,963 112 210 $365.15 0.22% $161,664 $178.86 0.22% $65,257 211 440 $710.55 0.10% $142,992 $348.05 0.10% $57,720 441 853 $1,472.64 0.06% $177,813 $721.35 0.06% $71,777 854 1400 $2,503.49 0.04% $201,521 $1,226.29 0.04% $81,347 1401 2087 $3,808.80 0.02% $153,296 $1,865.67 0.02% $61,881 2088 2467 $4,953.45 0.01% $99,683 $2,426.35 0.01% $40,239 Total Annual Base Charge 50% Volume Charge (per 1,000 gallons) Total Annual Volume Charge 50% 1995-96 Total Revenue $3,952,118 $2.12 $3,975,716 $7,927,834 35% 65% $1,595,368 $1.64 $2,979,053 x4,574,421 ~ .e~.. 1. Base Rate Based Upon Consumption 2. Ten (10) Base Rate Ranges Plus One Additional Base Rate for Low Quantity Users Projected Water and Sewer Revenue for 1995/96 Roanoke County Rate Study Option #3a Nov-95 WATER SEWER Meter Size Monthly Base Rate No. of Meters Annual Base Revenue Monthly Base Rate No. of Meters Annual Base Revenue 5/8 $13.29 12,304 $1,962,242 $6.42 10,188 $784,884 3/4 $19.14 4,274 $981,529 $9.24 3,533 $391,943 1 $34.02 179 $73,080 $16.44 151 $29,781 11/2 $76.55 101 $92,779 $36.98 91 $40,381 2 $136.09 85 $138,811 $65.74 80 $63,111 3 $306.20 26 $95,535 $147.92 25 $44,375 4 $544.36 23 $150,243 $262.96 21 $66,267 6 $1,224.81 18 $264,558 $591.67 16 $113,600 8 $2,177.43 2 $52,258 $1,051.85 1 $12,622 10 $3,402.24 2 $81,654 $1,643.52 1 $19,722 12 $4,899.23 1 $58,791 $2,366.67 1 $28,400 Total Annual Base Charge 50% Volume Charge (per 1,000 gallons) Total Annual Volume Charge 50% 1995-96 Total Revenue $3,951,481 $2.12 $3,975,716 $7,927,196 35% 65% $1,595,085 $1.64 $2,979,053 $4,574,139 Notes: 1. Base Rate Based Upon Meter Size 2. Secondary and Fire Service Meters Excluded From Revenue Projections 3. Base Rate Jumps Based Upon Connection Fees ' Projected Water and Sewer Revenue for 1995/96 Roanoke County Rate Study Option #3b Nov-95 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WATER SEWER Meter Size Monthly Base Rate No. of Meters Annual Base Revenue Monthly Base Rate No. of Meters Annual Base Revenue Residential Only $14.49 15,978 $2,778,255 $6.99 13,194 $1,106,713 5/8 " Commercial $14.49 574 $99,807 $6.99 501 $42,024 3/4 " Commercial $20.87 50 $12,519 $10.07 41 $4,952 1 "Commercial $37.09 163 $72,557 $17.89 141 $30,277 1 1/2 " Commercial $83.46 97 $97,150 $40.26 89 $43,000 2 " Commercial $148.38 83 $147,784 $71.58 79 $67,856 3 " Commercial $333.85 26 $104,161 $161.05 25 $48,315 4 " Commercial $593.51 22 $156,687 $286.31 20 $68,714 6 " Commercial $1,335.40 17 $272,421 $644.20 15 $115,956 8 " Commercial $2,374.04 2 $56,977 $1,145.24 1 $13,743 10 " Commercial $3,709.44 2 $89,027 $1,789.44 1 $21,473 12 " Commercial $5,341.59 1 $64,099 $2,576.79 1 $30,922 Total Annual Base Charge 50 % Volume Charge (per 1,000 gallons) Total Annual Volume Charge 50 % 1995-96 Total Revenue $3, 951, 444 $2.12 $3, 975, 716 $7,927,160 35 % 65 % $1, 593, 945 $1.64 $2, 979, 053 $4,572,998 Notes: 1. Single Residential Base Rate 2. Commercial Base Rate Based Upon Meter Size 3. Secondary and Fire Service Meters Excluded From Revenue Projections 4. Base Rate Jumps Based Upon Connection Fees t 0 7 u I~ Projected Water and Sewer Revenue for 1995196 Revenue Projections for Rate Options Roanoke County Rate Study Nov-95 Y~r : Exlstirig ': O Yr ori°#1a 'Option #7b 'Option'#2a =Option ,b. >~Option __ ;t7ptiott~#3b Water $7,926,741 $7,929,785 $7,927,780 $7,926,955 $7,927,834 $7,927,196 $7,927,160 1995/96 Sewer $4,571,757 $4,572,105 $4,573,217 $4,572,352 $4,574,421 $4,5_74,139 $4,572,998 . Total $92,498,498 $92,509;1~90~ $92500,997 $]2,499,307 $92,502,255 '$12,509,335 $92,5D0,958 Water $8,086,319 $8,090,907 $8,088,872 $8,088,035 $8,088,926 $8,086,530 $8,076,130 1996/97 Sewer $4,648,504 $4,660,655 $4,661,775 $4,660,904 $4,662,988 $4,674,506 $4,673,597 f Total $12,734,823. $12,759,562' $92750,647 $92,748,938 $92,751,915 $12,769,036 $92,749,727 Water $8,248,432 $8,254,654 $8,252,589 $8,251,740 $8,252,644 $8,253,899 $8,076,130 1997/98 Sewer $4,726,791 $4,752,671 $4,753,801 $4,752,922 $4,755,024 $4,779,651 $4,673,597 j Total $12,975,223 $13,007,325' $13,006,390 $13,004,662 $93,1007,668 ~ $13,033,55D $12,749,727 Water $8,413,144 $8,421,095 $8,419,000 $8,418,139 $8,419,056 $8,408,415 $8,076,130 1998/99 Sewer $4,806,658 $4,848,204 $4,849,344 48,457 $4,8 $4,850,579 $4,879,304 $4,673,597 Tofa! $13,219,802 13,269,299 $93,268,344 _ $13,266,595 $]3,269,635 $93;287,720 $12,749,727 Water $8,580,522 $8,590,298 $8,588,174 $8,587,300 $8,588,231 $8,577,993 $8,076,130 1999/2000 Sewer $4 888,146 ,945,807 $4 $4,946,957 $4,946,062 8,203 4,94 $4,986,328 __.. $4,673,597 _ .. ofal ~ $13,468,668,. ~y~y $13,'536,405 $13,535,131 _^. _ $13,533,362 $13,536,434 $]3,64,321 - $12,749,727,: Water $8,750,635 $8,762,335 $8,760,181 $8,759,295 $8,760,238 $8,738,176 $8,076,130 2000/2001 Sewer $4,984,044 $5,045,533 $5,046,694 $5,045,791 $5,047,951 $5,090,209 $4,673,597 Tot8/ ~ $13,734,679 $13,807,868" $13,806,875. ~13;~805,D85 $1'3,'808,'1.90... X13,928,385 $12,749,727 1 Appendix II -Comparison of Consumption-Based Rate Options 1 1 L V L N N~ 1.6 N .~ W (~ L C N ~ C ~ ~ H! a~ O~ c~ +~+ O ~ O ~ o 0 '0 N N ~ m 3 0 w 0 c .` a E 0 v i 1 t t i L w • § ti 1 ~. 1 ;. ~ t~ g' ~' a .. t. ~ ~" ~~ ~ ' ~'~. s~ ~~ ~~ ~ x' , $ . O O O O '' '. w x` X ~ ~ O ~ W a t a i 2 t .,. 1 ~ ,: N ~ ~ V! V! fA ~ N O_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II!9 ~annag pue ~a;eM ~(I~uoyy 0 N W f0 N c N O R O O O c O O N C O U s ~ +~ c O N ~ N ~ ' fA V! d 7 I~ ' V 7 L N N~ 1.6 1 ~ 1 X W~ ``• cc / G C ~ 0 O c. c~ ~ °o ~ O ~ O ~ o r -p o d °o H o ~ N 3 0 w 0 c 0 N ,a E 0 . a . . . . ` . ` . a 1 . ,~ ,.:. r R . ~.. c , ~,. _ : r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, c c c c c 0 0 0 o ~ N ~ 0 0 0 o u~ . ~~ . _ ~ .~ .. ~ ~ . ~ $: ~. ~ ~. ~ - IlO In lO 1e[~') ~ ~ H V- to ~ il!8 ~annag pue ~a;eM ~(I~uoyy O O IA ~ ~ N 0 0 0 rn 0 O ~ c 0 0 0 C O ~ y C O U r c o ~ ~ ~ 0 v 0 0 N O fR d L V V N_ ,~ L W C O ~ ~ W = O Q ~ O° 0 ~ O ~ O ~ ~ 0 M~ O W r t 3 0 0 c 0 V a E 0 V a s ,,~ ~+. r ~ _ ~ I s a , \ { i 1 1 ~ - ~ ` a t w . r `'` ~ I t i 1 ,, .,~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' O O O O :~ N ` ~ X ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ <~ .~. ~. o ~ o ~ o a 0 a 0 0 0 a v O O V' O ~ N M C O (~ O 0 0 ~_ C o O a E N C O U w C O ~ ~ ~ N 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 II!8 ~annag pue ~a;eM ~(ly;uoW d L V L 7/~ N~ 1.6 C N W C . O N ~ C C ~ 0 ''~^^ ~ V Q ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O r 'C o N ~ m 3 0 0 c 0 N ~L a •o V i` \;.. r: ~; t -'° ~ ; ~' _ t j-. ~?, ~ '1. t` `,:, w w t , ~ i i 3 ~ t i i t r • f0 ~ (0 ~ ~ ~' ? O O O O it , VJ ~ ~ p' ' ' 4, \ 1 € zt 1 % i\ 1 ':. „: l ~i l ':t O O ~ ~ O O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ II!8 ~annag pue ~a3eM ~(I~uoy~ 0 0 0 0 rn O O m O H C O O o ~ ~ t9 0 0 0 ~_ C In ~+ I~ CQ G N C O U o c 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O N (A V V L ~~ C N W ~ 0 N ~ ~ N = O O to r+ O a O o° 0 d ~ °o ~';~ O d O tQ O m ~ 3~ 0 LL O C O L Q O V ti s 1 1 1 l ~ , l { 1 r i s 1 ~ ~ 1 a ~ t c . : ~y ~'` . ~ ~ ~ ~ C C C C °' C . :. O O O O ' xb ' ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ O O O O W ~ __ _ ~ •. ~ . ~, . ~ ~ a ~ c y '- ~ 9. O O O O O O O O O O O O N O a0 (O e} CV ~ ~ to /H to ~ II!8 ~annag pue ~a3eM ~14~uoW O O O CO /A fA 0 0 0 ri 0 0 N O O ~O N O O V' fV N o O N N 0 0 0 o c 0 ° 4 N c 0 U o ~' r c O 0 0 cn °o v 0 0 N O O O (O fA 1 1 ~' ~I 1 Appendix II -Comparison of Meter-Based Rate Options L .~ i~ V .~ L i~ d i+ NN~ Ll. N .X W / ~ N £ ~ o O N Q ~ V ~ ~+ ~ d ~ N d ~ N m L W Q Q L a E O V a y\ l t 1 i 1 l t t { 1 ~ 1 ` i ~ d d N N ~ i 1 M ~ t ~ f0 N f0 ~ M s ~ ~ ~ ~ p) 0 0 0 0 ~ , 'S O O O O , u f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~' y a~0 f~0 ~ N O ~ ~ ~ IA (A b? ~ 0 N (O ~' W C N O !4 O O O c o ~ E 7 N C O U _~ t ao +-' C 0 f0 N eO~ N ~ t iR iH II!8 ~annag pue ~a;eM ~(lu;uow L V L ~~ i~ N~ 1.6 N .~ I.LI d N a C ~ O . a '~ O +~ ~ V 'C N ~ ev m L Cd C 0 N ~L a E 0 v t 1 i 1 1 i t i 4 F S t 1 t, I s 1 t 9 x Y ,~ R It a Cf0 ~ ix ~ rn O O 'n O O w l t x a~O ~~V N O ~ ~ fA 19 fl9 fR ~ 0 N (O N c N O f~ O O O ~_ C o ~ Q E N C O U w °0 c 0 (O a N ~ N ~ ' fA V- II!8 ~annag pue ~a;eM ~(I~uow L. .~ V L N~ I.L C N .~ W ~ ~ d N ~ C ~ O ~+ Q '~ O m m E ~ o ~ V N ev m d ~+ C~ G C O N .~ a E 0 v l t 1 4 4 Y K 1 Y i t S t 1 4 4 4 t t x t x a ~ ~ a ~ ~ rn ` 0 0 ~ ` N x O O IL 1 1 i ~ O 1_d O ~ ~ ~ ~ O 4T 0 M N O N N c 0 ~o (9 0 0 0 c o a E 0 U c 0 0 O II!8 ~annag pue ~a;eM ~(I~uoyy L V L ~~ N~ I.L N .~ W _ d Q ` a •~ O~ d +~ ~ ~ O ~ V N ~ m L f+ C~ C 0 N ~L t6 a V s a t a 1 4 4 Y N t 1 t t Y t t 1 4 F i 4 a x l i t - f0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i C C C \ O O 'y ~- d ~X O O w ~ f E a E ~ t t 1 t 07' M lh N N ~ O 0 v O c~ tl! c o O M f6 O O O .ri C N N C O U N r c O O O O ' H ~ II!8 ~annag pue ~a;eM ~(ly;uoy~ L V L i~ ~~/ 1.6 N .~ W ~ ~ d N m = g O . a '~ O£ ~ U m L d Cd G .~ a E 0 V r r Z R Y a i N X 4 B a A t ^ x 1 ti t `k t M f6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 C C C ~ O O O O IL ~ c i t Y ~ 1 l 1 1 l O O O O O O O O 0 0 O 01 O W O M c 0 0 co C7 0 0 0 ~_ c 0 0 V1 C 0 U °v C O O M 0 N O O ER 1118 ~annag pue ~a;eM ~143uoW L. i~ V V N i+ N~ I.L. i~+ N .X W ~ ~ C d O ~ ~+ ~. d ~ O 'a c.v d N N ca m 1 L Q~ Cd G O N ~L a E 0 v 1 T 9 l t Y 1 i 1 l 1 1 9 t t 1 x A t r t t ti • M M ~ ~ ~ ~ C C C O O ' 1 N n o. ` O O w i L 4 ti l 1 t t ~ N O ~ ~ ~ NfA V! to to 0 0 N O O f0 O tll c o p (7 0 0 0 c o O o O. E 3 N C O U o w °D C 0 O (O 0 a 0 N O IR II!8 ~annag pue ~a;eM Illy;uoyy d L i~l V L d N~ I.I. N .X W ~ ~ N C ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 '~ m ~ ~ a E ~ ~ '~ V d M N ea m L i+ C w O N .` ev a E 0 v 0. t x a t t l t i 6 6 t Y t i s i n i l M M ~ # ~ ~ C C C ~ O O N r a n 'X w 1 r ~, I ~ 1 1 s t x t i O ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 M 0 N O O N N c 0 ~a (9 0 0 0 c O ~ a E 3 w c 0 U t c 0 O O 0 O , f9 II!8 ~annag pue ~a3eM ~143uoW d 3 r V 3 L d ~+ N~ I.L .X W ~ ~ C d 0 L O ~ d Ir ~ O '~ V N ~ m L. C~ L .` (~ a V i { x 0 x a t s a E 6 1 a z x k { 1 x 1 6 a i i M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C C C O O ' g y ~ ~' n x O O w o, ~ M c ~ ~ A 1 • i a i o °o °o °o °o o° o °o o u~ o 'n o ~n o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u- fa O O 0 v 0 0 v 0 M N C o O o co ~ C7 0 O O C O ~ N p, E N C 0 U ~. N C 0 O r 0 0 O 0 uq II!8 ~annag pue ~a;eM ~(ly;uoy~ d a+ V L C N W ~ d N ~ ~ To N b C ~ O .a Q C 0 ~ C d ~ ~+ ~ ~ •~ d d ~ m V ~ m d W 0 N .` a E /0 V ti x e x a t e s x r a y M M ~ ~ ~ C C C O O '~ . . i n n X O O w +~ t 1 Y ~ F L 'L l t O O O O O O O O ~N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 rn 0 0 w O O n N c o° o m ~ O 0 0 0 ~_ c 0 0 ~ Q 1= 7 N C O U °v c 0 0 0 M 0 0 N O O O . II!8 ~annag pue ~a;eM X14;uow d L V L ~F+ N N~ I.f. C ~+ N .~ W N W d ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ d ~ N ev m d d y- O N .` ~i Q O V 1 i r e c a a r 1 i l t B r X a t • s m .o ~ ~ ~ ~ c c c _ . O O i y O ~ W ~ e e i Y 1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO f0 ~ N O_ ~ ~ ~ NfR to V! fR M iH O O N 0 0 0 N H c °0 0 ~n - ia 0 0 O C O a E N C O U o ~' o t o c o 0 0 ~n O fA II!8 ~annag pue ~a;eM ~(I~uoy~ L V N N~ I.L i~ N .X W ~ d M ~ C ~ O '~ c. ~ O~ .a '~ C ~ ~ N c cv m L C~ G 0 N .~ a rO V a l a a a t i-. n N O N N N N N N ~ O O N (V r ~_ r ~_ v ~ ~ l3 2] f6 ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c c c c c O O_ O O • w y f ~ O O O O W S. ' 1 • Y l L O O O O O O O O N pp 10 ~ N C ~ f~9 (A ifl fR ff> ~ Vi 0 0 0 ri 0 0 N O O O N N C 0 0 0 0 o c o ~ N C O U L C O 0 O O Q 0 0 0 0 {n (~ II!8 ~annag pue ~a;eM ~(ly;uoy~ !~ , ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~ I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session on Water and Sewer Rates COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: All of us,including staff would really like to do something to lessen the impact of the utility rate increases. It has been beneficial to have Draper Aden review the structure to determine if that is possible. I have reviewed the report and discussed it with the consultants, and I am not sure that we can make any changes. In fact, changes could result in significantly higher rates for other groups of residential and commercial users. The report shows that 94% of our utility customers are residential. If we choose to make any changes we need to prepare an informational program so that the citizens do not confuse these changes with the changes to the monthly billing. Draper Aden is reconfirming that the rate structure established by Cliff Craig and Burns & McDonnell was appropriate. I really feel a need to work this through with you at the Work Session. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In March 1995, the Board directed the county staff to review alternative ways to structure the County water and sewer rates, to address the complaints outlined below. At this work session, Draper Aden will review with the Board their report on possible water and sewer rate structures. The complete Draper Aden report is included as a separate document in the Board packet. The total water revenues and the total sewer revenues need to remain at current levels in order to fund the operations and the existing debt service. In order to do this, any lowering of rates for one category of users will increase rates for another set of users. We tried to address two major complaints from customers: 1) The relatively high water and sewer charges experienced by customers using little or no water. m:\finance\common\board\ November 17, 1995 ~. rte-/ 2) Significant quarterly changes in water and sewer charges experienced by customers whose consumption patterns move them into ahigher/lower base rate. In addition, we wanted the recommended rate structure to continue to provide guaranteed income to cover debt service (or at least a significant part of debt service), be fair and equitable, and minimize the changes to existing customers water and sewer bills. The number of rate structures are almost endless, but we have limited the selection to six(6) alternatives for consideration. None of the options met all of the County goals. Draper Aden is recommending that we keep our current rate structure. They recommend that we begin to take steps that will move us towards a meter based rate structure at some point in the future. Staff concurs that we should maintain our current rate structure. None of the options considered are significantly better than the current structure. Any benefit to one group of citizens would be offset by an increase to another group of citizens. We are concerned that this would be perceived as another rate increase. Staff would also like to take a few minutes at the end of the work session to update the Board on the status of our meetings with APCO regarding a joint meter reading/billing operations. This seems like a very exciting possibility. We will have a separate work session on December 12, 1995, with representatives from APCO present. Respectfully submitted, Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance Approved by, ti, ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved Denied Received Referred To ACTION Motion by: VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy - - - Johnson - _ - Kohinke - - - Minnix _ _ _ Nickens m:\finance\common\board\ November 17, 1995 ~- ~, County Self-Insurance Program Work Session :~ November 21, 1995 • Table of Contents • Page I. General and Auto Liability Summary 1-2 II. Exhibit A 3 III. Exhibit B 4 IV. Workers' Compensation Summary 5-6 V. Exhibit C 7 VI. Exhibit D 8 VII. Exhibit E 9 VIII. Exhibit F 10 IX. Exhibit G 11 X. Exhibit H (Executive Summary from Independent Actuary) 12-15 ~, • General Liability and Auto Liability Background As a result of the insurance crisis of the mid 80s, we had to seek an alternative to the commercial insurance market. This was accomplished by joining the newly created Virginia Municipal Liability Pool. Premiums for the pool were equal to and sometimes higher than those of the commercial market, but the advantages were stability and the possibility of dividends. With the level of comfort for this type of insurance increasing, higher deductibles were taken which produced lower premiums. Our goal at the beginning of this alternative program was to one day, with the dividends returned and the resulting savings from higher deductible/lower premiums, accumulate sufficient reserves to allow us to take a self-insured position. This goal was realized in the 1994/95 budget year. (See. Exhibit A). Claims The claim's history for Roanoke County for general and auto liability is one which we can all take a great deal of pride. We have been recognized on several occasions by the VML Pool for our outstanding record. Our first year of self-insurance is no different, our losses are very low. (See Exhibit A). Loss Control/Safety Program An important element of maintaining our low loss ratio is an effective loss control and safety program. Communicating with employees and making them aware of liability situations is very important. Letting drivers know what to do and what not to do when they are involved in an accident can minimize our 1 liability exposure. County drivers are required to attend an 8-hour defensive driving course, and we also offer specialized driving courses for drivers with specific needs. Reserves The question of "How Much is Enough" for insurance reserves is one that has long been debated. At present, we have a $2,000,000 reserve which we feel is adequate and responsible. This amount will cover us for eight major occurrences with a $250,000 deductible (see Exhibit B). We have also obtained the services of an independent actuary to review our entire Self-insured Program as of June 30, 1995. (see Exhibit H). • C:\wp51\glaurcj.boa • , i ~ w Q bD L bA Q C C ~ ° °a ~° ~ °° a „~ 6R W C 0 ~UUu .. ~ `' ~ ~ u ."- a o a ~ C C O C C C b9 ,~~ o 0 0 0 0 G o o Q o 0 0 0 ° F 0 U o 0 0 0 0 U o p p SW ,.~ U1 '~ ~ ~ ~ N h O OV U N N N N N (~~1 M M O O O yMj r ~ r ~ ;>,H N 00 W ~ O7 2_p N O\ M 00 N Cc7 F V, W ~. G] L'y' O O O O ~ f+1 t~1 O ~, C.'7 ^' N ~O o0 Q N O rt ~"~ f~1 Mf ~O ~- f~l i Q O O O h ~ ~ N ~ N O\ N P1 P1 M ~ Q N b ~ N h b N ~M+ N N N• N N f'1 C~1 M G ~ n, n n n n n n _z ~ ~ ~ N ~ d 1-a ~ N N ~ .M. W ~ O ~ V V V ;......, A V V V V W' -.~ 000 N ~ b O O O O ~ ~~C"CC, N Vl ~f 00 r~C]7 ~ W a - ~ w 1~~+ bA F. L o ~z ec p" a~'"i u UU ~ ° u ~aa w ~ p'~ O ~ C O C 1/7 Y3 EXHIBIT A N .~ p ~ en o m ~ h . 0 M 00 .. oo 0 r -. o r n Q '. h .~ 00 r. _ 00 ... y~ ~.-~ r rr ~ .. ~ .N. b ,fin ~~11 ~ 00 ~ 00 ~ 00 N 00 D\ 00 ~ 00 O T O~ Op O~ O N ~ M 01 N ~ O~ M 3 N1 t0 ~ O N O1 ~ C u O ~" ~., a N V '? ~ay[++i O T ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ •N l0 r ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ a ~ °' ~ ~ c d ~ x 'd 1-i a V a >, ~ ~°. 3 N ~ ~ ti N i •V ~ ~ p~ ~.. 69 U O y ~ O '00 .O t~ ,~ 7 U ~ yNg aY O a N v v .~, a 3 CI • • • L O~ H N O y M ~i Y u ~ C ti o 'v C C rr W W L O ~ at y w V 7 O ~ ~ ~,~ 'C Y ~ C R ~ W ".~' u d C L ply ` •y O ~A v,e Y Y "" ~.~ ~ A ~ 0 ~ n C ~ v °o c voi r" o 0 O o c °0 .. 0 0 ' O o, o 0 r. a o °o v [~ O , O ~ N O O d C D\ O O V1 V ~~ ~ ~ ~ D A '~ 'r °~ ° a` 0 0 : a` o 0 o u m o`r. v°`i M ~ V h N C h l~ M ..Nr ti a M R u ~ a oo °o ~ ~ ri et Q\ R ~ ~ N C F h M M ° N 0 o a N O h ~ ~ N . 1 K ~ ~ W N O i N A O A O q L ~ O M O 00 Y O 00 '~ O .--~ M 1~ O ~ ~.. d ~. M et ~ Y V ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ 7 fA W O O d' U ~ ~ 0 0 ~ r, ... O U e°+~ ~ O O O ~ ~ ~ O O O C .O N A a ~' ~ ~ :a c U ~ `° Y ._] a~ ~ O C O a3 c7 a U Y d N Y L b A O O N d V X N O C O .~ 0 i~ b td N N N v va u Z Y O a E' N 0 C O .O O a EXHIBIT B Y U Z Z O Q N 0 • Workers' Compensation Background Self-insuring our workers' compensation began with fiscal year 1986/87. For that year we had budgeted $300,000, but when we received our renewal quote it was well above $400,000. This was the result of rates for volunteer fire and rescue personnel taking a dramatic jump. We had two choices, either ask for additional funding or make the move to self-insurance. As we enter into our tenth year with this program, it has proven to be a very efficient and a cost- effective way of meeting the County's legal obligation to its employees. (See Exhibit C). Claims Although we have experienced a death, a number of serious back injuries, and we are now filing Heart/Lung claims for public safety employees, our overall loss experience has been quite remarkable. The claims are handled by Trigon Administrators in Richmond, Virginia, who are also responsible for medical management, rehabilitation programs, litigation, and the setting of claim's reserves. (See Exhibit C). Loss Control Safety Program In order to minimize injuries to employees and to comply with state and federal regulations, we are constantly aware of our role to develop or help develop safety policies and to coordinate training of employees. These policies are developed in cooperation with the effected departments to insure the most practical and workable approach is taken. Using this method, a County Safety Policy Manual was developed and distributed to all department • s • directors for use in their respective operations. This manual, along with proper employee safety training, is a requirement of the OSHA/NOSH standard. We are involved in other safety and loss control activities such as: (1) monthly safety meetings, (2) worksite safety inspections, and (3) monthly and quarterly accident review committee meetings. (See Exhibit D). Reserves The most difficult aspect of any Self-insured program is predicting the future. An actuary will normally say that a reserve of "x" amount is sufficient - if all factors remain the same. We all know that everything is subject to change and probably will. With workers' compensation especially, changes occur on a daily basis. The changes take place through legislative action, workers' compensation commission interpretations or commission member appointments. Hopefully, by working with groups such as the VML, VACO and the Virginia Self-Insurers Association, we can monitor such changes and voice our opinion on ones which will adversely effect our program. At present, workers' compensation has a retention of $325,000 per each accident with a reserve of $999,218. The Self-Insurance Board of Trustees has recommended that the reserve be set at $1,500,000 which we feel can be accomplished in the next year. (See Exhibit E,F,G and H). We have also obtained the services of independent actuary to review our entire Self-insurance program as of June 30, 1995. (see Exhibit H). C:\wp51\workrcj.boa • a EXHIBIT C • ~' D b ~ Nom-. r ~ b N vMi~ ~ R M e+1 N et N f1 O~ N ~ P O~ C; ~ R t~ N vi ~O ~ V' 7 7 h VMj h ~O ~ b ~ h ~. O O O O O O O O O p ~.`. O O O O O O O O O~ O h ~. 0 0 o vOi vOi vpi vOi r °o ~ ~. fn f~1 M N N N N N f+l N Q Q ~a • OA U 3~ a o ~; ~ ~ N ~ [ --~ b N O O ~ ~ O O .M. .M+ vMi .M.+ ~ .M.i .~.. ~ N N. N h ~ W O O ~ O O O O h O I~ e{ ~ M O N W . .-. ~ ~ 00 [~ <CL Nf Z U N ~ l O ~ O O b ~ ~ . .. ~ ' ~ ~ v ~o ~ n N M R. 0 ~ h N .r F ~.. 0 0 00 . . O O H1 h N ~ A O ~ ... I ~ et 00 N f+~ O ~ Q ~ N r ~ b ~ r M O V v 1 v i v i ~D v i ~ V1 ~ h ~ h ONE ~Op O ~ N r N r1 N ri e{ eF vi '71 ~"~ 11 ~ M 'Z' O O O vi vi M I~ vi b ti ~. O O O ? ~ ~ N fM~1 h ~ W.r*~ N N N M Nf P1 (~f M N ~ '4 ~ ~ 0~0 ~N7 O~ M O ~}' MI O ~ M r, M ~ M n p w oo N ~ E" N ~N N N N N N ~ ~ N N 0 F o~OOO o\~o ~ ~ a a a ~ W d rn a a ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ F F A b G U 7 EXHIBIT D • • SAFETY TRAINING DATE TOPIC SPEAKER March 22-23 Back Injury Prevention Wendy Lucas April 19-20 P.P.E. Rob Connery May 17-18 Spill Containment Fire & Rescue Buddy Altice June 28-29 Heat Pat Bryant July 26-27 "Full Protection" Ladder and Climbing Rob Connery August 23-24 Defensive Driving David Byrd September 20-21 ~ Fire Prevention Don Gillispie October 18-19 Blood Borne Pathogen Pat Bryant November 15-16 Slips, Trips and Falls Rob Connery December 13-14 Holiday Safety Buddy Altice January 24-25 Electrical Safety TO BE ANNOUNCED February 21-22 Safety Attitudes Tim Fitzgerald Classes for the dates listed in bold will be conducted at 5 p.m. All other dates will be conducted at 7 and 8 a.m. • 8 EXHIBIT E General Government Steering Committee • ~ July 20,1995 Recommendation to VML Legislative Committee on Workers' Compensation Issues VML has opposed expansion of the current presumption statute in past General Assembly sessions. While the statute gives employers the right to rebut the presumption by presenting a preponderance of competent evidence to the contrary, precedent setting interpretations in individual cases by the Workers' Compensation Comrission and the courts have rendered the presumption virtually unrebuttable. Employers are presently required to establish one or more non work related factors as the cause of the claimant's condition and eliminate any sibility that iob stress was a factor. This standard is substantially higher than preponderance and has saddled the local taxpayer with enormous, legislatively unintended costs from which they have no recourse. A balanced presumption statute is appropriate and reasonable. Given the medical uncertainty of the causes of heart disease and cancer which may, to some degrce be a.t~'ected by stress (heart disease) or occupational exposure to known or suspected carcinogens (cancer), this special class of employee deserves the benefit of the doubt (i.e. no burden to prove causal connection of condition to employment). However, it is not reasonable to have a presumption statute that essentially ignores risk factors which are lifestyle choices such as smoking, poor nutritional habits, lack of exercise or obesity. Additionally, non work related stress and familial history should ~e considered. The intent of the statute as respects the employer's right to rebut • the presumption, is for the Workers' Compensation Commission and courts to consider non work related risk factor evidence presented by the employer in a particular case and decide if it more likely that the condition was primarily caused by the employment or from one or more non work related factors. P_Qtential 1996 I,eaislation To Support • local government proposed language for amending presumption statute to restore balance to rebuttal process Potential 1996 Legislation To Oppose • extending presumption to salaried and volunteer EMTs and lifesaving & rescue squads (may consider dropping opposition if balance to current presumption is restored through legislative action) • capping exposure basis for volunteer firefighters at $300 and merging the current volunteer and salaried firelighter classifications (have offered to compromise by accepting $300 cap as long as codes are not merged which would result in the paid fire department rate nearly tripling) expansion of cancers covered by presumption statute (leukemia, lung, prostate, rectal, throat and pancreatic cancers now included -skin and brain cancer are potential additions) Recommended Policy Statement VML supports legislative action that restores balance to the rebuttal process for the heart/lung/cancer presumption statute as was the intent of the original legislation.. Compensability should be determined by establishing whether work or non work related risk factors are more likely the primary cause of the claimant's condition. Until such legislative action is taken, VML opposes any further expansion of the statute. EXHIBIT F Defsnse Ofspetch, p.9 lateral Epicondylitis~ Trigger ~ Thumb Now Compensable Diseases C • In a recent full Commission opinion, Commissioner Diamond held that lateral epicondylitis and trigger thumb are diseases, and are compensable as such under the workers' compensation law in Virginia. Youne v. Wampler Lont~acre Inc , VWC File No. 167-77-93, Opinion dated June 27, 1995. The claimant, a poultry worker, used her hands and arms in a repetitive manner. Her treating physician, Dr. Chappell, diagnosed the claimant with lateral epicondylitis and trigger thumb, both of which he found to be a consequence of her employment. After operating on the claimant's thumb, Dr. Chappell noted that "lateral epicondylitis can be aself-limiting disease even without treatment." He later stated that he would not characterize either trigged thumb or lateral epicondylitis as diseases, but rather as repetitive motion disorders or repetitive microtrauma. In spite of Dr. Chappell's characterization of the conditions as repetitive motion disorders, the full Commission held the claimant's conditions to be compensable diseases. The Commission interpreted a prior case, Piedmont Manufacturine Companv v. East, as allowing the Commission to look beyond the medical record iri each case to determine whether a condition qualifies as a disease. The Commission based its determination of compensability on the definition of disease provided by Sloane-Dorland Annotated Medical-Legal Dictionary. Commissioner Tarr wrote a dissenting opinion in which he found that claimant had failed to prove that her conditions qualified as diseases. This opinion has raised much concern within the insurance defense industry, because neither East nor Merillat v. Parks expressly authorize the Commission to look for evidence outside of the medical record to support a finding of disease. Tort Claim Filed Against Empla~yer for CTS An employee, who lost her workers' compensation claim to receive benefits for her carpal tunnel syndrome, has filed a tort action in federal district court against her employer for the same condition. The law suit, Johnson v. ITT Corporation, was filed July 24, 1995 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, and alleges that the employer failed to provide a safe workplace. The employee worked on an assembly line for several years in a brake plant, where she often filled emergency orders. The lawsuit contends that the employer created unreasonable work conditions by imposing excessive physical demands, repetitive motions, and time pressures. This claim is believed to be the first of its kind in Virginia to raise the issue of the employer's duty to provide a safe workplace for employees under these circumstances. In an article in the August 7, 1995 Virginia Lawyer's Weekly, Bruce D. Rasmussen, counsel for the employee, said this law suit may convince employers that accepting carpal tunnel claims as compensable under the workers' compensation system is infinitely better than handling these claims through civil litigation. He adds, "employees suing their own employers is bad for labor-management relations." 10 u ~ .fl ~ o o 0 g u ~ C ; ~ a ri n o c a d h C ~ O - -i u ~~' • Q -~ A v d O O O Y O O O O O O C ~ L ~q ra Vy O O A ... ..+ ,.., O O~ O d ~ O O d R N O O y C ~ O O ~~„ ~Y ~ O O C ^ Imo/ Fr i ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ 0 ~ C d ~ M 7 ~ ~ M ~ ' d' V 1 N C q n ~ M ~ y a M R u u a ° ° A o o is c•i ~ O~ R1 v~ a+ vi R ~ ~ N O F" ~ M to ° N 0 0 a N O d n H C N N .i d V rn . x w N • A O N O O N Y O M ~O ~p 7 C ~ ~ 00 i O ~ V M ~ v Q~i rl L ~ ~ 0 u o d M u ~ = o ° v ~ W o C ~.~~ C W T O~ O O U ~ .. .-.. i ~a+ c 0 U ~ .fl ~ C O --i W ~ Y. L ~ Y ~ ~~ ~ O O O m ~ ~ ~ \ ~ n O O 7 0 ~~ ~ • C~ Fi h L' m ~ a . -a ~ ° '° • y ~ '~ o a~ ~ s ~o ~ o ;3 c~ N N d SV OU C O 7 A O e;' N N X w a C O U 0 'O M N V N N c9 d N W a EL a w 0 e 0 .~ 0 w EXHIBIT G '~f Y U Z Z rn F- 0 a o~ N O 11 ~~„ EXHIBIT H ~1~~ Sedgwick , COUNTY OF ROANOKE LOSS RESERVE EVALUATION AND FORECAST October 23, 1995 • Prepared By: L. Kevin Smith, A.C.A.S. Assistant Consulting Actuary Sedgwick Actuarial Services Sedgwick, Inc. 3401 West End Avenue, Suite 180 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 (61 S) 298-1414 • 12 \I,D~ Sedgwick n u EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to provide the County of Roanoke (the County) with an evaluation and projection of the liabilities corresponding to its self-insured exposures. The specific objectives of this analysis are (1) to evaluate loss reserves and funding requirements through the current year for the self-insured automobile liability, general liability, and workers compensation exposure of the County and the self-insured workers compensation exposure of the Roanoke County School Board; (2) to project payments on all liabilities through June 30, 1997; and (3) to provide a forecast of losses for future accident years. Table I displays a summary of the results of this analysis. Key assumptions include: 1. Use of the historical payment and reporting patterns of the combined County and School Board workers compensation experience, supplemented by industry • experience, to estimate ultimate losses for past policy years for workers compensation; 2. Use of insurance industry development experience to estimate ultimate losses for past policy years for automobile and general liability; 3. Use of external indices to estimate trends in claim costs and in exposure; 4. Use of pure premium data for a group of Virginia Counties to supplement the County's general liability and automobile liability experience in projecting future loss levels; 5. Use of various statistical distributions to model loss development patterns; and 6. Use of rates of return ranging from 5% to 7% to calculate the discounted value of outstanding losses. Table I displays the estimated ultimate losses, along with the total reserve required to fund future liabilities for each year in the experience period, as of June 30, 1995. As indicated on these County of Roanoke Page :13 October 23, 1995 l% Sedgwick • Tables, total ultimate losses for all lines for accident periods through June 30, 1995, total $3,200,000. Reserve estimates at various confidence levels are presented in Table II. The County's carried workers compensation reserves as of June 30, 1995, $1,375,654, are sufficient to meet its outstanding obligations of $1,056,000 at the 90% confidence level. The School Board's June 30, 1995, carried reserve of $492,257 is within 1% of the amount needed to meet its outstanding obligations of $497,000 at the expected level. Automobile and General Liability reserves, totaling $2,000,000 as of June 30, 1995, are suflicient to fund outstanding losses and the 1995/96 year at confidence levels in excess of 90%. Given the current per occurrence retention of $250,000, this amount would be sufficient to cover approximately four major claims in each line. Estimates at levels other than expected are provided in order to give the County an 1 • indication of the amount of uncertainty in the estimates. Estimates at the expected level, however, should be considered our best estimates and should be compared to the carried reserves to determine adequacy. Table III displays ultimate losses through June 30, 1995, and forecast losses for accident periods July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1997, at various confidence levels. In projecting both future emergence on current outstanding liabilities and future loss experience, we have assumed that historical patterns are predictive of future experience. We have not anticipated any extraordinary changes to the legal, social and economic environment which might affect the cost or frequency of claims, except as noted. In particular, our analysis assumes U County of Roanoke Page 14 October 23, 1995 \1 Sedgwick • continued consistent application of sovereign immunity to liability claims and continuance of current workers compensation benefit levels. Due to the recent increase in Heart/Lung losses, we have chosen to forecast these losses separately. For the 1995-96 accident period forecast County workers compensation losses total $471,000 (Table III - WC) of which $212,000 is designated as Heart/Lung losses and $259,000 is for all other losses. The Heart/Lung losses were estimated as 45 percent of total losses. This is consistent with the County's latest two years of experience. Based on the average claim size seen in Heart/Lung losses over the past two years we would expect the average claim size in the 1995-96 year to be approximately $85,000. The $212,000 provision that we have included would then cover approximately 2.5 claims. Given the fact that the County has approximately 500 employees eligible for this benefit, the potential exists for significant variance from our • estimate. We have attempted to model this potential variance in Table III. • County of Roanoke Page 15 October 23, 1995 r 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: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session on County Self Insurance Program COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND The County became self insured for Workers' Compensation in 1986. Effective July 1, 1988 the County formed the Risk Management Department. The goal of this department was to realize savings through aggressive bidding of policies and minimize claims through training and other procedures. The savings were accumulated in insurance reserves that allowed us to increase our deductibles, thereby further increasing our savings. The long range plan was to become self insured for risks where this option was cost efficient. On July 1, 1994, the County became self insured for General Liability and Automobile insurance. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION The Risk Management Department has been very successful in reaching its goals. At the work session scheduled for this time, the Self Insurance Trustees will review the success of the self insurance programs for Workers' Compensation, General Liability, and Automobiles. A separate report is included in the Board packet that will be discussed during the work session. In addition, staff will distribute a booklet summarizing all of the current County insurance policies. At June 30, 1995, the County has accumulated insurance reserves in excess of known outstanding claims as follows: m:\finance\common\board\ November 16, 1995 ~- Workers' Compensation $ 999,218 General Liability 1,000,000 Automobile 1,000,000 In addition, the Schools have accumulated a reserve in excess of known outstanding claims for Workers' Compensation of $231,539. The Insurance Trustees have recently reviewed an independent actuarial study that assures us that we are satisfied with the level of reserves for General Liability and Automobile coverage. Because of recent Workers' Compensation Commission rulings related to Heart/Lung cases, the Trustees recommend increasing the level of the County Workers' Compensation Reserve to $1,500,000. In addition, the Trustees will also recommend to the Schools that they need to increase the level of their reserve to $600,000. The Trustees anticipate achieving the needed level of County Workers' Compensation Reserve by June 30, 1996. The County recently received a check from the VML Pool for $105,848, which is the dividend for our portion of the pool for 1994-95. This check was deposited into the Risk Management Fund. The savings for the Risk Management budget for the year, along with this dividend check, should fully fund the County's self insurance reserves for the first time. It has been the Board's expectation that once the insurance reserves are fully funded, the amount of funding for the Risk Management budget could be reduced. We are pleased to report that we have achieved this goal. The 1995-96 budget for Risk Management is as follows: Salaries and Office expenses $ 157,746 Insurance Coverage 1,012,250 Total $ 1,169.996 The amount that is included in the Salary and Office expenses will not be affected, but we will be able to reduce the amount that we are currently putting into Insurance Coverage. At this time, staff estimates that this item can be reduced by $300,000, in future budget years. This reduction could be handled in two ways. 1) The 1996-97 budget for Risk Management could be reduced by $300,000 during the budget process, or 2) The 1996-97 budget for Risk Management could include the same amount as prior years ($1,012,250) for insurance coverage. At the conclusion of the fiscal year, the amount in excess of the needed reserves at that time could be given as a refund to the general fund. During the work session we would like to get the Boards' direction on these options. In addition we m:\finance\common\board\ November 16, 1995 ., will update you on the status of recent Workers' Compensation Heart/Lung legislation and the impact it has on our future liability. Respectfully submitted, Diane D. Hyatt ' Director of Finance Approved by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Approved () Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To () VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy _ _ _ Johnson _ _ _ Kohinke Minnix _ _ _ Nickens m:\finance\common\board\ November 16, 1995 ~~ `, AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 RESOLUTION 112195-11 CERTIFYING ERECUTIVE 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, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Executive Session ~~ ., ~~ ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 RESOLUTION 112195-12 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO EUGENE 8. GRUBB FOR OVER THIRTY-THREE YEARS OF SERVICES TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, Eugene S. Grubb was first employed on August 22, 1962 as Maintenance Foreman I in the Building Maintenance Division of the General Services Department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Grubb has also served as Parks Maintenance Foreman in the Grounds Maintenance Division of the Parks and Recreation Department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Grubb has exemplified the true spirit of dedication to the Parks and Recreation mission and set a standard for others to follow; and WHEREAS, Mr. Grubb, through his employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to EUGENE S. GRUBB for over thirty-three years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None ~~ ABSENT: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources Pete Haislip, Director, Parks & Recreation Resolutions of Appreciation File AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 RESOLUTION EBPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO EUGENE 8. GRUBB FOR OVER THIRTY-THREE YEARS OF SERVICES TO ROANORE COIINTY WHEREAS, Eugene S. Grubb was first employed on August 22, 1962 as Maintenance Foreman I in the Building Maintenance Division of the General Services Department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Grubb has also served as Parks Maintenance Foreman in the Grounds Maintenance Division of the Parks and Recreation Department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Grubb has exemplified the true spirit of dedication to the Parks and Recreation mission and set a standard for others to follow; and WHEREAS, Mr. Grubb, through his employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to EUGENE 8. GRUBB for over thirty-three years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best S-~ wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. i w - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TIIESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 RESOLUTION 112195-13 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO HERMAN D. FIELDER FOR FIFTEEN YEARS OF SERVICES TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, Herman D. Fielder was first employed on July 1, 1980, as a Corrections Office in the Sheriff's Office; and WHEREAS, Mr. Fielder has also served as Deputy Sheriff- Corrections Officer; and Jail Maintenance Deputy; and WHEREAS, Mr. Fielder was awakened many times in the middle of the night to make repairs and keep the jail facility in operation without complaining or expectation of gratuities for his services; and WHEREAS, Mr. Fielder, through his employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to HERMAN D. FIELDER for fifteen years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Kohinke to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Eddy t,..~, _., ~~ A COPY TESTE: cc: D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources Gerald Holt, Sheriff Resolutions of Appreciation File yn,~--~.-~~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors File ., AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 RESOLUTION ESPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO HERMAN D. FIELDER FOR FIFTEEN YEARS OF SERVICES TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, Herman D. Fielder was first employed on July 1, 1980, as a Corrections Office in the Sheriff's Office; and WHEREAS, Mr. Fielder has also served as Deputy Sheriff- Corrections Officer; and Jail Maintenance Deputy; and WHEREAS, Mr. Fielder was awakened many times in the middle of the night to make repairs and keep the jail facility in operation without complaining or expectation of gratuities for his services; and WHEREAB, Mr. Fielder, through his employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to HERMAN D. FIELDER for fifteen years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best S-a wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. t_ A-112195-14 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing and Approval of a Storm Water Management Program for Single-Family Residential Subdivisions Under the Provisions of Ordinance #112288-7 (Public Works Improvements) COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Recommend Approval The Board of Supervisors directed that a public hearing be held to secure the comments of its citizens concerning the establishment of a storm water management program for single-family residential subdivisions under the provisions of the public works improvements ordinance. After the public hearing the Board may consider the adoption of a Resolution establishing a policy for implementing this program. Over the past year the Board has held work sessions: (1) to consider the complaints of citizens with respect to inadequate maintenance of storm water control facilities by homeowners' associations; (2) to consider regional storm water problems, including the current regional study by the Fifth Planning District Commission; (3) to consider the impact of federal legislation on this issue, and the increased role and responsibility of local governments to address this unfunded federal mandate; and (4) to consider various alternatives for addressing these problems. On September 26, 1995, the Board decided to implement Staff Recommendation #2 which utilizes the 1988 Public Works Improvement ordinance as a limited response to this problem. Under this approach, the County would maintain storm water management facilities in residential subdivisions, upon agreement of all the affected property owners in that subdivision, or after a petition by 75~ of the affected property owners, or by an affirmative vote 1 T- of two-thirds of all the members elected to the Board of Supervisors. The method for financing these costs is through a special assessment added to the property owners' real estate taxes. The Board also directed staff to schedule a public hearing for citizen comment on this special assessment process for addressing storm water problems, and to outline the procedures, standards and forms to be used to implement this limited storm water management program. The procedure for imposing an assessment for this "public works improvement" is described in Ordinance 112288-7. The improvements are ordered by the Board upon the adoption of an ordinance, and the costs apportioned among the property owners. If all the property owners agree, then the ordinance shall authorize the execution of an agreement to administer this project in accordance with County standards and regulations. The County will identify the costs and assess or apportion these costs among the abutting owners. The property owners may deposit with the County the estimated amount of the costs upon the execution of the agreement, or they shall reimburse the County for the costs. Alien shall be recorded against the real estate to secure the reimbursement of the costs. If all the property owners do not agree, the project may be ordered after the Board receives a petition of not less than 75~ of the affected landowners, or by a vote of 2/3 of all the members of the Board. The ordinance specifies the form and method of the required notice, and provides for an opportunity to appear before the Board to be heard on this project. It is assumed that most of these projects will be commenced by petition. Once a petition is received to implement a storm water management project in a particular single-family subdivision, then staff shall inspect the storm water management facilities to determine their status with respect to County standards and prepare an estimate of the cost of maintenance and repair. After the required legal notices, the Board must adopt an ordinance authorizing this project for each residential subdivision, and establishing the apportionment of fees among the abutting property owners. An abstract of this ordinance will be recorded among the land records in the Clerk's Office as a lien against the property. Staff recommends that projects be undertaken only at the beginning of each fiscal year (July 1) , and that a "cut-off" of 2 7r~ February 1 of each year for the receipt of petitions (75~ of the property owners) be established. This cutoff will allow staff and the Board to plan for the number of maintenance and repair projects within the annual budget process. Accepting projects in mid-year will be unduly burdensome, not only for budget purposes and for the collection of installment payments., but also for scheduling the work. In order to implement this program, staff sees the need for additional inspection, engineering, administrative, clerical, and construction (drainage crew) personnel that will be dependent on the response of the various homeowner's associations that may choose to participate. Our recommendation to the Board would be to add an additional member to the current drainage crew. The crew presently operates with only two permanent positions but has been complimented since its inception with temporary employees. The third position on the crew would not only allow for more efficient work on current and future drainage projects, but would allow for proper scheduling of maintenance of detention ponds that would be requested by the citizens and homeowner's associations. Support would come from the current Engineering & Inspections staff in terms of administration, engineering, clerical, and inspection requirements. The three-person crew would be a more efficient work unit and could utilize equipment currently operated by the drainage crew. Scheduling of the detention pond maintenance would be a logical extension of the duties of the current drainage program. It is estimated that the initial start-up cost would be approximately $10,000 for equipment and supplies and an annual operating expense of $30,000 to cover the salary of the additional person. Proceeds from the assessments would go to offsetting these costs, however, it is difficult to project the number of facilities that the County may be requested to maintain in the first several years. In addition, there will be substantial administrative costs to prepare the assessments and billings (Treasurer, Finance, and MIS) and to prepare, record, and file the assessment liens in the Circuit Court Clerk's Office (County Attorney). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board hold the public hearing to secure comments from citizens concerning this storm water management program, ~~,-a~ ^-'} *~ ~t-~ii.~=~-~-- '"~' c - (a) authorize the creation of a storm water management program for single-family residential subdivisions based upon Ordinance 3 T- ~ #112288-7 (public works improvement ordinance); (b) approve the design, construction, and maintenance standards for acceptance of storm water management facilities in single-family residential subdivisions; and Respectfully submitted, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Motion by Harry C. No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Nickens to approve only items Eddy x Received ( ) (A) and (B ) in staff recommend- Johnson x Referred ( ) ation and staff to bring back Kohinke x To ( ) method of funding without using Minnix x general funds on 12f12f95 Nickens x Attachments - Design, Construction, and Maintenance Standards r .. u Storm water pond inspection checklist storm water mgt assessment cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Gary Robertson, Director, Utility 4 COUNTY OF ROANORE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS DESIGN, CONSTRIICTION, AND MAINTENANCE BTANDARDB REQIIIREMENT FOR ACCEPTANCE OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIEB IN SINGLE-FAMILY SIIBDIVISIONB I. Purpose The purpose of the County of Roanoke Design and Construction Standards for Detention Ponds is to establish a procedure for requesting the County of Roanoke to accept the responsibility for maintenance of above-ground Detention/Retention Facilities that are located within single family subdivisions. DETENTION BASINS II. Design A. Design of detention basins shall conform to the requirements of the County of Roanoke Drainage Standards (reference Sections 503.02, 503.03, and 505.02). B. The design of the facility and preparation of as-built plans shall be by a Certified Professional Engineer licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia. III. Construction A. Site Preparations All topsoil, roots, stumps, organics, construction debris and/or other deleterious material shall be stripped and removed from the site. The exposed subgrade shall then be proof-rolled (prior to the placing of any fill on the site). The proof-rolling shall be performed with loaded dump trucks or other (heavier) rubber-tired vehicles. It shall consist of a minimum of four over-lapping passes of the equipment with the latter two passes at right angles to the previous passes. Any areas which rut, shove, pump or fail to "tighten up" will be undercut and replaced as specified below. Slopes which are steeper than 3 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) shall be benched or stepped prior to placing fill on them. No fill shall be placed on a frozen subgrade. The site will be graded at all times to prevent ponding or surface water in fill areas. B. Fill Material If on-site soil is unavailable or unsuitable for fill, then a borrow source may be utilized. Fill material soils, in general, 1. Shall be compactible. 2. Shall be within an acceptable range of moisture content which is readily controlled. 3. Shall not be highly susceptible to volume change 1 r..-,. (shrinkage or swell) or settlement. ~" Fill materials containing rocks larger than 6 inches (15.2 cm) shall not be used. The uppermost two feet (61 cm) shall not have any rock larger than 2 inches (5.1 cm) in diameter. C. Fill Placement The approved fill shall be placed in 8 inch (20 cm) loose lifts. Each lift shall be spread in uniform layers. Fill soil shall be utilized only within a moisture range of +/- 5~ of the optimum moisture content. Compaction of the fill shall be performed with approved equipment. Vibratory equipment is generally more efficient on granular fill soils while sheeps foot equipment is more efficient on fine grain soils. Compaction of the layers shall be continuous and uniform. The fill work shall be graded to prevent ponding or infiltration of rainwater into the fill area. D. Where the embankment is in a fill area, the embankment material shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 8" and shall be compacted to a minimum 95~ density in accordance with Section 303 of the Virginia Department of Transportation Road and Bridge Specifications. 1. Field density tests shall be conducted by an independent soils testing laboratory under the direction of a qualified geotechnical engineer and results of the tests shall be furnished to the County of Roanoke as a condition of acceptance of the facility by the County. 2. Sufficient field density tests, as directed by the geotechnical engineer, shall be performed to determine the degree of compaction. Any areas which fail to meet the above requirements shall be reworked and/or recompacted until the required degree of compaction is achieved. E. All disturbed areas shall be covered with 4" of topsoil and seeded in accordance with Sections 602 and 604 of the Virginia Department of Transportation Road and Bridge Specifications. F. Anti-seep collars shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. G. If the facility is over four feet deep, takes over two hours to drain, or the interior slope exceeds 3(H): 1(V), permanent fencing will be required. Additionally, if the facility is in a congested area or will in any way pose a hazard to the general public, fencing will be required. 1. Fencing shall be a minimum of six feet high, a minimum of standard nine gauge chain link fence with one or more locking double gates (minimum ten feet wide) for access. 2 .~ ~ ~ . ~-1 H. The minimum slope of the basin "floor" shall be one percent graded to drain to the principal spillway. IV. Access A. Access to the detention facility shall be provided by means of an ingress/egress easement of a minimum 15 feet in width where the slope of the access road is 0~ - 8$. 1. Where the slope of the access road is 9~ - 18$, the access easement shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width. 2. Where the slope of the access road is greater than 18~, the access easement shall be a minimum of 25 feet in width. 3. Slopes greater than 18~ will be considered acceptable for use as access roads to detention facilities on a case by case basis depending on suitability for providing access of machinery and equipment to the individual facility. B. Access road construction shall conform to the following requirements: 1. Width of road shall be a minimum of 12 feet. 2. Road construction shall consist of 165#/sy asphalt concrete, Type SM-2A on a 6" aggregate base and an adequately compacted sub-base of select material. 3. Proper drainage shall be provided for the access road and any ditches, culverts, drainage easements, etc. , shall be shown ont he plans as part of the submittal of the development plans. 4. Access road entrance shall conform to VDOT requirements. V. Bonding & Acceptance of New facilities by Roanoke County A. New detention ponds shall be bonded in accordance with the "Roanoke County Bonding Policy for Subdivision and Site Development." A separate bond for the detention facility will be required and administered apart from the subdivision development bond. B. Acceptance of the detention facility will be considered only after the following criteria have been met: 1. A minimum of 75% of the "Certificates of Occupancy" have been issued for the subdivision and the contributing drainage area to the detention facility has been stabilized in accordance with applicable drainage standards and soil and erosion control requirements. This determination will be made at the request of the developer by the 3 Engineering and Inspections Department on an appropriate status report. 2. All construction and restoration requirements for the detention facility have been completed. 3. All plats and easements have been properly prepared and recorded. 4. Certified as-built plans and copies of compaction tests have been reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Inspections Department. 5. The developer shall warrant the construction of the facility for one year from the date of acceptance by Roanoke County and shall provide acceptable surety in the amount of 50$ of the cost of construction of the facility to guarantee the satisfactory performance of the facility. This surety must conform to the requirements of the "Roanoke County Bonding Policy for Subdivision and Site Development." VI. Acceptance of Existing Ponds A. Existing detention ponds within single family subdivisions may be accepted for maintenance by Roanoke County based on the following conditions; 1. The requirements for the design, construction, and access, as outlined elsewhere in this standard, have been met and are deemed adequate by Roanoke County. In this case, the facility would be accepted and an assessment made based on the costs to maintain and insure the facility as prescribed elsewhere in this standard. 2. If the requirements for the design, construction, and access, as outlined elsewhere in this standard, have not been met, Roanoke County will advise the applicant of what improvements are needed to become eligible for acceptance. The applicant can choose to make the needed improvements to the facility prior to acceptance by Roanoke County or can request that Roanoke County make the improvements and add the cost of said improvements to the individual lot assessments after acceptance of the facility by Roanoke County. 3. A petition signed by 75$ of the property owners within the affected subdivision is presented to the Board of Supervisors. 4. Adoption of Ordinance by the Board of Supervisors authorizing the acceptance of these facilities for maintenance. VII. Deadline For Acceptance of Facilities The deadline for petitioning the Board of Supervisors to 4 I . ~ assume the responsibility of maintenance of a stormwater management facility starting in July of the current fiscal year is February 1st. stnnwtr.des 5 - ' COUNTY OF ROANOKE ENGINEERING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT J STORMWATER POND INSPECTION CHECK LIST T / Pond #: Location: Please circle the appropriate response to each of the following: YES NO N/A I. Does the been have signs of settlement (i.e. cracks, bulges?, or misaligtunents)? YES NO N/A 2. Are trees or saplings present or does vegetation prevent inspection of both faces of the berm? YES NO N/A 3. Are rodent holes present? YES NO N/A 4. Are seeps or boils below dam? YES NO 'N/A` 5. Does the grass need mowing? YES NO N/A 6. Does the bean have erosion or signs of overtopping? YES NO N/A 7. Is the outlet pipe misaligned, blocked, or damaged? YES NO N/A 8. Is the principal spillway clogged, damaged, or not functioning? YES NO N/A 9. Is the downstream cha~lnel suffering erosion or in need of repairs'? YES NO N/A 10. Is the emergency spillway blocked, unstable, or not at the planned shape or elevation? YES NO NIA 11. Do the impoundment areas and inlet channels show erosion or,lack of stabilization? YES NO N/A 12. Doesthe depth of sediment or other factors suggest a loss of storage_volume? YES NO N/A 13. Is there standing water? YES Na N/A 14. Does the fence, gate or lock need repair? YES NO N/A 15. Is there evidence of encroac}unents or improper use of impoundment area? YES NO N/A 16. Should trash or debris be removed? YES NO N/A 17. Is engineering analysis needed? YES NO NlA L8. Schedule maintenance. YES NO N/A 19. Sendletter to owners. Write an explanation for all YES answers (please use the back of this sheet if more space is needed) Date: Inspected by: `~ C AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 RESOLIITION AIITHORIZING THE CREATION OF A STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BIIBDIV SIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE 112288-7 (PUB C WORRB IMPROVEMENTS ORDINANCE) APPROVING CERTAIN ST S FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE OF STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES AND APPROPRIATING 8 IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THIS PROGRAM WHEREAS, storm water runoff associated witY~"'development can pose a threat to public health, safety, and we~~fare; and WHEREAS, the failure to maintain s orm water management facilities in single-family residential s~ divisions pose a direct threat to life and property; and ~ WHEREAS, the Board of Superv~ors has considered the com- plaints of its citizens with res~ct to inadequate maintenance of e~. 4 storm water control facilities,~by homeowner's associations; and WHEREAS, the Board of S~xpervisors has considered a variety of alternatives to address tl~,~e identified problems and concerns; and WHEREAS, after a ,~Su+blic hearing held on November 21, 1995, after appropriate le 1 notice, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, s adopted this resolution in order to implement a storm water anagement program for single-family residential subdivisions. BE IT SOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,/as follows: 1. / That there is hereby established in Roanoke County, Virginia, a storm water management program for single-family 1 T- ~ residential subdivisions utilizing the provisions of the public works improvements ordinance, Ordinance 112288-7. 2. That a petition signed by at least 75~ of the propert~` owners of a single-family residential subdivision must be submted to the County on or before February 1 in order to consid ed for inclusion in the County's storm water management progra beginning July 1 of a particular fiscal year. If public heal , safety, or welfare so require, the Board of Supervisors rese es the right to impose a special assessment upon the real est to benefiting from the maintenance, repair, or reconstruction storm water manage- ment facilities in accordance with the rovisions of Ordinance 112288-7 and State law. 3. That design, construction, d maintenance standards for acceptance of storm water management facilities in single-family residential subdivisions which ar Aincorporated herein and attached hereto by reference are hereb approved. Storm water management facilities shall be inspected,in accordance with the provisions of these standards for purpos of County acceptance for maintenance and repair. ,~ 4. That the Cg4~inty Administrator or his designee is authorized to take su actions and to execute such documents, all upon form approved y the County Attorney, as may be necessary to implement this re olution and the storm water management corpora- tion. 5. That he sum of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) is hereby appropriate, from the Board Contingency Fund for the purpose of 2 ~- I hiring personnel, acquiring equipment, and operating expenses in order to implement this storm water management program. 6. That this resolution shall be effective from and of r the date of its adoption. The storm water management program hall commence July 1, 1996, upon appropriation of sufficient unds by the Board of Supervisors. agenda.stormwat.rso a' i 1F 3 ~iliiilllllllliiiiiiillililliliiiiiliiiiiiiiillilliillliiiilliiiilliliilllilillllilllilillliilliliillliliiiiiilillill~l~illliiii~u _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ AGENDA ITEM NO. ~" ~ c A.PPE CE REQUEST _ _ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS - _ SUBJECT: ~i ~_,~~~~~ l i~".4-t ~.~ ~iJ~i:~~;~.~~~,~~~' ;~,~' ~~'~`,~,~~ - - I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED - BELOW: -_ - - ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will c decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speakin on an issue, d ill f h l l ~ an w en orce t e ru e un ess instructed by the majority of the Board to __ do otherwise. _ c ^ S Baker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. - = ^ SQeakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. :_ ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. - c PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK - - - -- - _ - _ - _ _ -_ _. _ -~_t -~ - ,~~ _._. ~_ miililill1111111111111111111NIIIIII111111111111111111111111111~INIII1N111iIII111111111111111111f~11~iIINtpllllllllllllitl~ ~-/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: First reading of ordinance amending portions Section 17-3 "Design requirements generally," Article I, Appendix B Subdivision of the Roanoke County Code and authorizing the amendment by resolution of the "Design and Construction Standards for Public Street and Off-Street Parking." COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS Recommend Approval SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County staff has been working with the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Roanoke Regional Home Builders Association on proposed amendments to the County's Street and Off-Street Parking Standards, specifically the Street Standards. In order to move forward with County staff's proposed changes to these standards, an amendment to Roanoke County's Subdivision Ordinance is necessary. Since making the necessary changes to the Street Standards requires repealing the 50 ft. right-of-way requirements, staff would like, at the same time, to amend other items under Section 17-3 entitled "Design Requirements Generally," which are presently regulated by other County and State regulations (refer to attached Ordinance for more information). Below is a summary of the proposed changes: 1. To repeal the 50 ft. right-of-way requirement in order to coincide with the Virginia Department of Transportation's minimum right-of-way requirements. 2. To remove street design, set backs and lot requirements that are presently regulated by other County and State regulations (Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance and VDOT Subdivision Street Requirements). 3. Amend the family exemption requirement to comply with the minimum state regulations. 1 L~t - i Also enclosed for your review and approval is a draft resolution amending the Design and Construction Standards for Public Street and Off-Street Parking. This resolution will be presented for consideration by the Board at their December 12, 1995 meeting. The Public Street and Off-Street Parking Standards adopted in January 1989 and amended in June 1990 is the second component of the Design and Construction Standards manual. Staff is requesting amendments to Public Street and Off-Street Design Standards for several reasons: 1. The off-street parking and loading requirements have been adopted and incorporated into Section 30-91 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. 2. To bring County standards more in line with VDOT's minimum geometric design criteria thus eliminating any duplication or confusion with the development community. When the standards were first adopted by Roanoke County, staff agreed to re-evaluate the standards effect on the development community. Staff feels the components that are remaining in the street standards are those which have enhanced subdivision development in Roanoke County such as curb and gutter, access and street surface requirements. The proposed amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance were reviewed and recommended for approval by the Roanoke County Planning Commission at their November 6, 1995 Public Hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the following: 1. The Board of Supervisors adopt the ordinance after the second reading amending portion of Section 17-3 "Design requirements generally," Article I, Appendix B, Subdivisions of the Roanoke County Code. 2. Authorize the amendments by resolution of the "Design and Construction Standards for Public Street and Off-Street Parking" after the second reading of the ordinance on December 12, 1995. Both the ordinance and resolution should become effective immediately after adoption of second reading on December 12, 1995. 2 '~ ~ MITTED BY: APPROVED BY: C~~v ~~ Arnold Covey, irect r Elmer C. Hodge of Engineering & Ins ections County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Johnson Referred Kohinke To Minnix Nickens pc: Paul Mahoney, County Attorney 3 _ Gc-/ Published by Municipal_Code Corporation _ - _ APPENDIX B SUBDIVISIONS* - *Editor~s note--Appendix B contains the subdivision regulations of the county as formerly set out in the 1971 Code, Ch. 17, §§ 17-1--17-22, as amended. History notation to these provisions has been retained and incorporated herein for purposes of historical reference. Cross reference(s)--Building regulations, Ch. 7; erosion and sediment control, Ch. 8; fire prevention and protection, Ch. 9; motor vehicles and traffic, Ch. 12; sewers and sewage disposal, Ch. 18; water, Ch. 22; zoning, App. A. State law reference(s)--Land subdivision and development, Code of Virginia, § 15.1-465 et seq. Article I. In General Sec. 17-1. Definitions. Sec. 17-2. Recording plats. Sec. 17-3. Design requirements generally. Sec. 17-4. Interpretation of Roanoke City Subdivision Ordinance. Article II. Preliminary Plats Sec. 17-5. Filing. Sec. 17-6. Contents; approval. Sec. 17-7. Factors to be considered in studying preliminary plat. Article III. Final Plats Sec. 17-8. Filing. Sec. 17-9. .Form. Sec. 17-10. Contents; monuments. Sec. 17-11. Preparation. Sec. 17-12. Inspection of proposed subdivision by agent. Sec. 17-13. Approval; time for recording. Sec. 17-14. Recording required generally; approval of final plat required prior to recording. _ _ Sec. 17-15. Where-to be recorded. Sec. 17-16. Recordation required prior to issuance of building permit. Sec. 17-16.1. Prior approval. Sec. 17-16.2. Grading. Sec. 17-17. Installation of improvements or filing of performance bond required prior to recording. Article Iv. Improvements .. Sec. 17-18. Plans and specifications generally. Sec. 17-19. Streets and roads generally. Sec. 17-20. Street names. Sec. 17-21. Inspection during installation of improvements. Sec. 17-22. Approval of installation of improvements. [Sec. 17-23. Reserved.] Sec. 17-24. Adoption, effect, contents, review and amendment of Design and Construction Standards Manual. ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 17-1. Definitions. For the purposes of this appendix, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section: Agent. The planning commission of the county or its representatives duly authorized by it to approve the subdivision of land when a proposed subdivision is situate wholly or partly within the county or the person or agency designated by the board of supervisors of the county to approve the subdivision of land, when a subdivision is situate wholly or partly within the county. Subdivision. The division of a lot, tract or parcel of land into two (2) or more lots or other subdivision of land, for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of transfer of ownership, or building development, including all changes in street or lot lines, and including any parcel previously separated by the then owner of such tract for such purpose subsequent to the adoption C~ - / of these requlatiDns; provided, that the division of land in parcels of one acre or more that does not involve any new public street or easement of access or road shall not be considered a subdivision when such division does not offer an opportunity to obstruct natural drainage or a planned major highway or to adversely affect any part of an adopted plan, or in any way violate the intent of the zoning regulations of the county; and provided further, that divisions of lands by court order or decree shall not be deemed a subdivision as otherwise herein defined. sec. 17-2. Recording plats. Every owner or proprietor of any tract of land, to which this chapter applies, who subdivides such tract as provided in this chapter, shall cause a plat of such subdivision, developed and prepared in accordance with this appendix with references to known or permanent monuments, to be made and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, wherein deeds conveying such land are required by law to be recorded. (6-21-54) Sec. 17-3. Design requirements generally. (a) The owner or proprietor of a subdivision shall observe and comply with the following general requirements and principles of land subdivision in preparing the preliminary and final subdivision plats: (1) The plat shall conform to the adopted master plan or one or more parts, sections, or divisions thereof, of the county, if one exists. (2) All streets which are designated as part of the major highway system on such master plan or part, division or section thereof, shall be coordinated with adjoining links in the system and at the same or greater widths. (3 ) R~:ght of way widths shad be as requirec~..r~y.. ~~e V~rgr~a. ~epartment:_ ~f... Transportation,., ' 1., '.. he setback or building line shall conform with the requirements of the zoning regulations of the county for the district in which the subdivision is located. L" - (4) ~ ~ . All dead end streets shall terminate in a circular right-of-way with a minimum radius of i €fty ~aue: .(55~ feet. (5) As far as practicable all proposed streets shall be continuous and made to connect with exYSting streets without off-set. (7) All lots, controlled by these regulations, shall front on a public street and shall not extend through to another street; provided, that where existing streets make this regulation impractical the planning commission may waive the same. No lot shall embrace any portion of a street or alley. (9) Side lot lines in general shall be at right angles or radial to street lines. (10) Where possible, reverse frontage of lots at street intersections shall be avoided. ~. L.~ - / r_ _ _ ICJ C.11C1 .~L.l cc ~. u aayv ~y~y ..~ 1.1 GC C-r / ~ • . aa l.t 141 u~c. cai s. c..l .~, ......... t. ~. ~.. ~~.-~' --- ~. 5~ 1 L l _L _11 1 ~> > L-• •~~ 77 11 '705 ~.JlVV1U GC.L 1V1 u\.111 (15) Monuments of an approved type shall be set by the owner or proprietor of the subdivision as required by the agent and as shown on the final plat. (16) Reserved strips restricting access to streets, alleys; public ways and easements shall not be permitted. (17) Where practicable, the center lines of all intersecting streets shall meet in a common point and shall intersect one another as near to a right angle as it is practicable in each case. (18) No existing local street names or subdivision names shall be duplicated. (19) Whenever a proposed subdivision abuts a road which is included in the state system of primary highways, an u-i _ access road extending for the full length of the subdivision along such highway and providing limited access thereto may be provided at a distance suitable for the appropriate use of the land between such access road and highway. (20) Streets and sidewalks shall be designed to minimize their potential for increasing and aggravating the levels of flood flow. Drainage discharge openings shall be designed to minimize flood flows without significantly increasing flood heights or established elevations of identified flood hazard areas. (21) A single division of a lot or parcel for the purpose: of sale, or gift, to a member of the immediate family of -the property owner may be permitted, subject only to any express requirement of the Code of Virginia. Only one such division shall be allowed, per family member, and shall not be for the purpose of circumventing this chapter. _ _ ~ , (22) All to the duly adopted stanaaras re~ra~ established Construction Standards Manual. (b) A variation of the requirements of this section may be permitted if, in the opinion of the planning commission, the topography or other special or unusual conditions necessitate such variation. (6-21-54, § 3; Ord. No. 21489-9, § 1, 2-14-89) in the Design and ~-l TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION 200.00 STREET AND OFF-STREET DESIGN STANDARDS 200.01 Applicability of Standards 1 200.02 Streets to Property Lines 1 200.03 Subdivision Blocks 1 200.04 Street Surface - Amended 1 200.05 Frontage On Arterial Road 2 200.06 Connection to Divided Highways - Repealed 2 200.07 Driveway Connections - Amended 2 200.08 Curb and Gutter Requirements - Amended 3 200.09 Intersection of Minor and Major Streets 4 200.10 Minimum Crossover Spacing - Amended 4 200.11 Roadway Design - Amended 4-5 200.12 Traffic Projects 6 200.13 Subdivision Street Design - Amended 6 200.14 Street Centerlines 7 BY ORDINANCE 82592-12 DATED AUGUST 25, 1995, SECTIONS 201.00 THROUGH 202.00 INCLUSIVE OF ALL SUBSECTIONS HAVE BEEN REPEALED. SECTION 201.00 OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS - (Repealed) 7 REFER TO ARTICLE V, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, SECTION 30.91, ROANOKE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 202.00 OFF-STREET LOADING REQUIREMENTS - (Repealed) 7 REFER TO ARTICLE V, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, SECTION 30-91, ROANOKE COUNTY ORDINANCE SECTION 203.00 MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 7 SECTION 204.00 WAIVER PROCEDURES 8 SECTION 205.00 (for future amendments) SECTION 207.00 ROAD DESIGN - LIST OF TYPICAL DETAILS 207.01 - General Notes - Amended *207.01.1 - Pavement Design - Deleted *207.02 - Rural, Category 1 through V - Deleted 207.03 - Rural, Category VI - Deleted *207.04 - Urban, Category 1 through V - Deleted 207.05 - Urban, Category VI - Deleted 207.06 - Crest Vertical Curves - Deleted *207.07 - Sag Vertical Curves - Deleted 207.08 - Standard Parking Dimensions 207.09 - Handicap Parking Space - Deleted 207.10 - Handicap Parking Space - Deleted 207.11 - Cul-de-sac Design - Deleted 207.12 - Driveway Pipe Installation 207.12.1 - Specifications for Design Entrance Slab 207.13 - Intersection Landing - Deleted t,~ - / 2 0 0. 0 0 E n~~~~-I-~r~~~s~TL~~ STREET AND OFF-STREET DESIGN STANDARDS All the provisions of this Section shall apply unless specifically waived by the Director of the Department of ~'~:~c' ~-~-~~~'- Engineering and Inspections, hereinafter referred to the as "the Director." 200.01 Applicability of Standards Unless otherwise provided, these standards set forth minimum criteria for all subdivision and site development plans. 200.01 = ~d ~ ~ ~ ~-e ~r ~~ = = ~~-z ~..._... - o e ~~e ~oa ~~Te ^ ~ o p e e a • . u J J zzc., u ~ ., u + ~ d ~ 1 ~ --~~e d~~ --~ e-~-a ~e~eep-t-a - -e- ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T " ~ e~r e 1, ~ ~ t.•, ~ • }~ .,. a .. ,...... ei -- i e-z~FF~6~ti~ 6- ceR-~i n ~- ~ ..: }v-s-ct~-r-c'rti'x' n .. -, ,., ..1 ~ ,-. rl., , ,., ~ _ . '7~.,-, : r?~ .-, n,,..a : ,., ,., .. r. z z~.. ~.. .a ~ Y, `. n ,-. -. ,., ,-. L .. ATIC'~ 200.02 Streets to Property Lines All streets eligible to be accepted into the Virginia Department of Transportation's System of Highways shall be constructed to the property line and shall provide access to adjoining parcels of land unless unnecessary due to topography or previous development of the adjoining property. 200.03 Subdivision Blocks Subdivision blocks shall be placed as to provide traffic circulation within, and between, existing or anticipated subdivisions. 200.04 Street Surface A11 streets shall be surfaced with an asphalt plant mix in accordance with the pavement structure design in the Virginia Department of Transportation's Subdivision Street Requirements latest edition, as amended. EXEMPTION: A-bl-e-~~e~-~~~-ee,.-~~-€ae-e-a-s~~=-c=f'T-d --- n-c-~~i-e~-Z~&'~-~-n The minimum Virginia Department of Transportation pavement structure design will only be permitted when all items below are met: 1 u-~ 2 0 0. 0 0 _~ T~~~a~~ I~A~~T-A~k~~ °~ STREET AND OFF-STREET DESIGN STANDARDS All the provisions of this Section shall apply unless specifically waived by the Director of the Department of n J :~c~ ^-~-~^„*~ Engineering and Inspections, hereinafter referred to the as "the Director." 200.01 Applicability of Standards Unless otherwise provided, these standards set forth minimum criteria for all subdivision and site development plans. 200.01 r~rrrF''q'q"~ }rr~irro rrs~p-r~o~a~c,7 ~ -, 1 Z .7 ~ ,- - i^`a ~ " - c z =T " , ii t ~ :~ L. -. ~ ~ h -i z r r~ st.,,. ,-,~ •-, T P-~ l~i c ~l ~ ir t~e-6~3-E~~*- -*-~~~ rrei~c c , i = -~ -~~ " L ~ " } ~u ,~, y; ...L,..,-,.. " 3--~-ei 3 6 -c rei ccrr~i~~-c ~6`e' ~-c z- -r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~r ..r •,. a .• •., •, •• ra .~ ~c 1 6~~ rFr 6 -re--cZ'~Ft6i -z o~~e~--z ~ 200.02 Streets to Property Lines All streets eligible to be accepted into the Virginia Department of Transportation's System of Highways shall be constructed to the property line and shall provide access to adjoining parcels of land unless unnecessary due to topography or previous development of the adjoining property. 200.03 Subdivision Blocks Subdivision blocks shall be placed as to provide traffic circulation within, and between, existing or anticipated subdivisions. 200.04 Street Surface All streets shall be surfaced with an asphalt plant mix in accordance with the pavement structure design in the Virginia Department of Transportation's Subdivision Street Requirements Iatest edition, as amended. EXEMPTION: A-~~~~e~-ec~-~~e~~~" ' ~' "`' i~ a~~i-e~~-9-~~ The minimum Virginia Department of Transportation pavement structure design will only be permitted when all items below are met: 1 ~ -/ 1 . _ Subdivision is located eid~t~~~r-~z~~e-r~o~-tee . in either an AG-3 or AG-1 agricultural district as designed on Roanoke County's Official Zoning Map. A-1-~~e~~-~-t-ire-~-b ~~~-s~e~!--~~ , ,a ~, _r i~~-re~~~e~-t~ge-ei-Z-~ ~L~~ 2. Street grades are less than 12o and; 3. Street is not an extension of a previously plant mix Subdivision street. 200.05 Frontage on Arterial Road Whenever a Subdivision (residential/commercial) abuts a road which is included in the State System of Primary Highways or a road designated as "Arterial" "'_'.....,vl'" in the adopted Roanoke County Transportation Plan, or the latest Statewide Highway Plan, the following conditions shall be met. A. A reverse frontage and/or combined access concept shall be utilized such that no lot has exclusive access to the arterial or primary highway; and in addition, all developments shall provide sufficient building, parking and travelway setbacks to permit the construction of the ultimate highway section. B. If reverse frontage or combined access cannot be provided, the site shall be limited to one exclusive access point. * '~ ` ~~~ ci-c i~„ - r,•,. - ~ •, +-; - --ccir o~8-~e~1-~- e-ct ~ ` r' a rr az -Getcr~~ a c d` •~-~3-t ~i' 'c - 3 F Q ~ ~ r i c 8- =rg-63 ~t 6 e~£~-t rcn.-c o ~ crr~ r r o Z- e Y c ~ r ~ ~ ~~~~] , ^^ .~,..~ , ~ ~ ~1 ~' ~~ ' F .. ,.- _ ~ .. -- ears i' Lr~ ~e'0"C'Cr-tG7 r'~ 1 CiL~z 9 2Lt~Z C[11 ~-b~e~-) ~ ' ~ ~-~ - - -- -e ~ ~ e-~e-s-,-~ - =- e-ge . ; e - 200.07 Driveway Connections It is the intent of this Manual that access be provided to individual residential lots only from streets classified as local and minor collector as defined in the Virginia Department of Transportation's Subdivision Street Requirements. ~p3-~~~t-i~~r-~tri~a~an'' TTv~.,r, ~de~~l-ems- A reverse frontage or service drive concept is required for streets which: 2 VL I l A. Carry in excess of five thousand five hundred vehicles per day (5,500 vpd) and/or are categorized as ,~~ primary highway; or B. The Roanoke County Transportation Plan indicates will carry in excess of five thousand five hundred vehicles per day (5,500 vpd). If the Director finds that a street carries in excess of three thousand vehicles per day (3,000 vpd), he may require a traffic impact study by a licensed Engineer to evaluate potential problems and to recommend corrective measures. 2 0 0. 0 8 ~J~e " ~~~ e~z ~e-t~ Curb and Gutter Requirements Unless otherwise provided, curb and gutter shall be required in all subdivisions except AG-3 or AG-1 zoning districts as designated on Roanoke County's Official Zoning Map. EXEMPTION TO THIS REQUIREMENT WILL ONLY BE PERMITTED WHEN ALL OF THE ITEMS BELOW HAVE BEEN MET: 1. Street grades must be less than 12% and; 2. Streets are not an extension of, or intersects with an existing curb and gutter street and; 3. Street cul-de-sac in a cut section and; 4. All lots are one (1) acre or greater in size and have a minimum road frontage of 100 feet. l ~ ~ T 1" r ~~'~c~ "' ~ 1 L. ,-. ~-i r ~ ~ T ~ e *-cc .r v~ nuirse-e~- o~r i 1 ~ ~ d r r ~ 3~e CC I~~ E~ ~e-e e~-~3-r~~~ ~ =~~ ~ i r~ o- ~- --- n~- r-e~~ -re d ~ ~ o e~-~ t ~ ~t- °«oir -- ~.. ~ ~ . , ~ ~ ~ t i~~ - ~-~e ~ a ~ ( r 1 ~ ~~ r~ ,-,.,. _ a ,..~ ,., ,7 -, ~ ~ x-1 Lc ~' T x ~ ~ -~ -c r i2-~-~t - e- y ~ e ro - da d ei r-- _ _ i ~' ~~ ~{ ~ d ~ ,. ,-, ~ ~ ; .. ; --~~ ~ r-3„ ~ ~ ~ 4a ~rr~-~- e- -ear-- e-a~e e~~g-~-a~e' r a p ~ e ~1T1r77TrtI'1TTLTi''lY-ST~STl'~~--~~'3'LTriT-1~T T~^G'SC~Z 7~7 T ~~ZP TT .TAR OT?T /1T.T TTT~~7IP.S_D~1,~iR I I17 ~-~T-- ~-b ~ mot ~~ Tl P ~~ T1P T]TR T TT~1 T'IZarP - - ~ es-~ e g r~ ~e~ -6~ c - i ~ ` eir' - } ,-• ~ ,• } t~• terr -ca'r e~~ ~ le ~ t e yam.. ~B-t ~~e~t-1-~~-~,-a--ems-~ ee~ i-ems- 3 u-~ r 1 l l ~ L. -, ,,, ~ c n n n ~ +- .7 t, ~ L.. 4-~ rrrre ~-S~'~'°-~~e c"~~cr~rx~az~r~ ,~vQ-j ~ ~~crizcrzia c ~cr ~-i-~ i-m~a ~'~~:~-gig e-ei 'zee-~ 200.09 Intersection of Minor and Mayor Streets Wherever a minor street intersects a major street, a minimum 25' pavement edge radius and standard landing will be required on the minor street. In addition, the Director may require that the standard landing extend to the ultimate right-of-way for the major road. 200.11 Roadway Design ~e-~e-~-e=o ~g-p-~e eed~e~~r~-~-e e-e~~~-e~~-~- 4-~n a e-~e3 ~e=o~~e~-i ~~=e-dee~g~r-ez~ ezT-~e~~nta~-a~~-~~ ~EA3~iz cc~-61~~3~=c1-~~1~3~'6~tei~cl-ire rrcl~d-iz~ees The geometric design guides for subdivision streets shall be in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation's Subdivision Street Requirements latest edition, as amended. The only exceptions are as follows: 1. All cul-de-sac right-of-ways shall have a minimum 55 ft. radius. 4 ~. - / ~~rrr r=-~ Lrr=~z_1 z~s ,a t- L, +- L, r. ,,. ~ L, -, .., r ~ " T 00 od~ccrr~~t~~czz'crrr-c ~ ~i ~9-~ ~rr-ccx-"cn~rc~o aL~6u~TO aTS~F-$6~criTZxv „- •• } -, , ,.~, ,a , L ~ .~ i. ,. .. y ,~„-„-, ~ .., a .., ~- -, „ 4 v~.1~-r1---crrc~~o e-S--rczcc~cr~mzizii ., ..L.,r,~ :y .~",..,.__..,.. +-, a m L., a ~L,.. ~t 6utzx~rrc -r~-3 ~ --cn-rcc-czT~-nrrn rmuTTrc~rg~~ ~3~t-crr`Yce-3 ..ice-rl~ic,~-1-~2 `~~r~~^---~~~~~e-zr~ ~ ~ .,.,., a z~-8-~-. $~~€ 6 ^E~E~-1 grr6-~St~~~~--~:~c si ~v'cs ~csE' "~fcr'-'a'-r"'=a~E~ . i ~ _ _-__-__. ~___ _ _ J__= ~ +- \ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ` C n -~ n T -~ ~-~~ r 7-v~ c~ -~ '4'a~^~-v-~ rsc -ccrs~~r ~ -z~ .T . -9-31`=c"2~ ~ = c~"~•..7.. ~ +- ~ 7 '~~ C~~ "1 C n '] 'l C Q n 'II- O C n C ~L ~'~~ ' ~ L'TTI'T~tG~l 4 . .. J S~T ~~r'3-e'1~ ~ v~'-~~izxi~r-s6`E--~~ei~~~i~J-o-=~'~u~--c~~ ~i} ~ ' ~ }L, rn.: ..~.. n,-,-,a i ~ C~ ~ I -~ r-`~rn~yy,, ~,c~~cz~}}.rr- `="iuj-eiG-~~~~e~u{~~-' -~-r~" 7~1~8-~6~~3'~ -, a : +-1., ~ b. ,. ~2TCTT.c---~-re-~'eZ.C'1T~e~'CYY"T7P~-LTP}L~~n~ g-Z-o'c['~ ~~-~-rtn-~70~~'~T~""~~~Z~"CCT-~CS2A1'n. 'S7 ~ - r -~ _ 1. ~i'~ei~u-zrrcc~'~"~-6u'a~ ~z~--rcrei~~~r-~e~( nr~rc~++c-~ yr ~-i rcre~~9 ce~sr~ci ccrce~.-y,~,R, a r-~czrazx-z'~-try-~=--cnc 6 ~zzr~Crcr~~L'~~oi6'i-cczcr~6Tr~CIS~~TTe =~-e'a'd~'~r-~' n r ~-~'--~~~~o~~i~-"~-~ ~B~'zvpTr-t}~-irTr-QmTir~'-d T~riciro-"rrnc~r~ , n-8 'S~ RIIrS TY=r^ ,~ znrei~-ccnr-i rssac~ro~-e~S~~ '' ~ ~ i-a~-e~~a~c ems- 200.12 Traffic Projects The 24-hour volume trip generation for all land }rse uses shall comply with Trite Generation-Information Report, I.T.E., latest edition. 200.13 Subdivision Street Design All residential developments generating more than 1,500 vehicles per day shall provide through access and shall connect to an existing state road in at least two locations. Internal roads shall be designed to incorporate good traffic design, and provide ease of access for domestic services and emergency vehicular traffic. In situations where two (2) connections cannot be made in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation's Permit Manual and Minimum Entrance Standards, one (1) connection may be permitted upon submittal of a waiver request to the Director. The County, as a part of granting the waiver, reserves the right to require additional improvements. ~ ~t~'~e , -~e=9-x-e~9 tz-rG-~~o~~c6gA ~z-d~ t... ~ +- r. ,7 ,-. ti. ~ l~ J ~3-a-}c-et-rre-e-e-iL-,~-~-~3-}c-crcP--~A cr~re~c~~~oir~-~ -.~i r 6 u -~ r 11 ~-r ~~e m~' .ee~ee-i e a- -e ~ ' LS ~~ Y ' GVI'ST'ICC~~3'~-~e ~ CL 7 CQ~ eTI 7T~~ S ce~--('3 " •c~ -~ ~ • CC o! ` ' .n~~r6TZ-e~~~ ~ ~ ' ~- ~ ~ c n n t., ' ~ , - ' e ~ v r e ~ e ~e ,a e~~e~ e~ ' ~ ,a re-~- T.F Z R •• errrcz- c .... ~- / 'I n n ~ 1 .-7 . ~ -] ~ ' ~ r e~ ~~ ~~ '~ C n n ~ L• ~ T-~ ~ ' ~ i e o1ZL~ 'C[SI ' ~ ~L T ~ ~ ~ CLT ~e'iZ G L ~ c i i e a n n -Q L, ...,- Y, } ,. ic r -, 1 ~~1-~~--pc-r- ~ = r ~ -6 o ti~ I ei~ e~ - fi } ~ i ~ -T ~ . v T~-~ r e-E~= e - r -2LC - ^ ac~~E~~- -c e -e~e-e- - e a v cr r i r] } ~ L ,. L~ ~ ~ ~ - r imTr[ ~-~~ [~i- ~ ~ ~ O Z(' ' ~ O iT iG~' e ~ ti- ~ GT ~ r C C ~ ~ ~ ~r , 13~i~•-• ~• ,~ ,~ ~ +- ~ -i°e• ~ ~ -, l P-~- ire-rodus o z r ~e ..y- -ei O e~- ~ ~ 6 200.14 Street Centerlines Subdivision streets intersecting an existing or future street, shall have the centerlines directly opposite one another or have a minimum of two hundred (200') feet between their centerlines. 201.00 OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS - Repealed - Refer to Article V, Development Standards, Section 30.91, Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. 202.00 OFF-STREET LOADING REQUIREMENTS - Repealed - Refer to Article V, Development Standards, Section 30-91, Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance 203.00 MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 203.01 General Provisions 1. The construction materials and methods used for this Section shall conform to the current Virginia Department of Transportation Road and Bridge Specifications . -~r~~--a~~~ _ r~~re-n tomes ,. ~- , y,~ -, ra .. 2. All grading and utility construction within the right-of-way must be completed and approved by the County prior to installing the ti-.; ,-,•...: ~~~~~ final surface on the street. 3. The developer will be responsible for installing all driveway entrances to the right-of-way line prior to acceptance by Roanoke County and the Virginia Department of Transportation. 4. All driveway entrances across a paved ditch shall consist of standard concrete driveway slab, see Section 207.12. 7 204.00 WAIVER PROCEDURES - These procedures only apply to Roanoke County Standards. 204.01 This procedure only applies to Roanoke County Standards. When compliance with a particular Subdivision or Site Plan requirement, which incorporates these standards, unduly burdens the applicant, or causes harm to an adjacent property, the applicant may request a waiver of the requirement. The applicant shall examine alternative methods to attempt to comply with the intent of that requirement. 204.02 A request for a waiver of a requirement shall be made by the applicant to the Director of „,:.v, ~-~-~~^~ Engineering _. ~r...----~ and Inspections. The request must be in writing stating what relief is requested and the reasons the request should be granted. The appropriate application fee shall be included. Any supportive plans, profiles, or drawings necessary to review the request must accompany the submission. The waiver request must be made and acted upon prior to the submittal of any subdivision or site plan. The County will normally accept or reject a waiver application within five (5) working days. If rejected the application will be returned to the applicant with the reason for the rejection outlined in writing. Upon acceptance by the Director, the waiver application will be transmitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Action on a waiver request, or an alternative method provided in lieu of strict compliance, will normally be made within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt. 204.03 During the review of a Subdivision and/or Site Plan, if a violation or error which is not in accordance with the approved standards is noted, the applicant will be notified through the normal review procedure. If the applicant requests a waiver at this time, the review will cease until the above waiver requirements in Section 204.01 and 204.02 are met. 8 Repea I Genera I Notes I through 13 207. o ~ General Notes: 11 These des era based on the assumption that heavy commercial rehkles (trucks, bwes, c. with more than •sl wltl constitute loss than 5X of tM total projected traffik. M Me total number of hea commercial vehkbs, tM design traffik roknne shall be Increased by actor equal to 20 tkrle tM number of Mary commercial reNctes. 21 Pavement design b cordanc• with 'A Design Guide For Subdhrisbn Road Parem s b Virginia' by Dr. N. K. Vaswanl b an a table alternathre. Y~crease the Thickness Index (T.l.) o ssphalt concrete from 1.87 to 2.25 when t total thk:kness b 4.5 Inches or more. Pavement signs utMizing AASHTO's 'Pavement Design Guklegne ' or the PCA Computer Yodel era acceptsbb. 31 When the projected traffik r es a four 141 iane facgity, 80X of the jeeted traffic shall M used as the basis for gatemen esign. 41 These designs era based on the grade Inrnediately under the pa moot havNg a soq support slue of 10. Add 1/2' of asphalt or Y of a agate brio for •ach 5 soN upport raha lass than 10. Subtract 1/2' of aspMlt or 1' of aggregate b for tech 10 soq supp raiue greater than 10. Soq support slue equals the California Bearing Rath BRI tknes the re y factor 18SV.CBR x RFI. 51 Representatlre CBR sampbs taken at subgr ebrstbns aq M used ss the bash for evaluating the soq support value. The VDOT Dbtrict Yat Engbeer an glw guidance as het method and the number of samples. 61 Each street shall Aars continuity of design !Hough t. TMrsfor, multiple or variable pavement structures are unacceptsble. 71 Cement Treated Aggregate (CTA) or fuN dog asphalt crate may be substituted for any aggregate, subgrade stabglzatlon or select material oa bash of 111 Inch of CTA or asphalt concrete for two 121 inches of the oMer materials. CTA or aspha concrete sMq be place dkectly on resgient soq as defined by Vaswanl, ss tM soq b stabglz with cement. CTA shall Mre a minknum of four 141 k-ches of aggro to base material under it lass than four 141 tnehes of asphalt concrete is to be applbd er the CTA. 81 When asphalt concrete b space M pounds per square yard, the nsss can be determNed on the basis of 115 pounds of base er square yard equals one l11 Inch thickn s, wNe 110 pounds per square yard of surface s ono 111 Inch thkkness. gl Use 21-8 gradation for untreated aggregate base, whge a 21-A gradation be used for treated aggregate base. 10) Alt materials and co traction practkes sMM be b accordance with VDOT Stand and SpecMcatlons. 11) Type p select terlal used as subbase shah be cement stabglzed, whge type II sebct terlal used as ba shaq be cement stabNzed as specfMd. 12) Asphalt c crate with an overall depth greater than 4-1/2 bches shall be conskfered base surface II aggregate under the same shag be considered subbase. Appropriate structural ra s shall assigned to these materbb when using the Vaswanf Method 131 Su ca materbl shown N parentMsb shad Doty be used b accordance with Section 200.04 of h I) Refer to VDOT Subdivision Pavement Structure Design Requirements for Asphalt Concrete (Plant Mix) Surfaces. (PAVEMENT DESIGN I 207.02 ~' ~ _ 31F) P S(CI _ ._.. -. -CUT - ---- -FILL 1";1' Z, -- BASE SUBBASE 1' ~ 8" i i _____ ~ DESIGN - - . _ ~ ^~I~ ~..__ _ __ .:._ _ . _ _ -- -• -- --- - TYPICAL STREET SECTION . SPEED MAX. MIN. C.L. p SIF- SIC) R/W PVM'T (MPH) ADE RADIUS (4) - WIDTH CAT. RURAL LOCAL AND COLLECTOR ' ,,. -. -:;._:..._ _,:,,_~~.Y_...:____ _..:.. - ----RURAL=COMMERCIAL~AND MDUSTRIALa'~'~~'""" •"---'-_}- ~•t.~.st. '~V_:.=.„~. ^_s_...::~~~ _,._....- 1 UP ~ TO 250 VPD 20 18X 0' 20' 4' 181 4' S0' 1 ••N 2S1 TO -400 VPD I51-~- '` _ 2S "12X 180' 20' 4' (81 4' S0' II pl 401 T0.1000 VPD ;,,._.~ , :. 30 ,.,, . 12%Y:;.:. ~ 2lSO'.- _22'-~ :.4'-181 -.=a~4'-•~-= Y°SO'-c -M,IV -- IV 1001 TO 2000 VPD 121 35 10X 0' 22' 8' 171 6' 80' IV,V V ~ 2001 TO SSOO VPD (2) 40 10 47 ' 24' - 8' 171 8' 60' V,VI,VU NI UP TO 1000 VPD - 30 8X 280' 24' 10' l71 8' 60' IV V 1001 TO SSOO VPD 12) SO 7X 765' ~ 24' 10'._(7) 8',_:__ -v60'..__- V,VI,VN 1. MINIMUM CENTERLINE RADIUS B ED ON NORMAL CROWN FOR DESIGN SPEEDS UP TO 25 MPH, SUPEREIEVATiON EOUAL TO E ROAD CROSS SLOPE SHALL BE USE FOR DESIGN SPEEDS GREATER - " - "' THAN 25 MPH BUT LESS TH N 45 MPH AND REFER TO VDOT STANDAR TC-4 FOR DESIGN SPEEDS EQUAL TO OR GREATER T AN 45 MPH. 2. NO PARKING ALLOWED THIS DESIGN CATEGORY. T ROAD INTERSECTIONS WITH EOUAL HIGHER TRAFFIC COURT. 3. STANDARD LANDING ARE REQUIRED A 4. WHEN THE FILLS PE GRADE IS STEEPER THAN 4:1 AND THE HEIGHT OF FILL OP OF FILL TO TOE OF FIlL) EXCEE TEN 1101 FEET, GUARDRAIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH VDOT STA ARDS. SHALL BE __. - _: .._ _. 5. WITH APPRO AL, THESE STANDADS CAN BE REDUCED TO CATEGORY 1, BUT THE PA MENT DESIGN SHALL RE IN A CATEGORY II. (CRITERIA: PROOF OF FIXED GENERATION) _ _ _ .....- 6. ADD TW 121 FEET FOR GUARDRAIL."' ~ ' ' ` - `' 7. ADD REE 131 FEET FOR GUARDRAIL. _. _. _. .. 1RURAL~ CATEGORY I THRU V 207.03 _ a- _. _ _ _ _ - SIL) - C,~ ~- P M P~ ---_ ._. '- - - - -~ CG-4 - ~-- 1/4':1' - BASE ` LT. TURN SUBBASE 1~ LANE 12' SIR) ~ D _... __ .._ TYPICAL 8TREET 8ECTION ~= DESIGN -SPEED MAX. IN. C.L. - P siFl alcl D R/1N - _ M - P: PVM'T : GRADE RADIUS . SIDTH CAT. - (MPH) _ _ ._.,.-.. _....`°"""°'"RURAL ARTERIAL ~ - ..r.=..~:.,.~,,.. ... ...,....._.......,....-_._ __. __ .- .. _ VI OVER 5500 VPD - SS - 7d - 25' 9' d' Q' 110' 1d' 39' VI - y_...,..,...:1 -.-REFER -T0 -VDOT -STANDARD TC-4 FOR OPER SUPERELE ATION RATE AND PAVEMENT WIDENING- ____ ~ ~~ 2. , USE SHOULDER SLOPE OF 3/4':1', FI AND SICI SHALL B FIVE l51 FEET WIDE o 3. INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL-LOT SH NOT-HAVE ACCE$S,_ON,~ IS.SEC710N~-.~.>------~--~---~--•-~----~- ---------~- -'- _ __...__r____.._._.,,~-...,......_...........,_._wr__.~_____ ..__._~.._ _. .__ 4. CHANNELIZATION AND STANDA D LANDINGS MUST BE PROVIDED TALL INTERSECTIONS S. NO PARKING PERMITTED .. -- ts. TRAFFIC VOLUMES IN EX ESS OF 15,000 VPD WILL REQUIRE THE CO STRUCTION OF THE ULTIMATE d LANE ROAD SECTION 7. WHEN THE FILL SLOP GRADE 13 STEEPER THAN 4:1 AND THE HEIGHT O FILL EXCEEDS TEH (101 _ FEET. GUARDRAIL I ACCORDANCE WITH VOOT 8TANDAR03 MUST BE PR V1DED. AOD THREE (3) FEET TO SIFT. E. FOR AN ALTERN TE MEDIAN DESIGN, REFER 70 THE URBAN ARTERIAL STREE SECTION ('` RURAL; CATE 207.04 - - u-~ -.. _ _ _ _ -.SIFT SICI FILL P __CUT :. 81TUMINOUS SURFACE 11~'y,. Z;. - 1.; ' -~ r- 1/4':1' 1':1' ~ MA~~ cc-a _ z. BASE SUBBASE e- D SIGN - _ _ .. _ TYPICAL~STREET SECTION 3 ED _ MAX. MIN.-C.1. P SIF) SIC) R/VH PVM'T M GRADE RADIUS 141 WIDTH CAT. '1 `UP-TO 250-VPD ~~ ~- - _ 20 1aX 1 30' 4' lal II 251 TO 400 VPD ISl 2S X 190' 3a' 4' 161 4' SO' U 111 401 TO 1000 VPD 30 12 260' 38',,. ._,4.',_16) . ..-:,4rb_ -x:50.__. -A,IV -- IV 1001 T0~2000 VPD 121 35 10X 360' 38' 4' 171 4' S0' IV,V V -2001 TO 5500 VPD 121 40 10X 470' 44' 4' 171 4' a0' V,VI,YII ,,..._..-.~..URBAN .COMMERCIAL ANO INDUSTRIAL ~' = - - 1. MINIMUM CENTERLINE RADIUS BAS DON NORMAL CROWN FOR ESIGN SPEEDS UP 70 25 MPH, SUPERELEVATION EQUAL TO TH ROAD CROSS SLOPE SHALL USED FOR DESIGN SPEEDS GREATER THAN 2S MPH BUT LESS THA 45 MPH AND REFER TO VDOT ST NDARD TC-4 FOR DESIGN SPEEDS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THA 45 MPH. 2. NO PARKING ALLOWED IN IS DESIGN CATEGORY. 3. STANDARD LANDINGS A RECIUIRED AT ROAD INTERSECTIONS WITH E UAL OR NIGHER TRAFFIC COUNT. 4. WHEN THE FILL SLOP GRADE IS STEEPER THAN 4:1 AHD THE HEIGHT O FILL (TOP OF FILL TO TOE OF FILL) EXCEEDS EN 110) FEET, GUARDRAIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH VDO STANDARDS SHALL BE .PROVIDED. .....,~~.... __ . _ .. -..._ -.. - - - _ . 5. WITH APPROV ,THESE STANDADS CAN BE REDUCED TO CATEGORY I, BUT HE PAVEMENT DESIGN SHALL REMA A CATEGORY 11. (CRITERIA: PROOF OF FIXED GENERATIONI 6. ADD TWO 21 FEET FOR GUARDRAIL. 7. ADD T EE 131 FEET FOR GUARDRAIL. III UP TO 1000 VPD 30 SX a0' 38' ' S' 17) 5' 60' IV IV 1001 TO 2000 VPD (2) 35 7X 3 44' S' (71 S' a0' IV,V V 2001 TO 3500 VPD 12) ~ ~ ._ ~ 40 7X 470 44' S' (71 S' a0' V,VI,Vtl 4' `50' _ 1 ~ - _ I ~ 2o~.os __ _ -- - P M~ P~ .~.__ ,_--,-~--_ ...~-...=- -»--s--H-•--:.--_.._-___ _ ______ ---'FUTURE FUTURE LANE OR LANE _ _ ~ .._ INITIAL LEFT TURN CG-4 CG-7 f- 1/4':1' -_ -_ _- _- _- BASE ~ FUTURE LT. gUBBAS s• TURN LANE M 2.5' / ~_- _-1- ....._..._..,._„-,,.___ - .TYPICAL _STREET SECTION DESIGN : 8PEED GRA MIN' .L. RA U3 F M R/1N WIDTH .Mx Px PVM'T CAT_ _ ::.... (MPH) . ,,.._. _ <_..y:..~URBAN'ARTERIAL ~ ~~ - ° - = ,~:~.~..«,~:..;.:<....._..,..:~... - .~._:....., -- •--~---- __ . W OVER 5500 VPD 55 ~ 7% QS' - Y4' 42' 110' id' 39' VI --- ---~-~--~1.--REFER -TO'VDOT'3TANDARD`TC-4 FOR 'PRO R SUPER ~EVATION RATE AND PAVEMENT~WIDENING 2. USE SHOULDER SLOPE OF 3/4•:1', SIF) ND SIC) SHALL E FIVE ISl FEET WIDE .y~3__ RIDIVIDUAL~RE8IDENTIAL _LOT_SHALL OT.HAVE_ACCESS ON THIS-SECTION •~•`•'=`--~"""`"""~"°~ ~ -- -___-` Yw 4. CHANNELIZATION AHD STANDARD ANDINGS MUST BE PROVIDE AT ALL INTERSECTIONS S. NO PARKING PERMITTED _ -_ .- __. ~E. TRAFFIC VOLUMES tN EXCES OF 15,000 VPD WILL REQUIRE THE CO STRUCTION OF THE ULTIMATE a LANE ROAD SECTION 7. WHEN THE FILL SLOPE ADE IS STEEPER THAN 4:1 AND THE HEIGHT O FILL EXCEEDS TEN (10) FEET, GUARDRAIL IN CORDANCE WITH VDOT STANDARDS MUST BE PRO DED. ADD THREE (31 FEET TO SIFT. 8. FOR AN AITERNA MEDIAN DESIGN, REFER TO THE RURAL ARTERIAL STREET ECTION -URBAN; CATE __~„_,. - 207.06 I - 24 ("~_ x _ -. n - - _ - - - - - -- ------- c N - ' ___-__ _ _ ~ _ _ _ ..__~ ... __ . _ -.~,..._..-20 - N = 4 - - - - - . - .. b h -- -~ - ~ - _ . _ '~ _ O ~ .. - _.. - - - . .. ,~ ~ Z ~ U ~ oc W b . ' _. ~ . ~ .. _- -.._. . _ . - d - ~ _- i 14 _ _ , _... ~ _ .: .ter:- - ~ 12 z ~ ~- _ - _ C - .- - - m _ _ B W _ i1 - 6 v 4 2 _ _ _ 0 x._,_200 4.00 __._800 ,,._;..$00 ..:_.:..._1000 _.._1200 - ~--14001600 ~ -- 1800 " 2000 `"'2200 MINIMUM LENGTH OF CREST VERTICAL CURVE (FT) FOR S< L• L AIS12 / 1329 -FORS>l: L=21S1-1329 /A ORL=31V1 S = REQUIRED STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE (FT) A =ALGEBRAIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GRADES lyl L .LENGTH OF VERTICAL CURVE (FT) V .DESIGN SPEED (MPH) SOURCE: A POLICY ON GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS, 1984: AASHTO -. C~RE~S~~Tw~~.VERTICAL CURVES _ __ _~ _ ~ ._ ~~,.._ i _._ _ 20~.0~ 24 -. - _ . ._ ____ . (~ ~ -- - - 2 - - -- _ - _ ~ _- . __ 18 __._..- _ n .- -- -- - Qd' W O O ~ ~ ~ , a . fig.. .. _. _ _ . - •~ Q ~ y M Vl ~ J ~. V __ _ -- Z _ _.- - ` W ._ _. - _ - _ _> -. - - ,. ~ K - ~ --' --- - _ _ ..n.. aw+- 8 W - - - •-- - _ - J -. - - -- ., _.-..~...~.~a.c ... .x_ ..a --- _..~ . . ...t... 2 0 _ _ .. __. .•. - -- • •- ~• - - _ _ _. _ 200 '~-" 400 "= --`600 ~ _ 800 ~~ 1000 ~ 1200 1400 1600 MINIMUM LENGTH OF SAG VERTICAL CURVE, (FT.) FOR Sd: l ^ A(S) 2 / (400 a 3.SISI1 - _ J „_ M~.,,,,,.~..... - Y` ~-+~ ~ •._._,. _ _. _ .....FOR S>L:-L ^ 21S1 - (400 +~ 3.SIS11 `/ A OR ~ : 3(VI S :REQUIRED STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE (FT.) A .ALGEBRAIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GRADES I;GI L :LENGTH OF VERT1CAl CURVE (FT.) - V :DESIGN SPEED OViPH) ._:.~. -.:.;-..~-_ -.- _ _ ._..~. - SOURCE: A POLICY ON GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS, 184: AASHTO ~~ SAG~~~VERTIC~A~L__C~URVES _ _. ~ 2o~.os GENERAL PARK-ING DIM-ENSIGNS - --- --- --- ----- TABLE -~ ------ - - - -- PARKING ~ ANGLE `- STALL WIDTH STALL - DEPTH _ - ~^ AISLE ~ WIDTH - - -- .-. CURB LENGTH ._ , HALF ___-_ BAY ,._.... FULL __. BAY 0 ST 8.0' 8.0' 12.0' 22.0' .20.0' 40.0' 0 SM 8.0' 8.0' 12.0' 20.0' 20.0' 40.0' 30 ST 9.0' 17.8' 12.0' 18.0' 29.8' " 47.6' - 30 SM - - -• - 8.0' 15.9' 12.0' 16.0' 27.9' " 43.8' 45 ST 9.0' 20.5' 13.0' 12.T 33.5' " 54.1' 45 SM 8.0' 18.4' 13.0' 11.3' 31.4' x 49.8' 60 ST 9.0' 21.8' 18.0' 10.4' 39.8'. ._ - ".61.6' ,..,~60 -SM .....> ...~:: ~-8.0' _ _. _ .~._. 20.T -.. _ - 18.0' - 9.2' 28.T x 59.4' 90 ST 9.0' 20.0' 24.0' 9.0' 44.0' - ~ 64.0' 90 SM 8.0' 18.0' 24.0' 8.0' 42.0' 60.0' s - ~ --_. _ ~ . - _ . , ._ -. A ... _- .. _: - _ .. _. ~\\ Y ~~-WAe~I Stop .. - .:...... _ ... _ - I .._-.,.... ....~,. ~._...-_--- _1. .. .RIGHT OF WAY ... --~.. ... .__.:. -~...,_ ~- -__ 12.5' MIH. RADIUS Rster to Section 201.06.2 for reduction In stall depth for overhang. STANDARD PARKING DIMENSION i I" ~, ~An _. ~ 207.09 ~ ~ ( W ' J v _ W ~~ F C ~ O J W O W Q W ~ .. J J= J V m O< ~ O Y ~ tl .. _ W O • V ~ - _ _ . _ _ W Y y=j Y H \ W ~ C ` c w i . - ~ V _ j ~ O O m m ,_ -.. -. -. ~ H W _.. . W . _ .. -... ... v>.... H _ - O OOd OD= ~ s ~;..~ m < O _ O M ~ V Q :...~:.-a~_...~-.-:- . cY~ :a- st `3 ~ ' ..-..-...-...a...::a-..a..r--+.:; ~ - ~~ O ~ W ~--- ._ .. . • ..:r r i ~...~.zat.:.::t ~ O W U W .--' ._ ~ ~ J W - ' . .. ,. . --_. - .~ _ _: _. .. ~a.a~... _ ~ ~' o-.., .,.`....~..~_~~ _ __~.Z _~._~ ~...~.+..~ .:. .Y.-.+. . -.at, r- ,c- ~-..- ~.~...-+~-1F -~...~.. . -. -k..a . -...- ...~ r~+.. - - w..+..d~..w+a+..~...-r.b~. w~..aT ~.~.. . >.i+n.r..y' .. - .- - W ~ - O -. fll W - F~ O _ .. _ I 2 ~ C7 ~ U - ._. __ = I O ~ o ~ A t I- ~ I 1HANDICAP PARKING SPACE ~:-w: I J ~ ,i~ 11(_ 70^. - - _ - ~ 207.12 < _ ... _ .z < _ ... _ - - - -- - _ .._- . -- - - - - ._ _-_-_ LL .~~. 3 __-- - - . _.. _ _-..._ ~ °` _ ~ ¢ - / ' ~ 'c I c 1 (~ _ -_:. ._~~_ ~..~...--O-Z .. I .- -- ------ --- - I - ~ .r....:: ~... ..M_~......_.. - r.. .~....~.~. ~ .- ~~. 1 :..._.._ T -,_ _ t` --' .. 2 F W ~ . W ~ O = I = ~ -_ - - _..r._.... .. ,-. .,. .- - - - I ~ r W l I d d =~ i x . - I c ~ -_- "' 'W _,. _-...- .. _.~ .. -- ... _ Z _. IiL _._. ~ ~ ~ q ~ O = ..-. IL .- ,... .. - -- .~-- -- - - - ---[ -~ - -. <O W W ~..,.. :.w~aw...~....w~~ ~ C .;,iri,s9t,~.a~~•h~iPF.':~ =cGr.~e~?~t+"sr.: fi:._",-.~v~+.c ~ - -~"~-~-~....,..~.-......ri~..~.-".... F - "N F_ .~.~~ O .. ~ - ...~_......e..... ..- _ - - ~ ~ . - p - _ 4= - -P „d _ t _lv.,~-a. __ O ` O _ •=~-._ ~ _~--~--±~ -_ ~ i- -.~~ RxniYl~ ziY.iCw~Y3m~ _ _ _ _ _ y,~,~tnaa- ~ W V W F C __~ y~ x H ~_ .. - -- _ _ • _ .. .......G __ ~. ~ V W j _ "; ., ~ s ,,.~ ~.-'^ ~cY- - -' - _ _ ~ < 2 C RC"< < Tom= _ C WLLW~ ?t•V d ` t` V O Opp , q _-. 2 - _ - F~ _ _ LL C d q C _ -.. ~ ~ - - V < 6 q<F,J F>O q ~ ¢ O W q - < Q 2< LL LL W p I ~ ~~~3oxos"ox < > + c~~~o0°vi~xW ~ W O d C7 > O ~ O S h~ 0=C t d~ Z <[• W~ d q W .,ca,. ti ~} __..w_....-....~~,.y..~.~.w.+z.a.~.~...a..,.r.= ~ F V LL ~ ~ J ~ ~.--.. ~ .,-~_,~_. ..-~.._.. v ...-1-~ •-~ ~<~~~o~cxi<y3W~ y3~ " J V O 1L J p Q Q q q p .. .. =- p ~ I J.. ... -- ._ .- . _.. ......__... .. __ _ .. - .. io~V _. - DRIVE~WA~Y:`PIPEINS:T;AiLLATIONM~ B VAR. 4' TO 6' b• VAR. 3' TO S' a• 3, M~ (TYP.) A VAR. 4' TO b' TYP. 3• 4' MIN. THICK 6' VAR. 3' TO b' 6• SECTION A-A DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE BARS Sb BARS Bb CL. AS CONCRETE --i 4' VAR. LENGTHS SECTION B-B SD. ENT. SLAB SHOULDER POINT OF GRADE BREAK PAVED DITCH NOTE: CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO INSURE THAT THE SPECIAL DESIGN SLAB COMPLETELY SPANS BUT DOES NOT REST ON PAVED DITCH. MINIMUM 1 1/2' CLEARANCE FROM BARS TO SURFACE. TYPICAL INSTALLATION 207.12. ~ ~~ PAVEMENT (SPEC. DESIGN ENTR. SLAB I ~ ____T_... - ~ B ~ PLAN VIEW 207.13 POINT OF - - FINISHED GRADE / ' ~ - - -- - . _ _ _ - ~ - -- - . _ . W W C7 t7 I y 00 -.- - - I .__-_ _ .. ._....... .. - - .., -.. -. ..- . . _._.._._ -.... ~.. ..,..-~.-.. _...,. .....w.- ...__ ...... t POINT OF ~ E.P. ~ r FINISHED GRADE y y - _ _ p_ 0 Z z _ _ t < - _.~. - - - -:...~:.:..:.a.rvec:c.~+r~:t~:'.:,e-:...r...:..:.:..c +.....r.. _,,.._-.-..,:...a.: - .~... _....~-~:__.-.~e..,.a.~:~.a..,~-,. ,.... ~. __..:` _~,~ _.-.w~ ~._._. _~_.~..:.-.:...,-_ ...n.~.. _ . _. , - - L1 __ U ..__ -_- r. - _~ y _ . . _ ._ . MIN. 2S :__= : _ ~ ~ - _ O O PCVC - ~ ~ W I W = i lh _.~ ...._._._,:....: ~ri:~__o a . _...~...-tSX -MAX. --=t , _.J...-_, ..._i J ..._- :5'~~MA- ._..___.__.___.~.,. _~.~-___~_,=_:. N T_._._....-- -- -_- ___~ __ _ $ 111 12) f- ~ v= rs -.- _ - PIVC , . ,. .. _-. ..._..Jy _ ._ ._,. - . . 41 p > W V C / / \ \ MAX. ALL WABLE GRADE J ~ (SEE TYPI J1L SECTION) -- _ ~ / PROPOSED \ / STREET / GRADES \ \ "' _ PTVC NSTERSECTION LANDING inn,>~;_i~ ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING BECTION 17-3. "DESIGN REQOIREMENTS GENERALLY" OF APPENDIB B, sIIBDIVI8ION8 OF THE ROANORE COIINTY CODE BY PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO sIIBDIVISION STREET STANDARDB WHEREAS, the adoption of this ordinance is authorized by Chapter 11 , Article 7 of Title 15.1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 21, 1995; and the second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on December 12, 1995. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 17-3, "Design requirements generally" of Appendix B, Subdivisions, of the Roanoke County Code be, and it hereby is, amended and reenacted to read and provide as follows: ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL sec. 17-3. Design requirements generally. (a) The owner or proprietor of a subdivision shall observe and comply with the following general requirements and principles of land subdivision in preparing the preliminary and final subdivision plats: (1) The plat shall conform to the adopted master plan or one or more parts, sections, or divisions thereof, of the county, if one exists. (2) All streets which are designated as part of the major highway system on such master plan or part, division or section thereof, shall be coordinated with adjoining links in the system and at the same or greater widths. (3 ) ~t'ght~af~-gray widths shall;: b~: as re ;. q~:~. red ~Y _ 'thy 1 LL -/ fir. >3:~:~<::>:E'~ :~:~~m~n:::::~:>:«~'a~~~:::r~r~~t~~rt~; he setback or building line shall conform with the requirements of the zoning regulations of the county for the district in which the subdivision is located. (4) r i i . All dead end streets shall terminate in a circular right-of-way with a minimum radius of ~~; (~ feet. (5) As far as practicable all proposed streets shall be continuous and made to connect with existing streets without off-set. (7) All lots, controlled by these regulations, shall front on a public street and shall not extend through to another street; provided, that where existing streets make this regulation impractical the planning commission may waive the same. No lot shall embrace any portion of a street or alley. (9) Side lot lines in general shall be at right angles or radial to street lines. (10) Where possible, reverse frontage of lots at street 2 L~ - / intersections shall be avoided. ~ ~ ~ . res s~reetr. (14) the--re~~=-rn res~rc~errt~' (15) Monuments of an approved type shall be set by the owner ~-i or proprietor of the subdivision as required by the agent and as shown on the final plat. (16) Reserved strips restricting access to streets, alleys, public ways and easements shall not be permitted. (17) Where practicable, the center lines of all intersecting streets shall meet in a common point and shall intersect one another as near to a right angle as it is practicable in each case. (18) No existing local street names or subdivision names shall be duplicated. (19) Whenever a proposed subdivision abuts a road which is included in the state system of primary highways, an access road extending for the full length of the subdivision along such highway and providing limited access thereto may be provided at a distance suitable for the appropriate use of the land between such access road and highway. (20) Streets and sidewalks shall be designed to minimize their potential for increasing and aggravating the levels of flood flow. Drainage discharge openings shall be designed to minimize flood flows without significantly increasing flood heights or established elevations of identified flood hazard areas. (21) A single division of a lot or parcel for the purpose of sale, or gift, to a member of the immediate family of the property owner may be permitted, subject only to any express requirement of the Code of Virginia. Only one such division shall be allowed, per family member, and shall not be for the purpose of circumventing this chapter. , (22) All c shall conform to the duly adopted standards established in the Design and Construction Standards Manual. (b) A variation of the requirements of this section may be permitted if, in the opinion of the planning commission, the 4 w / topography or other special or unusual conditions necessitate such variation. 2. That these amendments, additions, and reenactments shall be in full force and effect from and after their adoption. agend a.code.aubd. emd 5 D ~~ a p ~ C~ D AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1995 RE80LIITION AMENDING THB MANIIAL OF REGIILATIONS AND POLICIEB ENTITLED "DESIGN AND CONSTRIICTION STANDARDS FOR PIIHLIC STREETS AND OFF-BTREET PARKING" WHEREAS, at its meeting on February 14, 1989, the Board of Supervisors, by resolution, adopted a manual of regulations and policies entitled "Design and Construction Standards Manual" to assist the public in the clarification and interpretation of rules, regulations, and policies applicable to land development in Roanoke County, and in particular, the areas of water, sewer, streets and parking. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby amend the second component of the "Design and Construction Standards Manual" which is entitled "Street and Off-Street Design Standards" as set out in Attachment "A" to this resolution. FURTHER, this Manual, including these amendments, shall be in full force and effect from and after December 12, 1995. egend e.codestreetst. nw r r ~ p!~['A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COIINTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COIINTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TIIESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 ORDINANCE 112195-15 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 1.109-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SHADWELL DRIVE (TA% MAP NO. 28.05-2-12.1) HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-1 TO THE ZONING CLABSIFICATION OF C-1, CONDITIONAL, IIPON THE APPLICATION OF IIIE LOCAL 162, INC. vW~ WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 24, 1995, and the second reading and public hearing were held November 21, 1995; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on November 5, 1995; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 1.109 acres, as described herein, and located on the west side of Shadwell Drive (Tax Map Number 28.05-2-12.1) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R-1, Low Density Residential District, to the zoning classification of C-1, Conditional, Office District. 2. That the owners of the property, Devin and Audrey Muller, have voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which conditions the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts. a) The property will be developed in substantial conformity 1 . Y with the concept plan prepared by Lumsden Associates, Engineers, Surveyors & Planners, under date of August 31, 1995, which concept plan is submitted herewith. b) That the building itself will substantially conform to the floor plan prepared by Mod-U-Kraf Homes Inc., under date of September 6, 1995, as presented to the Planning Commission, which plan is submitted herewith. c) That the exterior will be finished to grade. 3. That this action is taken upon the application of IUE Local 162, Inc. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the westerly side of Shadwell Drive at the southeasterly corner of the 0.335 acre parcel of F & W Developers; thence, leaving Shadwell Drive S. 04 deg. 31' W. 156.83 feet to a point in the middle of Summerview Drive; thence, with the same and with the curved line to the right having a chord bearing and distance of N. 9 deg. 06' 32" W. 154.08 feet and an arc distance of 154.74 feet to a point; thence N. 70 deg. 80' 58" E. 128.74 feet to a point; thence N. 15 deg. 13' 04" E. 355.05 feet to a point; thence N. 63 deg. 45' 18" E. 50.79 feet to a point on Shadwell Drive; thence with the same S. 09 deg. 05' 36" W. 490.06 feet to the point and place of BEGINNING and containing 1.109 acres. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: 2 AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Eddy A COPY TESTE: Mary H. A len, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 3 f: • . O~ 1 ~~ / ~ ' ~- j ~. ~ / ~' ~ ~~ ,~ J / C ` /~ ~~ V / `~ ~.~ o 12 ~\ .. , 1 ~~1. , ~ 5 6 7 1~j m~~~ m. m~ m V r vine .~. 2 ,' 0 1 I ~ 1 c 1 _ o' ~ ~ 1 :, ~ ~ l ~~ / ~ \ 600% ~ 1 R°°~~~`'~ e r 7 ~ -~ 1 ~ \ ~\ I oaA~ l I~, 1 ,,,~ ~ \ :~, ~~= ~_~.;= s 137 1 ~ c '_ ' 13 t -, ~~ ~ij. \t ~ fin! ~,- \~~~~,_ 13 -. t37c;~ IUE LOCAL 162 INC. _ ~~ ~ DEPAT~'I;~'`1T OF PLANNING R-1 TO C-1 \ AND ZONI?;G 28.05-2-12.1 ~. C .~`~ 1 PETITIONER: IUE LOCAL 162 CASE NUMBER: 40-11/95 Planning Commission Hearing Date: November 6, 1995 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: November 21, 1995 A. REQUEST V-~ Petition of IUE Local 162, Inc. to rezone 1.109 acres from R-1 to C-1 to construct an office/meeting hall, located at the west side of Shadwell Drive, 900 feet south of Route 11, Hollins Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Todd Norvell, presented a petition containing 20 signatures of residents who are opposed to the request. He said the residents are opposed to long term ramifications; may hurt property values as well as increase traffic and Shadwell should remain a residential street. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION In response to questions from the Commission, staff commented as follows: there will be plantings in the buffer yard along all the borders but no obstructions will be placed within the floodway adjacent to Summer View Drive; 43 parking spaces are shown on the concept plan; no more than 35 to 40 members are expected to visit at any one time; the Utility Department has stated that fire flow is not adequate for all commercial uses at this site, however, the availability of County services is sufficient for what is being proposed. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS 1) The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the concept plan prepared by Lumsden Associates, Engineers, Surveyors & Planners, under date of August 31, 1995, which concept plan is submitted herewith. 2) That the building itself will substantially conform to the floor plan prepared by Mod-U- Kraf Homes Inc., as presented to the Planning Commission, which plat is submitted herewith. 3) That the exterior will be finished to grade. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Ross moved to recommend approval of the petition with the proffered conditions. Mr. Witt commented that originally he shared the residents' concerns; however, after viewing the site he noticed the 10 to 12 foot high bank keeping residents from exposure to it except when driving by. Therefore, he will support the request. Ms. Hooker noted that a higher intensity use such as R-3 would cause more traffic than the proposal and said that she will also support the petition. The motion tamed with the following roll call vote: AYES: Hooker, Witt, Ross, Thomason, Robinson NAYS: None ABSENT: None V-1 F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan Staff Report _ Vicinity Map _ Other Commission v-~ IN RE: IUE LOCAL 162 REZONING PROFFERS The undersigned, Applicant and Property Owners, hereby voluntarily proffer the following condition relative to the rezoning of the subject property from R-1 to C-1, General Office: 1. The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the concept plan prepared by Lumsden Associates, Engineers, Surveyors & Planners, under date of August 31, 1995, which concept plan is submitted herewith. 2. That the building itself will substantially conform to the floor plan prepared by Mod-U-Kraf Homes, Inc., as presented to the Planning Commission, which plat is submitted herewith, 3. That the exterior will be finished to grade. November 1995 IUE LOCAL 162, INC. P ent _-~._.-~--~--.-~- .~ ~,v c_ Devin Muller /L G_ ..(/~'Lt'.. ~ ALL-Z~C/ . Audrey M er z:\wp50\steph\iue.Pro:ssetl/15/95 ~~' v-~ ~~ t,L~,t yi~~ .``~~ i~ ~~ i a:=S 9~ ~ Ski a g C9 a ~~ ~ ~q~ge ~. s A ,e c= ~ ~ ~k~~ ie a.:,ai~ 9 0 ~° ~Y b ~ Jim 1 i -.,, i \ yJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ ~- ~,b` '-. r \ ~ E v-~ „~-.,Z CU ~ Z~ W C= ~~ x~ ~~ ~~ Oa ~a~ • 1~ ~ti b ~~ _ ~~~' ~ PETITION AGAINST THE RE-ZONING OF SHADWELL AVE October 6, 1995. ~ I ..r We, the undersigned, ask the government of Roanoke County to deny the request to re-zone the Northern end of Shadwell Ave, near the Waterfall Lake community. We feel that Shadwell Ave. is a residential street and should remain this way. A C-1 zone would greatly endanger the children li~zng in our community by increasing traffic and has the potential to hurt property values significantly. i~ • me n r ~-~1 =1,1v~/~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ t ~ ~-~~~~ l~,~tn-~ Ad ess ,/ Address d I '~ ~~~,~1'~ ~~- Address G~~y ~ 5° ~-~ Address , g c ~~ ~5a-~~~rJ u~~ ~K sr'L• ~s1~ -~ o n1 Ln~ Name Name Name Address 15 I ~ ~ ~-~- "ivy L-~ ~~~ Address Address , /~ ~' ~ ~ j~ ~.Cilc C1~y~_ Address ~~3~ ~~TYJyL ~L~ Addre Ali s ~~~~ c.~ Ad ess ~'~ Address ~ ~ ~~S ~~1~-~~~ Addr s Address ~/~' ~~'~-tea ~~~ I ,~'~ ~ Address ZY GAP %e2=/~ ~ c /~~ Addr~ess~~~~~~ 7- ~'il_~ T ~~ ~~~ Address ,. Address Address Address Address Address ` ~~ 1 L, ~ ~l_ liare v Vi Date /G/~ ~ J. Date i~ c ~' ~ Date ~o-G-y.~ Date ~c~-G-%~ Date Date Daa ~ ~s %~~ ~i 7~_ %~ ~~ Date G ~ ~j Date /o G S Date ~C /~s --___~~~ Date v w~ Date, ~ ~, S-~ Date Date ate i ~ . ~C; Date ~ io 9 5'S Date Date Date Date s~.~ ~ ~I /,,~/?e e-~~ ~~ /VJ/ 6'~ h ~ as~cy ~"~ ~ ~-- l j5~ N,h.Q~ti~ ~~.~ ~ i ~ rlc~ !~'vrJ~ I Name STAFF REPORT PETITIONER: IUE LOCAL 162 INC. CASE NUMBER: 4U-11/95 PART I A. EXECUTNE SUMMARY B. DESCRIPTION PREPARED BY: TIM BEARD. DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 1995 - Petition of IUE Local 162, Inc. to rezone 1.109 acres from R-1 to C-1 to construct an office/meeting hall, located at the west side of Shadwell Drive, 900 feet south of Route 11, Hollins Magisterial District. C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS General offices are permitted by right in the C-1 office district. No specific use and design standards apply under Article IV, Section 30-80. However, the complete range of ordinance regulations including and not limited to building setbacks, height, building and lot coverage, signage, exterior lighting, screening and buffering, and parking will apply in addition to various requirements of other County departments. vim' A commercial entrance permit will be required by VDOT. Site development plans will be reviewed and approved by County staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2 - - PART II A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDff1ONS v-~ Location -The subject site is situated 200 feet north of the Shadwell Drive/Summer View Drive intersection, approximately 300 feet northwest of Waterfall Lake. The property is in the Peters Creek Community Planning Area and urban services are available. TopographyNegetation -Proposed site is flat to a depth of 120 to 130 feet west of Shadwell Drive. It is then benched slightly for a depth of 10-20 feet and then drops moderately down to Summer View Drive and into the floodplain of Tinker Creek. The vacant tract is covered by field grass and includes some deciduous brush and trees along its south and west borders. Evidence of previous gravel storage or parking areas and a silt fence appear in the south portion of the property. Avery small portion of this site lies in the floodway. The area generally indicated for stormwater management rests within the 100 year floodplain. The Engineering Department reports that this specific location is permissible as a detention area provided the facility functions properly under 25-year storm conditions. Surrounding Neighborhood -The subject parcel is zoned R-1. Vacant R-1 tracts lie immediately south and east across Shadwell Drive. R-1 zoned single family homes stand west and southeast of this site. West across Summer View Drive exists vacant property and the Meadowbrook Village Condominiums. To the north are additional homes and a long ago established retail commercial site. Tinker Creek drains the central area. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout/Architecture -The concept plan indicates one pre-engineered building, intended to be a modular, vinyl sided structure according to the applicant. The building will contain 1,568 square feet plus a basement and will be one story tall. Final design could be of any type permitted by C-1 regulations. The structure is proposed for the south central portion of the site with parking proposed across most of the remaining flat area facing Shadwell Drive. The petitioner desires 43 parking spaces due to occasional meetings that attract a substantial number of union members. The parking ordinance requires only seven spaces for general offices of this size. Access/Interior Circulation -One 30-foot entrance is proposed off Shadwell Drive with adequate sight distance north and south. VDOT is expected to require a taper for the southbound lane of Shadwell--a turn lane is possible. The County Engineering Department reports that a 10-foot strip of right-of-way will be needed along Summer View Drive. No access is indicated on the proffered concept plan from Summer View. With slight parking space depth increases and provision for interior landscaping, the concept plan meets County requirements for space and aisle width design. 3 V1~ • Screening and buffering will include 15-foot buffer yards and six-foot screen fencing along the south and west where the existing slope- may be a factor in final plan approval. A six-foot wide planting strip is also required along the length of the parking lot adjacent to Shadwell Drive. Traffic Generation/Circulation -The 1994 ADT on Shadwell Drive was 5,787 vehicles in this area. For Summer View Drive, the 1994 ADT was 164 vehicles between Shadwell and Route 11. Neither secondary road had any reported accidents during the period 1992-1994. A union representative has stated that several meetings will occur on the first Thursday of each month and on Saturday, one every three months. The building is expected to be unoccupied at all other times. Fire Rescue/Utilities -Emergency vehicle travel time is estimated at between four and eight minutes. Public water is available to the site. A public sewer main extension of 200 feet is planned. Fire flow is estimated at 1,000 gallons per minute which should be adequate for the proposed use. C. CONFORMANCE WffH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The petitioner's site is designated Development and Surface Water/Flood Hazard by the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. Other than those factors involving the stormwater management-floodplain area, no specific policies forbid the use of flood fringe locations for stormwater management. The Development designation limits office uses with moderate compatibility. Policies of this designation are geared toward residential projects rather than office or general commercial. Among the applicable Development category land use determinants are water and sewer availability, environmental capacity, major street access and urban sector location. Utility availability, street access, and urban location tend to support the proposal. Environmental capacity will depend heavily on careful management of the flood fringe. D. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD Site and building plans, erosion and sediment control and stormwater management plans must be reviewed and approved. The proposal can comply with the zoning ordinance and its standards with modifications and additions. PART III STAFF CONCLUSIONS The applicant's request to construct an office/meeting hall is generally consistent with the Development designation of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. Although not located in either Transition or Core land use categories, the proposal complies with the purpose of the C-1 district--providing for efficient office uses in the urban service area serving both community and countywide needs. ` AN . ~ _ ,~' L Z 1 3a C] COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3738 Brambleton_Ave. S',N P.O. Box 29800 . Roanoke, VA 24018 (703) 772-2068 FAX (703) 772-2030 4~. ~ ,~~ ~~z~~rs ~- V I For st ff use only ~ date re 'ved by: applic~ 'gR f ~ l~ PCIBZA date~j / / pl carcar s issued: ~ - 9s 605 date605 date: Case Number: ~~! /„/)~ t/ /~ Check type of application filed (check all that apply): ® REZONING ^ SPECIAL USE ^VARIANCE Applicant's name: IUE Local 162, Inc. ~Q i ,Phone: 563-9620 Address: P.O. Box 5282, Williamson Rd. , Roanoke, VA Zip Code: 24012 ,f Owner's name: Devin and Audre Muller Phone: Address: T ~ .~ I~%~'~~c-~! ~ / ~~~~~ /~ ~ ~,C Zip Code: , Location of property: Taz Map Number: 28.05-2-12. 1 West side of Shadwell Drive Roanoke County ~4lagisterial District: Hollins Community Planning Area: Peters Creek Size of parcel (s): Existing Zoning: R-1 1 _ 1 (19 acres Existing Land Use: Vacant sq.ft. :~.• :~:: Proposed Zoning: C-1, General Office For Staff UseOnfy Proposed Land Use: Office/Meeting Hall Use Type: :I ' ..................... ...... j Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested disuict. YES X NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES X NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? YES X NO t.. Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF AIVY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. svs v ws v ws v X Consultation X 8 1 /2" x 1 1" concept plan Application fee X Application X z~ Metes and bounds description '€~ Proffers, if applicable X Justification X ~`> Water and sewer application X Adjoining property owners l hereby certify that / am either the owner of the propert or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and Y am acting with the knowledge an consent of the owner. ~ Owner's Signature: ~ j ~ ~~ ~ ,!~~~ . ~~i_ ~ ~ ~ 1~ J r For Staff Use On/y: Case Number ~~ I Applicant IUE Local 162, -Inc: 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 subject property is vacant at the present time. It is an irregularly shaped parcel of land that is really not developable as for residential purposes. Development of an office/meeting hall for the applicant is an appropriate transitional use. While the property is adjacent to residential, commercial development is in the area. This would serve as a buffer zone between the two. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County comprehensive Plan. The utilization of the property for the office meeting hall lead to an orderly development of apiece of property not readily developable in its existing zoning. A comprehensive plan will be met in that the use is appropriate within this 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. The development of the property will have negligible impact on the adjoining properties in the surrounding areas, utilities and will have no impact on schools and park and recreation. 1',.... N. Ttl.v~v~ ~, y . v~..+...,.,.a P I ~ C. e.t3rn F4 d~t11 d tiY,~ r o° - ~,~., d.~.. n r ~ g {~ o' y ~ ~ ~ '?c. 7 { U 7 ' ~~ ~ ~ ~a '~8 I ~ ~' ~' n n 1 .ct r l !! r ~a ti T• v mot.., ~ 0 /Q~ n d y r .~ y ~~ N ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ " _ W I , \~~ ll y~0ti G ti ~ ~ QJ i r ~ a' a s ~ m 1 S ~ 1N O d ~' I / Q It 4CY.~ d- v~ N O e m / ry dd P ~~~ tV r' _.~ ~ 9 A., Y~ ~ a rr r--1 ~o~x'1:,0 '=..~r. ..T~CY (antra PrR Y tS / 1 8 . ~.r ~-•r_r. t... -. ena.~r:+. c~.~.ra ea •~o~S~~`"tap 7 S ~tY Ze FtG C~~Se ~:,a. ~~~ ~ t.'r Jtawt ~-~c.o 0-r `t'-in ~feeaer~--"'-Y / ~ f~.~N OGp? titp ~ m {l u '^ n • ~ ,.., ,c- .. '`' m 0 °" ~~ ~ ,.P .' O y r 1 ~(~ d N e '1 ~ ~ y f!~ rv }' T . K ~' O ~ ZY _', N 'j N 4 V ~7 ~V ~ 1O ~ ' Q~p O ' r o ~ ~q~ ~ ~~ ro (~,~ n ~ h~' ~ N / ~~' m~~ ~ p~ Jh ~ ~~ a r ~ Q y ~ t„tp,q.~L RK~'';'~CNGtc. N ~ r w a >,3 ~~`~. o, • r Q~ f" ~ // 20 '4 ~0.ari V ~ I ~~ u~~t ~O N ' ~ ~ . 0 0?L r• Orf~ OM v ~ ~ fN `V m ~~ I !y ~ N R- ~ ~ n J Q-`r ~ p~F' 1 z ; ' tPtu ~ ~-J ~~~G _~' v.1 v ~ ~~ r5' t,ya.O~ •n I ` rs' ~ ~ pV ' r Q ~ N ~ ~ ~ 0 » r~ H u c o ,i a ° ° o j 0' ~~ ~ i ~' o d ~ ~( ~ ~ ~, v ~ hl_9_ t_It j~_.__.--_-" -- ~- fin` T.~x•No. tC ~~~~=-~ o ,~Lo °`~- r ~~~LTH ~_ f_ '~lkx i IES1 1~ ~1~=-~ CEAT)~~TE !M. 9~ O I.AMO SVRVtL`( F~ R WANDA W. Mi~.~e~ SHO ~~tNQ A O,SC3 AC4E TRAC-T'Ar1bA 1.10.1 A~Rt` TRACT Eat=1NG CON'JL•`{Cb Zo Jo~ePK W. Fa`eY rS'f: JAw_ G. ESQ SS ~ES~.-rtt=irt~ 1ii.io ~JaiG-io=i, . r('. A.C'Ril. n:~ t1 R^ 49 C.11.a'. 1'ya....._.- Fn u;-! 5-1995 l~~ a? ?i ~3 -193 =aaA I' .001 OS'1~~.'95 13:01 ^p~03 X93 '^^5 AuU-~-~~.tr nu~~c~ '~ "~ / \ ~ --- v_ ~ • ~- NORTH ~~ ~, `-_ ~ .\ .~ ~ ~~ i ~~~ i r / _,~ 9 C .~C`~ \~ ~i y 137 36 •~ti .\. :~ • i-,. e ~ O 1 13.1 -\ e'-'• ~ ~ psnw~ '~\ 'S a9 1 c 1 O '„ 3 ' ~ 9~" _,~i .is f r r \\ ~ _ 12 ', ..• 1 j - : 5 6 7 8 .` ~ II ~ `~ E '~ ~ ~~ 13. ,q ~ ~° : m• o_• ro _ ,, ~`' •y,?~ 1325 \ \ ~ ,.z 1 •`• :m`. o. a 0.. ••g3Z6 ~• .\ ° '~a~~' \ , r~ nl m m• ,•~ 1 , \ 7 rrv~ 1328- ' •~ \~/ ,1 ~.~ ,:II \ ,`~ 13.29 l' pmer~~ .>. B3 12 Js ~. x~ ~ .~ ~z - i , ,. I ~J ~ \108 AC. _ \ ' . • IUE LOCAL 162 INC. ~'~ DEPARTi~~lT OF PLANNING R-1 TO C-1 ~"r AND ZONING 2$.05-2-12.1 f v- ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 1.109-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SHADWELL DRIVE (TAX MAP NO. 28.05-2-12.1) HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-1 UPON THE APPLICATION OF IIIE LOCAL 162, INC. WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 24, 1995, and the second reading and public hearing were held November 21, 1995; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on November 6, 1995; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 1.109 acres, as described herein, and located on the west side of Shadwell Drive (Tax Map Number 28.05-2-12.1) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R-1, Low Density Residential District, to the zoning classification of C-1, Office District. 2. That the owners of the property, Devin and Audrey Muller, have voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which conditions the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts. a) The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the concept plan prepared by Lumsden Associates, Engineers, V ~ v-i Surveyors & Planners, under date of August 31, 1995, which concept plan is submitted herewith. b) That the building itself will substantially conform to the floor plan prepared by Mod-U-Kraf Homes Inc., under date of September 6, 1995, as presented to the Planning Commission, which plan is submitted herewith. c) That the exterior will be finished to grade. 3. That this action is taken upon the application of IUE Local 162, Inc. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the westerly side of Shadwell Drive at the southeasterly corner of the 0.335 acre parcel of F & W Developers; thence, leaving Shadwell Drive S. 04 deg. 31' W. 156.83 feet to a point in the middle of Summerview Drive; thence, with the same and with the curved line to the right having a chord bearing and distance of N. 9 deg. 06' 32" W. 154.08 feet and an arc distance of 154.74 feet to a point; thence N. 70 deg. 80' S8" E. 128.74 feet to a point; thence N. 15 deg. 13' 04" E. 355.05 feet to a point; thence N. 63 deg. 45' 18" E. 50.79 feet to a point on Shadwell Drive; thence with the same S. 09 deg. 05' 36" W. 490.06 feet to the point and place of BEGINNING and containing 1.109 acres. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. rezone.iue a ~ LAW OFFICES ~~~ JOLLY, PLACE, FRALIN & PRILLAMAN, P C. W. H. JOLLY 3912 ELECTRIC ROAD, S. W. (1925- 1986 ) ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-4564 JACK V. PLACE (703) 989-0000 ALTON B. PRILLAMAN DAVID C. HELSCHER FAX (703) 772-0126 STEPHEN M. YO ST WILLIAM C. MAXWELL MAILING ADDRESS ROBIN DEARING P. O. BOX 20487 WILLIAM H. FRALIN, JR. ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 2401 8-0049 November 16, 1995 HAND DELIVER Mary H. Allen Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 SALEM, VA. 241 53-3746 105 N. COLORADO STREET (703)389-2349 FAX(703)389-9560 MAILING ADDRESS P. O. BOX 279 SALE M, VA 24153-0279 W. HEYWOOD FRALIN WILLIAM J. CREEC H, JR. OF COUNSEL Re: Request for Postponement of Rezoning Hearing 3142 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, VA Dear Ms. Allen: Please accept this letter as a request on behalf of my client, Marta C. Sayers, for postponement of our rezoning hearing scheduled before the Board of Supervisors for November 21, 1995. We ask that this be rescheduled for the next Supervisor's meeting scheduled for December 12 at 7:00 p.m. at the County Administration Center-Board Meeting Room. We need the additional time to provide thorough and accurate information for the Board's consideration. Contemporaneous with the delivery of this letter, we are providing written notice of the request for postponement to each of the adjoining property owners who were notified as part of cur original Petition.. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance. Yours truly, JOLLY, PLACE, RALIN & P I LAMAN, P.C. `- David C. He scher cmh PETITIONER: MARTA SAYERS ~~ °~ CASE NUMBER: 41-11/95 Planning Commission Hearing Date: November 6, 1995 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: November 21, 1995 A. REQUEST Petition of Marta Sayers to rezone 1.146 acres from R-1 & C-1 to R-1 & C-2 to operate a personal services facility, located at 3142 Brambleton Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Ellen Holtzman asked the Commission to deny the request. She stated that the residents of Greenwood Forest (a single family residential area) do not deserve to have their property values and their way of life ruined. The C-2 zoning will open the way for abuse to our single family residential neighborhood. The Commission asked why she did not attend the meeting concerning the proposal. Ms. Holtzman replied that she and her husband spent over a hour with a representative from Boone & Co. who explained the project. After listening to him, we decided that we were opposed to a day spa. Irwin Holtzman voiced opposition to the request and commented that in addition to the visit from Boone & Co., they received a detailed letter from Evelyn Krippendorf (seller of the property), and several telephone calls from Betsy Settles, another real estate agent. He indicated they are familiar with the project. He said that a C-2 zoning would destroy the character of their neighborhood. Mickey Johnson expressed concern as to the future of the property if the rezoning is approved and the business fails. And should the business succeed, there will be increased traffic and noise. Also our view will be adversely affected. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Robinson announced that he would be abstaining from all discussion and action on this petition due to a possible conflict of interest. In response to questions from the Commission, staff said that electrolysis is not a licensed profession in Virginia; by way of proffers, the applicant is limiting the use to personal improvement services and personal services and the retail sale of products that are incidental to these services; personal services (beauty salon, barber shop, etc.) require a C-2 zoning designation; the property fronting on Brambleton is zoned C-2 rather than C-1 as shown on the map. The Commission asked the applicant what would happen should the business fail. Patricia Crockett who will manage the business said that they have been doing electrolysis in the city for 7 years and it seems to be a viable business. v-~ D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS 1) Permitted uses on the subject property will be limited to those uses currently permitted under the existing C-1 zoning (copy of which is attached hereto) as well as personal improvement services permitted in the C-2 zoning district. 2) Applicant also intends to sell personal improvement books, products and items that are incidental and related to the various personal services that will be offered to their clients including skins, nail and hair care products as well as clothing and accessories related to these personal services. It is expressly stipulated that these retail sales will be an accessory use of the property, incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the building as a day spa and clinic offering skin, hair and nail care, electrology, massage therapy and color consultation. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Witt commented that the proposed activity is not that bad but he is concerned that it will eat away a section that must remain a low intense use area because of its adjacency to the neighborhood and its adjacency away from the commercial use below on Brambleton. Although certain uses are proffered, if C-2 zoning is approved it would set a precedence for other C-2 uses. And because of this I feel these three buildings must remain C-1; therefore, I move to recommend denial of the petition. Ms. Hooker concurred with Mr. Witt and stated that this commercial area has encroached on a neighborhood and said she will not support a more intense C-2 use. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Hooker, Witt, Thomason NAYS: Ross ABSTAIN: Robinson F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE Mr. Ross noted that the hours of operation (10 a.m. to 6 p.m.) would not be much of a change from the doctors' office which was previously at the site. Also the proffers limit the use for personal services and therefore he would not be supporting the motion. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map Staff Report _ Other `~___. ,/ Terrance Harr' gton, S retary Roanoke Co ntv Planning Commission • PETITION: Dr. Marta Sayers PREPARED BY: Jon Hartley A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FILE NO.: 41-11/95 DATE PREPARED: October 31,1995 v-~ The petitioner, Dr. Marta Sayers,is requesting to rezone property at 3142 Brambleton Ave. to C-2 to establish a day spa clinic offering a variety of personal care and improvement services. The property is topographically removed from Brambleton Ave. and, along with two other offices, is located directly adjacent to a single family residential development. Further intensification of the .commercial activity on the subject property is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and could adversely affect the adjacent residential area. B. DESCRIPTION The petitioner, Dr. Marta Sayers, is requesting to rezone a 1.146 acre parcel at 3142 Brambleton Avenue from C-1, Office district, to C-2 General Commercial district. The purpose of the request is to convert the existing law offices to a day spa clinic, which would include an electrolysis clinic (hair removal), a hair and nail salon, massage therapy, and other personal care related services as the need and demand arise. The property is located in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The present C-1 zoning allows a wide range of office uses including legal and medical offices. The proposed day spa clinic would be classified as a personal service under the zoning ordinance, which is only allowed in C-2 districts. The C-2, General Commercial district allows a wide range of retail commercial activities in addition to restaurants, gas stations, new auto sales, and similar uses. Additional approval from the Health Department will be required for massage therapy as required under the County Code. Site Plan Review and approval would not be required and no VDOT approval is necessary since only a change in use is proposed. STAFF REPORT PART I • • PART II - A. BACKGROUND V-~ The structure involved was built in 1956 as a single family residence. In 1976 the property was rezoned for a medical office. At that time a 50 foot strip was left as R-1 to maintain a buffer between the office and residential uses. In 1987 a request was considered to rezone additional property to the office district in order to expand the building and provide necessary parking. This request was strongly opposed by the residents and denied by the Board. Since then, the 50-foot strip has been the focus of a zoning enforcement action. In addition, staff proposed to remove the 50-foot strip in 1992 during the Comprehensive rezoning in favor of standardized buffer requirements. This change, however, was rejected by the Board of Supervisors. Since the property was rezoned for offices in 1976 a dental office has been constructed on the premises, along with a second structure that has been used as a counseling center. The original medical offices have since relocated down the street and the original house has been converted to law offices. Finally, the area has been resubdivided to give each of the structures a separate lot, with cross easements for access and parking. This plat was approved by the County in December 1994 and recorded in April 1995. . B. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Site Characteristics The property in question is located on a plateau area that sits approximately 20 to 30 feet above the grade of Brambleton Avenue. It contains three structures; the building proposed to be a day spa clinic along with the dental office and the counseling center. Access to the plateau is provided by a driveway from Brambleton that is shared by all three buildings. There are 17 parking spaces directly in front of the present law office building and approximately 10 to 12 other spaces near the dentist office and counseling center. Otherwise the site is heavily wooded with large specimen trees, creating a quiet compact mini-campus atmosphere to the location. (See attached survey of the property.) Adjoining and Surrounding Neighborhood West of the property along Brambleton Avenue is a vacant lot that is zoned C-2. This lot has not been developed due to its shallow configuration. To the north and east the property adjoins single family residences. The property generally to the south is wooded vacant land that is zoned R-1. The general character of the area consists of the commercial uses along Brambleton Avenue, with almost exclusively single family residences for property not fronting on this corridor. Petition: Dr. Marta Sayers 2 File No.: 41-1 1 /95 v-~ _• Generally the property in question sits above and is removed from the more intensive commercially zoned strip along Brambleton Ave and is more closely associated with the residential development that adjoins the property to the south. Certainly, the present C-1 zoning and resulting office uses provide a suitable buffer between these residences and the more intensive commercial uses typical of Brambleton Ave. C. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Proposed Use and Layout The applicant is proposing to operate a day spa clinic that will provide a variety of personal care services including electrolysis, hair and nail care, massage therapy, health and fitness information programs, skin care, and similar services. The applicant has indicated that these services would be provided to business and professional women by a professional staff of registered nurses and other licensed professionals in a more clinical environment than those services can now be found in the Valley (see attached description of the proposed use). While there are currently no licensing requirements for electrolysis in Virginia, beauticians are licensed by the State, and Massage Therapy must be licensed through the Health Department. The proposed use, classified as a personal service, requires the rezoning to C-2, General Commercial. To attempt to make their request more acceptable, the applicant has proffered as a condition that the only uses permitted would be personal improvement services and personal services (along with the retail sale of incidental items associated with these uses) and those uses otherwise now allowed in the C-1 zoning district. At this time no change in the site design or layout is proposed. The existing improvements would appearto be adequate to accommodate the current and proposed uses. Traffic Generation & Access There are no figures available for the types of uses involved in this proposed change in zoning. The most intensive use currently permitted is the medical office that can generate moderate amounts of traffic and demand for parking. Public Services This property is presently served by public sewer and water. Fire and Rescue services would be provided by the Cave Spring Rescue Squad and Fire Station located on Brambleton Ave southwest of the site. C. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The property in question is designated within both the Transition and Neighborhood Petition: Dr. Marta Sayers 3 Fife No.: 41-1 1 /95 V~~ • _ Conservation land use category in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed rezoning would be inconsistent with the plan map and policies for areas designated -Neighborhood Conservation. In those areas designated Transition the general commercial uses allowed by the C-2 district would be inconsistent with the plan policies, although personal services would be moderately compatible. A request to modify the comprehensive plan designation to expand the former medical offices on this property was denied in 1987 due to the property's proximity and relationship to the surrounding residential uses. D. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The subdivision of this property was approved by the County's subdivision agent based on the historical configuration of the lots and the fact that no lot was being resubdivided which was less conforming with the zoning requirements. No further approvals, waivers or variances under the subdivision ordinance are necessary at this time. PART III STAFF CONCLUSIONS The property in question is located so as to functionally capitalize on access from Brambleton Avenue, yet retain a degree of privacy for patrons of the offices now on the property. This is the very attribute which attracted the applicant to this property. However, this privacy is also afforded in part because of the property's close association topographically with single family residences located behind this and the other office buildings associated with this property. Use of this property for more intensive commercial uses, even with the conditions on use, would be contrary to the County's Comprehensive Plan and would, in the opinion of staff, negatively affect the surrounding residences. When this property was rezoned in 1976 it was strongly opposed by residents as an encroachment of commercial uses into a single family residential area. This position was restated by the residents in 1987 when the medical offices wanted to expand and at that time the residents' postition was supported by the Board of Supervisors. This denial is consistent with other similar requests to expand commercial uses into adjacent residential areas along the Brambleton Avenue corridor . Petition: Dr. Marta Sayers 4 File No.: 41-1 1 /95 The undersigned owner and applicant voluntarily proffer the following conditions to their rezoning request: ,. 1. Permitted uses on the subject property will be: limited to those uses currently permitted under the existing C-1 zoning (copy of which is attached hereto) as well as personal improvement services and personal services permitted in the C-2 zoning district. 2. Applicant also intends to sell personal improvement books, ._ products and items that are incidental and related to the various personal services that will be offered to their clients including skin, nail and hair care products as well as clothing and accessories related to these personal services. • It is expressly stipulated that these retail sales will be an accessory use of the property, incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the building as a day spa and clinic offering skin, hair and nail care, electrology, massage therapy and color consultation. ISLAND S~.)N DEVELOPMENT GR~UP, owner BY : ~ / `~ TITLE : ~~~~~ ~~~~ C c',t, ~~ Marta Sayers, applica t • . ~ r~:,;~ ~ Fcr s~a`f use cnr. ~'rn~=f' h~L,, ~;s `}'' . ~`-~~~. ( ~ I~Q~IV I I 0` ROr-~I~i OI1~ Ga:e rzceivey~/y y "1~rzce~ve= Cy: ~ DEPT. Or PL~;Ntili.~: :-,i`D ZOtiI~,~: _,s~,-.. / ~, i ~~ 4 ar~iica:ipn feer~' ['tom Ir ~~/~ ~S~ ~' J i X20 Bernard Dr, fl CrG ~ 'x r P.O. box 2°S00 ;,;acarbs issues: ~..5 ca:e: ~ J Ro=_no4e. VA 2~0 i i= ( 5!jr~j' 772-2068 Fr,n ( ~. Case Number: L Jj ~ /} 1e3S 5•,a .772-2103 -7` %i r~ :~ :~ • Check type of application filed (check all that a~~iy}: ~~ REZONING ^ SPECIAL USE ^VARIANCE /~ Phone: 989-8552 Appiicar.t's name: Marta Sayers ~ ~ . ~ ~~k a Code: ,^ p ~ ~ 24014 C~= ~ Address: 5454 Flintlock Lane, Roanoke, VA Owner's name: Island Sun Development Group /Evelyn Krippendorf Fhone: 772-2500 Zip Code: 24018 Address: P.0. Box 21823 Roanoke, VA 24018 Location of property: Tax Map Number: 77 , 10-2-6 County of Roanoke southerly side of Bramble ton Ave. rtiiagisterial District: Cave S tin 3142 Brambleton Ave., S.W. Communiy Planning Area: L'avt. Gj-l~(.t_z~C Roanoke, VA , Size of parcel (s): Existing Zoning: C-1 -;-~ ~~' ~ 1.146 acres Existing Land Use: Commercial Office Building 49920 sq•f7. .:~ ... s .~ ~'~`: ;~ : ~ .:~.~isE:;:;:::::;:;:::::;:;:::is;:sE::::::E ::::::::::::::::E:t1 Proposed Zoning: C-2 '1' i`•.~ { F-~r Stafi` Uss only Use Type: Proposed Land Use: Personal Services Facility ~ 3 '~ Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, v~idti,., and frontage requirements of the requested district? YES x NO IF NO, A VARI ^-.~:CE !S REQUIRED FIRST.... Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria fcr t`.e requested Use Type? YES x ~ NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. if rezoning request, are conditions being prof; .r== with this request? YES NO x (will be) :::::~ :::::~ _ _ Variance of Section(s) of t`~e Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in crd~- tc: Is the appiication complete? Please check if enc:csed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEP T EO IP AtiY Oi= THESE ITEi~iS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ws v - ws v ws v / Consultation 8 1 /2" x i ~ " concept plan Application fee Application `".' Metes and deunds description >~T Proffers, if applicable Justification ~/p- "'F Water and s=_wer appiication Adjoining property c~Vners ~~~ l hereby certify that l am either th owner of the Or perry or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowle~eA~$d ~~ ' `~`~n RO P Owner's Signature: BY: ~ David Hel, he its attorney ' i~r SaY. Usr Gniy: Gse tVVrnce~ \l i ..1 LFJ f !?'r vr+ r.I ~~ v ; . fJ, ~ r Zr7 . ~: F ~ tJ , .. t.-• r Rte, ~ . ~.. S ~ppiicant Mort C~varc The Planning Commission will study rezoning anC special use permit requests to determine the need and justification forthe change in terms of public heal:;:, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the follo~•~in; questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purpos=_s of the Zoning Ordinance iSection 30-3) as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the zoning ordinance. Petitioner believes the rezoning will further the intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance in that it will encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax space as well as provide a convenient source of personal services not currently available to the public in one location. The proposed use will be consistent with the commercial and professional nature of the properties which surround it. Please explain how the project conforms to the oeneral guidelines and' policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use of this property for providing personal services to professional woman represents an appropriate use of the property, consistent with the guidelines and polices of the comprehensive plan which designate this area as a "transition zone." While the zoning ordinances characterized'tjiiese.personal services as a commercial endeavor the nature of ~~ ~~he • c,T~:ental and the intensity of the use of the facility as well~as the hours of operation are consistent with the business-and professional offices which surround it, thereby encouraging economic development without burdening the residential properties which are nearby. Please describe the impactls) c. the reouest cr. t,e ;,rope..y itsel`, the adjoining properies, and the sw roundinS area, 2s well as the impacts on public services a::c ~'aciiities, including water/sewer, reads, schools, parks/recreation, and fire/rescue. The proposed use of the property as a personal services facility will have little or no impact on the property itself, the adjoining property or the surrounding area because there will be no physical change to the facilities and the type of cliental, as well as the intensity of the use of the facility and the hours of operation will be very similar to the existing professional offices currently located on the property. There will be no negative impact on the existing utilities or public facilities for the same reasons as herein identified. r , ~ 4 d ~ ^ "a a a~a~ ~ ~€8~3W 8 <.~^. 3 ~'y' z9~$~9 O zW oG N F~`9I ii33m~ CI: ~^< =m~nF~m ~$i~~z~ `va Wyy ayyz mWOOk> 7FF~~~ NF~~ N«in_m ~<~ Sm~ i 0 c~ 3< z 'N'F~~ ko ~1E~J i~ f~ ~O*9 ~~Q~ ~4q~~. o-0•` S~ z ~~(~<s ~Ry~+ ~~~ ~ oat a ~~ ~ y~~ i o Z ~J~~ci O ~=~o,a c iA a ~i~^~ U O ° r m J {g1T~T1....~~..~~o r 1 I I O I 1 I ~I 1 <1 #in m 1 M V ~~~~d z~1~ 8 '~~ i ~i _m ~I~o ~I I ~1 #I I 1 1 I 1 1 I ~~s ° OoO~. ~o rI00V nano N V OVOm POO°OVa .rO < F oo mo °o nr°.o Dino OO oZ W <o < u o. ona~oov mnoooo ~°.~ q V PY1GPn0 < yQQy~ m~nomo.•._c•mo z tr ~„~Y:::: v::Y°r ~~°n ~< O o< O _W u hn VNmI+OP^^ F w i ,~ o0 5 z ~ `Sa7"1 'S o ~ z-~ 1778 Q~/ ~~ N :. W M~~ lO b n .: „= ti I o _ i n ~ Ir~ ~ • mt o a~z w> m ^ F y I~ m 3'7 '~/ 0 8 rat<< g .sk,~ s ~b r, +. a m N O `. OW ¢I `. ~p i ~ f^~ ~^~ <I' V< ~ n s ~ <~ ::~ e~ ~ Ga7~ W I ~' ~(~~ 8 _ '' 7 1o I ~ .O6'Ci{ Im 3 vYi la ' 8~y 3 -CQ9Lpr N I ` ®~_ „~ d 1L = 1 • 31 i N w 1 N a~y~ H~`n- ~'a. ~ m w ~=3 ci ~~ 3 r~ ~ a~ N °g i J o t! (i [j C o oao r? H V ~~ O~ i f-; a d Z O n¢¢< ,m„wa F ~ a " = Z ~ 1 0 ~ ~ YI V O u O ~ V W ¢:WS Z p~ ra i Q. ~ ~O° a O W "'S ~~na°ac3 Nu ° ~ `~ (t g~ ;x W ~ ~ ~~~"' ~Ss 4 ° r U W ~ 0 s -~m C J 2 ~~<^~ < ~go- ° o aWU`d hhiL N... Z < W Z WnpN~3V WZ 5~^ ~~¢V+O~ ~~~~ Y~ a 0 z x< 00 0 ~ ~ ~ UHt~~ G \ J Z m'~F-V O~ s < 5 F3 n$ J~ u i + J~ ~ Vf < NO r <z ~ uo ~~ _r i 0 F .~~a~ !~R y° u v < n!! q ~ yi g Y °o a• »'d: ~'i i Z}th ca ~ WW<^~ .;. i y 7t' • ~i ~y~m ias.79' 09a N N 77'22~`~3- E ~ ~ O9 M1 O , ~ O~I~ ~-`l~O ~ i [T O Z O 2n Zw 3~ ~ i~ <~ ^ ?< / \ 3 ° uW 3 ~ W O ~~ Z < 'a N ' a !' .6~,Z ~ N o ® a 3pu1 08 3nN~ b N413~8Wb~8 ~ N ~ ~~ _ ,,, 111 S & ~o~n~m~mza7 u a~-< zo ~u '•'~ 2Qp F S~V j~Y~<04N ~YYI~OZW WO~ 2~ ~qqyy •<~p~~O Zu~~ii6~F N.~oS'd ~~o i~' C3~°og~o~`~oY~"sinzi" n a „'W° '<3 g~~~~S~~~~~~~~~~<~b~ bli~JOug3 °oi~~ < j! i „ <oW : ^R Neu s~. i r dm> ; yy x Y~t~S roo~8n o;.~~ ~SOIm o ~~ N ~~ W o ~ O V W i O ~ a'x~ ~~° ma 4z ~ c ! ~ e 'j N _ •~!` z O a •, °r, ^ w~ E „ "~ d l ~\~ry vWi r... O " g ' '_--- -~ c3. - SF <n a` ~ 4 - ; QUO O G B' w ~ ~ ,~~ .651_ 5l • f`•. a~. 1 co iN2 aN"~`d< m°N r-- z~x~ $iao<ss~~i~6 o~mc~a z $^ <i y00 ~N <v~~ 01 W3if~ 1" W ~ S WV>~>F~,~Q<Z~F3W0~ O <n p F~'a Z~ON-O°~^FinaB W°2 W O d0\ S N ~ m- zaOZ~c ~SEi~~m~ +gyjo " ~ z i\ ~ z - v ~ ~_a~3F~~~~z~~Hq~ ^ZO~ C~ a =~S=~gau =~'~i~G'J(N6 3~~~ ~ g° ~ c ~~3e~o~d~Cog~o~3 z~~2~5 °1 ~ 6 ~L ~ ~ g ~ g;aW°h z°2i c lci i i'~ °~ ~ g j~iv ~ ~i° z2 ~zSW <=°u<o /~ ~WY r~ N N y a~~ ~ J ~~c( ~~ ~ ~F 1~° ~~ . -g~ ""S u ~ $z~ ~~ a~~o ~ i16 T• iQ~"'7~ ~~io~ ~ L~i~~ 'g$ ~4~i ~ ~G e ~ og~ ~~ ,~Fa` ~v>~v ~~ of °<N i ~ i~W IOZ ~~~gg{{°S~a \\ o ° z ~ g ~_~_ 3W° F< ~~~~~~ ~ y o` ~'g~~ ~ to <~~W~ .g ~ <F~m~ •"F$~ 3~W~ I ~zz~~ `~iW~ ~ 9~<~ CC~,d 3 ~E r ~ = n \") i z ~ a 3a`a•• h : ~ ii 8~F Y S~FW N Gg~~N W .u~aOS N Oi~.v ~ m ~~~~° ~ ~, d ~3ff ~ s ~~~a H ~" s, r~N~F_~ a ~S~b 17~yl ~ k 17~~3{ k =7kz~ ~ ~ k ~_~ ~ ~ arm' N ^ V-a 10 Yp ~ ~y~ ). \~? .... /i ~~`Jl t _ ~1 _ i y/i il:=i ~a clti:. ~w- r.~ / O •r~n ice, G-IR ~ J1 ;_ S< VL' _ ~Gl ?RA 1Q o°_ _< '~ ~ ~ . ~ _~'e~i may.+.~ ¢- MLEY - t a Q t~ -~ _~;_\ - ~ttta "~~j`- O ^ o (` \~ - ~fY ~ JY .~ -.. ~_. < ~_~ - ~~• - . __ rrn+o* .c-~ i.: caw ---'-~---- 40 ,~~3/32 ~ 3//S -~G~ ~O? `3,3/36 ~h y/ O~~ ~~G~ jsrs; ,,`,oz --- :eon 313x. ~ 1/ 3/ 02 ?s ~y~ ~ ~ ~,_J ` ,~ 'b 32/0! 'Sfs~ / _ L 5 v ~,.q `O r-_'_ -:~ /J •37, ~'`r'• ~~ 2` ~ ~ ?~ .3// ,5 `\~9 ?-l n :~ .c e2 2~ ~7 ~t J ~ '320/ ~ .. - ~ . _ _ "' ~,, ,n -` 3G66 ` ~- Je ... ~ r -i~ . ~ _~. .. ` _-j i - , 3212• :r "' > 2 ~' _? ` 4~' ~~ :~ o • =i :r•: ~ ,~ ~ ~ v= '-320 m.0. 32 '.V 9 e,~ 3r44 ;~ !'/rr ms's ` - 34G6 ,~: -~ -~ •- r - ~~g- .~ - ~ ~o ~ 1. ~ . ~~--? t,3 __ ~ ` 9 _ '~ 2~ ~_ ~.~' '. ~~ ~~ ~ 5l s~ ~ 3502 ~ .. p ~- 14 - „ 32 " 3520 ~~ .. '~ ~ ~ O ~ - ~ 26/ \~I ~ I L y~\__=`~ ~ r _ 445-_ ~_. MARTA SAYERS _ •' ~ DEPr~?Zt~'I` OF PL.}1N,YIi~G C-1 S R-1 TO C- 2 S R-1 AND ZONING 77.10-2-6 .; v-~ i HdRTH v-~ b ^c 1 V I~ ~1 I I I I f~. ~I 1 I~-- -~ r-~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney FROM: Brenda J . Holton ~~ DATE: February 5, 1996 SUBJECT: REVISION OF ORDINANCES PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED Attached is another page one onl for each of the ordinances listed below which were adopted at Board of Supervisors' Meetings on September 27, 1994, May 23, 1995, and November 21, 1995. 1. Ordinance 92794-13 2. Ordinance 52395-17 3. Ordinance 112195-15 The Planning Department has requested that the words "Conditional" be inserted into the titles of these ordinances and paragraphs 1 to more accurately reflect the changes made to the zoning classifications. If anyone needs another copy of the entire ordinance, please let me know. Otherwise, please replace each page one with the attached. Thanks for your help. Attachments ~~ POANp~-~ ~ G ti 2 2 ~ a 1838 MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 703) 772-2005 FAX (703) 772-2193 November 28, 1995 Mr. James T. Phipps, Director Court-Community Corrections Program 516 East Main Street Salem, VA 24153-0869 Dear Mr. Phipps: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 112195-10.c establishing the Court-Community Corrections Regional Community Criminal Justice Board. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, November 21, 1995. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ..~• C:C~e~~ Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors bjh Attachment cc: John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant Administrator C~~~xz~t~ ~~ ~a~x~~~.e ® Regded paper 0~ ROANp~~ .a ti ~ z Z J a~ 1838 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (703) 772.2193 November 22, 1995 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS H. ODELL "FUZZY" MIN NIX, CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NIC KENS VIN TO<`I MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (7031 772-2005 Mr. Guy Byrd, Jr. 5521 Village Drive Roanoke, VA 24014 Dear Mr. Byrd: I am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, November 21, 1995, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you as a member representing the Cave Spring Magisterial District to the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) to serve a four year term. This term began on September 26, 1995, and will expire on September 26, 1999. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed, or re-appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflicts of Interest Act. State law requires that you take an oath of office before the Clerk of the Roanoke County Circuit Court. This oath must be administered prior to your participation on the IDA. Please telephone Steven A. McGraw, at 387-6205, to arrange to have the oath administered and Mr. McGraw has requested that you bring this letter with you. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Very truly yours, I I ~ ~ ~ ~; l ~P ~~ ~ n~ H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors FM/bj h Enclosures cc: Timothy W. Gubala, Secretary/Treasurer, IDA Steven A. McGraw, Clerk of Circuit Court C~~~tx~t~ of ~o~xx~a~P ® Recycled paper O~ ROANp,1.~ i i ti ' 2 ~ ~ 2 v a~ 1838 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (703) 772-2193 November 27, 1995 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX, CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTOI`l MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 The Reverend John Hartwig Good Shepherd Lutheran Church 1887 Electric Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Rev. Hartwig: On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, 1 would like to thank you for offering the invocation at our meeting on Tuesday, November 21, 1995. We believe it is most important to ask for divine guidance at these meetings and the Board is very grateful for your contribution. Thank you again for sharing your time and your words with us. With kindest regards, ~u ~ ~`'`'"`~, `'`~ H. Odell "Furry" Minnix, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ~~~~- ~~ y /`t ~ ~ n.~~ ~~ 1~' ~ - vJ`~ ®Re~yaed Paper C~:o~ixxt#~ o~~ ~o~txro~P OF ROANp,1.~ > i ti 9 z ,7 z v a 1838 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (703) 772-2193 November 28, 1995 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX, CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE•CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY 'vViNOSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTO~; MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (703) 772-2005 Mr. Cecil Reynolds 2629 Edinburg Drive, NW Roanoke, Va 24012 Dear Mr. Reynolds: 1 am sorry that you were unable to attend the November 21st Board Meeting so that we could present you with a resolution of appreciation upon your retirement and personally thank you for your valuable contributions to Roanoke County. I am enclosing your resolution of appreciation and notification that Roanoke County has purchased a $100 Savings bond in recognition of your years of employment with the County. This bond will be forwarded to you from the Federal Reserve Bank at a later date. On behalf of each member of the Board and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept this resolution and savings bond, together with our best wishes for a productive retirement and continued success in the future. Sincerely, / ~~,. ~~~ i-l. Odell "F zz ' Minnix, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors FM/bjh Enclosures cc: D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources Pete Haislip, Director, Parks & Recreation C~~~txtt~ o ~ ~ o~~txr~ ~ e ® Recycled Paper Certificate of Recognition for Howard Bullen -November 21, 1995 - Active in North Roanoke Recrecation Club since 1985 serving as baseball coach every year. - Elected to the North Roanoke Creation Club Board in 1989 - Served as President since 1992 - Appointed to the Roanoke County Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission in 1993. Fuzzy: I need to talk with you regarding the surprise project that you, Mary Hicks and I talked about several weeks ago. Mary Allen 10/13/95 NOTE: It's the only meeting in November---it is also Student Government Day....so it's probably going to be a heavy agenda and a full day with the students all over the place. I think we can present a resolution at the meeting, but I don't know about. having cake, etc. during the meeting. Maybe invite the staff attending the meeting to come up to the fourth floor and have a little reception in the 4th floor conference room. Of course, if we end up have work sessions, that will be a problem also. NOTE TO FILE Talked with Fuzzy. Decided to have a resolution on November 21 Board meeting at 3:00 p.m. Then invite everyone to reception following afternoon session in fourth floor training room. Talked with Mary Hicks -she agreed. We can have punch, peanuts, mints, large cake, decorations, etc. THEN we only need a light dinner that evening. MHA - 10/13/95 - 3:00 p.m. CC: Mary Hicks Printed by Mary Allen / ADM01 10/13/95 --------------------------------------- From: Mary Allen / ADMO1 To: Pete Haislip / GUPO1 Subject: Recognition of Howard Sullen --------------------------------------- ===NOTE________________________________ Bob Johnson asked that Howard Sullen be recognized at the next meeting for his service on the Parks and Recreation Commission. Could you send me information on what type of community service he has been involved in...possibly youth coach, acditivity in recreation clubs, etc. anything you can think of. We will need as soon as possible because we have to send out packets Thursday instea of Friday because of the retreat. Thanks for your help. 2:12pm Page: 1 Printed ~y Mary Allen / ADMO1 10/04/95 --------------------------------------- From: Mary Allen / ADMO1 To: Connie Smith / ADMO1 Subject: fwd: Reso-Retirement --------------------------------------- ===NOTE====------=====10/03/95==9:49am= According to info I received from Brenda. There should be 3 resolutions of Retirement on the Oct. 10 agenda - Clarence Cawley, Herman Fielder and Cecil Reynolds. So far, I have nothing on any of them.. are they still scheduled for Oct. 10? If so, I'll need reso's. Let me know. Fwd=by:=Connie=Smith==10/03/95==5:OOpm= Fwd to: Mary Allen / ADMO1 ....................................... I have been unable to confirm the 10/10 date with these individuals so I'll try reaching them this a d schedule them fo October 24th. I'll email you back w red times. 7:37am ______ ~ , Page: 1 Printed by Mary Allen / ADMO1 11/03/95 9:18am From: Mary Allen / ADMO1 To: Connie Smith / ADMO1 Subject: Retirement Resos --------------------------------------- ===NOTE________________________________ So we can agree on who gets what when...here is my list of retirement recognitions: November 21 Board meeting 3:00 p.m. - Robert Lamb 3:00 p.m. - Cecil Reynolds 3:00 p.m. - Robert Walawsky (will not be present) 7:00 p.m. - Herman Fielder 7:00 p.m. - Gene Grubb December 12 Board Meeting 3:00 p.m - Robert Lipes Still to hear from - Clarence Cawley Certificates of Recognition to be mailed to the following: Clarlie Altice (5/1/95) Walter Vipperman (4/1/95) Roy Crook (3/1/95) Ken Hardesty (7/1/95) I'm working on the November 21 agenda so I want to make sure this is correct. Let me know....THANKS Page: 1 Pr2nted•by Mary Allen / ADM01 11/02/95 7:38am From: Connie Smith / ADMO1 To: Brenda Holton / ADMO1, Mary Allen / ADMO1 Subject: Retirement Resolutions Status NOTE====------=====11/01/95==4:38pm= The following retirees would like to be recognized at the 11/21 Board meeting: Robert Lamb, 3 PM Herman Fielder, 7 PM I have left messages for the remaining retires: Gene Grubb Cecil Reynolds Clarence Cawley The family member that took these messages said that they would have the above listed retirees return the call to me. As soon as I hear from them, I will follow-up by e-mail. I will deliver to you on 11/2 the employment histories on all of the above listed, as well as the following: Charlie Altice - retired 5/1/95 Walter Vipperman - retired 4/1/95 Roy Crook - retired 3/1/95 Ken Hardesty - retired 7/1/95 This brings us up to date. Thanks Page: 1 o ~~ q ~' Z ~~~, 9 X11 / 1:14 pm Re: October 10 Board Meeting Connie has scheduled three retirements. She will get information and savings bonds. . Clarence W. Cawley, Deputy Sheriff - Sgt Civic Division, 3/1/95 2. H~rman D. Fielder, Deputy Sheriff - Corrections Division, 6/30/95 3. Cecil C. Reynolds, Jr., Parks Maintenance, 8/31/95 Brenda &~I- ~~ Primted~by Mary Allen / ADM01 10/03/95 9:42am From: Mary Allen / ADMO1 To: Connie Smith / ADMO1 Subject: Reso-Retirement --------------------------------------- ===NOTE________________________________ According to info I received from Brenda. There should be 3 resolutions of Retirement on the Oct. 10 agenda - Clarence Cawley, Herman Fielder and Cecil Reynolds. So far, I have nothing on any of them.. are they still scheduled for Oct. 10? If so, I'll need reso's. Let me know. Page: 1 Prin4:ec~ ',~.y Mary Allen / ADM01 11/02/95 4:32pm ~~ --------------------------------------- From: Connie Smith / ADMO1 To: Brenda Holton / ADMO1, Mary Allen / ADMO1 Subject: fwd: Retirement Resolutions Status ===NOTE====------=====11/02/95==9:25am= Please include the following two names to your list for resolutions: Cecil Reynolds, 3 PM //_..~/ Gene Grubb, 7 PM I am still waiting to hear back from Clarence Cawley. Mr. Cawley is the only other retiree that we need to possibly include for the November Board meeting. Once he responds, we will be all caught up on the public appearences. I will have all employment status data for those to be officially recognized and those to be mailed to Brenda today. Have a great day! Fwd=by:=Mary=Allen=/==11/02/95=11:04am= Fwd to: Connie Smith / ADMO1 ....................................... Thanks....can you send us the information on Bob Walasky also so we can get his resolution prepared even thought he's not going to come. We can get the other information from Arnold....it sounds like we're finally going to clear these out - thanks for your help! Fwd=by:=Connie=Smith==11/02/95=11:09am= Fwd to: Mary Allen / ADMO1 ....................................... I'll include Mr. Walasky's employment data. Prin~ed`k~y Mary Allen / ADM01 11/02/95 4:32pm The tim Fwd=by:=Connie=Smith==11/02/95==2:49pm= Fwd to: Mary Allen / ADMO1 ....................................... He wants the 3 PM meeting so he can see how many Social Services employees will attend. Smile!! Page: 2 EGK rn~ F~ M E M O RAN D U M To: Board of Supervisors ~~~ From: Elmer C. Hodge Date: August 30, 1995 Subject: Quarterly Performance Reporting Mr. Eddy has prepared several memos offering his thoughts about departmental mission statements and objectives as presented in the Quarterly Performance Report. These comments are appreciated and will be considered as development of this document continues. While the concept of performance measurement and reporting has been around for a number of years, it is becoming more prominent at all levels of government as public officials strive to allocate limited resources in the most effective manner possible. Mission statements, objectives, action plans, workload and performance measures, as presented in the Roanoke County Workload and Performance Report, were developed by each operating department. The difficulty for many departments in formulating mission statements and objectives was the absence of a County mission statement. It is essential that operating departments know exactly what the County-wide philosophy is when delivering services to customers. I would like to see the adoption of a County mission statement that would provide the foundation for departmental mission statements. Perhaps we can develop this as a natural outcome of the visioning process now under way. Copies of Mr. Eddy's comments will be forwarded to department heads for comparison with their internally developed mission and objectives. After that, I would like to schedule a work session with the Board for approval and adoption. ECH/WBR/meh t ' o~ ROANp~~ a ~ ~ A z ~ ~ 2 °v a~ 1838 PAUL M. MAHONEY COUNTY ATTORNEY C~~~~~ ~~ ~~x~~.~~e OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY October 20, 1995 JOSEPH B. OBENSHAIN SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY VICKIE L. HUFFMAN ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY Ms. Mary B. Persinger, R.N., B.S.N. Rt. 1, Box 623 Blue Ridge, VA 24064 Re: Massage Parlor Ordinance Roanoke County Code Dear Ms. Persinger: I am enclosing for your review a draft of proposed changes to Chapter 11, "Massage Parlors," of the Roanoke County Code which would exempt legitimate massage therapists with sufficient hours of certified training from the prohibitions of that ordinance. These changes would also exempt massages administered in a medical setting or under the direction or supervision of a licensed health care professional. Trained or certified massage therapists exempted by these changes would still be subject to the ordinary business license tax requirements of Roanoke County. These licensing requirements apply to anyone who undertakes to render a business or professional service in this county. There is an exclusion contained in Sec. 10-36(a) of the county's licensing ordinance, Chapter 10, "Licenses," which may exempt individuals working only part-time or who otherwise earn less than $3,000.00 per year from their business activity. This ordinance is being circulated to other county departments which may have an interest in this area including the Health Department and the Police Department. It is my hope to present these amendments to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors at their November 21st meeting for a first vote. If passed by the Board at that meeting and at their December meeting, these amendments would become effective on January 1, 1996. P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2007 ® Recycled Paper Ms. Mary B. Persinger, R.N., B.S.N Page Two October 20, 1995 Please feel free to contact me with any thoughts or concerns which you might have. Roanoke County appreciates your interest in this matter and your efforts to inform our board members as to the need for changes to the current ordinance. Sincerely yours, ~, . ~~~l~~G. Jo~ h B. Obenshain, Es . P q Senior Assistant County Attorney cc: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator Paul M. Mahoney, Esq., County Attorney Mary H. Allen, Clerk to the Board Attached letter also sent to the following: Ms. Diane O'Daniel, L.M.T. The Balancing Touch c/o Grandin Galleria 1402 Grandin Road Roanoke, VA 24015 Jade Daniels, L.M.T. 1414 Franklin Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24016 Mr. Bill K. Niles 4449 Branderwood Drive Roanoke, VA 24014 Massage Therapies of Southwest Virginia 1317 3rd St., S.W. Roanoke, VA 24016 New Life Therapies c/o Lancerlot Sports Complex 1111 Vinyard Rd. Vinton, VA 24179 Bud Gray, Vice President ROANOKE ATHLETIC CLUB 4508 Starkey Road Roanoke, VA 24014 Corey Everson Fitness Center 4108 Electric Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24014 Classic Designers 2010 Electric Road Roanoke, VA 24018 '. ROANOKE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 772-2071 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Joseph B. Obenshain "~~' Ga Senior Assistant Coun Attorne tY Y DATE: October 19, 1995 SUBJECT: Massage Ordinance amendments -Cross-gender massage Attached is a first draft of amendments to the Counts Massage Parlor Ordinance, Chapter 11 of the Roanoke County Code, which would exempt certain qualified or supervised massage therapists from the restrictions of the current ordinance. Responding to a request made at your last board meeting, I was able to allocate several hours this week to draft these proposed changes. However, this has not permitted sufficient time to circulate this draft ordinance to other county departments impacted by these changes nor to interested citizens and businesses in advance of the October 24th meeting. I have drafted a memo and forwarded this draft to the Commonwealth's Attorney, Dr. Rutledge at the Health Department and to Chief Cease for their review and comments. I have also sent letters containing the draft ordinance to approximately a dozen interested citizens and businesses. I have requested all parties to contact me by November 1st with any comments or objections so that I can have this ordinance in final form for your November 21st meeting. This will still permit a January 1, 1996, effective date should the Board pass these amendments at its November and December meetings. If you are aware of other individuals who have expressed interest in amendments to this ordinance or if you have questions or concerns, please contact me or my secretary, Wanda Riley. Attachment D G3 G^~ ff ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 11- 1. DEFINITIONS, SECTIONS 11- OF CHAPTER 11 MASSAGE PARLORS OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO PERMIT CROSS-GENDER MASSAGES BY QUALIFIED MASSAGE THERAPISTS WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke adopted an ordinance in 1971 to regulate the abuse of massage administered by members of the opposite sex; and WHEREAS, the use of massage therapies and techniques is a legitimate treatment of the external parts of the human body to promote physical health and fitness and to assist in rehabilitation efforts which has existed for many centuries; and WHEREAS, legitimate massage therapist have organized professional groups such as the American Massage Therapy Association and developed detailed standards for education and training of those individuals who wish to practice this beneficial craft; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, wishes to modify its current Massage Parlor ordinance so as not to unfairly restrict the bona fide activities of legitimate massage therapists and those administering massage as part of a medically recognized program of treatment; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 21, 1995; and the second reading and public hearing for this ordinance was be held on December 12, 1995. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County 1 of Roanoke, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Chapter 11, MASSAGE PARLORS of the Roanoke County Code be amended and reenacted as follows: SEC. 11-1. Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section, unless clearly indicated to the contrary: Massage: A method of treating the external parts of the human body for comfar~ or! the,, general well being of the bv~ly....'p~ for remedial or hygienic purposes, consisting of rubbing, stroking, kneading or tapping or vibrating with the hand or any instrument. Massage parlor: Any establishment having a fixed place of business where any person administers or gives a Turkish, Swedish, vapor, sweat, electric, salt, magnetic or any other kind or character of massage, bath, alcohol rub, fomentation, manipulation 2 :!(<!:::i~~~::isi::iiiii:::'•:•'v:::::::f:::}i:.:::jK::.::•.•..::<.::[:iiiii}i::::::j::i::i::i::i:::: ~'vv::::•i:::i::i:::::.i::: iiiiii:^i'.i:: '4iiiiiiii}i?X.^i}ii`}?ii"r.ii: ii:^iiiiiii:: •.:: '.i:i}i:titiv'^i}i::: :ivviii:^iii}ii:^iiiii'ri'i:.ii:viiiiiiiiiii}i}i}ii"S.?iiiiiii}ii}i}i: ':i:^:i: ..:.iiiii..:. .:. '.ii:':: :::y: ::.iiiii: .. .: "viiiiiiiii: :iiiiii: ...: ..: ... '•i:U iii...:... ire.::::.~dm;~n~.stered......Qx~~.. .::::<~o::;::» the:::>::::::>s~a~: :::~~a::<::»::::~a~:e:::<:::>::»::~~;e:::::::::::::z~e~~:::::<:::>::ax : :::.::::::::::::.:::.::::...... ::::::::::::::::~..:::::::: :.::::::::.:.:....::::::::::::::::::::::P.t::.:::::::.:..:..::::::::::::::::::::.::.r..:.::::::::::::.:.:::.~:.~:::.:~:::::::::::::::::::::::.: ~hc~u~.ders`<«...Fu~th~e~:::»>:~~::~:::>::de ~ ;;::>sh i ....::: <::>:> ::»::<:»>:«::<:>::>:«:::>:>:::::.::::>::::::>:>::::>:«<.:'.>:.:; .;;iiiiiiiii:.:.:.:.iiii:.i:.i:.i:.:;.i:.i:< ;:.ii:.i:::.;i:.iii::::::.iiiii.;:.;:.;' <.:.;:.;::.iiii:;.ii:.iii'::.:::::::.i:.iiiii.;:.i:.;':.i:.ii:.i:.:.:;.:.:.;:.;;:.i:.;i:.;:.;:.i:.:.:;;:.;:.ii:.iii:.iiiiii:.:;.:.:'ii:.i: .:.. :.: .. .>:.>:.>:.>~ ~: .. :.. .>.:.....::::::.~.~.~.:.....:;.::::..: ...::::::::..:.......:...: .. ::.,: ...: ...;.>:.>:.>:...:. :~: ~: ~::;.»>:.:..:. ...::.:.......iii:•;r...,...:...;....:...: .. :... :.:::::: r.: ... ::: > :~:. ::::~s~...:c:a.atz~~.........~r.......a~......exerc~s.~;::>::::>:~~u~>::>>::::~t~Z.e~-e::>:;: ~a~:~~ a::>::»:::~s erforzae ::.:;.:~ a.:::;>. e~sc~n......~f::::>:~h.~:::><::s:az~e:::>::::>:sew a~:::>::»#~~.:::::::sul~:.act:::::>o:f::<:>:<th Y.::::::::::::P::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..:.:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.: ................................................~.........................:................ .;.:::.:;:::.::::.:>::>:>~::.::.:.:;.::.,:.:. ..: i':.i'.>:;::.;i::.:':.:.i: '.i:.i:.;:.;:.;:.i.:.;:.;:.;:.;:.i:::::;: i>.:.i:.i;:...:'.:::.:.::.;:.;::.;':.;:.i:.i:.i:.i:.i:.:.;:.:.:.:.::.;;'.;:.;:.;::.;i::'.;:.i::.i:.i:.;:.;:.;:.;':..:i:.;i'.:.:>.:::..::.i:.i:.:.:.:.:::.i:.i:.::: ermzt;,::~,s:>::::issued unifier.;:;~hz~...cha ~e~<:~gr...~heQ :er~~~~i~?<v.~>:a::mss:sue e _. ........................... parlor,.; ........................................................................................................... Massage technician: Any persons z.z~clud~ng, `taut `;nod 1'm?t~~d Sec. 11-7. List of massage technicians to be displayed. raj; Every person holding a massage parlor permit issued under this chapter shall display, in a conspicuous place at such parlor, a list of all massage technicians employed in the parlor. 3 re :~s:~~r eanta~.n~.n :.~h~::~am~:>:a,nd..~a;~:::'cif..~m .~~ zaeri~::°4~'<~~~h<mass~> e t ~> e. hn~.~:~.an...:em 10..;:~d>»~.~i::`::'G~ie'> ar~.:v~.....far >a,.::>: ~~aad.....Q:f:`>a~+a::< ::....:..::..::>< P:.:.:.:.Y .:::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::P.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: , ,, .:::::::~?:::::::::.:.::::::::::::::.~.:~:::::::::.::.:..:.:.::.:.:~~~~:... :::>::>::>::>::»;:.;.::::::::: ;;:.;:.;;::.;::.;::.: ; ....................................................................................................... . ~u~h ~e z~t~r..shali:`:b~;::~~:~.a.la~al.e ~Qx-.i.ns ectavn:ki:`.::::t~Ze>I~~~ect~>>>:v sec. 11-9. Massage of person of the opposite sex. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to administer, to any person of the opposite sex any massage, any alcohol rub or similar treatment, any fomentation, any bath or any electric or magnetic treatment, nor shall any person cause or permit in or about his place of business, or in connection with his business, any agent, employee or servant or any other person under his control or supervision to administer any such treatment to any person of the opposite sex. (b) This section shall not apply to any treatment administered in good faith by a physician, surgeon, chiropractor, osteopath or physical therapist duly licensed by the Commonwealth .o~.,r~nz:a or ........................................ ......................................... to a licensed nurse acting under the direct prescription and direction of any such physician, surgeon, chiropractor or 4 a~~y to barbers or beauticians who give massage to the scalp, the face, the neck or the shoulders only. .......................... ........................... ~~rl o>~> ............................ .......................... mas:s~: ~'ati>an ... ~~~~~n:.;the...count::::r~ther...~h~~....v..r~:~.he rem~,~~~...~r: 9' .........................Y...P.............................................................~ ...............................................................:...:P:::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::.:::.:::. ............................................................................................................................................................................ ::::::: parlor perznzt ~.s~ue~`, pu~suaz~~ to .th~s>: chapter S~c..~.1` ~.~. > Employment o€ ~oAqua~ifa.ed'tec~lxt~:C~,~t~,, Zt!,` sha~.I be! unlawful for> any ',4peratar>.to emplQy<or perma.t the employment +~f, a zaassag~e technica.an whoa dv~s.. not ,cvmp~y ~~.th the standards estab7~.shed by>, thzs chapter'+ Sec. 11'-15.Right of entry of Health :Depax~ment A~rectoz. The Directcr, ar his designee, a:s he!~eby atzth4~a.zed ta: ent~x„ No,.minors shall be ~mp~.%yed b~ or. perz~ittec~ 4n:the . ....::::::::: premises.::>.o any,.massage parlor a~ any tzmet Sec 11-27. Application generally. (a) Any person desiring a permit to operate a massage parlor shall make application to the Director. Such application shall be accompanied 5 €~s~a_ _--_-- ----__-- the sum of a>tz~~n~e>~~>`:::~:~:ft:.:: dollars = ~ .k~ y ....................... ( $2a~~f~~-A-~6) , such sum to cover the cost of investigation by the .....................: ....................... s~rcr? f f ~ ^_ d-er ~= }~_„} and the health and other departments. (b) An application submitted pursuant to this section shall contain 'lie foilaw~,zg: ................................................. ................................................. (1) The full name, age, height, ........................................................................................................... weight, s'ex, ~alv~+vf eyes and hazrj present address of ...................................................................................................................................................... the applicant, anc~, a curx-ezt pcs~txa~t photograph': ±af ;:the: ,., , applicant ;,gsvzng a' clear va.'ew' of the applzcant's face: Sec. 11-29. Issuance. Within tha.rty n (!~~34 days of the receipt of an application under this article, the Director shall issue the permit if he shall find that: (1) The premises to be used or constructed meet the 6 ........................... requirements of the current building code, as reported by ...................... the groper administrative officers of the county; .....................:: ...................... (2) The applicant's facilities comply with the requirements of this chapter; (3~ Furthe~a~i~d~ca:l e~~z~~n~tzr~n Qr x~a~n~~nt>p~ the. apg~<a..ca ~:>::>:: and e~p~.cy~d, massage techn~:~a.and~.s::nc~~`neede~l:: (~€3~) The experience and knowledge of the applicant are such that the operation of the proposed massage parlor will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the patrons; (~~-) The information in the application is truthful. sec. 11-47. Application. Any person who desires to secure a massage technician's permit 7 .~ ~ ~ ~ 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after January 1, 1996. 8 ROANOKE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 772-2071 MEMORANDUM TO: Francis W. (Skip) Burkart, Commonwealth's Attorney Dr. Molly Rutledge, Health Department Director Chief John H. Cease, Roanoke County Police Department R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue FROM: Joseph B. Obenshain ~~~~L~ - ~1`{1~~~.,i~w C Senior Assistant County Attorney DATE: October 18, 1995 SUBJECT: Massage Ordinance Amendments -Cross-Gender Massage Attached are proposed amendments to the county's current Massage Parlor ordinance which would specifically exempt massage therapists with 500 in-class hours in an approved curriculum and massages administered in a physician's office or under the control or supervision of a licensed health care professional. These amendments are the result of several inquiries to Board members by legitimate massage therapists who are concerned about the status of their activities under the current county code language. I would appreciate your, or your staffs, review of these proposed changes. If you have any suggestions or objections, please forward them to my attention not later than November 1st. I anticipate placing these amendments on the Board's November 21st agenda with the expectation that, if passed, they would go into effect on January 1, 1996. I will also be sending these amendments to interested individuals and to businesses such as the Roanoke Athletic Club (RAC) which may currently be providing, or have an interest in providing, massage therapy on their premises. Please feel free to contact me with your thoughts or concerns. Attachment cc: Elmer C. Hodge Paul M. Mahoney, Esq. Mary H. Allen, Clerk 0~ ROANp~.~ ~. z J a 1838 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (703) 772-2004 October 27, 1995 f - ~ I~ ~ .. O I '~ ~ I F r ~. C~~a~xx~ ~ ~. ~ .~#~ ~..~~xxr~.~.~ P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (703) 772-21 93 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX, CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VIN TON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 1703) 772-2005 Mr. B. Clayton Goodman, III Vinton Town Manager P. O. Box 338 Vinton, Virginia 24179 Dear Clay: Your letter of October 16 requested a memorandum of understanding regarding the County's commitment to provide potable water to Vinton at the Town's then-effective water rate if the Town's wells become contaminated by the fly ash being used as fill material at the Foodette convenience store at the corner of Feather Road and Washington Avenue. We do not think there will be any impact on the wells, but if there is, the Board's position is that APCo and the property owner will be expected to pay all costs. I plan to take your request for assurance to the Board at its November 21 meeting if you would like to attend, and I will call you to discuss the Board report before it is distributed. Very truly yours, -. / ~.,~/ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ECH/meh cc - Board of Supervisors Ms. Mary H. Allen, Clerk; Board of Supervisors Mr. Danny L. Gray, P.E., President; KBK Enterprises, Inc. Mr. Gerald W. Fairchild, Foodette Store owner ® Recycled Paper t County Administrators Budget Manager Clerk, Board of Supervisors Clerk, Circuit Court Commissioner of Revenue Commonwealth Attorney Community Relations County Administrator County Attorney Court Services Development Services Economic Development Engineering and Inspections Finance Fire & Rescue General Services Health Department Human Resources Library Management Wormation Systems Parks and Recreation Planning and Zoning Police Procurement Real Estate Assessment Registrar School Administration Sheriff Social Services Treasurer Utility VPI & SU Extension Youth Haven II DISTRIBUTION LIST John Chambliss Don blvers Brent ,2obertson Mary Allen Steve McGraw Wayne Compton Skip Burkart Anne Marie Green Elmer Hodge Paulbiahoney Mike Lazzuri Gardner Smith Tim Gubala Arnold Covey Diane Hyatt Tommy Fuqua Bill Rand Dr. Margaret Rutledge Keith Cook Spencer Watts Oscar Bryant Pete Haislip Terry Harrington John Cease Elaine Carver John Birckhead Elizabeth Leah Dr. Deanna Gordon Gerald Holt Dr. Betty McCrary Fred Anderson Gary Robertson Jean Vandergrift Beverly Waldo COUNTY OF ROANOKE MEMORANDUM DATE: October 24, 1995 TO: Board of Supervisors County Administrator Constitutional Officers ,~r~ Department Heads r~,' (~-N- " tl' ~l''G FROM: Anne Marie Green ~,~'`~" Director, Community~elations RE: Student Government Day It's that time of year again -time for Student Government Day. That year really went quickly, didn't it? Actually, we have moved Student Government Day to the fall, which works better with the school curriculum, and will be easier on staff without the budget process going forward at the same time. Student Government Day will be November 21, which is the only Board meeting in November. As usual, I will be meeting with the students prior to that day, and will let you know what topics will be planned for the mock Board meeting. cc: David Wymer, Roanoke County Schools Federal subsidy City subsidy State subsidy Total budget Valley Metro Funding 1994-95 1995-96 Difference $954,624 $764,604 ($190,020) 407,816 671,432 263,616 717,129 730,296 13,167 3,677,928 3,624,876 (53,052) C~~~xx~~ ~~ ~~cx~~.~.~ P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE MARY H. ALLEN, CMC ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 CLERK TO THE BOARD ~ (703) 772-2005 ! FAX (703) 772-2193 November 9, 1995 Mr. Howard Bullen 528 Petty Avenue Roanoke, VA 24019 Dear Mr. Bullen: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK The Board of Supervisors would like to recognize your service on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission at their meeting on November 21, 1995 at 3:00 p.m. We hope you will be able to attend to receive a Certificate of Recognition. Please call me at 772-2003 by Thursday, November 16 and let me know if you will be joining us. Thank you. Sincerely, ri~s~ ~ Q.e~r-.~ Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors CC: Bob L Johnson ®R P~ LEGAL NOTICE ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 21, 1995, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission to amend provisions of the subdivision regulations to delete references to specific street design standards which are to be addressed in a separate design standards manual. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: November 1, 1995 .~• ~ i~c~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, November 7, 1995 Tuesday, November 14, 1995 Direct the bill for publication to: Roanoke County Engineering Department Attn: Arnold Covey PO Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (540) 772-2080 SEND AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANORE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BO% 29800, ROANORE, VA 24018 LEGAL NOTICE ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 21, 1995, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Marta Sayers to rezone 1.146 acres from R-1 & C-1 to R-1 & C-2 to operate a personal services facility, located at 3142 Brambleton Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: November 1, 1995 ' l L~~c~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, November 7, 1995 Tuesday, November 14, 1995 Direct the bill for publication to: Marta Sayers c/o Jolly Place Fralin & Prillaman PO Box 20487 Roanoke, VA 24018 (540) 989-0000 SEND AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANORE COIINTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANORE~ VA 24018 LEGAL NOTICE ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF 3UPERVISORB The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 21, 1995, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of IUE Local 162, Inc. to rezone 1.109 acres from R-1 to C-1 to construct an office/meeting hall, located at the west side of Shadwell Drive, 900 feet south of Route 11, Hollins Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: November 1, 1995 ~,L~~~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, November 7, 1995 Tuesday, November 14, 1995 Direct the bill for publication to: IUE Local 162, Inc. c/o Ed Natt Osterhoudt Ferguson Natt Aheron & Agee P.O. Box 20068 Roanoke, VA 24018 (540) 774-1197 SEND AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANORE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BO% 29800, ROANORE, VA 24018 F ~ ANp'YR ` ~ z ~ 2 ou a~ 1 38 MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD ~~~~# ~a~ ~~x~~.~~ P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2005 FAX (703) 772-2193 November 9, 1995 The Reverend John Hartwig Good Shepherd Lutheran Church 1887 Electric Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Reverend Hartwig: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK This letter will confirm our telephone conversation of today. Thank you for agreeing to present the invocation at the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Meeting on Tuesday, November 21, 1995, at 3:00 p.m. The Roanoke County Administration Center is located at 5204 Bernard Drive (the old Traveler's Insurance Building). directly behind Shoney's off Route 419. The Board Meeting room is on the first floor opposite the elevators, and visitors' parking is in front of the building. I appreciate very much your willingness to be with us on November 21th. If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at 772-2005. Sincerely, G.. Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ®~ NOVEMBER 21, 1995 AGENDA ITEMS Request for an appropriation of $40,000 to fund sanitary sewer, electric utility line and water well at 6231 Twine Hollow Road, (Dixie Caverns Landfill Site) for a joint firearms training facility with the City of Roanoke 2. Adoption of a resolution establishing the Court-Conununity Corrections Regional Community Criminal Justice Board Request for an appropriation of $5,000 to install a new Courthouse locking system 4. Request to approve Amendments to the Length of Service Awards Program for Volunteer Fire, Rescue and Police Auxiliary Personnel 5, Response to the To The Rescue letter to board members __-. /' // rcn-~ JOHN C~A~+eL.~JJ Printed~b'y Mary Allen / ADM01 10/03/95 8:44am --------------------------------------- From: Mary Allen / ADMOl To: LIBRARY @ PSTHASTE (LIBRARY EMPLOYEES) Subject: Library Anniversary --------------------------------------- ===NOTE====---------- _~~ - This is r Spenc r Watts... was looking i da-~' and found a note that said a talked on June 12 and you wanted a esolution in October recognizing the 0th anniversary of the Library. Do you know when you will be celebrating sow can schedule resol for Board meetin ~ `~-) Page: 1 ~F p,OANp~~ ti p ~ 2 ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY °v a~ raaa 3131 Er..ECrRIC ROAD • ROANOKE, VIRGIMA 24018 • (703) 772-7507 • FAX (703) 772-2131 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~OARD OF TRUSTEES D ~~~~~ a ~ ~ uG~ i May 24, 1995 Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Administration Center 5204 Bernard Dr. SW Roanoke, VA 24018 Re: Establishment of the Library Dear Ms. Allen: On behalf of the members of the Board of Trustees of the Roanoke County Public Library system, I would like to express our appreciation for your research to help determine an appropriate date to mark the establishment of the Library. Your thorough review of the minutes of the Board of Supervisors, as well as ancillary archival material, proved to be of great assistance during subsequent discussions among the Trustees and staff and added insights that will be included when a formal history of the Library is developed. As the Library celebrates more than fifty years of service to the citizens of Roanoke County, the Board of Trustees and the staff look forward to exciting changes and new directions. We also look back with pride to a most significant past. Please accept our thanks for all your efforts to help us commemorate this event. ~//v2 - ~~~ ~e_oD ,~fl ~ -, ~ ~ ~o-~_°° Q- ~~ ~ a~ i v /0/9-~, `~ ~ h~ c: H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix Chairman, Board of Supervisors Sincerely, o-s,~ , Dr. Norm Jean Peters chairman PUBLIC NOTICE Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, at its meeting on November 21, 1995, at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia, at the evening session beginning at 7:00 p.m. will hold a public hearing on the following: PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE 112288-7 (PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENTS) All members of the public interested in the matter set forth above may appear and be heard at the time and place aforesaid. A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file and is available for public inspection in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, whose office is located 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia. _ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Roanoke County, Virginia Publish on the following dates: November 19, 1995 Send invoice to: Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 ATTENTION: MRS. MARY ALLEN a -yr~ ~ ~ . ~, ,~~ , . a,~ COURT COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROGRAM Offices: Administrative Office 516 East Main Sheet Salem, VA 24153 (540)387-5230 Roanoke City Office Jefferson Center 541 Luck Avenue Suite 300 Roanoke, VA 24016 (540) 857-6041 Allegheny Highlands Office Allegheny Co. Courthouse Covington, VA 24426 (540)965-0340 Rockbridge Office 2044 Sycamore Avenue Buena Vista, VA 24416 (540)261-6281 Lexington Office 15 Court House Square Lexington, VA 24450 (540)463-7012 A D V I S O R Y TO: Elmer Hodge County Administrator County of oke FROM: Jim Phi ps DATE: October 3 1995 SUBJ: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE - Regional Community Criminal Justice Board I am required to forward a copy of the above referenced ordinance, supporting the joint action of the jurisdictions within this region and adopted by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, to the Department of Criminal Justice Services by December 1, 1995. I had previously provided you with a reference version of an ordinance, along with the most recent Bylaws, developed and proposed by criminal justice professionals throughout the region. However, to meet the requirements of the Department of Criminal Justice Services, I need to provide them with copies of the ordinances adopted by each of the participating jurisdictions. I appreciate your assistance in this regard. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me (Office Telephone 540-387-5230/FAX 540-387- 5570). cc: Sheriff Gerald Holt File Serving the Twenty-third and Tiuenty-fifth Judicial Circuit and District Courts RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE ESTABLISHING, BY JOINT ACTION OF THE BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTIES OF ALLEGHANY, BATH, BOTETOURT, CRAIG, AND ROCKBRIDGE, AND THE COUNCILS OF THE CITIES OF BUENA VISTA, CLIFTON FORGE, COVINGTON, LEXINGTON, ROANOKE, AND SALEM, THE COURT-COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS REGIONAL COMMUNITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD. WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly has adopted legislation titled the Comprehensive Community- Corrections Act for Local-Responsible Offenders (§53.1- 180 et.sea of the Code of Virginia) and the Pretrial Services Act (§19.2-152.2 et. sea. of the Code of Virginia), both of which were effective July 1, 1995; and, WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly has previously enacted the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program (§18.2-271.1 et. sea. of the Code of Virginia); and, WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act for Local-Responsible Offenders, the Pretrial Services Act, and the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program require the appointment of representatives in establishing a Board to administer the programs; and, 1 WHEREAS, the Code of Virginia requires the localities to submit a Community-based Corrections Plan to the Department of Corrections in order to receive reimbursement for eligible costs of jail construction; and, WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act for Local-Responsible Offenders and the Pretrial Services Act both mandate that any locality required to submit a Community-based Corrections Plan is further required to establish Community Corrections Programs and Pretrial Services Programs; and, WHEREAS, the Court-Community Corrections Program has provided the criminal justice systems within these localities with sentencing alternatives for certain non- violent felons and misdemeanors since July of 1980; and, WHEREAS, the establishment of a multi-jurisdictional Court-Community Corrections Regional Community Criminal Justice Board will result in a reduction in the program's administrative costs, enhanced funding priorities, the continuation of cost-beneficial dispositional alternatives to the judicial system, increased input of criminal justice professionals within program strategies, without increasing the threat to public safety; and, WHEREAS, the City of Salem has agreed to serve as the administrative and fiscal agent for the aforementioned programs. 2 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke: 1. That the County of Roanoke will implement the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act for Local-Responsible Offenders and the Pretrial Services Act as provided herein; 2. That the existing Court-Community Corrections Program be responsible for the continuation of services to the judicial system, including the implementation of the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act for Local-Responsible Offenders and the Pretrial Services Act, and the continued administration of the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program; 3. That it hereby establishes the Court-Community Corrections Regional Community Criminal Justice Board (the Board) hereby appointed pursuant to §53.1-183 of the Code of Virginia; 4. That the representatives of the Regional Board will be agreed to and appointed jointly by each participating locality as follows: a. one representative designated by the judges of the Twenty-third and Twenty- fifth Judicial Circuits; 3 b. one representative designated by the judges of the Twenty-third and Twenty- fifth Judicial General District Courts; c. one representative designated by the judges of the Twenty-third and Twenty- fifth Judicial Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts; d. one Commonwealth's Attorney designated by mutual agreement of the Commonwealth's Attorneys serving the jurisdiction of the Regional Board; e. one Chief Magistrate designated by mutual agreement of those serving within the jurisdiction of the Regional Board; f. one Chief of Police designated by mutual agreement of those serving within the jurisdiction of the Regional Board; g. the Sheriff of the County of Alleghany; h. the Sheriff of the County of Botetourt; i. the Sheriff of the County of Roanoke; j. the Sheriff of the City of Roanoke; k. the Jail Superintendent of the Rockbridge Regional Jail; 1. the Public Defender of the City of Roanoke; 4 m. one defense attorney practicing criminal law and recommended by the Roanoke City Bar Association; n. one member of local education from the Twenty-third Judicial Circuit and District; o. one member of local education from the Twenty-fifth Judicial Circuit and District; p. one member of a Community Services Board serving the Twenty-third Judicial Circuit and District; q. one member selected by agreement of the Community Services Boards serving the Twenty-fifth Judicial Circuit and District; r. one member representing the Department of Social Services serving the Twenty-third Judicial Circuit and District; s. one General District Court Clerk designated by mutual agreement of the clerks serving the Twenty-third and Twenty-fifth Judicial Districts; and, t. one representative designated by the fiscal agent of the Regional Board. 5 5. That the Court-Community Corrections Regional Board shall have those powers and duties prescribed by the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act for Local- Responsible Offenders, the Pretrial Services Act, and the Commission on VASAP. 6 I~ RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE ESTABLISHING, BY JOINT ACTION OF THE BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTIES OF ALLEGHANY, BATH, BOTETOURT, CRAIG, AND ROCKBRIDGE, AND THE COUNCILS OF THE CITIES OF BUENA VISTA, CLIFTON FORGE, COVINGTON, LEXINGTON, ROANOKE, AND SALEM, THE COURT-COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS REGIONAL COMMUNITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD. WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly has adopted legislation titled the Comprehensive Community- Corrections Act for Local-Responsible Offenders (§53.1- 180 et.sea of the Code of Virginia) and the Pretrial Services Act (§19.2-152.2 et. sea. of the Code of Virginia), both of which were effective July 1, 1995; and, WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly has previously enacted the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program (§18.2-271.1 et. sea. of the Code of Virginia); and, WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act for Local-Responsible Offenders, the Pretrial Services Act, and the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program require the appointment of representatives in establishing a Board to administer the programs; and, 1 WHEREAS, the Code of Virginia requires the localities to submit a Community-based Corrections Plan to the Department of Corrections in order to receive reimbursement for eligible costs of jail construction; and, WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act for Local-Responsible Offenders and the Pretrial Services Act both mandate that any locality required to submit a Community-based Corrections Plan is further required to establish Community Corrections Programs and Pretrial Services Programs; and, WHEREAS, the Court-Community Corrections Program has provided the criminal justice systems within these localities with sentencing alternatives for certain non- violent felons and misdemeanors since July of 1980; and, WHEREAS, the establishment of amulti-jurisdictional Court-Community Corrections Regional Community Criminal Justice Board will result in a reduction in the program's administrative costs, enhanced funding priorities, the continuation of cost-beneficial dispositional alternatives to the judicial system, increased input of criminal justice professionals within program strategies, without increasing the threat to public safety; and, WHEREAS, the City of Salem has agreed to serve as the administrative and fiscal agent for the aforementioned programs. 2 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke: 1. That the County of Roanoke will implement the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act for Local-Responsible Offenders and the Pretrial Services Act as provided herein; 2. That the existing Court-Community Corrections Program be responsible for the continuation of services to the judicial system, including the implementation of the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act for Local-Responsible Offenders and the Pretrial Services Act, and the continued administration of the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program; 3. That it hereby establishes the Court-Community Corrections Regional Community Criminal Justice Board (the Board) hereby appointed pursuant to §53.1-183 of the Code of Virginia; 4. That the representatives of the Regional Board will be agreed to and appointed jointly by each participating locality as follows: a. one representative designated by the judges of the Twenty-third and Twenty- fifth Judicial Circuits; 3 b. one representative designated by the judges of the Twenty-third and Twenty- fifth Judicial General District Courts; c. one representative designated by the judges of the Twenty-third and Twenty- fifth Judicial Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts; d. one Commonwealth's Attorney designated by mutual agreement of the Commonwealth's Attorneys serving the jurisdiction of the Regional Board; e. one Chief Magistrate designated by mutual agreement of those serving within the jurisdiction of the Regional Board; f. one Chief of Police designated by mutual agreement of those serving within the jurisdiction of the Regional Board; g. the Sheriff of the County of Alleghany; h. the Sheriff of the County of Botetourt; i. the Sheriff of the County of Roanoke; j. the Sheriff of the City of Roanoke; k. the Jail Superintendent of the Rockbridge Regional Jail; 1. the Public Defender of the City of Roanoke; 4 m. one defense attorney practicing criminal law and recommended by the Roanoke City Bar Association; n. one member of local education from the Twenty-third Judicial Circuit and District; o. one member of local education from the Twenty-fifth Judicial Circuit and District; p. one member of a Community Services Board serving the Twenty-third Judicial Circuit and District; q. one member selected by agreement of the Community Services Boards serving the Twenty-fifth Judicial Circuit and District; r. one member representing the Department of Social Services serving the Twenty-third Judicial Circuit and District; s. one General District Court Clerk designated by mutual agreement of the clerks serving the Twenty-third and Twenty-fifth Judicial Districts; and, t. one representative designated by the fiscal agent of the Regional Board. 5 • 5. That the Court-Community Corrections Regional Board shall have those powers and duties prescribed by the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act for Local- Responsible Offenders, the Pretrial Services Act, and the Commission on VASAP. J 6